“Bitch” Vs. “Jerk”: Where We Discuss Who The Writers Screwed This Week/Season/Ever

[BabySpinach]

When Sam was going ahead with his Lucifer/Cage plan, Dean had to clamp down on his own emotions and be there for Sam or else come out as a "bad" brother. Now, when Dean is the one staring down the barrel of eternity with nothing but a furious archangel for company, he somehow STILL needs to clamp down on his emotions while his loved ones lash out, ridicule, and invalidate him and he just has to take it. Even when it's Dean's head on the chopping block, his personal feelings (including pants-shitting fear, no doubt) still don't come first. No matter what, he's always got to be the strong one, the supportive one, the considerate one, regardless of the depths of his own pain. It's truly, deeply heartbreaking. 

Why is Dean never allowed to justifiably rage and curse at the spectacularly shitty hand he always gets dealt, over and over and over? Why does he always have to be the accepting and stoic one (or else risk being seen as a "dick") while others get all the emotional catharsis they need? This consistent double standard with Dean has desensitized the audience to the true magnitude of his repeated self-sacrifices. If he never rightfully complains about his shitty lot in life, then the audience starts taking his selfless courage for granted. 

It's season 3 all over again, with more focus given to Sam missing his brother than Dean condemned to eternal agony and fucking hellfire. 

[Wynne88]

Quote

And the worst thing is that the fandom is cheering Sam on for it, validating poor Sammy's feelings, and so the writers march on. 

Gonzosgirrl quote from Prophet and Loss (I'm sorry, I don't know how to quote posts from other pages.)

Where exactly is fandom doing that?  'Cause I think I'd like to go there.  I absolutely agree with everything said about Jensen's acting, which is awesome.  I personally think that the perception of Dean is a bit unbalanced; he isn't a saint and he has gone behind Sam's back, tricked him into being possessed, made reckless and unwise choices (mark of Cain, anyone?) and other unsavory stuff in addition to being brave and a natural leader.  It's true he doesn't get a lot of verbal positive feedback from the other characters, which is a shame.  But I get truly tired of the constant put downs of Sam, who actually also has some good character traits in addition to his flaws, and the nitpicking of Jared's acting.  He may not be as nuanced an actor as Jensen, but I think he essentially stays true to Sam's character as written, which is all I ask.  

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Where exactly is fandom doing that?  'Cause I think I'd like to go there.  I absolutely agree with everything said about Jensen's acting, which is awesome.  I personally think that the perception of Dean is a bit unbalanced; he isn't a saint and he has gone behind Sam's back, tricked him into being possessed, made reckless and unwise choices (mark of Cain, anyone?) and other unsavory stuff in addition to being brave and a natural leader.  It's true he doesn't get a lot of verbal positive feedback from the other characters, which is a shame.  But I get truly tired of the constant put downs of Sam, who actually also has some good character traits in addition to his flaws, and the nitpicking of Jared's acting.  He may not be as nuanced an actor as Jensen, but I think he essentially stays true to Sam's character as written, which is all I ask.  

A lot of tumblr and twitter. You`ll find a lot of putdowns of Dean for being abusive/weak/stupid/drama queen there alongside Sam being an absolute Saint and thrice better than Jesus, alongside how Jensen is such an inferior actor. This stuff is easy enough to find.  

If you`re looking for more or less balanced between the two, then that`s not a lot of fandom left. The factions have dug in after more than a decade of the show (and the writers) playing the vs game up to eleven. 

Edited February 1, 2019 by Aeryn13

[tessathereaper]

12 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

When Sam was going ahead with his Lucifer/Cage plan, Dean had to clamp down on his own emotions and be there for Sam or else come out as a "bad" brother. Now, when Dean is the one staring down the barrel of eternity with nothing but a furious archangel for company, he somehow STILL needs to clamp down on his emotions while his loved ones lash out, ridicule, and invalidate him and he just has to take it. Even when it's Dean's head on the chopping block, his personal feelings (including pants-shitting fear, no doubt) still don't come first. No matter what, he's always got to be the strong one, the supportive one, the considerate one, regardless of the depths of his own pain. It's truly, deeply heartbreaking. 

Why is Dean never allowed to justifiably rage and curse at the spectacularly shitty hand he always gets dealt, over and over and over? Why does he always have to be the accepting and stoic one (or else risk being seen as a "dick") while others get all the emotional catharsis they need? This consistent double standard with Dean has desensitized the audience to the true magnitude of his repeated self-sacrifices. If he never rightfully complains about his shitty lot in life, then the audience starts taking his selfless courage for granted. 

It's season 3 all over again, with more focus given to Sam missing his brother than Dean condemned to eternal agony and fucking hellfire. 

Because he can "take it" don't you know?  So it doesn't matter how they treat him, he "thrives" on it apparently. 

It's such a double standard and so cruel it makes me want to cry really.

[AwesomO4000]

Brought over from the "Prophets and Losses" thread.

1 hour ago, tessathereaper said:

You know what?  IMO it doesn't matter.  Sam should respect Dean's wishes in any case especially in this case because this is a case where it can literally go to hell in an instant if Michael manages to break out.  This is about saving, well basically saving the universe because Michael wants to destroy all the worlds.  They literally don't have any other choices now and frankly they really can't just dilly dally about "well let's take more time" because that door could bust open at any minute and it's pretty much game over.

And arguably, Dean should respect Sam's, but he often doesn't either. This isn't something only Sam does. It isn't that Sam only doesn't respect Dean's wishes and Dean always does respect Sam's. It's easy to go through 13+ seasons of show and pick out the instances that support a point of view, but there are often just as many others that show the opposite. The difference often - in my opinion - is in the outcome. But outcome doesn't change the intent.

I apologize for any repeating point I may have here that follows and please feel free to skip, but apparently I didn't explain my points well enough previously, so here goes...

Quote

 

1) ETA and with regards to the whole releasing Amara thing - IMO I'm not really sure the issue is?  2) Death died, a new Death took his place.  Yes it was risky and they didn't know the consequences but that has literally nothing to do with Amara and the Darkness being released who was the big bad of the next season.  No Dean shouldn't have killed OG Death to save Sam, but then again Death shouldn't have made that part of the bargain, surely he could have come up with some other way to keep Sam from being able to rescue Dean from outer space(Damn I really want that show, because you just know some space inhabitants would crashland on his planet or something and what not, Deean in Spaaaace! :) ).  None the less Dean did it, without knowing exactly what would happen, but it had nothing to do with what actually DID happen.  The only thing it did was get a brief zombie outbreak and Billie as the new Death.

3) What is it we are trying to blame Dean for here?  4) The spell to release her was happening whether Death lived or died and whether Sam lived or died.  Because Sam did not do what he should have done, which is to say as soon as heard what the Mark really was - he should have said "whoa hold up, gotta make a call" and been honest about what they were attempting to do. 

5) In fact if he'd done that - Amara wouldn't have been released, the Empty wouldn't have come into play, original Death most likely wouldn't have died and frankly Sam wouldn't even have ever had to kneel and "accept his fate". 

6) That is one Sam and Castiel alone, IMO.  Dean has no share in it. At worst Dean would have still been walking around with the Mark of Cain, possibly occasionally getting a little overly violent when killing bad guys. Or he'd die and become a demon again which is still better than what did happen and what is happening now in terms of the fate of the world. 

 

1) No, Dean didn't have anything to do with the Darkness being released beyond taking the mark in the first place, but my issue in a way, is that that's the problem. Once again, Dean does something reckless - actually in this case two reckless things (three if you include Gadreel) - and has no real consequences for them beyond becoming a demon for a while. All of the problems caused and blame for the outcome ended up getting shifted to Castiel and Sam. And for me, this is a pattern the show started to exhibit during the Carver years. And those consequences for Sam's bad decision also effectively took any consequences Dean might have had from recklessly taking on the mark of Cain to begin with and made sure that the majority of the bad consequences ended up on Sam and Castiel. And even those few consequences Dean did have for reckless decisions he made - Kevin and becoming a demon - were either completely watered down or were later exonerated by God himself.

So I guess my issue is why was it that when Sam made reckless decisions during the Carver years, there were obvious awful consequences while when Dean did it, even the comparatively small consequences he did have were even further watered down or were completely excused? If it happened only once, I wouldn't have had an issue, but during the Carver years this was a pattern. And it wasn't even restricted to Sam. Castiel also had bad consequence for his reckless decisions, too. It was only Dean who didn't seem to have any despite numerous reckless and questionable decisions.

2) In my opinion Death is a powerful, semi-omniscient being who Dean asked a favor from. If Death wants Sam dead for some reason in return, then that's his prerogative. And I never said that killing Death had anything to do with Amara. But why does that excuse anything? In my opinion, that doesn't mean it wasn't risky. Dean doing it was showing him risking dire consequences in order to save Sam (again in my opinion, since for me going along with Gadreel's demands was also risky.) The writers could have just as easily had Amara's consequences be nearly nothing, but Death's being killed have huge ones. But they chose to put the consequences on Sam, because that's what the writers did in the Carver era. They even tried to shift some of the blame for Kevin getting killed by Gadreel retroactively onto Sam.

3) I'm not blaming Dean for anything beyond making reckless decisions sometimes. It's just that usually Dean's are excused, so it's sometimes overlooked that Dean makes reckless decisions to save Sam as well. Generally consequences are equated with how risky or reckless it is, so when there are no consequences the original actions sometimes tend to be excused or dismissed with "well nothing happened, so it doesn't count."

4) Why? Because the writers said so? Since Death said "this is the way to stop it," then sending Dean elsewhere could just as easily have magically put him beyond the spell's reach, because why would omniscient Death - who previously knew that Sam using the rings and jumping in the cage was going to be the way to stop Lucifer - not know or forsee the spell being done? In which case the spell being done could have been irrelevant. But then Sam and Castiel wouldn't get the blame, so the writers couldn't let that happen or have that possibility be mentioned.

5) Why wouldn't original Death still have died? Dean knew nothing about the spell. He made the decision on his own that he needed to be sent away by Death. Theoretically Sam stopping the spell should have no effect on Dean's decision to go through with his plan. Theoretically even, Dean and Death finding out about Sam's spell plan might've made both Dean and Death even more determined to go through with Dean's plan and with insisting they kill Sam respectively, so Sam would've still had to have been the sacrifice and Death still would have been killed.

6) I'm not going to disagree here... and as I stated before, this is my issue. That the results of Dean taking on the mark of Cain were pretty much reduced to almost nothing, generally going against almost all canon the show had had before, just goes to my point that the writers weren't giving Dean the same consequences for his actions as they gave other characters. Almost everyone else who took on dark powers that we'd seen previously on the show - Eva, Jake, Sam, Castiel, Cain, Metatron - all went dark and had bad consequences. Even the one exception that I can think of - Jesse, the antichrist (who didn't knowingly take on his powers, so a little different) - still accidentally caused some innocent deaths and so had consequences. But nope Dean is afforded an exception to that and any bad consequences he had are diminished, excused, or shifted to Sam and Castiel.

And Dean not having consequences wouldn't even have bothered me as much if the writers hadn't gone so out of their way to make sure that Sam's consequences were so awful - with even random stuff thrown in just to make it worse - and so blatantly telegraphed in contrast,

[Myrelle]

Quote

I'm not sure what you mean by this?  Are you concerned that someone else is going to take over the Michael storyline?  I don't see that happening.  But even with the story arc for the season being Dean's possession by Michael, it doesn't mean that the other actors, specifically Jared, aren't going to get equal screen time and action.  This show has two stars, so that's always how it's going to be.  I personally think the show has done a good job throughout its run in giving both brothers interesting things to do, regardless of who the myth arc revolves around for any specific season.  The problem arises if you only really enjoy one character.  Then you're pretty much going to be disappointed or bored by any scenes where your favorite is not on screen.  Add in the shortened shooting schedules for both Jensen and Jared, and the addition of more cast members, and that screen time pie slice gets even smaller. 

 I'm VERY! concerned about this, yes, because I DO see it happening, so you will forgive me if I don't take your spec as seemingly more possible and/or plausible than mine? 

There is still Our Michael in the cage that they can go to-that's the character that I was looking forward to seeing JA play and portray even more than AU Michael, so if they go to the Cage for that Michael chances are pretty slim that they would allow JA to play/portray him. I'd even bet that that role would go to Sam just so that JP could be shown kicking JA's ass again as happened in Swan Song. And THAT would qualify as giving the Michael storyline over to another character to me, which I'd guess you and some others here would have very little problem with just going by most of your posts here-which is fine-for you and those others since you like/watch for both characters-but it's not for me and others here also who yes, might not be watching the show for the same reason(s) that you and those others are, but we're still watching for something(or in this case, some one) and I would hope that anyone who is still watching this show would be appreciated by the people who are making this show-and for whatever reason it might be that they're watching.

As for the other bolded statement...

No. IMO, the problem arises when any viewer's reason for watching the show is seen as "less" or "worse" or "not as good or valid" as another's; or that it "creates problems"-because it's certainly not a problem for me that I'm watching strictly for JA's acting at this point. In fact, *I* think that the problem is created by those who don't like or can't accept the thought that you actually can watch the show w/o loving or even liking both main characters and/or lead actors. I'm happy enough when they write decently for my fave, but yes, I've reached the point that I couldn't care less what they do with any others. And giving a Dean storyline of this magnitude away to any other character on this show simply does not qualify as decent writing for the character or the actor to me. It might to you and that's all well and good and I would never dream of begrudging anyone their feelings on that, BUT I DO expect the same in return, so I really wish we could can the tendencies that some here have to pass judgment on why anyone is continuing to watch the show.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Myrelle

[SueB]

On 2/2/2019 at 3:48 AM, AwesomO4000 said:

Brought over from the "Prophets and Losses" thread.

And arguably, Dean should respect Sam's, but he often doesn't either. This isn't something only Sam does. It isn't that Sam only doesn't respect Dean's wishes and Dean always does respect Sam's. It's easy to go through 13+ seasons of show and pick out the instances that support a point of view, but there are often just as many others that show the opposite. The difference often - in my opinion - is in the outcome. But outcome doesn't change the intent.

I apologize for any repeating point I may have here that follows and please feel free to skip, but apparently I didn't explain my points well enough previously, so here goes...

1) No, Dean didn't have anything to do with the Darkness being released beyond taking the mark in the first place, but my issue in a way, is that that's the problem. Once again, Dean does something reckless - actually in this case two reckless things (three if you include Gadreel) - and has no real consequences for them beyond becoming a demon for a while. All of the problems caused and blame for the outcome ended up getting shifted to Castiel and Sam. And for me, this is a pattern the show started to exhibit during the Carver years. And those consequences for Sam's bad decision also effectively took any consequences Dean might have had from recklessly taking on the mark of Cain to begin with and made sure that the majority of the bad consequences ended up on Sam and Castiel. And even those few consequences Dean did have for reckless decisions he made - Kevin and becoming a demon - were either completely watered down or were later exonerated by God himself.

So I guess my issue is why was it that when Sam made reckless decisions during the Carver years, there were obvious awful consequences while when Dean did it, even the comparatively small consequences he did have were even further watered down or were completely excused? If it happened only once, I wouldn't have had an issue, but during the Carver years this was a pattern. And it wasn't even restricted to Sam. Castiel also had bad consequence for his reckless decisions, too. It was only Dean who didn't seem to have any despite numerous reckless and questionable decisions.

2) In my opinion Death is a powerful, semi-omniscient being who Dean asked a favor from. If Death wants Sam dead for some reason in return, then that's his prerogative. And I never said that killing Death had anything to do with Amara. But why does that excuse anything? In my opinion, that doesn't mean it wasn't risky. Dean doing it was showing him risking dire consequences in order to save Sam (again in my opinion, since for me going along with Gadreel's demands was also risky.) The writers could have just as easily had Amara's consequences be nearly nothing, but Death's being killed have huge ones. But they chose to put the consequences on Sam, because that's what the writers did in the Carver era. They even tried to shift some of the blame for Kevin getting killed by Gadreel retroactively onto Sam.

3) I'm not blaming Dean for anything beyond making reckless decisions sometimes. It's just that usually Dean's are excused, so it's sometimes overlooked that Dean makes reckless decisions to save Sam as well. Generally consequences are equated with how risky or reckless it is, so when there are no consequences the original actions sometimes tend to be excused or dismissed with "well nothing happened, so it doesn't count."

4) Why? Because the writers said so? Since Death said "this is the way to stop it," then sending Dean elsewhere could just as easily have magically put him beyond the spell's reach, because why would omniscient Death - who previously knew that Sam using the rings and jumping in the cage was going to be the way to stop Lucifer - not know or forsee the spell being done? In which case the spell being done could have been irrelevant. But then Sam and Castiel wouldn't get the blame, so the writers couldn't let that happen or have that possibility be mentioned.

5) Why wouldn't original Death still have died? Dean knew nothing about the spell. He made the decision on his own that he needed to be sent away by Death. Theoretically Sam stopping the spell should have no effect on Dean's decision to go through with his plan. Theoretically even, Dean and Death finding out about Sam's spell plan might've made both Dean and Death even more determined to go through with Dean's plan and with insisting they kill Sam respectively, so Sam would've still had to have been the sacrifice and Death still would have been killed.

6) I'm not going to disagree here... and as I stated before, this is my issue. That the results of Dean taking on the mark of Cain were pretty much reduced to almost nothing, generally going against almost all canon the show had had before, just goes to my point that the writers weren't giving Dean the same consequences for his actions as they gave other characters. Almost everyone else who took on dark powers that we'd seen previously on the show - Eva, Jake, Sam, Castiel, Cain, Metatron - all went dark and had bad consequences. Even the one exception that I can think of - Jesse, the antichrist (who didn't knowingly take on his powers, so a little different) - still accidentally caused some innocent deaths and so had consequences. But nope Dean is afforded an exception to that and any bad consequences he had are diminished, excused, or shifted to Sam and Castiel.

And Dean not having consequences wouldn't even have bothered me as much if the writers hadn't gone so out of their way to make sure that Sam's consequences were so awful - with even random stuff thrown in just to make it worse - and so blatantly telegraphed in contrast,

Bolded statement- I have to disagree with you on the Mark of Cain.  To be clear, I think there is a VAST difference between what fandom talks about and what is put in the text on the show.  Further, in general, I think Dean's usually proven to have the right instincts.  He's rash, and that gets him into trouble.  He has a MASSIVE blind spot when it comes to family and he'll make morally questionable choices due to that.  But his instincts are usually spot on in terms of who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.  BUT I think he was seen, in show, to have serious consequences for his Mark of Cain choices.  Now the fandom may choose to say "so and so is more guilty because..." but some events are direct & unambiguous consequences.

Examples of direct MoC consequences that are ONLY on Dean:
- Killed, rather than set up for arrest, the Thinman.
- Murder cheating asshole while a demon. 
- Killed Randy and the Rapists
- Killed the youngest Stein.
Now in EACH one of these, there's definitely a "mitigating circumstance".  These dead guys are all hardly innnocents.  So there's a rationale.  There is no equivalent "nurse drained for blood" sacrifice.

Now... and this is where opinion bias comes in IMO .... the show had Dean claim he was equally responsible for Amara being released (and the literal THOUSANDS she killed).  But then Chuck undermined that by saying Sam couldn't live with Dean as a demon.  But I see the pattern of risking innocents to save each other as intentionally "over" by the speech in 11.1.  

And this latest sue for additional time by Sam & Cas?  I see that as Dean weighing the impact on his brother versus his personal belief that he's going in the box vs his belief that he can keep Michael at bay.  I think Dean made the decision to defer because he thinks he's still "got" Michael for a while.  He was rushing before because he didn't want to lose his nerve (he said that in multiple ways).  But I'm not worried about Dean losing his nerve.  And it was a compassionate choice to at least give Sam and Cas a little time to look for a option.  

Bottom line:  I think there ARE consequences from the MoC that cannot be foisted on anyone else.  They are serious consequences but they also have a mitigating factor that Sam's demon blood drinking did not.  

Edited February 5, 2019 by SueB

[MysteryGuest]

15 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

 I'm VERY! concerned about this, yes, because I DO see it happening, so you will forgive me if I don't take your spec as seemingly more possible and/or plausible than mine? 

There is still Our Michael in the cage that they can go to-that's the character that I was looking forward to seeing JA play and portray even more than AU Michael, so if they go to the Cage for that Michael chances are pretty slim that they would allow JA to play/portray him. I'd even bet that that role would go to Sam just so that JP could be shown kicking JA's ass again as happened in Swan Song. And THAT would qualify as giving the Michael storyline over to another character to me, which I'd guess you and others here would have very little problem with just going by most of your posts here-which is fine-for you and those others since you like both characters-but it's not for me and others here also who yes, might not be watching the show for the same reason as you and those others are, but we're still watching for something(or in this case, some one) and I would hope that anyone who is still watching this show would be appreciated by the people who are making this show-for whatever reason it might be that they're watching.

As for the other bolded statement...

No. IMO, the problem arises when any viewer's reason for watching the show is seen as "less" or "worse" or "not as good or valid" as another's; or that it "creates problems"-because it's certainly not a problem for me that I'm watching strictly for JA's acting at this point. In fact, *I* think that the problem is created by those who don't like or can't accept the thought that you actually can watch the show w/o loving or even liking both main characters and/or lead actors. I'm happy enough when they write decently for my fave, but yes, I've reached the point that I couldn't care less what they do with any others. And giving a Dean storyline of this magnitude away to any other character on this show simply does not qualify as decent writing for the character or the actor to me. It might to you and that's all well and good and I would never dream of begrudging anyone their feelings on that, BUT I DO expect the same in return, so I really wish we could can the tendancies that some here have to pass judgment on why anyone is continuing to watch the show.

I never said that anyone's reason for watching the show was somehow "less than" anyone else's.  So if that's how I came across, I apologize for that.  What I did say is that when you watch a show like Supernatural where there are two equal co-stars, your favorite (and mine, by the way), is only going to get half of the action/storyline.  And when you add in the various other characters the show has picked up along with way, that half gets decreased to about a third.  That leaves two thirds of the show that your favorite isn't going to be a part of.  If you (and I'm not referring to you, specifically) can't find another reason to watch or another character to enjoy, then you're going to be disappointed and unhappy with the show most of the time.  We can all want what we want, and I'm sure that each of us would like more screen time and better storylines for our favorites, but that's just not going to happen on this show.  

As for our Michael, I agree that they've been talking about him for a few years now, and have done nothing with him.  It seems reasonable that that will change at some point.  I personally don't see him possessing Sam, especially with Lucifer still hanging around, but I suppose anything could happen.  I know this is important to a great number of fans, I just don't happen to be one of them.  I never needed Dean to be Michael's vessel, so if someone else would like to wear him for a while, I'd be fine with that.  I like my Dean "straight up", if you'll pardon the pun.  When he's playing someone other than Dean, I miss Dean.  But like I said, we all want what we want, but getting what we want is another matter altogether.

[ahrtee]

On 2/2/2019 at 1:48 AM, AwesomO4000 said:

I apologize for any repeating point I may have here that follows and please feel free to skip, but apparently I didn't explain my points well enough previously, so here goes...

I just want to reassure you that yes, you have explained your points well enough, a number of times.  I understand that that's your perception, and accept it.  However, I completely disagree with it, and no matter how many times I hear it (or how it's phrased) I will never agree with it, so we can just agree to disagree. 

[Myrelle]

2 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

I like my Dean "straight up", if you'll pardon the pun.  When he's playing someone other than Dean, I miss Dean.  But like I said, we all want what we want, but getting what we want is another matter altogether.

And I like to see him as we've gotten him for the last three episodes, and to have been teased so often with it and then possibly lose it so quickly(again!) is beyond frustrating for some of us.

All I'd like is to be able to say that without being made to feel like I'm watching the show "wrong" and being unsatisfied two thirds of the time, in your estimation, obviously hasn't put me off continuing to want to watch.

Now I understand that that can be hard for some here to understand, but there are things that I find hard to understand about the those who watch for the same reasons as you and who say  similar things that you do, but I'm not going to comment on them in a negative fashion because I understand that sometimes feelings just are what they are for some people-for whatever their reasons-and there's no on and/or off switch inside us that can make us change them easily-or in some cases, at all. And just to clarify things a little further, I mean some feelings, not all, but some.  

[Icarus]

22 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

I never said that anyone's reason for watching the show was somehow "less than" anyone else's.  So if that's how I came across, I apologize for that.  What I did say is that when you watch a show like Supernatural where there are two equal co-stars, your favorite (and mine, by the way), is only going to get half of the action/storyline.  And when you add in the various other characters the show has picked up along with way, that half gets decreased to about a third.  That leaves two thirds of the show that your favorite isn't going to be a part of.  If you (and I'm not referring to you, specifically) can't find another reason to watch or another character to enjoy, then you're going to be disappointed and unhappy with the show most of the time.  We can all want what we want, and I'm sure that each of us would like more screen time and better storylines for our favorites, but that's just not going to happen on this show.  

I so agree with the above, my favourite is also Dean but I also enjoy Sam, Misha and some of the other characters we get i.e. Donna. I certainly have had times when I disliked Sam but have never had out and out dislike for Dean, albiet plenty of times I did not like how he behaved he has never in my opinion been given storylines that have made him totally unlikable (throwing the medalion from Sam is one, killing the youngest Stein was one but then MOC!) Whereas Sam has, in my opinion, been given story lines that have made him at times unlikable i.e. purge speech. I know that many Sam fans have got full justification for that speech but I don't buy it – that's my opinion and they have theirs. What really for a while nearly destroyed Sam for me was the Benny jealousy and then poor Sam was given the “didn't look for Dean” story – that actually meant that I started to like the Sam character again as I handwiped that whole stupid fiasco.

I don't think that anyone's way of watching a show is invalid either – but I do struggle when wanting to see what people have to say about an episode where there seems to be IMO such bias against a character that I can't relate it back to what I have just watched. I should qualify here that although I am a longterm watcher (from 2nd season) I am not so invested in it as I was, I do still watch every episode but not often more than once – however I have watched the last three two times each – I am really enjoying it currently.

[MysteryGuest]

4 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

All I'd like is to be able to say that without being made to feel like I'm watching the show "wrong" and being unsatisfied two thirds of the time, in your estimation, obviously hasn't put me off continuing to want to watch.

Again, never said you were watching the show "wrong".  Everyone on this board has an opinion, and I was just stating mine.  I'll leave it at that.

[Myrelle]

1 hour ago, MysteryGuest said:

Again, never said you were watching the show "wrong".  Everyone on this board has an opinion, and I was just stating mine.  I'll leave it at that.

You assumed and stated that the way I, and some others here, watch(for pretty much only one character/actor) makes "problems arise"; and I just wanted to let you know that it doesn't do that for me-and even though *you*(and I'm not referring to you, specifically, here either) might not like that I seemingly bitch about the show a lot, I wouldn't do that if I didn't still care about something on it-and even if it's just about that one thing-I DO still care enough to want to continue watching, and what can I say-the bitching helps me sometimes, especially because I know there ARE others here who feel the same as I do(and who knows, maybe someone on the show reads this site ;-) ). 

I mean if worse comes to worse, there's an ignore button at this site for a reason. 

But I won't belabor the point any further either.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Myrelle

[Aeryn13]

While it is more enjoyable to like most (all) characters from a show, IMO the problem is the show`s inability to write multiple storylines at once that interconnect. As long as Dean doesn`t get screwed over in the mytharc (or presented as weak and "does emotions wrong", two of my hot button issues), I don`t have problems with other characters having storylines. 

Heck, I remember very little about the initial Lily Sunder episode in terms of Dean, Cas or Sam but I do remember liking the episode because I found the Lily character and her story interesting enough. They can certainly do the same for ongoing characters. Well, in theory.

I`m dread-watching the show now because of several years of the show severely disappointing me when it comes to Dean stories. If they hadn`t done that, I wouldn`t have spent every single episode during the first run of the MOC arc terrified it was gonna go to Sam (or someone else). Other shows don`t give me that kind of paranoia. Other shows don`t drive me away from most characters so far as this one did. And I have a very clear favourite in each of my shows. Only vs-writing turns me against characters, though.

To give Bucklemming of all people a compliment here, I was pleased with the case-investigation parts of their latest episode. Take out all the angst and you got pretty good, equal and competent teamwork. Which should be the norm for MOTW/filler episodes, at least 90 % should be like this with the odd focus episode featuring one character more. And yet it`s more like 95 % of MOTW episodes show one brother as rather dumb. In latter Seasons most often Dean. He never finds cases anymore or does the lore explanation or stuff like this. And the physical part of its are also wonky. 

One thing I realized I loved the most about large parts of Nihilism with Michael!Dean - no cringe humour. Sloppy eating and all that stuff they give to Dean. I know Jensen has fun with that but I would seriously ban it from shooting most episodes.  

[Myrelle]

5 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

While it is more enjoyable to like most (all) characters from a show, IMO the problem is the show`s inability to write multiple storylines at once that interconnect. As long as Dean doesn`t get screwed over in the mytharc (or presented as weak and "does emotions wrong", two of my hot button issues), I don`t have problems with other characters having storylines. 

Heck, I remember very little about the initial Lily Sunder episode in terms of Dean, Cas or Sam but I do remember liking the episode because I found the Lily character and her story interesting enough. They can certainly do the same for ongoing characters. Well, in theory.

I`m dread-watching the show now because of several years of the show severely disappointing me when it comes to Dean stories. If they hadn`t done that, I wouldn`t have spent every single episode during the first run of the MOC arc terrified it was gonna go to Sam (or someone else). Other shows don`t give me that kind of paranoia. Other shows don`t drive me away from most characters so far as this one did. And I have a very clear favourite in each of my shows. Only vs-writing turns me against characters, though.

To give Bucklemming of all people a compliment here, I was pleased with the case-investigation parts of their latest episode. Take out all the angst and you got pretty good, equal and competent teamwork. Which should be the norm for MOTW/filler episodes, at least 90 % should be like this with the odd focus episode featuring one character more. And yet it`s more like 95 % of MOTW episodes show one brother as rather dumb. In latter Seasons most often Dean. He never finds cases anymore or does the lore explanation or stuff like this. And the physical part of its are also wonky. 

One thing I realized I loved the most about large parts of Nihilism with Michael!Dean - no cringe humour. Sloppy eating and all that stuff they give to Dean. I know Jensen has fun with that but I would seriously ban it from shooting most episodes.  

I don't watch a ton of tv, but my husband loves Blue Bloods. He watches reruns of it almost every day, and I have to say that, IMO, the writers of that particular procedural have a much better handle on writing characterization than the present set of SPN writers ever had, and as a result-and even though, like Dean, I hate procedurals too-I've come to see what he likes about the show and it's the characters-all of them, for the most part-and I think that all of the writers for the show have at least known enough not to mess with the original characterizations that worked-and most of them seemed to work well enough given how long it's been on-and they especially haven't tried to turn one character into another, that I've seen; and I honestly don't see the blatant pimping of any one over the others either. And while none stand out for me the way that JA/Dean does on SPN, I like them all well enough to now sit down and watch with him and even enjoy it for what it is.

So that second bolded part-especially the last sentence-has really bugged the shit out of me about the writing on this show for a very long time now.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I don't watch a ton of tv

I do and on some level I acknowledge that SPN is rather rare in that is has such a small main cast, basically only two characters/actors that are in every episode whereas most shows are more ensemble-esque. It`s also different when like say the X-Files which very soon had a shipping fraction for the two main characters. Which, I know, so does SPN but not so much into the casual audience and also while Mulder/Scully weren`t a "will they/won`t they" relationship, writers do write differently to a degree for a man/woman pairing. 

So, yes, SPN is somewhat unique. However, that also means some aspects are more pronounced than in other shows. For example, Vampire Diaries had some vs writing for the two brothers, especially in terms of the love triangle. But because the shows was more of an ensemble and had other things going on, it didn`t smack you in the face as much as SPN does.     

[AwesomO4000]

21 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

I just want to reassure you that yes, you have explained your points well enough, a number of times.  I understand that that's your perception, and accept it.  However, I completely disagree with it, and no matter how many times I hear it (or how it's phrased) I will never agree with it, so we can just agree to disagree. 

Duly noted, which is why I invited anyone who wanted to do so to skip my post.

If the points / questions that I was addressing from the quoted post were supposed to be rhetorical (they didn't appear to be to me), I apologize for not being able to resist answering them anyway.

Also as far as I remember, this concept of actions not counting / mattering / etc., because the results weren't negative is something new we haven't addressed in detail before. I've addressed that I think the consequences are not generally equivalent, but the idea of "well nothing happened, so the actions don't count anyway" is something different, in my opinion. (and something I disagree with.)

As is the idea that Sam was only trying to stall Dean so that the mark of Cain removal spell would have a chance to be completed. That's a new one on me and something I didn't get from the narrative.

1 hour ago, SueB said:

Now... and this is where opinion bias comes in IMO .... the show had Dean claim he was equally responsible for Amara being released (and the literal THOUSANDS she killed).  But then Chuck undermined that by saying Sam couldn't live with Dean as a demon.  But I see the pattern of risking innocents to save each other as intentionally "over" by the speech in 11.1.  

I'm trying to remember the exact place this was, but more remember Sam floating the idea for a moment (in episode 11.1) and Dean not disagreeing... though for me what Sam said could be interpreted more as the whole situational history rather than Amara specifically, and that I think is more likely (for me), as I think both brothers had a role in the history that created the risk-the-world-for-each-other situation. I say that, because earlier Sam seemed to be saying that the situation was his fault, not Dean's (in his prayer), so his including Dean in Amara specifically wouldn't seem genuine to me.

And for me, Chuck's opinion is very relevant - likely more so - because I think that Dean has been shown by the show not to be always a reliable narrator in this regard. As Dean has said a few times, he feels guilty for everything, so his implying that he feels partly responsible for Amara is going to be suspect - for me - because Dean has done that in the past (blamed himself for stuff that wasn't his fault).

So while I agree with you concerning the other people Dean killed - though as you said, each had extenuating circumstances - I disagree that the show had Dean share in the blame for Amara in the end, because they specifically took time to have Chuck say that it wasn't Dean's fault at all. I don't think that that was an accident. I think that was purposefully done to make sure that the words fit what we were shown - which in my opinion (in retrospect - see below) was that it wasn't Dean's fault. Which seems to put  those thousands of deaths - according to the show - on Sam and maybe Castiel, in my opinion.

I also should have made it clearer, that my sentence you bolded wasn't referring only to Amara, but that Amara was the last example for me... I wouldn't have cared very much about the Amara situation except that it seemed to be a culmination of a pattern during the Carver era for me. Kevin was actually probably the most glaring example for me in retrospect. Despite having Dean say that Kevin was all on him, for me, the show then went out of its way to lessen the impact of Kevin's death, even turning it into a lucky thing that Kevin was dead ("Captives"). That "King of the Damned" conversation, though, was the thing that made me annoyed and really got me looking at this situation differently. I suppose that the writers of that episode - Ross-Lemming and Buckner - just weren't paying attention, but that seemed a deliberate "wait a minute, that's not what happened" moment thrown in there to shift things unfairly on to Sam. And it was actually seeing that scene again in a rerun - after having seen what happened later with the mark of Cain and Amara - that made me really start to question things. Especially in addition to the contrast with Charlie's death vs Kevin's. I could see the parallels there and, for me, the differences in the aftermath were strange. Kevin's death got a big silver lining - in that he saved his mother and got to go home with her until he got sent to heaven by Chuck - while Charlie's death was just horrible and ugly and given no silver lining to it whatsoever. Those are the kinds of contrasts that I couldn't help but see in retrospect (especially after revisiting "The King of the Damned.")

So while I do admit that I have some "opinion bias" here, it didn't start out that way, and it actually didn't happen on first viewing. It took a chance viewing of a single scene of a rerun episode to make me go "wait a minute... did that scene just seem to say what I thought it did?" And sadly, yes that scene did seem to say what I thought it did, and for me it wasn't pretty, and I couldn't unsee it after that unfortunately.

1 hour ago, Icarus said:

Whereas Sam has, in my opinion, been given story lines that have made him at times unlikable i.e. purge speech. I know that many Sam fans have got full justification for that speech but I don't buy it – that's my opinion and they have theirs. What really for a while nearly destroyed Sam for me was the Benny jealousy and then poor Sam was given the “didn't look for Dean” story – that actually meant that I started to like the Sam character again as I handwiped that whole stupid fiasco.

Heh - this Sam fan hated the "The Purge" speech and thought that it was setting things up to make Sam wrong (which for me it did)... Aaaand it came just at the point I was starting to like Sam again after the mess with Benny and the not looking for Dean thing. And I so agree with you on that being a "stupid fiasco" - that's a perfect description of what I thought of that story arc,

[MysteryGuest]

3 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

While it is more enjoyable to like most (all) characters from a show, IMO the problem is the show`s inability to write multiple storylines at once that interconnect.

I think this is something we can all agree on.  Better writing all the way around would improve the show dramatically.  And having writers not take the easy way around a plot by just simply making their characters do things they would not normally do, or ignoring canon on a whim.  And I agree also that having either one of the brothers look bumbling just to make it easy for the MOTW to overpower them is frustrating as hell.  I just don't understand why writing for this show is so difficult when pretty much everything is made up.

[ILoveReading]

I still feel like Dabb wants to turn Sam into Dean.

Yet another iconic Dean moment cheapened and given to Sam.  He got the "smarts" of the episode to by using the angel symbol.

Dabb couldnt' even have John acknowledge that it was Dean that ended the yellow eyed demon. 

It's why I hated the end of Prophet and Loss.  It felt far too much like Point of No Return where Dean was thrown out of his own storyline.

At least, for now, Michael is focused on Dean but I'm sure it will Sam who gets the big sarcifice while Dean learns to let go.  It will be a plan similar to Dean's but everyone will think Sam is the bravest, specialist snowflake ever because of it.  I have a feeling we are going to be getting a reverse of season 7 with Dean the last one standing.  Something happy will happen and Cas will drop dead, but it will actually turn out to be short lived.  Then  Jack will go evil, Sam will sacrifice himself, (and it won't be called a ridiculous, suicidal plan).  Dean certainly won't get a "word vomit" desperation, punch Sam to change his mind scen.  If he does he'll just look clingy and not having any trust or faith in Sam.

Jared only tends to get excited when things are about Sam and he's been tweeting up a storm these days after years of silence.  I wonder if Dabb infomed him Sam gets to be the BDH. 

The final is being written by SuperSam, weak sloppy Dean Dabb so I'll be shocked if its anything else.

[Myrelle]

34 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I still feel like Dabb wants to turn Sam into Dean.

Yet another iconic Dean moment cheapened and given to Sam.  He got the "smarts" of the episode to by using the angel symbol.

Dabb couldnt' even have John acknowledge that it was Dean that ended the yellow eyed demon. 

It's why I hated the end of Prophet and Loss.  It felt far too much like Point of No Return where Dean was thrown out of his own storyline.

At least, for now, Michael is focused on Dean but I'm sure it will Sam who gets the big sarcifice while Dean learns to let go.  It will be a plan similar to Dean's but everyone will think Sam is the bravest, specialist snowflake ever because of it.  I have a feeling we are going to be getting a reverse of season 7 with Dean the last one standing.  Something happy will happen and Cas will drop dead, but it will actually turn out to be short lived.  Then  Jack will go evil, Sam will sacrifice himself, (and it won't be called a ridiculous, suicidal plan).  Dean certainly won't get a "word vomit" desperation, punch Sam to change his mind scen.  If he does he'll just look clingy and not having any trust or faith in Sam.

Jared only tends to get excited when things are about Sam and he's been tweeting up a storm these days after years of silence.  I wonder if Dabb infomed him Sam gets to be the BDH. 

The final is being written by SuperSam, weak sloppy Dean Dabb so I'll be shocked if its anything else.

I was watching that last scene in prophet and loss with my friend and she observed that Sam hitting Dean wasn't really necessary because you could tell from Dean's face that he had turned the corner already and was going to give in to Sam yet again and that was when Sam punched him and it occurred to me that they were likely going for Sam being more Dean-like with that choice, too.

So yes IA with all you've posted here and I am once again dreading what's coming up-and especially after reading that most recent Dabb interview.

I just wish that I knew what he has against writing for Jensen. It's mindboggling to me.

[Res]

50 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I still feel like Dabb wants to turn Sam into Dean.

Yet another iconic Dean moment cheapened and given to Sam.  He got the "smarts" of the episode to by using the angel symbol.

Dabb couldnt' even have John acknowledge that it was Dean that ended the yellow eyed demon. 

It's why I hated the end of Prophet and Loss.  It felt far too much like Point of No Return where Dean was thrown out of his own storyline.

At least, for now, Michael is focused on Dean but I'm sure it will Sam who gets the big sarcifice while Dean learns to let go.  It will be a plan similar to Dean's but everyone will think Sam is the bravest, specialist snowflake ever because of it.  I have a feeling we are going to be getting a reverse of season 7 with Dean the last one standing.  Something happy will happen and Cas will drop dead, but it will actually turn out to be short lived.  Then  Jack will go evil, Sam will sacrifice himself, (and it won't be called a ridiculous, suicidal plan).  Dean certainly won't get a "word vomit" desperation, punch Sam to change his mind scen.  If he does he'll just look clingy and not having any trust or faith in Sam.

Jared only tends to get excited when things are about Sam and he's been tweeting up a storm these days after years of silence.  I wonder if Dabb infomed him Sam gets to be the BDH. 

The final is being written by SuperSam, weak sloppy Dean Dabb so I'll be shocked if its anything else.

Plus, Sam getting the Zach kill which was an iconic Dean moment. 

In my mind, I feel that JA has noticed and it might be one of the the reasons for his SM silence re: SPN. But again it's just a feeling of my own, and probably based on more than a little hope.

[ILoveReading]

What is the point of Dean even being on this show anymore?

He has no role.  Sam is the leader, the mentor, the trainer, the organizer, the researcher, the lore expert and the weapons expert. 

Dabb is erasing Dean's legacy.  He cheapened the kill and the mythology of the Yellow Eyed Demon and Cain by creating a hybrid adn gave one to Sam and one to Cas to kill.  He did the same with Zacheriah. 

Even if Dean comes across as a leader its all because of Jensen and his dominate screen presence, the show will certainly never acknowledge him as a leader.

If Dean retires the next generation of hunters are being trained, lead and mentored by Sam.

I'm 99% sure Lucifer will be back (not spoiler just spec based on their obsession with the character).   So that nullifies his sacrifice for taking out Lucifer (not that the show will acknowledget that). They woudln't even give Dean credit for the yellow eyed, demon kill.

Dean's got closure now with Mary, and John, There are a multiple excuses why his trauma doesn't need to be address, nor will it ever be addressed.  Because he thrives on it and has antibodies.

They really can't write anymore Dean needs to see Sam as a big boy and let go stories anymore because they've been done to death.  They will never let Dean stand up for himself against Sam.

So really what is the point of Dean even being on this show anymore.  There really is no role for him to fulfill, except Sam's flunkie, which Sam doesn't even really need because he can do it all. 

So there really is no where to go for Dean's character anymore. 

While, I don't think Jensen would really leave the show, it very much feels like Dean's story is done.  There is not really any more room for growth. 

Edited February 10, 2019 by ILoveReading

[Res]

7 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

What is the point of Dean even being on this show anymore?

He has no role.  Sam is the leader, the mentor, the trainer, the organizer, the researcher, the lore expert and the weapons expert. 

Dabb is erasing Dean's legacy.  He cheapened the kill and the mythology of the Yellow Eyed Demon and Cain by creating a hybrid adn gave one to Sam and one to Cas to kill.  He did the same with Zacheriah. 

Even if Dean comes across as a leader its all because of Jensen and his dominate screen presence, the show will certainly never acknowledge him as a leader.

If Dean retires the next generation of hunters are being trained, lead and mentored by Sam.

I'm 99% sure Lucifer will be back (not spoiler just spec based on their obsession with the character).   So that nullifies his sacrifice for taking out Lucifer (not that the show will acknowledget that). They woudln't even give Dean credit for the yellow eyed, demon kill.

Dean's got closure now with Mary, and John, There are a multiple excuses why his trauma doesn't need to be address, nor will it ever be addressed.  Because he thrives on it and has antibodies.

They really can't write anymore Dean needs to see Sam as a big boy and let go stories anymore because they've been done to death.  They will never let Dean stand up for himself against Sam.

So really what is the point of Dean even being on this show anymore.  There really is no role for him to fulfill, except Sam's flunkie, which Sam doesn't even really need because he can do it all. 

So there really is no where to go for Dean's character anymore. 

While, I don't think Jensen would really leave the show, it very much feels like Dean's story is done.  There is not really any more room for growth. 

According to Dabb, Dean always has to be there to support his Sammy and be there for his Sammy. That's his life. That's ALL his life. Nothing more ever or less. Plus, Dabb can't write his requisite BMs without Dean so Dean MUST STAY and be a good little blunt instrument/follower. So Speaks Dabb, Singer and the BM-masses as that's ALL they want out of this show anymore. It also takes the least effort for all involved. 

[ILoveReading]

1 minute ago, Res said:

According to Dabb, Dean always has to be there to support his Sammy and be there for his Sammy. That's his life. That's ALL his life. Nothing more ever or less. Plus, Dabb can't write his requisite BMs without Dean so Dean MUST STAY and be a good little blunt instrument/follower. So Speaks Dabb, Singer and the BM-masses as that's ALL they want out of this show anymore. It also takes the least effort for all involved. 

That's why I say there is no more room for Dean.  He's just another flunkie to worship at the altar of Chief, the supreme leader of the known and unknown universe.

[Res]

2 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

That's why I say there is no more room for Dean.  He's just another flunkie to worship at the altar of Chief, the supreme leader of the known and unknown universe.

Oh, I completely agree. I just wished Jensen agreed as well.

[AwesomO4000]

7 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

They will never let Dean stand up for himself against Sam.

I thought Dean just did stand up for himself last episode and I think the one before that.... and this one, too.

Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, Dean won the discussion they had this episode after sticking up for himself against Sam's not that unreasonable argument. Not only that, but Sam then later told Dean that Dean had been right. And the episode acknowledged that Dean was right by having Sam say that Dean was right. How is that not letting Dean stand up for himself? And then Dean got to have the moral high ground at the end of the episode as well... again after standing up for himself very well that I saw.

In my opinion, this isn't House (Thank goodness for that). One character doesn't get to dominate all of the other characters and then get to be right all the time. The brothers are going to take turns being the one who has the passionate argument that week and the one who's going to be "right." Those two things might not even go hand in hand. This is never going to be a Dean is always right or a Sam is always right show, because that would be a bit boring and/or exasperating in my opinion. I know that I sure found House to be that way rather quickly.

7 hours ago, Res said:

He's just another flunkie to worship at the altar of Chief, the supreme leader of the known and unknown universe.

Considering that it's been several episodes since we've even had a hint of Sam's leadership arc - and it looks like Maggie has taken over the role anyway - I think we're done with that arc... which didn't have anything to do with the mytharc anyway or the dynamic between Dean, Sam, Castiel, and Jack - where Dean was obviously the leader of the core group.

So Sam is not only not the leader of the universe, he's not even leader of the core group.

So if Sam wants to sometimes lead the AU hunters, I don't get why this is such an issue. It's a side arc that actually gives Sam an arc - about time in my opinion, since he hasn't had one in a while now - and it has little to nothing to do with the mytharc. It takes nothing away from Dean, in my opinion, who is still the leader of the main group - as was shown just this episode. I'm sorry, but in my opinion Dean doesn't have a corner on the market in being leader, just as Sam isn't the only one who does research or knows the lore.

7 hours ago, Res said:

According to Dabb, Dean always has to be there to support his Sammy and be there for his Sammy. That's his life. That's ALL his life.

And yet in this episode - written by Dabb - in the alternate universe Dean was still a hunter - saving people and hunting things - and likely had not a thing at all to do with tragically personality-less Sam of that alternate universe. So despite the same upbringing until 2003 when John disappeared, somehow Dean was his own independent person who continued hunting and being a hero, and had nothing to do with Sam anymore. So obviously Dean can be not about Sam if he wanted to be, and there was the proof in this episode. But if Dean chooses Sam and Sam chooses Dean and they choose to be family and support each other, then in my opinion, that's who they want to be and that's how they are happiest, and there's nothing wrong with that... as long as they've stopped risking the world in a major way for each other that is.

[hunenka]

9 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

What is the point of Dean even being on this show anymore?

To keep most Dean fans watching, because they know as long as Dean's there, even if he's got practically nothing to do, we can't turn our backs on the show.

By the way--and this might be just me--I don't care how many of Dean's storylines, character traits or roles they try to give to Sam... they never manage to do it well. They may tell us Sam's a great leader, Sam has a great relationship with people around him, Sam is so empathetic and sensitive etc., but they're unable to show it convincingly, which only leaves him looking like an unsuccessfull wannabe. I mean, just compare Dean killing the YED to Sam killing the Alpha Vamp---one is epic, one looks dumb. Or Dean's natural, often unspoken leadership throughout the entire show, with people --even complete strangers--falling in line and following his command, versus Sam's TED talks to the wannabe hunters. Or any of Dean's fight scenes (especially in the last few seasons, since Rob Hayter came on) versus Sam's.

(This of course doesn't mean that it doesn't suck they're even trying to do this, but the fact that they keep screwing it up is giving me at least some amount of comfort.)

[BlueSapphire]

Surely being a badass and being able to lead and all of these other supposed Deanlike qualities are not limited to him only.  I find it hard to believe that no one else in the history of the show could ever possess these attributes.

[trudysmom]

On 2/10/2019 at 3:54 AM, hunenka said:

versus Sam's TED talks

Dean never seemed to need  a "Ted talk", he as a presence that people gravitate toward and leadership comes from his confidence in himself and his skills. 

BlueSapphire, I agree.  I think John possessed those qualities. As do Jody and Donna.  Badass hunters, natural leaders.  Sam, too, to a degree. But he is overshadowed by Dean, JMHO. 🙂

[tessathereaper]

On 2/10/2019 at 9:31 PM, BlueSapphire said:

Surely being a badass and being able to lead and all of these other supposed Deanlike qualities are not limited to him only.  I find it hard to believe that no one else in the history of the show could ever possess these attributes.

Actually no, not when they impinge on the character's role in the show, which they do.  They take from Dean, his strengths, his traits and try to give them other people(almost always unsuccessfully) and then leave Dean with nothing in return(or lameness in return).  Right down to trying to copy or re-create HIS iconic scenes with other characters multiple times through the years.

And besides which no I don't think Sam is a leader, he doesn't come across as one, he can give all the orders he wants and people can call him Chief, but IMO he doesn't come across as a leader, that's something you either have or you don't and IMO he "don't". :)  It IMO comes across as something a writer wrote, not as a natural organic part of the character.

As for John, to comment on @trudysmom 's comment, the only people John barely managed to lead was the two sons he spent his time abusing, neglecting or attempting to brainwash. (There is no evidence the two early characters we knew of Pastor Jim and Joshua(?) viewed him in any sort of leadership capacity, there seemed to be some friendship there but if anything they were people he'd met from whom HE'D learned from).  Bobby sure as hell didn't, they had fought and stopped speaking prior to Season 1 as we learned in Bobby's first appearance on the show.  Otherwise John seemed to generally make everyone else around him dislike him or at least not really want to have to deal with him anymore than they had to.  What he did was basically "lonewolf" it.   He didn't draw people in, he drove them away, he was hard to work with, he didn't listen to suggestions, etc, etc.   That doesn't seem like leadership material to me.  Dean has shown a history of being able to draw people in, change people's minds, etc, in a natural organic way).  So no IMO we were not shown a John who really had any real leadership ability.

[ILoveReading]

This episode once again confirms that Dabb doesn't really see Dean as a character.

Dean wishes to see his dad and once again it becomes all about Sam.  I'm not saying Sam can't have time with John, but Dean's should have been allowed to address how he was treated.  But there are always excuses about why that's not necessary. 

Rather than showing the search for Dean and allowing Jensen to play Michael, Dabb used the opportunity to strip the leadership role from Dean, now that he finally had the "breathing room"

Then when Dean wants to sacrifice himself, its about how how poor little Sammikins feels were hurt by big mean Dean because Dean's only allowed to make decisions based on how they effect Sam.

I'd say the kindest thing Dabb could do for Dean would be too kill him off but knowing Dabb, Dean would trip over his shoelace, fall and hit his head and drown in a puddle.

[SueB]

@BlueSapphire Many characters have badass and leaderhip attributes.  John & Sam have equivalent BadAss skills to Dean* -- based on physical strength and hunter skill.  MOST guest stars who aren't victims or baddies get at least a 'moment'.  As for leadership, there are all kinds of leadership and many different characters have exhibited that as well. Dean is the leader on most days between Sam & Dean but Sam performs the role as circumstances dictate.  John was a leader for 20 years but he was kinda a shit leader because he expected 'soldiers' versus partners. It's why he had a lot of falling outs.  In the AU Bobby was the equivalent of Dean in The End in terms of leading a resistance movement.  Day to day hunting, I think Rufus previously led the Bobby/Rufus hunts -- mostly because Rufus taught Bobby to hunt.  If Jody and Donna were a team, I would think Jody was the leader of the two.  And we certainly have seen Jody consistently lead the Wayward Sisters quite well.  So, leadership is a skill MOST of the characters can exhibit.  Depends on the scenario as to whether or not they are put in that position.  

The idea that anyone else who has those quality/moments is taking away from Dean fits perfectly with the 'scarcity mentality' construct.  In this case, it's the notion that theirs only ONE "pie" of Badass Hero or Leadership and if anyoe else gets a slice, then it means Dean gets less.  One of the best things about the Avengers movies is that they all have strengths and weaknesses and each has amultiple moments to shine in the movies. Both in 'BadAss' and 'leadership'.  Having said that, I haven't been to an "Avenger's" forum.  There could be whole threads about people being "Terrible to Tony" or feel "Where is The Hawk?".  In Guardians of the Galaxy 2, they even lampooned it a bit when Gamorra was using a gun and Peter was like 'but guns are MY thing, you have the sword thing'. So, 'scarcity mentality' is a well-known construct but, again using the Avengers as an example, when that kind of mentality is set aside, the team become greater than the sum of it's parts.  In the case of Supernatural, the 'team' is Sam & Dean on a daily basis and expanded to Team Free Will on occaision.

*Truth be told, I'd probably given the edge to Dean over Sam.  Sam has size/weight but Dean is more effective at using his environment in real-time to gain advantage.  John, before he lost so much weight, probably had the edge over Dean.  Now? I'd be surprised if he could take Dean.  But the three of them are close enough that depending on the circumstance, any one of the three could beat any one of the others.  Two against one?  Not likely.  In 14.13, John had a rifle -- that's an edge the boys would have eventually worked around if it was a badguy and not John, but in the immediate moment, John had the edge.      

[ILoveReading]

22 minutes ago, SueB said:

The idea that anyone else who has those quality/moments is taking away from Dean fits perfectly with the 'scarcity mentality' construct.  In this case, it's the notion that theirs only ONE "pie" of Badass Hero or Leadership and if anyoe else gets a slice, then it means Dean gets less. 

Someone should tell this to Dabb.  He actually said that the only reason Sam wasnt' a leader before now was because Dean was holding him back.  Dabb certainly never acknowledges Dean is a leader, but had no problem pimping Sam as one.  There was even a very special episode dedicated to it.   He clearly doesn't see Dean as one.  So in this case, I think Dean fans have a very strong case that Dean will get less.   He has.  If Dean shows leadership abilities, they aren't acknowledged as such.  It's labelled as bossy and controlling.   If Dean appear in the lead its because Jensen has a dominate screen presence.    Hence Dabb's breathing room comment.   These are things Dabb has actually said.  So I really can't blame Dean fans for thinking Dean will get less.  It would be one thing if Dabb acknowledged this as a strength, but he doesn't, he hasn't and he won't. 

It didn't even make any sense.  Sam can step up when he has to but he's never shown a tendency to want to lead a group of people.  In fact, he seemed to join the Brits because he saw it as a way out of hunting if they stopped all monsters.  I'd have more respect for the arc if they admitted Sam was struggling.  Or even had Sam say he had some big shoes to fill.  He's not a natural born leader.  Even Jared said that Sam prefers to be in the background. 

Plus, Mary was going to abandon her sons for those people, so why would she abandon them all of a sudden.  I guess the real reason she wanted to say was to keep hooking up with Bobby. 

Plus, we were told at the end of the last ep in s13, all the AU hunters settled into town.  So why all of a sudden are they in the bunker calling Sam chief.  Did he hunt them down and guilt them all like we saw him do with Charlie? We never saw a single thing Sam did to earn their loyalty and why they would follow him on random hunts.  It also makes no sense that if they're hunting they're primary target should have been Michael.  He destroyed their world and killed their familes  But every single one just fell into line.  Despite how many times Sam tells them not to call him chief, they just insist because why?  Sam is that great? 

So I have no problem coming right out and saying Dean is getting less in this instance because he is.

I've seen no one say that Sam can't have a piece of the pie.  The problem comes when Dean gets none of it.

*obviously, this doesn't apply to all Dean fans.  Just to avoid any confusion.

Edited February 12, 2019 by ILoveReading

[Aeryn13]

The show itself perpetrates the zero sum game and always has.

Singer himself classified the characters as brain ans brawn. Or how Sam is the smart ONE. 

Why is Dean not getting anymore lore scenes or finding cases (and cue the excuses here why he doesn't or an example from 10 years ago where he did) or anything like this? Because it would infringe on the role and skill set the writers have set aside for Sam. 

But for Dean they are not so protective and selective about any role for him, other than when it is something negative. 

They add to the other characters but from Dean, they solely take. 

[SueB]

And I see the show is aware of the "Sam fans", "Dean fans", "Sam-slash-Dean" fans (words LITERALLY in the show)... and now "Cas" fans, "Dean-slash-Cas" fans and has worked for balance (and so stated on MULTIPLE times). But instead of balance, the interpretation is "zero sum gain".  Just because Sam currently has a leadership moment does not mean Dean's leadership has been taken away permanently.  That he has nothing left.  That they should just get rid of him.... the hyperbole on this is epic.    That's the all-or-nothing logic of scarcity versus 'balance'.  Balance means good qualities (some of which may be the same), exist for the two lead characters.  As do bad qualities. They compliment each other.  

It's clearly just a different POV.  I have and always will adore BOTH characters.  I see the them giving each good and bad moments/attributes. I don't see any kind of hopeles conspiracy against a particular character.  I think they are doing pretty well.  CLEARLY many disagree, that's fine.  It's an open forum.  

[ILoveReading]

3 minutes ago, SueB said:

). But instead of balance, the interpretation is "zero sum gain". 

Given the way Dabb has written Dean, in my opinion this is exactly what it is.

3 minutes ago, SueB said:

ust because Sam currently has a leadership moment does not mean Dean's leadership has been taken away permanently.

I'll believe then when I see it, and when it actually verbally acknowledged on screen. 

We can agree to disagree.

Edited February 12, 2019 by ILoveReading

[Wynne88]

6 hours ago, SueB said:

I see the them giving each good and bad moments/attributes. I don't see any kind of hopeles conspiracy against a particular character.  I think they are doing pretty well.  

I agree with this, especially when you look at the whole, rather than just isolated moments.  I think that the show runners understand very well that the continuance of this show requires both Sam and Dean (or Jared and Jensen) and that there needs to be a balance between them since neither could carry it all on their own.  So denigrating or even just minimizing either of their characters would be seriously and potentially fatally rocking the boat.  I don't think they are that stupid.

[ILoveReading]

Dabb already proved he's petty enough when he did it to Mark Sheppard.  No way it wasn't deliberate

It happened to Ricky Whittle on The 100.

It happened to Jensen on Dark Angel.   Despite the audience really responding to the character.  They cut his screen time, his lines, and his skills.  I didn't have a computer when Dark Angel was on.  So my opinion wasn't influenced by what I was reading.  I know how I felt, and when I watched it more and more I kept asking, where's Alec? 

How Dabb is treating Dean feels identical.   So I don't think my opinion is just "ignoring the whole".  For me its right there on screen.  We don't see Dean researching anymroe.  He doesn't look for cases, he doesn't really do the exposition anymore.  He's asking Sam how to fix weapons.  Dean doens't need the Butterfly effect explained to him.   IMO, its right there on screen that since Dabb took over all this is heavily skewed toward Sam.

Even in this last ep.  Sam found all the clues, and did all the explanation. He got to actually adress his issues with John, and Dean got the generic, "proud of you".  Plus Sam got both kills.  They even recreated Dean's iconic kill with Sam, and cheapened it..

I know what I see.  I see Dark Angel all over again.  . 

[Myrelle]

And it's even Sam and JP who's being more promoted and pimped out the wazoo on a regular basis by the network via Twitter and the SM fronts, too-the outlets that the show has been courting and catering to more than any others in the last few years. 

Yeah, I'm sorry but I feel like they're giving Jensen and Dean the Mark Sheppard/Crowley treatment too. The only difference is that Jensen is collecting a much better paycheck than MS ever did on this show. 

[FlickChick]

17 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

And it's even Sam and JP who's being more promoted and pimped out the wazoo on a regular basis by the network via Twitter and the SM fronts, too-the outlets that the show has been courting and catering to more than any others in the last few years. 

Yeah, I'm sorry but I feel like they're giving Jensen and Dean the Mark Sheppard/Crowley treatment too. The only difference is that Jensen is collecting a much better paycheck than MS ever did on this show. 

If we needed any further evidence of this very thing, look at the TV outlets' voting for Jared and JDM "best scenes" from our supposed "very special 300th" episode. One wouldn't even know Jensen was in the episode - and in some ways - he wasn't. The focus of the episode was clearly on Sam and John.  And I agree with @ILoveReading, that Dean (and Jensen) is being given less and less to do in most episodes. Just like Crowley was...

[MysteryGuest]

21 minutes ago, FlickChick said:

If we needed any further evidence of this very thing, look at the TV outlets' voting for Jared and JDM "best scenes" from our supposed "very special 300th" episode. One wouldn't even know Jensen was in the episode - and in some ways - he wasn't. The focus of the episode was clearly on Sam and John.  And I agree with @ILoveReading, that Dean (and Jensen) is being given less and less to do in most episodes. Just like Crowley was...

Jensen receives far more acting accolades than Jared does from this show, so letting Jared get a little acting credit for a couple of great efforts back-to-back is hardly a slight to Jensen.  Are people as upset on Jared's behalf when Jensen is lauded, repeatedly?  As for Jensen being the next Mark Sheppard, I just don't see it.  Jensen has the story arc this season.  But just because he does, that doesn't mean that Jared isn't entitled to just as many meaty scenes as Jensen.  I honestly think some expectations for Jensen are out of whack.  He's a co-star, not the star.

[SueB]

Having just finished the BTS on Lebanon, Jensen was very much front and center (almost more than Jared) in that documentary.

[SueB]

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

Dabb already proved he's petty enough when he did it to Mark Sheppard.  No way it wasn't deliberate

It happened to Ricky Whittle on The 100.

It happened to Jensen on Dark Angel.   Despite the audience really responding to the character.  They cut his screen time, his lines, and his skills.  I didn't have a computer when Dark Angel was on.  So my opinion wasn't influenced by what I was reading.  I know how I felt, and when I watched it more and more I kept asking, where's Alec? 

How Dabb is treating Dean feels identical.   So I don't think my opinion is just "ignoring the whole".  For me its right there on screen.  We don't see Dean researching anymroe.  He doesn't look for cases, he doesn't really do the exposition anymore.  He's asking Sam how to fix weapons.  Dean doens't need the Butterfly effect explained to him.   IMO, its right there on screen that since Dabb took over all this is heavily skewed toward Sam.

Even in this last ep.  Sam found all the clues, and did all the explanation. He got to actually adress his issues with John, and Dean got the generic, "proud of you".  Plus Sam got both kills.  They even recreated Dean's iconic kill with Sam, and cheapened it..

I know what I see.  I see Dark Angel all over again.  . 

Having just watched the BTS ... I know what I see ... an attempt to tell a great, emotional story that focuses on the boys -- not just Sam.  Just because you are certain that Dabb is actively attempting to 'delete Dean' does not mean it's happening.  Of course, just because I'm certain that he's NOT just a Sam fan does not mean I'm right.  But their words undermine this perceived bias IMO. 

[ILoveReading]

4 minutes ago, SueB said:

Having just watched the BTS ... I know what I see ... an attempt to tell a great, emotional story that focuses on the boys -- not just Sam.  Just because you are certain that Dabb is actively attempting to 'delete Dean' does not mean it's happening.  Of course, just because I'm certain that he's NOT just a Sam fan does not mean I'm right.  But their words undermine this perceived bias IMO. 

It didn't work for me.  As with the Mary scene I saw everything in this ep revolve around Sam.

One episode where Jensen gets to work with a man he obviously adores doesn't change how how I see things.  Dabb is NOT a Dean fan.  For me it's obvious in how Dean is written since Dabb took over. 

Edited February 13, 2019 by ILoveReading

[Myrelle]

13 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

Jensen receives far more acting accolades than Jared does from this show, so letting Jared get a little acting credit for a couple of great efforts back-to-back is hardly a slight to Jensen.  Are people as upset on Jared's behalf when Jensen is lauded, repeatedly?  As for Jensen being the next Mark Sheppard, I just don't see it.  Jensen has the story arc this season.  But just because he does, that doesn't mean that Jared isn't entitled to just as many meaty scenes as Jensen.  I honestly think some expectations for Jensen are out of whack.  He's a co-star, not the star.

Heh. IMO, the problem since s5 has been that even when he's simply been written as a co-star, JP still pales in comparison.

Dabb said it himself, the only way that the other characters on rhis show can "breathe" is to remove Dean altogether. 

But *I* think what he really meant by that was to remove Jensen altogether because the Michael!Dean storyline has, in truth, been back burnered since it was announced.

It was really only another contract lure for Jensen and his fandom, Imo. 

[MysteryGuest]

8 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

But *I* think what he really meant by that was to remove Jensen altogether because the Michael!Dean storyline has, in truth, been back burnered since it was announced.

It was really only another contract lure for Jensen and his fandom, Imo. 

I don't get how the Michael storyline has been back-burnered?  No, Dean isn't walking around having constant onscreen battles with Michael in his head, but it's been the central story, and will continue to be for the remainder of this season, and possibly into next.  As for Jensen being gullible enough to fall for a "contract lure", that doesn't say very much about his intelligence.  I think he's getting the opportunity he wanted...to get to "be" someone else for a certain amount of time.  But Dean is too important to the show and to his fans to have him sidelined while Michael/Dean struts around killing people for the entire season.  As a Dean fan, I would have hated that.  I know there appear to be a lot of unhappy Dean fans, but this Dean fan is pretty satisfied with the balance between Michael/Dean and just Dean.  I can't imagine that I'm the only Dean fan who feels this way.

[ILoveReading]

28 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

because the Michael!Dean storyline has, in truth, been back burnered since it was announced.

So much truth to this.  There was no build up to it.   They waited until literally the last possible second they could  to introduced it.  Then we barely saw any Michael in the first ep.   The two scene he had were cut.  Including one of the most important lines that helped explain Michael's motivations.    Dabb couldn't even be bothered to write Dean in the ep.  Now he can say that Sam was the only character who has been in every ep.  IMO, that was deliberate.  He could have easily cut one of the Jack scenes to give us some Dean vs Michael.  No on will ever convince me Stranger in a Strange Land didn't apply to Sams' leader arc.  

The 2nd ep was a little better.  But it still seemed to get the last amount of focus between and Nick.  One 30 second Dean vs Michael scene and then Michael just vacates for...reasons.

Instead of letting fans speculate and wonder if something was up with Dean they couldn't wait to spoil it.  We get two conflicting interviews.  First with Buck/Lemming who said that there wouldn't' be a lot of focus on Dean and the aftermath because of he has antibodies to trauma.  Then we had Dabb try to do damage control.  But even even said, "Deans' not secretly possessed. "  Why not let fans speculate.

We get one flashback in ep 3 (despite being told at comic con there would we would see the story unfold in flashbacks) that shows Michael getting his ass handed to him very easily by Mary Sue Wayward.  Way to make Michael look weak.  Not to mention all the Dean trashing in this ep with how he was a bully (they keep showing the out of context scene with Kaia).  Or how even when they were all telling Jack he couldn't hunt, its only after Dean speaks that Jack leaves crying in tears.  No one could even bother defending Dean, except on small throw away line.  IMO, Dean was thoroughly trashed in this ep.

Episode 4, did have some nice Dean scenes, but he was pretty useless when it came to the case.  Sam and Samantha saved the day   We even had scenes of Sam talking over him. (What was up with that).

Episode 5.  That scene should have meant something.  Why did the Djinn react that way to Dean.  It was dropped and not mentioned again.

Episode 6- Jack,

Episode 7 - Jack.  One brief scene.  Again ignored.  Dean didn't' even seem to notice anything was really wrong.

Episode 8- Jack again.  Nothing really with Michael (I didn't bother watching this one so if something Michael related happened I stand corrected).

Episode 9- the main Michael scene were with some random guest star.   Once again waited until the last possible second for Michael to posses Dean 

Episode 10- The first episode, IMO that actually focused on Dean and Michael.  It was nice to hear Dean's strength acknowledged.  But it was the first ep in ages where that happened.  But if I look past the surface, it was Sam that figured everything out and Sam that saved the day by locking Michael up.

Episode 11- I found more Lucifer focused. 

Episode 12- Dean was going to lock himself away to stop Michael.  The show refuses to say that Dean was doing this to save the world.  The show present it as Dean being self destructive and reckless.  No one acknowledged his being willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good.  He needed to be punched and told he was weak and quitter.  (If it was Sam, Dean would have been labelled, abusive, controlling and clingy).  In an episode where Dean was facing an eternity of torture it certainly focused far more on Sam than it Dean

Episode 13- Mostly Sam focused.  He did all the lore stuff, got the kills and got the real moment with John.  Dean got the generic on.

So nope.  IMO this season has been anything but Dean/Michael focused.  Its's been about Sam, Jack and Nick.  Dean is an afterthought. 

Edited February 13, 2019 by ILoveReading

[Myrelle]

14A was anything and everything and anyone and everyone BUT Michael!Dean, IMO. LeaderSam, the NougatBaby, and Nickifer all came before it.

Only one has focused strictly on it in the second half so far, so I'm not hopeful for anything better, tbh.

At this point, I'm actually hoping that Dean will be killed off for a time and that Jensen has another project that they've given him permission to work on.

[BlueSapphire]

Why is there such a problem with other actors on the show getting accolades, like Jared?  He’s put in some pretty decent performances over the years, and while I didn’t like all aspects of last week’s episode, I thought he did well with what he was given.  So Jared suddenly decided to start tweeting more, while Jensen hasn’t.  So what?  The man is 40 years old, very capable of making his own choices, and some fans are treating him like he’s some fragile flower.

[Myrelle]

24 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

So much truth to this.  There was no build up to it.   They waited until literally the last possible second they could  to introduced it.  Then we barely saw any Michael in the first ep.   The two scene he had were cut.  Including one of the most important lines that helped explain Michael's motivations.    Dabb couldn't even be bothered to write Dean in the ep.  Now he can say that Sam was the only character who has been in every ep.  IMO, that was deliberate.  He could have easily cut one of the Jack scenes to give us some Dean vs Michael.  No on will ever convince me Stranger in a Strange Land didn't apply to Sams' leader arc.  

The 2nd ep was a little better.  But it still seemed to get the last amount of focus between and Nick.  One 30 second Dean vs Michael scene and then Michael just vacates for...reasons.

Instead of letting fans speculate and wonder if something was up with Dean they couldn't wait to spoil it.  We get two conflicting interviews.  First with Buck/Lemming who said that there wouldn't' be a lot of focus on Dean and the aftermath because of he has antibodies to trauma.  Then we had Dabb try to do damage control.  But even even said, "Deans' not secretly possessed. "  Why not let fans speculate.

We get one flashback in ep 3 (despite being told at comic con there would we would see the story unfold in flashbacks) that shows Michael getting his ass handed to him very easily by Mary Sue Wayward.  Way to make Michael look weak.  Not to mention all the Dean trashing in this ep with how he was a bully (they keep showing the out of context scene with Kaia).  Or how even when they were all telling Jack he couldn't hunt, its only after Dean speaks that Jack leaves crying in tears.  No one could even bother defending Dean, except on small throw away line.  IMO, Dean was thoroughly trashed in this ep.

Episode 4, did have some nice Dean scenes, but he was pretty useless when it came to the case.  Sam and Samantha saved the day   We even had scenes of Sam talking over him. (What was up with that).

Episode 5.  That scene should have meant something.  Why did the Djinn react that way to Dean.  It was dropped and not mentioned again.

Episode 6- Jack,

Episode 7 - Jack.  One brief scene.  Again ignored.  Dean didn't' even seem to notice anything was really wrong.

Episode 8- Jack again.  Nothing really with Michael (I didn't bother watching this one so if something Michael related happened I stand corrected).

Episode 9- the main Michael scene were with some random guest star.   Once again waited until the last possible second for Michael to posses Dean 

Episode 10- The first episode, IMO that actually focused on Dean and Michael.  It was nice to hear Dean's strength acknowledged.  But it was the first ep in ages where that happened.  But if I look past the surface, it was Sam that figured everything out and Sam that saved the day by locking Michael up.

Episode 11- I found more Lucifer focused. 

Episode 12- Dean was going to lock himself away to stop Michael.  The show refuses to say that Dean was doing this to save the world.  The show present it as Dean being self destructive and reckless.  No one acknowledged his being willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good.  He needed to be punched and told he was weak and quitter.  (If it was Sam, Dean would have been labelled, abusive, controlling and clingy).  In an episode where Dean was facing an eternity of torture it certainly focused far more on Sam than it Dean

Episode 13- Mostly Sam focused.  He did all the lore stuff, got the kills and got the real moment with John.  Dean got the generic on.

So nope.  IMO this season has been anything but Dean/Michael focused.  Its's been about Sam, Jack and Nick.  Dean is an afterthought. 

Thanks so much for the blow by blow. I can't even any more with this show. It's just too frustrating. 😤