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

AwesomO4000 · April 26, 2019

44 minutes ago, Lastcall said:

It’s actually worse. Chuck was about to storm off in a huff. It was Sam trying to kill him that pissed him off to the point he decided to end the story.

Of course.

Sam being the "favorite," my Aunt Fanny. Since season 8, he's almost always been used as the plot scapegoat and made to be the bad guy, the screw up, etc. I'm just sad that both Jared and Jensen allowed this final insult to happen. At least Dean got to look good in the episode. (He was the only one.) Maybe that's why Jensen was kind of happy about it.

And Sam won't get to make up for it either. It will either be Jack or Dean who does. And who cares anyway? The damage will already be done. Millions of people will die and Sam will have to admit how wrong he was and grovel for people to help him fix it - again. Some more. Wash, rinse, and repeat.

Hate to say I told you all so, but: I told you so.

As far as I'm concerned, Sera Gamble was the only show-runner who really respected Sam as a character and let him grow and be his own person. All the rest cared about was making Sam look like an idiot or the "bad brother" or furthering the plot.

Sad that this show I used to love has become something I'll probably hate now.

Pretty sure I'm done. Another of my favorite characters ruined. Sam can go hang out with Carl Grimes now.

Edited April 26, 2019 by AwesomO4000

gonzosgirrl · April 26, 2019

2 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Maybe when I rewtach, I'll get the impression that Dean's "Go to hell!" started Chuck down the path to apocalypse and Sam jut furthered it along, but I doubt it...

This is going to be entirely up to your perspective. Dean told him to go hell, literally, and figuratively by refusing to kill Jack. Chuck then killed Jack, which pissed off Sam enough to shoot him.

AwesomO4000 · April 26, 2019

6 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

This is going to be entirely up to your perspective. Dean told him to go hell, literally, and figuratively by refusing to kill Jack. Chuck then killed Jack, which pissed off Sam enough to shoot him.

Doesn't matter... It's like Dean breaking the first seal. Even though that started the process to the apocalypse, it didn't matter. It was all Sam's fault for breaking the last one. Same with taking on the mark of Cain. It didn't matter that Dean was the one who started down that path, the aftermath was made to be all Sam's fault. This will be the same. The writers always make it Sam's fault and make sure Dean doesn't have the blame.

Edited April 26, 2019 by AwesomO4000

ahrtee · April 26, 2019

13 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Doesn't matter... It's like Dean breaking the first seal. Even though that started the process to the apocalypse, it didn't matter. It was all Sam's fault for breaking the last one. Same with taking on the mark of Cain. It didn't matter that Dean was the one who started down that path, the aftermath was made to be all Sam's fault. This will be the same. The writers always make it Sam's fault and make sure Dean doesn't have the blame.

It's like a duel. Two people can stand and scream insults at each other, but the one who slaps the other with a glove is the one who starts it.

BTW, the world could have gone on with all the seals broken *except the last one.* The world would still go on with Dean having the MoC (everyone, including Death, agreed on that.) So it actually *was* Sam's actions that caused the problems. ** Dean may have been stupid/misguided, but he didn't actually cause the actual aftermath.

**ETA: And incidentally, he caused all the problems by *ignoring what everyone (especially Dean) was telling him and deciding that he knew better and would do things his way.* So I can't really feel that he's been unfairly blamed.

Edited April 26, 2019 by ahrtee

AwesomO4000 · April 26, 2019

12 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

It's like a duel. Two people can stand and scream insults at each other, but the one who slaps the other with a glove is the one who starts it.

BTW, the world could have gone on with all the seals broken *except the last one.* The world would still go on with Dean having the MoC (everyone, including Death, agreed on that.) So it actually *was* Sam's actions that caused the problems. Dean may have been stupid/misguided, but he didn't actually cause the actual aftermath.

I know. That was my point.

I've seen a lot of discussion of "but Dean broke the first seal, so he shares in the fault, so he should have had a role in stopping the apocalypse, too." My point has always been, that no, the writers gave Sam the blame, so it was right, in my opinion, that Sam stopped it.

My point was exactly what you said. If something happens where there will be dire consequences, the writers always make sure that Sam*** is the one at fault, so he gets the blame. It's their go-to move.

When Dean does something potentially stupid or dangerous - like killing Death - the writers just make sure that there are no consequences for doing so.

*** Or sometimes Castiel.

Edited April 26, 2019 by AwesomO4000

gonzosgirrl · April 26, 2019

5 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

When Dean does something potentially stupid or dangerous - like killing Death - the writers just make sure that there are no consequences for doing so.

You see it as letting him off the hook. I see it as ignoring a potentially fantastic story line and pretending it never happened. I for one would rather see the story played out, with real consequences and redemption (because he is a wonderfully flawed hero), than have my hero reduced to sloppy eating and driving the car.

AwesomO4000 · April 26, 2019

27 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

You see it as letting him off the hook. I see it as ignoring a potentially fantastic story line and pretending it never happened. I for one would rather see the story played out, with real consequences and redemption (because he is a wonderfully flawed hero), than have my hero reduced to sloppy eating and driving the car.

But when did Sam get redemption for starting the apocalypse in season 10? Dean was the one who got to go face Amara and be the influence that stopped the destruction Sam caused. So Dean got to have redemption for the mark of Cain storyline even though all of the really bad consequences were put onto Sam. So Dean got almost no consequences and the redemption.

And I highly doubt Sam will get any redemption out of this latest fiasco either. It will be Jack or Dean who does. Sam will just have to apologize and admit that he screwed up - like he pretty much always has to do.

And it's not like Sam hasn't been reduced to moral declarations and bitch-faces either, so he doesn't even have the luxury of being a more complex character anymore. And he's always proven wrong and/or to have done the wrong thing... Joining the BMoL - wrong. Trying to be a leader - get everyone killed, so - wrong. Even with Jack, it was just a two year plot arc to prove how wrong Sam was to have tried to give Jack a chance in the first place. Where was the "redemption" there?

It's only an advantage if the character actually gets to have growth and redemption. Otherwise, he's just the goat.

It was ironic to me how many of the predictions were about how Sam was going to make the ultimate sacrifice to save the day as the season finale somehow, because Dabb prefers him so much... and then then Dabb goes and has Sam start another apocalypse. If that's a writer "preferring" a character, I kinda wish he didn't and would just pretty much ignore Sam.

Sorry, but at this point, I think I'd rather take the no consequences myself.

Edited April 26, 2019 by AwesomO4000

Lastcall · April 26, 2019

45 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Of course.

Sam being the "favorite," my Aunt Fanny. Since season 8, he's almost always been used as the plot scapegoat and made to be the bad guy, the screw up, etc. I'm just sad that both Jared and Jensen allowed this final insult to happen. At least Dean got to look good in the episode. (He was the only one.) Maybe that's why Jensen was kind of happy about it.

And Sam won't get to make up for it either. It will either be Jack or Dean who does. And who cares anyway? The damage will already be done. Millions of people will die and Sam will have to admit how wrong he was and grovel for people to help him fix it - again. Some more. Wash, rinse, and repeat.

Hate to say I told you all so, but: I told you so.

As far as I'm concerned, Sera Gamble was the only show-runner who really respected Sam as a character and let him grow and be his own person. All the rest cared about was making Sam look like an idiot or the "bad brother" or furthering the plot.

Sad that this show I used to love has become something I'll probably hate now.

Pretty sure I'm done. Another of my favorite characters ruined. Sam can go hang out with Carl Grimes now.

Thing is I still think Sam was Dabb’s favorite and he wanted him to be the unequivocal star of the show. He seemed to be setting Sam up as leader savior of the world with all of Deans best qualities and none of his faults. He got to kill all the monsters, got all of Mary’s attention, had minions swirling around him telling him how great he was while Dean was in the wrong for not going with the program. I don’t think Dabb planned on Sam causing another apocalypse until J2 quit. Now, since 300, Dabb is acting as if he was betrayed and is focusing the majority of his hate on Sam. I can’t defend what Dabb has done to Sam over the last 7 episodes and I have been as hard on Sam (and Jared) as anyone. It will be near impossible to justify what Sam did or spin it into anything less then it was. Only bright side is I no longer resent Sam now that Dabb has sent him to the same cornfield as Dean, Cas and Crowley. This is all on Dabb.

Aeryn13 · April 26, 2019

While Dabb would absolutely throw Sam into a ditch, just so the Nougat could walk over him, I don`t think he particularly meant to incite any ill will against the character. And I haven`t really seen any. Shooting God was meant to be seen as badass/cool and I`ve seen lots of "so awesome, he needs to become God now" re: Sam.

Compared to how they went out of their way to portray Dean as "mean" towards the utterly woobified Cas and Nougat? That Dean was getting hate for it up the wazoo was completely predictable. Even these writers know this would happen and set it up accordingly.

And I`m pretty sure we can look forward to Sam re-doing every single one of Dean`s kills while Dean won`t re-do even A single one of Sam`s. Ultimately, it will just be the new star of the show who saves the day: Nougat.

AwesomO4000 · April 26, 2019

43 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Compared to how they went out of their way to portray Dean as "mean" towards the utterly woobified Cas and Nougat?

Except who got to spare Jack this last episode and to defy God to boot without causing the apocalypse? That was Dean, so I'm not really buying the wanting to make Dean look bad - or at least not alone. because one way to make Dean look less bad is to make Sam look worse, so let's see how can they do that? Oh, yeah, the old standby... apocalypse here we come.

And if shooting Chuck was supposed to be so bad ass and cool - rather than Sam reverting back to his revenge / rage ways - in my opinion, it wouldn't have been the direct cause of this next apocalypse. How could having Sam start another apocalypse not be seen as bad? In my opinion that would defy logic. They would have to know. It's either reckless or stupid - since Sam was there when Chuck dying would have caused the world to go kaput, so he knows what could happen - and neither could be considered bad ass or cool, in my opinion.

It's the writers again using Sam to further the plot at the expense of his character - the same thing that they have been doing for about 7 seasons now.

Quote

And I`m pretty sure we can look forward to Sam re-doing every single one of Dean`s kills while Dean won`t re-do even A single one of Sam`s.

I highly doubt it, myself. Supposedly Sam was supposed to somehow be the savior this season, and exactly the opposite happened. I see predictions all the time of how Sam is supposedly being set up to save the day... it hardly ever happens, and in even more cases, the opposite happens.

I think I've actually been pretty good about predicting these things myself, but even I didn't see this disaster / character asassination coming.

58 minutes ago, Lastcall said:

Thing is I still think Sam was Dabb’s favorite and he wanted him to be the unequivocal star of the show. He seemed to be setting Sam up as leader savior of the world with all of Deans best qualities and none of his faults.

And I still contend that this isn't really showing a character as a favorite.

For me, if a writer has to / wants to fundamentally change a character in order for that character to be his favorite - especially by giving him qualities of another character - that's not showing the character "love." I compared it to a boyfriend telling a woman he could love her if only she changed x, y, and z about herself. That's not really loving the person / character for the person / character her/himself. That's loving some bad fanfic version or idealized version of the character, which in my opinion is different than liking and respecting the character himself and is actually somewhat insulting to the original character. At least in my opinion it is.

I didn't want Dabb to change Sam, just like I didn't want Carver to change Sam. I liked Sam the way he was.

58 minutes ago, Lastcall said:

Only bright side is I no longer resent Sam now that Dabb has sent him to the same cornfield as Dean, Cas and Crowley. This is all on Dabb.

I am happy for you, but sadly this doesn't help me in the least. ; ) *grrr*

Edited April 26, 2019 by AwesomO4000

Aeryn13 · April 26, 2019

Quote

Except who got to spare Jack this last episode and to defy God to boot without causing the apocalypse?

That just means he doesn`t get hated on as badly anymore as before. Slim pickings IMO.

Quote

For me, if a writer has to / wants to fundamentally change a character in order for that character to be his favorite - especially by giving him qualities of another character - that's not showing the character "love."

I actually agree with that. Apparently Dabb loves a character like Nougat, OP so you can make them "badass" but with less edge than a care bear so they are the moral woobie of the tale. Probably Sam came closest to that ideal in his mind so he focused more positively on him.

So while I do think Dabb loathes Dean, I can see that he doesn`t love Sam per se but a version of Sam that he has in his mind. Still didn`t work out too well for him in terms of watching Dean.

Only one thing seems certain now: he loves his little OCs wayyyy more than either of the brothers. It`s like Thompson and Charlie. Dean is used as an exposition dumbboard no matter what but usually Sam gets to look like Smartie McGenius. However, whenever Charlie was on under Thompson, she superceded that and Sam got to look dumb, too. Again, that meant for Dean, I was almost always out of luck.

FlickChick · April 26, 2019

Dabb has no business being a writer. Apparently he is only capable of writing one-note characters, regurgitated stories, bad fan fiction, and being a petty, vindictive, and narcissistic asshole while doing it. In other words he is Chuck in his own episode "Moriah". And I know what I think of Chuck after his last pissy fit of resetting the world (aka - the Winchesters' story). I imagine that others feel the same way. I cannot express how much I pray he will not be allowed to reign over the final season. So Real God, please hear me.

Myrelle · April 26, 2019

36 minutes ago, FlickChick said:

Dabb has no business being a writer. Apparently he is only capable of writing one-note characters, regurgitated stories, bad fan fiction, and being a petty, vindictive, and narcissistic asshole while doing it. In other words he is Chuck in his own episode "Moriah". And I know what I think of Chuck after his last pissy fit of resetting the world (aka - the Winchesters' story). I imagine that others feel the same way. I cannot express how much I pray he will not be allowed to reign over the final season. So Real God, please hear me.

Amen.

AwesomO4000 · April 27, 2019

3 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

It`s like Thompson and Charlie. Dean is used as an exposition dumbboard no matter what but usually Sam gets to look like Smartie McGenius. However, whenever Charlie was on under Thompson, she superceded that and Sam got to look dumb, too. Again, that meant for Dean, I was almost always out of luck.

I look it as has Dean ever been shown as stupid enough to directly start an apocalypse? No. While Sam has 3 now and Castiel has 2 1/2. And Dean has now averted or helped to avert at least 3 apocalypses. Sam has 1 and Castiel has 1.

Also lately (post Gamble), whenever Dean gives some dire warning about what's going to happen and tells everyone what they should do... he's almost always right and everyone else is almost always wrong. And being right about the big stuff pretty much negates any "Dean didn't do his geeky homework" scenario in my opinion.

For me, that pretty much lays out who the writers really think is the smartest character. Your miles may vary, but for me not starting an apocalypse that will likely kill thousands if not millions of people pretty much out-weighs a little on screen exposition dumboarding any day of the week.

"Booksmart" means nothing and is a trivial comfort in comparison.

And as you said, sometimes Sam gets hit with the dumbstick also. So Sam gets that and starting apocalypses and almost always being wrong about anything important... again I see Dean as coming out ahead on that one.

The day that the writers have Dean start an apocalypse, I'll agree with you, but the chances of that happening are slim to none or they would have done so by now. The writers have Sam for that, and sorry but 3 times is too many for it to be an "accident" or an "they didn't mean for it to look that way." At some point, I think it just becomes grasping at straws to make up excuses for what is being shown as a pattern.

At some point "they didn't mean it" just sounds hollow when they keep doing it over and over and over again.

Lastcall · April 27, 2019

4 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

So while I do think Dabb loathes Dean, I can see that he doesn`t love Sam per se but a version of Sam that he has in his mind. Still didn`t work out too well for him in terms of watching Dean.

Yes, so much this, perfect way to say it. Dabb wanted to turn Sam into the ideal version in his mind who is not the character everyone loved in the first place. He wanted Sam to be the most popular character, he wanted him to be leader, he wanted him to be the center that all the other characters orbited around. Sam should get all the important kills, do all the research and solve all the problems. Cas should be his best friend, he should be Mary’s favorite and he should be what everyone focuses on.

So now Dabb believes he has done all these great things for Sam and what happens, Jared ends the show and compares it to putting down a suffering dog. After that Dabb unleashes the wrath of god down on Sam with one of the most blatant character assassinations I have ever seen. So it’s personal now. Dabb is mad at J2 and he’s taking it out on everyone. Everyone that is except Jack who I believe will be the sole focus of season 15 and the one that saves the world next year (and will probably get all of Sam AND Deans old kills).

tessathereaper · April 27, 2019

4 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Also lately (post Gamble), whenever Dean gives some dire warning about what's going to happen and tells everyone what they should do... he's almost always right and everyone else is almost always wrong. And being right about the big stuff pretty much negates any "Dean didn't do his geeky homework" scenario in my opinion.

I'm pretty sure this was the case before Gamble as well. Some of us used to joke Dean was the "Cassandra" of Supernatural, doomed to be saying "but this is a bad idea, this bad thing is going happen" and having everyone ignore him, treat him like he's the one with the problem, etc, etc. and never acknowledge that he was right.

Sam starts an Apocalypse? Dean's fault for being "bossy"(even though Sam started down that path when Dean was in HELL and Dean did what Sam asked and accepted Ruby as much as he was able to), they aren't getting along too well? Dean's fault for not just forgiving and forgetting a season's worth of lies and sneaking around Sam did and pretending it never happened, after all Sam kind of apologized for it(not for the actually stuff he did to DEAN but for starting the apocalypse, which Dean was quick to share the blame for by saying they both thought Lilith had to die,, even though Dean wasn't actually part of it). The Darkness is released because of the Book of the Dead? Somehow they both did it, even though Dean had no idea what Sam and Cas were about to do and the fact that Sam could have called Cas to ask him to call it off the second he heard what the MOC really was was literally I think never brought up.

Who cares if he was "right" when its not acknowledged within the text or it's downplayed if it's acknowledged at all, when most viewers have the attention spans of gnats and only remember what they were told 5 minutes ago. Dean is almost never presented as being right, he's criticized for somehow doing it wrong, even if he was right and what he did wrong is the focus and what he may have been right about is lost and forgotten.

Quote

Oh, my gosh, it's not always about ME. Not by a long shot. And I pay plenty of freaking attention to everything. I don't just sit and watch the show to hate on one brother or the other.

One brother doesn't have to be the "bad guy." It can't be that if Dean says something that goes against his character, or is negative, that it's the writers' fault, but with Sam he's always a selfish bastard, and it's never the way he's written.

If we're talking about three-dimensional characters here, there's no "yahtzee". It's not just one thing. There's no "Sam's just a selfish ass who only thinks of himself, while Dean is pure light who is good and wonderful and only wants what's best for everyone."

It's like what Dean came to the realization of in this episode. He stopped seeing all "monsters" as bad and something that needs to be killed. He realized that seeing things in black and white, good and bad, didn't serve him.

At one time or another, they've both felt guilty about stuff they've done to one another and others. They both know how to beat themselves up for decisions they made they thought were good at the time but eventually got people killed.

Sam and Dean can both be flawed characters. Seeing the flaws in anyone, whether it's a person or a character, is healthy. Putting anyone on a pedestal or seeing someone as totally one way, whether it's good or bad, isn't.

I suppose if you look at anything through only one lens, then yes, you'll only see those things. It's called confirmation bias. Where you ignore everything else and just concentrate on whatever suits your own theory. That's not paying attention. That's looking for whatever proves your bias.

Neither Sam nor Dean are totally good, totally bad, or totally selfish. The reason Chuck knew Dean would do the deed, is because he's only too willing to get himself killed for the greater good. So Sam holding onto his legs, telling him he's making a mistake, is not the way to get through to Dean.

And okay, fine. they wouldn't have been in this mess if A, B, C, or D happened, but they did, so now they're faced with this ridiculous scenario that they don't have a second to think about, because if they did, they would have realized how nonsensical it was. Which is what Chuck was counting on. Given like five minutes, and all of them putting their heads together, someone would have come to the conclusion that the gun was a load of crap.

I was talking about the way the writers don't seem to expect people to notice it. It's like they put all this on Dean and Dean's flaws all the damn time yet somehow Sam always talking about himself and how it makes him feel, screw everyone else and all the good reasons for doing what Dean wants to do and acknowlegding it isn't some death wish or suicidal or giving, etc, etc, is just ignored. But people who are paying attention notice it and THAT is why it's not good for Sam, because a lot of people DO notice that despite the fact that writers apparently think no one will. Because that's a freaking big and very consistent FLAW of Sam's that the show basically never acknowledges.

Dean has never seen things in "black and white" except when the writers want to pretend all the times over the entire show that he hasn't seen things in black and white don't exist. Sort if like your quote, acting like it was only in this episode Dean realized any of this. Dean's realized this stuff for nearly the entire run of the show. Until the writers want to demonize him and then decide all those other times never happened.

Edited April 27, 2019 by tessathereaper

AwesomO4000 · April 27, 2019

7 minutes ago, tessathereaper said:

I'm pretty sure this was the case before Gamble as well.

A little, but Kripke did allow Sam to be right about some big things. Dean wasn't right about saying "yes" to Michael for example. Gamble didn't do this at all that I remember though - which is one of the reasons I enjoyed her tenure. She didn't pit the brothers against each other or make one or the other right or wrong. The conflict came from external things.

It was after Gamble in my opinion that Dean being right became an almost always thing.

Quote

Sam starts an Apocalypse? Dean's fault for being "bossy"(even though Sam started down that path when Dean was in HELL and Dean did what Sam asked and accepted Ruby as much as he was able to), they aren't getting along too well? Dean's fault for not just forgiving and forgetting a season's worth of lies and sneaking around Sam did and pretending it never happened, after all Sam kind of apologized for it(not for the actually stuff he did to DEAN but for starting the apocalypse,

This is one interpretation, but in my opinion this isn't what I saw happen at all. First Sam started down the path with Ruby in season 3 - which is what I thought Sam was referring to. And the word "bossy" was never used in "Fallen Idols." At all. And even if that was the implication, so what? Being bossy isn't always a bad thing. And we saw even young teen Sam in "Afterschool Special" standing up for himself. He's not a shrinking violet. Sam said that he felt like a little brother and wanted to get away from Dean for a while. How is that accusing Dean of anything really? It's basically saying that he (Sam) was being petulant - that's it.

In my opinion, what Sam could have said was "I was a little pissed off that you made a huge decision for me that gave me no say at all in what I actually may have wanted and then told me you had a right to make that decision. That made me feel like I needed space to not feel like I was being controlled, and Ruby made me feel like I might be able to do something to not feel entirely helpless about that sucky situation." But since Dean suffered in hell for that bad decision, Sam didn't say that, and couldn't say that, because then he'd sound like a jerk even if it was true.

And Sam's point had little to do with how they were getting along. Sam even told Dean that he could be as angry as he wanted, but if they were going to work together, Dean couldn't let it affect the case.

So I saw that situation entirely differently, and considering Sam in the very next episode once again reiterated that HE made the wrong decision - reinforced by Castiel - and in every subsequent episode that followed, I think that's pretty much the interpretation that is supported by the show and the text and by Sam.

Sam acknowledged his wrong-doing towards Dean when he said that if he could, he would give anything to have taken it all back.

So you and I see the "Fallen Idols" thing entirely differently, since I don't think it blames Dean for anything at all.

Quote

but for starting the apocalypse, which Dean was quick to share the blame for by saying they both thought Lilith had to die,, even though Dean wasn't actually part of it).

In my opinion, Dean did have a role, it just didn't turn out to be the deciding factor. It could be argued that if Dean hadn't brought Sam back from the dead, Sam wouldn't have been able to start anything, but that argument can go all the way back to Mary making the deal in the first place.

52 minutes ago, tessathereaper said:

The Darkness is released because of the Book of the Dead? Somehow they both did it, even though Dean had no idea what Sam and Cas were about to do and the fact that Sam could have called Cas to ask him to call it off the second he heard what the MOC really was was literally I think never brought up.

Again not what I saw happen. Sam said that they were both part of the mindset that lead to them doing these insane things to save each other (true), but (in the same or next episode) he admitted to God - when no one else was around, so he had no reason to be lying - that it was his fault. This was backed up by Sam later... and God himself. The text went out of its way to say that Dean wasn't at fault. So Dean wasn't at all blamed for the Darkness.

That one, in my opinion, isn't even up for interpretation, because it was stated outright that Dean's actions - even if he had remained a demon - wouldn't have caused anything bad. And it was said so by Chuck/God himself.

Quote

Who cares if he was "right" when its not acknowledged within the text or it's downplayed if it's acknowledged at all, when most viewers have the attention spans of gnats and only remember what they were told 5 minutes ago. Dean is almost never presented as being right, he's criticized for somehow doing it wrong, even if he was right and what he did wrong is the focus and what he may have been right about is lost and forgotten.

In my opinion, it's enough that Dean is right, gets to say that he was right sosmetimes, and is acknowledged often enough. The point of "Mother's Little Helper," for example was for Sam to learn a very special lesson about how Dean was right about taking on the mark of Cain and going after Abbadon. Twice this season Sam told Dean he was right about Jack. Just because the other characters don't all bow down to Dean and praise his every decision as right - and thank goodness not, because that would be really annoying in my opinion - doesn't mean that the show and/or other characters don't acknowledge Dean as right.

It's interesting to me that it's somehow not good enough that Dean is almost always right, but that he somehow has to be lauded for it too. I'd be happy if Sam just wasn't wrong or didn't screw up majorly just once on something important.*** I wouldn't even care if no one on the show was even there to see it, just so that Sam got to do something right for once when it really mattered.

Whereas you would like to see Dean acknowledged more for being right, the best that I can hope for - and the sad thing is that I said this exact thing at the beginning of this season - is that Sam doesn't screw up in a big way during the season. The even sadder thing: I didn't even get that, and haven't for almost any season since season 8. (Maybe season 9, but that season was so awful for Sam, it hardly mattered anyway.)

*** I'm speaking of post season 7 here by the way.

AwesomO4000 · April 27, 2019

34 minutes ago, SweetTooth said:

They've made Sam set off the apocalypse multiple times, and nobody sees that as the writers painting Sam in a negative light? Seriously?

Yeah, I don't get it either. It's sometimes chalked up as an "accident." They were trying to make Sam look good, but screwed it up.

I generally chalk it up to Sam being more of the plot device character, in that if something has to be done for plot purposes, even if it doesn't make sense character-wise, Sam is often the one they get to do it.

It just sometimes becomes a little depressing for me that they keep having Sam mess up so often. I miss the character he used to be sometimes.

44 minutes ago, SweetTooth said:

They're both victims of a series of writers through FOURTEEN seasons, who don't bother to brush up on what the characters learned, so yeah, sometimes they have to learn lessons multiple times. Or they revert one brother or the other. It's frustrating, sure,

Thank you.

I may have to adopt your attitude more. I, too, love both brothers. I just tend to favor Sam a bit more, and sometimes it's depressing for me when I go into a season with just one hope for the character - and it's not even that much to ask for either - and even that gets dashed (twice in fact for this season).

But maybe I should just look at it as an "oh well, Sam did something stupid because the plot wanted him to. Maybe next season will let him fix it."

I kind of dread all the deaths that I'm sure will get blamed on Sam though, so I hope that I can just grit my teeth and bear it enough to get to the silver lining.

Icarus · April 27, 2019

This post might be taken down but I would like to add my name to the huge amount of “confirmation bias” there is on this board. I am a bi bro leaning towards Dean person. I have disliked/hated things they have both done but even with a bias towards Dean I have seen the writers throw Sam under the bus. The Amelia and the Benny and the Purge speech outweigh anything bad they have made Dean do IMO. When you are invested in both the brothers it is difficult sometimes to get past when the writer's pit them against each other for creating supposed tension as believing it to be something the audience is invested in – not me though I much prefer the tension to be created by a well written story something the current crop of writers are not IMO at all good at. Having said that I am still enjoying watching and enjoy reading some of the opinions about the episodes on this board albiet that I have to skip a lot of posts.

Aeryn13 · April 27, 2019

Quote

I choose to watch a show with two flawed brothers who love each other deeply and would do anything for each other. Sometimes the writers hit it out of the park, and sometimes they get it so wrong, it hurts. But I'm not going in with a bias. I won't ruin my viewing by hating one of the guys who are brothers, on and off the screen. I can't imagine the awful time I'd be having, sitting there, seething, waiting for my bias to be confirmed and make my blood pressure rise by thinking, "WHY DOESN'T ANYONE SEE HOW SELFISH SAM IS???"

I couldn't enjoy my show if I did that.

For me how I watch and respond to a show and/or characters is really not a choice. The way those are written drive my response and since those are emotional responses, even if I wanted to, I couldn`t choose to change them,

When a show starts, all characters are on equal footing because I don`t know anyone. Now within a few episodes at the latest, I usually come away with a favourite, depending on the writing and more importantly what/who the narrative pushes - that almost always backfires because it is almost always done badly.

IMO the show itself has done so many vs. writing scenarios between the brothers themselves and now between either one or both brothers and "secondary" characters who suddenly became main characters, I perfectly understand why battle trenches have been dug for years. They brought this on themselves.

Stuff like literally comparing hell times and putting one down as "Disneyworld"? That is as "vs." as it can get. And they do it all day, every day basically.

Now of course it also depends on what each individual viewer values more or even most. I always valued the mytharc relevance more and badassery and I loathe "weak" monikers with every fiber of my being. Whereas other things like dark/wrong stories don`t really bother me and emotional POV is of way lesser value for me. AwesomO4000 is probably my opposite there. 🙂

Example: was Dean made to look "bad" by being nursemaid to Trial!Sam in Season 8.B? For me, yes, I`d rather shoot the character in the head than have him be relegated to that. However others might perceive it as good as a supporting brother.

Objectively, it wasn`t outright treated as bad like "mean Dean" vs. poor Nougat.

Edited April 27, 2019 by Aeryn13

tessathereaper · April 27, 2019

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Twice this season Sam told Dean he was right about Jack.

But Dean wasn't right about Jack so Sam saying Dean was right, while clearly not really believing Dean was right, and then the show showing Dean was wrong isn't exactly a good example

No one is asking anyone to bow down but they don't even acknowledge it.

41 minutes ago, SweetTooth said:

He hasn't whined or complained or told Dean it was all his fault he gave up on his dreams.

He kind of has. Whenever he's had the chance to absolve Dean of the responsibility within the show for what happened, Sam has equivocated. What was it he said in that one episode "it's complicated" and this was when Dean's life was on the line! Dean's going to die based on his "guilt or innocence" and Sam says "it's complicated"?

Dean had no fault for Sam's life um...going up in smoke, pardon the pun. He came to ask his brother for help finding their father, who had been missing and incommunicado for an unusually long time even for him, except for one cryptic message. One weekend, at the end of which Dean would leave. Which Dean did. Dean drops Sam off back home and drives away and only comes back because spidey sense and a staticcy radio tells him something is wrong.

At which point Sam CHOOSES to start hunting again for revenge. Yet even after everything Sam knows by Season 6 or 7 which is certainly proof that Dean has no responsibility for what happened, he still blames Dean. With Dean's life on the line, the best he can do is "It's complicated"?

24 minutes ago, SweetTooth said:

Literally nobody, and I mean NOBODY, out in the world, who doesn't talk about this show on any kind of board, sees either of them in a more favorable light than the other.

Yes they do. I work with some of them. (How we all ended up working for the same office I don't know. Weird. We don't discuss it much because it's very busy and we don't slack off to talk about tv shows, but occasionally it'll come up very briefly. Two of them started watching on Netflix, I've watched since the beginning and even the new girl who has only been working there a couple of months turns out to be a long time fan of the show. ). They definitely have opinions on the show and whom they view more favorably.

It happens to be 3 to 1 in Dean's favor in the case of my office. LOL So in this case I can't complain. But none the less it is not true that people who aren't online(to my knowledge I'm the only who reads and posts about the show online, the others are fans but more casual) don't view one or the other brother in more favorable light. And no as a matter of fact I was not the one who asked any of them about whether they had a favorite, they all brought it up themselves, unprompted.

55 minutes ago, SweetTooth said:

Because I guarantee that if Dean had picked up that gun and shot Chuck in the shoulder, it wouldn't have been a discussion about how selfish he was, setting off the apocalypse in order to save Jack.

Oh it would have. Just like he was evil and horrible and abusive for telling Cas he was dead to him if Mary was dead. I recall comments about how Dean deserved to die for that, to be taught a lesson for being mean to poor Cas. Just like he deserved to be punched for being weak and a quitter for daring to consider using the Malek box. Just like he was such a horrible person for not immediately accepting NougatSue as the innocent good little baby he really is when he first showed up as a fully grown Nephilim, having killed his mother to be born, apparently killing Castiel and everything else. Just like the absolute mass of other things Dean is criticicized for that get total passes when Sam or Castiel do them.

I don't see it as a triumph of Free Will to not kill Jack in this episode because the story is so far fetched and involved so much wrenching and twisting of characters and the storyline so far to make it happen that it's cop out. Yes it was right not to kill Jack, but only because they completely changed the story as it had been up to that point.

To be honest at this point, I just really want Jack to stay dead, I hate this character. He serves no purpose other than mess up all the other characters, their interactions with each other and their storylines. This whole season was a waste of other potentially interesting cool storylines for the actual LEADS of the show to make Jack the central character. I really don't feel he's brought a single good thing to this show. A Supernatural Cousin Oliver.

Then probably because the showrunner is pissed off no one liked what he was doing and the leads rebelled and decided enough was enough they were ending the show, he takes a total scorched earth policy. But I don't see anything really changing, whatever Jensen and Jared try unless we can get rid of Dabb and Buckleming which seems highly unlikely.

Ideally, Billie would really just be there to reap Jack and that would be the last we'd see of him. Bobby drives up last minute in an armor car and rescues Dean, Sam and Cas from the zombies and then I guess they'd spend the rest of the season trying to clean up the fall out. Maybe they could somehow bring Amara back to help. But I still don't see how Dean and Sam get to end up being the central heroes given the magnitude. The best they can do is convince someone more powerful than they are to do whatever has to be done.

AwesomO4000 · April 27, 2019

2 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

AwesomO4000 is probably my opposite there. 🙂

Yeah, I'm pretty much about the character.

One of my recent favorite shows was Rectify. Except for the beginning premise, plotwise, it was fairly ordinary. Nothing epic happened, because the characters just being able to get through the day and keep going and just figuring out how to be happy was sometimes an epic struggle for them. It was the characterization and the atmosphere that hooked me. I cared what happened to them. I cared about their ordinary lives. I wanted them to be happy.

And in a lot of ways, that's how this show is for me also. It's about the characters. I want to be able to understand the motivations, and I want them to make sense in terms of the characterization. The Winchester brothers might not live ordinary lives, but for me, the action and the plot are a means to see how they will react and what they will do.

If I wanted to see action and stuff blow up and bad guys get smashed, I could watch a Michael Bay movie, but I wouldn't want to do that, because his characterization is crap (My G1*** friend lets me know just how much crap his characterization is, too.) I can forgive a lot of things as long as I have good characterization.

*** A G1 is a Transformers - the original show, i.e. Generation 1 - fan. Apparently Michael Bay butchered the characters for his movies in a way that makes Dabb look like a characterization genius. And don't ask me how machines have characterization or emotions... apparently they just do. And Mr. Bay does them wrong. ; )

AwesomO4000 · April 27, 2019

22 minutes ago, tessathereaper said:

But Dean wasn't right about Jack so Sam saying Dean was right, while clearly not really believing Dean was right, and then the show showing Dean was wrong isn't exactly a good example

I think it's a good example, because as far as I can see Dean was right. Jack killed innocent people and became dangerous and unpredictable, just like Dean said he would. Dean wasn't wrong about that. In fact, Jack had become so dangerous, God had to step in and fix things to keep the world from going haywire. And all of that would have been avoided if they had found a way to kill Jack to start with as Dean had said. So I guess I'm missing how Dean was shown as wrong here. In my opinion, Dean was shown as being right.

Quote

No one is asking anyone to bow down but they don't even acknowledge it.

I disagree, I gave a couple of examples of when Sam has, and there are more. Some are less direct than the ones I gave above, but they are there.

ILoveReading · April 27, 2019

This might be more unpopular opinion but i believe that if people prefer Dean the reason is at least due to 75% Jensen Ackles, with direction, being another 15 and the writing being 10%

Because I've always found Dean to be underdog in terms of writing. In the beginning, he wasn't the chosen one. He was the side kick, but Jensen embraced the role in a way Kripke never envisioned. He made Dean so much more then he was ever supposed to be.

He did the same with Alec on Dark Angel. So much so he made the leads jealous.

I know personally I find the underdog easier to root for. A good example of this Just My Imagination. All that episode did was leave me feeling bad for Dean. Because it showed me that not only did Sam have Dean and John looking out for him, but supernatural creatures as well.

All it did was leave me asking who was looking out for Dean. It showed that he really had no one. And that he literally had to be in two places at once. No wonder he felt like he didn't succeed. It royally irritated me once again when Dean had to thank Sully for looking after Sam when he didn't. Once agian , everyone failed to say that this wasn't a failure on Dean's part.

I find if there is a controversial decision to be made 9 times out of ten they put that decision in Dean's lap and if its Sam, they make sure to build up a narrative around it about why its okay.

ukgirl71 · April 27, 2019

Yep, totally agree - Jensen could read the phone book and make it great.

AwesomO4000 · April 27, 2019

6 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

All it did was leave me asking who was looking out for Dean. It showed that he really had no one. And that he literally had to be in two places at once. No wonder he felt like he didn't succeed. It royally irritated me once again when Dean had to thank Sully for looking after Sam when he didn't. Once agian , everyone failed to say that this wasn't a failure on Dean's part.

If I remember correctly Dean thanked Sully for being there for Sam when he "couldn't" be. For me, "couldn't" is a lot different than "didn't." "Couldn't" means that I wanted to be there, but wasn't able to. Nothing, imo, implied that Dean had to be in two places at once or that he was a failure or that anything was his fault.

What I remember is Sully thanking Dean for looking out for Sam, the implication being for the rest of Sam's childhood... in other words, I didn't see any message that Dean didn't take care of Sam, but the opposite that Dean had and was the reason that Sam made it. I thought that it was pretty evident that Dean raising Sam was a success according to Sully. I didn't need it spelled out in explicit detail that "yup, Dean, it was all you, and only you."

And how many times does Sam have to acknowledge that Dean took care of him and sacrificed for him, before it's enough?*** "Just My Imagination" was a rare episode from that time that focused on Sam's childhood and Sam's POV, and I loved it for being what it was. In my opinion, it didn't have to be all about Dean. Dean gets his own episodes.

*** The most recent example being when Sam was dying.

Edited April 27, 2019 by AwesomO4000

catrox14 · April 27, 2019

11 hours ago, SweetTooth said:

I LOVE that you lean more toward Dean, yet you're open-minded.

As a writer, you learn that unless there's tension, you don't have a story. but pitting the brothers against each other will never be as good as the brothers bonding together to take down a common foe.

So I'm really hoping that with Chuck being the bad guy, that this will be the case for the next and last season.

I dont think that will happenhat because from the beginning of this show the boys have never been on the same page 100%. No spoilers but I suspect they will be at odds over how to deal with Chuck and whether going after Chuck is important or worthwhile given all the zombies being resurrected.

And if Dabb is still at the helm he will write it pretty much as he has which includes manufactured angst between the boys. In fact, I think he'll go so far as to have the be on opposite sides of things, especially if they seek a return to s1 form wherein they were not joined at the hip, which I actually prefer. I want them to be independent of one another and still be able to work together.

gonzosgirrl · April 27, 2019

2 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

If I remember correctly Dean thanked Sully for being there for Sam when he "couldn't" be. For me, "couldn't" is a lot different than "didn't." "Couldn't" means that I wanted to be there, but wasn't able to. Nothing, imo, implied that Dean had to be in two places at once or that he was a failure or that anything was his fault.

That's exactly what Dean thought, and I don't think that could've been mor clearly spelled out.

ILoveReading · April 28, 2019

5 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

If I remember correctly Dean thanked Sully for being there for Sam when he "couldn't" be. For me, "couldn't" is a lot different than "didn't." "Couldn't" means that I wanted to be there, but wasn't able to. Nothing, imo, implied that Dean had to be in two places at once or that he was a failure or that anything was his fault.

For me authorial intent is important. Given Speight's interview about Dean had to learn that he wasn't always there for Sam, its tells me what his intentions are when he directed that scene, was to say that wasn't there for Sam.

5 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Nothing, imo, implied that Dean had to be in two places at once or that he was a failure or that anything was his fault.

IMO, this is exactly what the episode said. We saw that Sam was left behind on his own while John dragged Dean on a hunt. How can Dean be there for Sam when he had obligations to John. That is expecting Dean to be in two places at once.

5 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

And how many times does Sam have to acknowledge that Dean took care of him and sacrificed for him, before it's enough?*** "Just My Imagination" was a rare episode from that time that focused on Sam's childhood and Sam's POV, and I loved it for being what it was. In my opinion, it didn't have to be all about Dean. Dean gets his own episodes.

I guess I wasn't clear, I'm not looking for people to say that Dean did the best he could or that he was always there for Sam. What I want is for the show to acknowledge that he should never have had that responsibility in the first place. It's not about whether he successed or failed. Its about having that unfair burden put on him. I want the show to acknowledge this and then not take it back five minutes later.

The closest was in s2, but then John turned around and dumped responsibility back in Deans' lap.

Edited April 28, 2019 by ILoveReading

catrox14 · April 28, 2019

Just because this scene was seared into my brain in a terrible way, the script was much less clear about Dean not being there for Sam.

from Super Wiki

Quote

DEAN
Trust me. Revenge? Ain’t gonna make you feel better. Listen, I’ve seen more than my share of monsters. And I mean REAL monsters, bad. These guys? These are Sesame Street mother Teresas. But when I wasn’t there for my little brother, Sully was. Now, look, I’m not saying that he didn’t make a mistake, but you know that there is not a monstrous bone in his bod

The writer couldn't bother to give Dean even a couldn't or wasn't able to be there...just that he wasn't, no context to why Dean wasn't there. I hate that episode so much.

Myrelle · April 28, 2019

13 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

The writer couldn't bother to give Dean even a couldn't or wasn't able to be there...just that he wasn't, no context to why Dean wasn't there. I hate that episode so much.

Me too.

And for the same reason.

I can't really find it in me to like any scene that even just implies Dean let Sam down when they were BOTH just children.

That's crap. And one of the reasons that I remember looking forward to Mary being resurrected was I felt that with her return we might finally get someone who would understand how unfair it was that Dean's childhood was ripped from him in the manner that it was.

But how foolish did that hope turn out to be, eh?

gonzosgirrl · April 28, 2019

I certainly don't consider myself dumb and I sure as hell felt that was the message of the episode. The director outright said it was the lesson for Dean to learn.

Edited April 28, 2019 by gonzosgirrl

gonzosgirrl · April 28, 2019

I think that's exactly what Speight meant.

AwesomO4000 · April 28, 2019

11 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

That's exactly what Dean thought, and I don't think that could've been mor clearly spelled out.

Dean has generally not been a reliable narrator on this subject. He, himself, even knows this. He said so when he told Sam that he feels guilty for everything. That's why I don't get how his saying it that way is evidence that it's true or what the show itself is actually trying to show us.

It's like in season 8 when Dean was talking to Charlie about the text message and gave her the wrong impression. Dean's guilt there was again making him an unreliable narrator.

It's like the pretty girl who says she's fat and ugly. Sure, even she might believe it, but the evidence that her assessment is wrong is what we actually see. We saw onscreen that Dean wanted to be there for Sam. We saw onscreen Dean keeping in contact with Sam (not John, but Dean). We saw that Dean convinced John to let Sam join them. We saw Dean "be there" for Sam in whatever way he was able. Dean said that he wasn't, because he felt guilty even for stuff he had no control over - which is in character for Dean. As is often the case, Dean is not a reliable narrator on this subject. He pretty much never has been, so it would have been out of character for him to say anything else but something that implied he was to blame... because that's what Dean does. A lot.

9 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

For me authorial intent is important.

Speight didn't write the episode, so I don't consider him an author.

9 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

Its about having that unfair burden put on him. I want the show to acknowledge this and then not take it back five minutes later.

The closest was in s2, but then John turned around and dumped responsibility back in Deans' lap.

I thought Sam's "I never realized how long you had been cleaning up Dad's messes" in "Dark side of the Moon" was a pretty clear acknowledgement of this. And Sam seemed fairly appalled and dismayed at having realized it, too, especially at having learned how far it went back. Sam's statement also indicated that even though the revelation of how far it went back was new, Sam was previously aware that Dean had been cleaning up John's messes for quite some time. He just hadn't realized to what extent until then.

9 hours ago, catrox14 said:

The writer couldn't bother to give Dean even a couldn't or wasn't able to be there...just that he wasn't, no context to why Dean wasn't there.

I hate that episode so much.

In addition to the notion that I don't think Dean would make that distinction himself, because in my opinion it would be out of character for Dean to give himself an out, I can't look at an episode that way.

I don't think I'd be able to enjoy much of anything on this show if one line out of an entire episode could make me hate it. I loved "Don't Call Me Shurley" for example, and that episode pretty much had God, himself - with no ambiguity at all - saying that Sam was what was wrong with the world. I still loved the episode, because of everything else that was in it.

I personally loved "Just My Imagination". I loved the Zana. I loved Sully. I loved learning that Sam wasn't always at odds with John and at some point did want to fit in with his family. I never understood the interpretation that Sam somehow always thought he was better than his family - for me that made little sense based on the flashbacks I'd seen previously - and this episode confirmed for me that Sam hadn't.

And yes, I suppose the writer could have put "couldn't" in there, but for me it wouldn't have felt like something Dean would say. Dean is pretty much always going to blame himself ("the Lindbergh kidnapping - my fault"). But I thought that she instead did plenty to show us that Dean wasn't being a reliable narrator there. It was after all Dean who called Sam more than once - not the other way around - so Dean was doing all he could, in the end even convincing John somehow to let Sam come... which was likely no small feat and more like bucking a force of nature to accomplish.

Aeryn13 · April 28, 2019

3 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I think that's exactly what Speight meant.

I agree, it was the same thing as his passive-aggressive comment of Jared finally having a worthy actor to act off of in that dude who played Sully. Of course that one stupidly hit him, too, because he had scenes with Jared before in the show and the way he phrased it was that poor Jared never had a worthy actor of talent in a scene with him until that episode in the entire show.

Speight is the reason I was annoyed when Gabriel was brought back and happy he was quickly and stupidly killed off again, and was played as a little weakling who cried about a few years of measly torture as an archangel. What a joke.

ILoveReading · April 28, 2019

49 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Speight didn't write the episode, so I don't consider him an author

I went back and looked up the inteview. This is what Richard said.

Quote

My job was to tell the story that Jenny Klein wrote and it’s a great script, so we shot that script

He interpreted the script as Dean was a bad brother. He may not have have wrote it but he directed that scene with that intent in mind. So I change the statement what I feel the scene intended to to tell us.. Based on writing and directing it was too tell the audience that Dean failed Sam.

I went back and looked up the interview.

Quote

I think Dean is slower to trust, slower to open up, and really has to check his own reaction to this, because though he may not truly understand it, what he has to understand is that he and Sam are different, and that maybe Dean can’t fill every emotional gap that his brother needs filling. Maybe they require more, maybe sometimes he hasn’t been the best brother, maybe sometimes they haven’t been there for each other in the way that they should’ve been or wish they had been,and sometimes realizing that is to realize one’s own faults and fallibility, and that can be a difficult thing, and that’s where Dean finds himself.

In this ep we're shown that Dean was dragged off by John and Sam was left behind. Even though there were times that Dean didn't make the best decisions, this episode was not one of them. He literally had no choice about leaving Sam behind. So Dean not being there for Sam was sometimes a physical impossibility but that is not what Speight was trying to say.

This episode could have had Sully spell that out in no uncertain times. It didn't.

Of course, Dean wasnt' the perfect brother. He was child. Children make mistakes. It goes back to what I was saying. That instead of telling the audience Dean wasn't always there for Sam, they should be sending the message that he never should have hand to. Sam telling Dean that he's was cleaning up Dad's messes is just more "you did the best you can." Again I'm looking for, "you shouldn't have hand to clean up Dean's messes for so long." IMO, its not the same thing.

Edited April 28, 2019 by ILoveReading

catrox14 · April 28, 2019

5 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

this subject. He, himself, even knows this. He said so when he told Sam that he feels guilty for everything. That's why I don't get how his saying it that way is evidence that it's true or what the show itself is actually trying to show us.

Scripted fictional television is about show AND tell. That's why dialogue exists. And this show is frought with lack of show, and lack of tell, and conflicting show vs tell. IMO, if the show and tell were better there wouldn't be such disparate interpretations. It doesn't mean that the disparate interpretations are born out of some viewers just being too dumb to get it. I'd say it's because viewers are actually pretty darn smart and see the failures in the writing, and the failures of show and tell, and show vs tell, along with LOLcanon and lazy characterizations. It's been especially bad under Dabb, for TFW specifically.

JMI is a prime example. Dean feels guilty sure, but that doesn't mean he's an unreliable narrator. Allowing for that to be the case, the narrative could have other characters advocate on screen with dialogue, for Dean, which would really make the point that Dean is mired in useless guilt. Sam himself could have been given voice to say, 'Dean was dragged around by Dad and that kept him away even though I know I know he wanted to be here. And I appreciate him for that'. But that would have altered Sullys story too much. The episode was clearly putting Sully against Dean as to who was better for Sam during that time period. Sully encouraging Sam to run away wasn't condemned, it was shown that Sam was stuck all alone with a shit father and ineffectual big brother.

Writing is funny in that dialogue matters. It matters a lot. Writers get paid to use words and they use words on purpose. If Dean had said I couldn't be there because Dad, that would have undermined Sully. And Sully was the the hero of that episode even. He went through a whole hero journey.

Obviously, Dean isn't going to advocate for himself because he thinks he did fail Sam.its his trauma that unless he protects Sam he's failed. Because of what John did to him when Dean was too young to know he was being parentified by John. That dienst make Dean an unreliable narrator, though. It means that's how he sees himself. And since neither the show nor the tell subverted that, it stands as Dean just wasnt there. There was a flashback with Dean being upset with Sam which could be intrepreted as Dean not wanting to be there for Sam because he was out hunting. Or because Dean felt he couldn't get away because John wouldn't let him. Either way, Dean was going to feel guilty because of being parentified.

Dean is at the mercy of the writer, who wanted Sam to be wooby!Sam here and mostly, because it was Sully's story, Dean had to be the one who was mean to Sully and apologize later. If the episode is going to that much trouble to tell that much back story on Sam and Sully, the writer could have made the decision to use a different word or put words in another characters mouth. But she didn't and that is what stands as the aired canon episode about Sam's shitty childhood and Sully saving Sam.

12 minutes ago, SweetTooth said:

repeatedly, it was not Dean's fault, and John has apologized numerous times for being THE crappiest dad ever, the viewer over and over, saw John dragging his children to godforsaken places, abandoning them, and heading off to get himself killed.

7 minutes ago, SweetTooth said:

As to John apologies, that is not true when it comes to Dean specifically. He apologized ONE time in 2.1, immediately followed by loading Dean down with the heaviest burden yet, the Save Sam or Kill Sam directive. John apologized to Sam, to his face maybe three times for their fractured relationship. And sorry, but Dean's wounds from John ate not the same as Sam's. So it's not a blanket apology to both that works. Dean deserves to have his own direct specific apology about himself and John beyond 2.1.

Now, if I thought the show was trying to tell the story of Dean being a damaged man, because of John, there needs to be a lot more dialogue on screen to address it. There isn't so it's not something they intend to address.

In s12, Dean got to say it to Mary, but Mary isn't the one who parentified Dean, John was. So for me, until John directly apologizes to Dean for what he out on Dean in s2, John is still a shitbird in my book.

All of this is to say, the show and tell are badly handled under Dabb. And it's not the viewers fault for not getting it. This show is not that deep now.

7kstar · April 28, 2019

On 4/27/2019 at 7:38 AM, ILoveReading said:

All it did was leave me asking who was looking out for Dean. It showed that he really had no one. And that he literally had to be in two places at once. No wonder he felt like he didn't succeed.

Well, Thanks to Dabb it can only get worse. Now, both brothers are being jerked around for God's entertainment. I didn't get excited from the last show from season 14, in fact, the opposite. I don't want to watch the train wreck so I'm left with fanfiction writers or going AU and ignoring the so-called cannon which has been turned upside down.

The one real issue I felt that it was a slap to Kripke's original plan. Sure he set up that God was Chuck but there had been some hope that God might care. Now that's gone. He is just getting his kicks watching the boys being miserable.

My only hope is that Billie kills God, not spoiler.

If the J2's had some input on the final well I'm not convinced they can do anything about the train wreck coming. IMO Cas, Dean, and Sam have been thrown under the bus all for what? Taking a break from Supernatural. Unlike a writer that shall NOT be named, I'll have to go back to the beginning when cannon mattered and there were some cool clues setting up what is to come.

catrox14 · April 28, 2019

3 hours ago, SweetTooth said:

If the writers were has horrible to Dean as people say, and making him out to be the bad guy, the hated guy, then why is it that a majority of people have Dean as their favorite brother? Yes, sure, Jensen kills it. He's amazing in the role and can break your heart. But that still wouldn't be able to combat fourteen seasons of him just being a monster.

It's because Jensen learned from Kim Manners to play what isn't on the page. To find what makes Dean a whole being, not a two dimensional paper character. He's talked about that for years. And IMO that's what he still does. He gives Dean layers that I don't think Jared does with Sam now for a few years. And I'm not bashing Jared's skills. I think he's playing it as it is written for the most part. JMO

DeeDee79 · April 28, 2019

7 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

He gives Dean layers that I don't think Jared does with Sam now for a few years. And I'm not bashing Jared's skills. I think he's playing it as it is written for the most part. JMO

This is how I see it also.

AwesomO4000 · April 28, 2019

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

If the episode is going to that much trouble to tell that much back story on Sam and Sully, the writer could have made the decision to use a different word or put words in another characters mouth.

Or use incidents and actions - like young Dean being the one to keep in contact with Sam and convincing John to let Sam join them - to show the situation. I don't need to be beat over the head with what I already know and what I know that Sam knows and has told Dean before.

For me, not every story has to be about Dean or be somehow related back to Dean. Sometimes the story can be about someone else.

You might not have enjoyed the time spent with Sully and the other Zanna or Sully and young Sam, but I did.

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

But she didn't and that is what stands as the aired canon episode about Sam's shitty childhood and Sully saving Sam.

How did Sully save Sam? In my opinion, he didn't, and that's what the episode showed... that Sully wasn't able to save Sam and actually in a way could have made things harder for him later. Maybe it was Sully putting it in Sam's head that it was a good idea that influenced Sam to run away later in his life, but Sam at 9 wasn't ready to hear that advice, and his running away later didn't amount to anything in the end except making everyone worry.

Sully did try to help Sam - that was the tragedy - but unless I'm remembering wrongly, it was in the dialogue that Sam turned out to be the hero he was, because Sully hadn't succeeded. Sully said that at the time he thought he should have gotten Sam away from the hunting life, but he also said that he had been wrong about that, and that Sam did fulfill his destiny to help stop the apocalypse.

For me that's not saying that Sully saved Sam, but that Sully tried, like Dean did, and it wasn't in the cards for either of them, because sometimes people can't be saved, from themselves, from their fate, from life. Sully made Sam feel better for a little while - that was all. At the time, it was a big thing to Sam, but in the end, it turned out to be a small incident... one that Sam had forgotten almost all about. Unlike Dean who was there and who Sam knew was there for him.

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

Dean feels guilty sure, but that doesn't mean he's an unreliable narrator.

For me it does. Dean says he feels guilty for things when we see that they weren't his fault, but were actually beyond his control. His words contradict what we see and know. For me that is what an unreliable narrator is.

Just because Dean feels guilty about something and says it was his fault doesn't mean that it was his fault or that he has any logical reason to feel guilty beyond his psyche being screwed up. The viewer can't always trust Dean's guilt as earned or not, because it's going to be there whether he should feel guilty or not. Dean told us just that, so I had no reason to disbelieve him.

catrox14 · April 28, 2019

4 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

For me, not every story has to be about Dean or be somehow related back to Dean. Sometimes the story can be about someone else.

You might not have enjoyed the time spent with Sully and the other Zanna or Sully and young Sam, but I did.

hat iI didn't say every story has to be about Dean. I don't hate the ep becuase it's about Sam. I hate it because it was just....not good. But that episode did put Dean on the defense from the jump by putting him at odds with Sully. So he wasn't the focus he wasn't unimportant either.

He was being compared to Sully throughout.

Sully saved Sam from loneliness. He saved Sam from being alone. That's what I mean by saving Sam.

Edited April 28, 2019 by catrox14

DeeDee79 · April 28, 2019

7 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

hat iI didn't say every story has to be about Dean. I don't hate the ep becuase it's about Sam. I hate it because it was just....not good. But that episode did put Dean on the defense from the jump by putting him at odds with Sully. So he wasn't the focus he wasn't unimportant either.

He was being compared to Sully throughout.

Sully saved Sam from loneliness. He saved Sam from being alone. That's what I mean by saving Sam.

I agree. I don't remember seeing any posters stating that they disliked the episode because it was about Sam. I didn't like it but it certainly wasn't because it wasn't all about Dean; I would have to hate a good majority of the show if I used that as a reason. IMO all of the posts against the episode that I've read have been about Dean's portrayal and the overall message regarding Dean's attentiveness vs Sully's.

AwesomO4000 · April 28, 2019

2 hours ago, catrox14 said:

He gives Dean layers that I don't think Jared does with Sam now for a few years. And I'm not bashing Jared's skills. I think he's playing it as it is written for the most part. JMO

That could be true, but sometimes there isn't much to be done with what you're given. Like the latest episode. How would Jared conceivably have been able to make shooting Chuck look like anything but stupid or reckless? Or make joining the BMoL look anything but stupid or reckless? Or make yelling at the demons about not having a new leader look anything but over the top and ridiculous?

Sometimes, in my opinion, there's not going to be a way to rise above the writing, and you'll just look weird for trying.

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

Sully saved Sam from loneliness. He saved Sam from being alone. That's what I mean by saving Sam.

As I said, though, it was just for a short time. It was what Sam needed / wanted for that moment, but in the end what Sam really wanted and needed was to be with his family. That's what Sam chose, and he told Sully to go away, he didn't need him any more.

That was the tragedy and the irony. Sully couldn't save Sam, because in the end Sam - and fate - chose Sam's path. They could try - just as Dean could try to save Sam or kill him - but in the end what was going to happen was going to happen despite all of their efforts.

Trying and failing doesn't always mean the failure is your fault. Sometimes it's just not in the cards that things go that way.

That for me is what the episode was saying. These awesome people and beings tried to help Sam and save him from the bad, but in the end, Sam and his fate chose the hard road, because sometimes that's just the way it is. "Afterschool Special" was similar. The teacher that tried to encourage Sam was a good man, and he was genuinely trying to help, but that wasn't in the cards. That wasn't his fault, just as it wasn't Sully's or Dean's.

1 hour ago, DeeDee79 said:

IMO all of the posts against the episode that I've read have been about Dean's portrayal and the overall message regarding Dean's attentiveness vs Sully's.

Which is about Dean.

And I don't even entirely understand that criticism myself. In my opinion, Dean was shown as being as attentive to Sam as he could be. He was on a hunt... potentially life and death stuff and couldn't be paying attention to Sam 24/7. He was appreciative that Sully had filled in the gap when he couldn't do an impossible thing. So what? That's normal. That's human. No one, in my opinion, can be there for someone 24/7 nor should anyone be expected to be. And I never got the impression that that was what the story was trying to say.

It's not like Sully was shown to swoop in and save Sam from his life or that Dean had never been shown to leave Sam alone before - that was covered in "Plucky Pennywhistle's..." Dean's human, not a saint. I'm not going to fault him for actually being human nor fault a writer for showing him as such sometimes. The writers show Sam as human and making mistakes often enough and sometimes not being there for Dean. I'm not going to hate on all of those episodes just because they aren't showing Sam as perfect.

Just my opinion.

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

I don't hate the ep becuase it's about Sam. I hate it because it was just....not good.

We disagree here, because I thought it was a great episode, and I got a lot out of it, including the themes that I mentioned above. For me, the characters were inventive, flawed and interesting. No one was perfect, and no one could change what was going to happen with Sam no matter how hard they tried. That doesn't mean their efforts weren't appreciated or didn't mean anything, because sometimes that's just the way life goes... and finding the humor - as this episode had, in my opinion - and the small kindnesses in the face of that hard truth is sometimes enough to make it livable and all worth it.

Two people - Dean and Sully - both helped Sam and did what they could for him. Even though they didn't succeed in saving him from what happened, they saved him from going through it alone and without someone to care about him. And they each appreciated what the other had done. And Sam appreciated them both.

That was contrasted with Reese who hadn't had anyone, because Sully had run away and she didn't have a Dean-like figure to support her afterward, only people who thought she was crazy and didn't believe her. She had no one apparently and "never needed anyone more." And unlike Sam, she was completely messed up without that support. For me Sully's "thank you" to Dean meant a lot, because it wasn't only Sully acknowledging that Dean "wasn't a germ," but Sully acknowledging that Dean had been there for Sam again afterwards... after Sully left. And for Sam - vs Reese - that made all the difference.

Edited April 28, 2019 by AwesomO4000

tessathereaper · April 28, 2019

42 minutes ago, SweetTooth said:

Television is about showing, not telling.

So I refuse to believe that actually showing Dean had no choice but to sometimes not be there, and the fifty billion times they showed Dean literally raising Sam. And the 100 billion times they out and out stated, including just a few episodes ago, Sam and his dad acknowledging that Dean literally raised him, that one line, just one line, uttered by Dean, who feels guilty for literally breathing, would be sending a message that yeah, it was totally Dean's fault.

If the episode literally showed he had no choice, SHOWED It, how could the viewer then disregard everything they've seen and heard up until that point, take one line completely out of context, and say, "Oh, they're totally saying Dean wasn't there for Sam."

And again, not only have they stated, repeatedly, it was not Dean's fault, and John has apologized numerous times for being THE crappiest dad ever, the viewer over and over, saw John dragging his children to godforsaken places, abandoning them, and heading off to get himself killed.

They didn't have to say it outright, but they have.

There's absolutely no way, in an episode that literally SHOWED John dragging him away and that Dean had no choice, and Speight, who didn't write the episode but DIRECTED IT, showed Dean being dragged away against his will, it would seem nonsensical for the guy who depicted Dean having no choice to say he interpreted the words to mean Dean chose not to be there.

One line. Out of context. Uttered by Dean, who feels guilty for breathing. Ignoring the episode as a whole and just concentrating on one line, would drive me bananas.

I can't concentrate on one line, and one line only, in a series that has been on for fourteen seasons, Sam has uttered some stuff due to his feelings of guilt. And as @AwesomO4000 has stated, others have said some stuff to him that would eat away at anyone, I've never thought that they were trying to depict Sam in just one way, because, again, I have fourteen seasons to go by.

If the writers were has horrible to Dean as people say, and making him out to be the bad guy, the hated guy, then why is it that a majority of people have Dean as their favorite brother? Yes, sure, Jensen kills it. He's amazing in the role and can break your heart. But that still wouldn't be able to combat fourteen seasons of him just being a monster.

So, yes, I choose to see the fourteen seasons as a whole. Of the constant depiction of John as worst father of every year, and Dean as the best brother of all time and loving and taking care of Sammy, rather than one little line in an episode where they actually showed him having no choice.

If that was the case, we'd be all about Silent movies and tv shows, like back in the 1920's. No we have dialogue, and lots of it, to TELL US stuff.

So no IMO it's not about showing, not telling, it's about TELLING US what we are seeing and most people are Othello's to the screenwriters/director's Iago's, which is exactly what TPTB are counting on - they can be seeing one thing, but if Iago is telling them with WORDS, they are seeing something else, they believe the words, the words are what make the impression far more than what they are seeing. Othello got his "ocular proof" and interpreted it exactly how Iago told him, which was exactly NOT what it was in reality. But the story made a point of showing Iago was lying and Othello was believing the wrongs things. The story TOLD them Dean was a bad brother who wasn't there for Sam like he should have been and that's exactly what most of them take from it.

Supernatural doesn't do that. They tell and then do almost nothing to say "no that's not what really happened" most of the time, especially after first few seasons.

(Now mind you I am not saying that there aren't very well made films, etc where the show and tell are not meant to be different things for dramatic purposes but Supernatural isn't one of them, this is a show that for far too long has been written by barely interested writers who usually can't even be bothered to watch older seasons and who can't even remember what they themselves wrote in previous episodes so contradict themselves, who work almost exclusively in broad strokes and near caricatures and who wouldn't know subtlety if it very un-subtly smacked them in the face)

9 hours ago, SweetTooth said:

And I'm sorry, but I took "Dean had to learn he wasn't always there for Sam" to mean that he couldn't always be there for Sam and had to rely on someone else, as the rest of the line implies.

But that isn't what he says. "Dean had to learn he wasn't always there for Sam" is entirely different than "Dean had to learn he COULDN'T always be there for Sam". The words don't mean that. And even so you go right on to say Dean didn't learn that anyway, because that isn't what Dean said, because Dean is an unreliable narrator and thus meaning didn't get what the lesson was supposed to be.

And yet according to the director, "Dean had to learn he wasn't(not couldn't be, but wasn't) always there for Sam" was exactly what he was supposed to learn and going by Dean's dialogue, that is exactly what he did learn.

So there was no unreliable narrator, he saw and learned exactly what he was meant and Dean interpreted it exactly as the script and director is saying it was supposed to be interpreted.

Now as for my co-workers no I would not take that small sample as any kind of over all judgment. We are mostly from a similar background who work in a similar environment, so we may just have similar feelings about other things as well. Apparently we aren't supposed to take dozens and dozens of people online as some sort of guide to how people feel about the show and characters, even though they are likely to be far more diverse in background than 4 women in a relatively small office, so not sure why I should feel like these 3 other women are any more telling about the reality of how most people see the show than dozens of others

gonzosgirrl · April 28, 2019

14 minutes ago, tessathereaper said:

But that isn't what he says. "Dean had to learn he wasn't always there for Sam" is entirely different than "Dean had to learn he COULDN'T always be there for Sam". The words don't mean that.

The crux of the matter, right there.

AwesomO4000 · May 1, 2019

On 4/28/2019 at 4:49 PM, tessathereaper said:

So no IMO it's not about showing, not telling, it's about TELLING US what we are seeing and most people are Othello's to the screenwriters/director's Iago's, which is exactly what TPTB are counting on - they can be seeing one thing, but if Iago is telling them with WORDS, they are seeing something else, they believe the words, the words are what make the impression far more than what they are seeing. Othello got his "ocular proof" and interpreted it exactly how Iago told him, which was exactly NOT what it was in reality. But the story made a point of showing Iago was lying and Othello was believing the wrongs things. The story TOLD them Dean was a bad brother who wasn't there for Sam like he should have been and that's exactly what most of them take from it.

Honest question: If the writers supposedly want us to believe something - in this case according to some, that Dean was supposed to somehow always be there for Sam (which in my opinion is already a ridiculous thing) and it was his fault because he wasn't - why not just show us that thing and only that thing rather than show us one thing (in this case Dean checking in with Sam often and getting John to let Sam come) and "say" something else? What supposedly is the advantage of showing one thing and telling another?

If they wanted us to think that Dean just wasn't there for Sam, then why not just show that? Show Sam trying to call Dean on a pre-arranged call time and Dean not answering. Show Dean calling Sam, but then abruptly hanging up after a perfunctory wellness check, because he was busy. Have Sam decide on his own that he's going to go join his family, not have Dean trying his best to get John to let Sam come. ...And then voila, there you go: we see that Dean wasn't there for Sam. In my opinion, it's not that difficult to show what you want to get across. Unless they're trying to show - as with the Othello example - someone being convinced of something that's not true, then why wouldn't they just show something and then tell us what they showed?

For me, I'm not Othello. As with the CNN commercial - the writers can tell me banana all they want, but if they show me an apple... I'm going to see an apple, so all of their "banana" declarations are just going to be a waste of time. So why even risk me not getting the message they wanted by showing me an apple in the first place instead of the banana they supposedly want me to see? If they want me to see a banana... show me a banana. Simple.

If the apple is already there, then okay, I get it. Trying to say it's a banana has a manipulative purpose. But they created the apple they are showing us. They control how it's made and what it looks like. So why then call it a banana?

For me, that makes no sense.

Quote

And yet according to the director, "Dean had to learn he wasn't(not couldn't be, but wasn't) always there for Sam" was exactly what he was supposed to learn...

The director can say anything he wants, but if the writer writes evidence of the opposite, and that is what is shown, then it's the writer - and what I see - that I'm going to believe. It's likely that most viewers don't even see director interviews, so they can only be influenced by what they see, and the dialogue.

Which brings me to...

Quote

...and going by Dean's dialogue, that is exactly what he did learn. So there was no unreliable narrator, he saw and learned exactly what he was meant and Dean interpreted it exactly as the script and director is saying it was supposed to be interpreted.

Since most viewers aren't going to see the director's interview, they can only go by what they see - which was Dean checking in on Sam a lot and Dean trying to convince and succeeding in convincing John to let Sam join them - and by what Dean says.

However, Dean has already told us that he feels guilty for everything. The viewers have heard Dean saying (paraphrase) "the Lindbergh kidnapping, that's on me." Obviously that's not true. Viewers saw Dean blaming himself for Sam's death in season 2. We again knew that was not his fault. There is plenty of evidence that Dean is not a reliable narrator on this subject. Just because Dean "learns" something is his fault and says something is his fault and believes something is his fault, that is not evidence that it is his fault. There are too many examples showing us otherwise, as I'm assuming that even though Dean says the Lindbergh kidnapping is his fault and Sam's death was "on him" we aren't supposed to actually believe him.

That was the point I was making. And without the director's words, I never would have even guessed that I was supposed to see Sam's situation as Dean's fault or be seeing Dean as purposely not being there for Sam.*** For me, the evidence for it wasn't there. I could see that Dean likely blamed himself, but that's not anything new, and Dean isn't reliable in terms of what actually is his fault and what isn't. The evidence for that had been all over the show up until that point, so I don't generally believe what Dean says on that subject (not that Dean doesn't believe it. I'm sure that he does. But I don't believe that he actually should believe it, because chances are, he shouldn't and it isn't his fault at all.)

*** Just as while I was viewing the first half of season 8, I never would have guessed that I was supposed to be seeing Sam making the "mature" decision. I don't care what Carver said concerning that in his interviews, because none of what he said he was supposedly showing made it onscreen in my opinion, not even in his own episodes. So his interview opinions didn't make me go "ohhhh, now I see. What I thought I was seeing was entirely wrong. What actually happened was..." His interviews made me think "Was he high? I know what I saw, and it certainly wasn't that."

Similarly these interviews didn't make me think "oh, so they were trying to blame this on Dean and/or say Dean didn't take care of Sam. Now I see." They made me think "That's not what the writing said to me. I don't know where Speight got that from. Was he high?"

For me what's actually onscreen is what is actually show canon. What the writers, directors, producers, or whoever say behind the scenes is all just a bunch of "blah blah blah" to me, especially if I don't see the evidence of it onscreen. Obviously miles vary here.

Mulva · May 2, 2019

Didn't Dean ditch Sam at Plucky Pennywhistles when ever he could?

Myrelle · May 3, 2019

9 hours ago, Mulva said:

Didn't Dean ditch Sam at Plucky Pennywhistles when ever he could?

Probably-because some of these writers have just never been able to resist sometimes and somehow making PoorSam's lonely and pitiful childhood MeanDean's fault, too-even though MeanDean was also just a child during PoorSam's childhood-and making sure that Dean apologized for not being good enough or there or whatever for PoorSam in those episodes-which he wound up doing in that episode, too, IIRC.

DeeDee79 · May 3, 2019

5 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

Probably-because some of these writers have just never been able to resist sometimes and somehow making PoorSam's lonely and pitiful childhood MeanDean's fault, too-even though MeanDean was also just a child during PoorSam's childhood-and making sure that Dean apologized for not being good enough or there or whatever for PoorSam in those episodes-which he wound up doing in that episode, too, IIRC.

Exactly! It's funny how it's always (conveniently ) forgotten that Dean was a child along with Sam. He's only 4 years older and he had no one doting on him the way that he doted on Sam. Being ditched inside of a knock off Chuck Cheese establishment is paradise compared to being left in charge of your kid brother in a motel when you're only 9 to fight off a freaking shtriga, Just one example but there are plenty more.

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Aeryn13

BabySpinach

BabySpinach

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment