Wayward Son March 12, 2018 Share March 12, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, catrox14 said: I didn't realize he was going to be the showrunner. That hurts me even more! I could be wrong! I just assumed that was the case because he was the only writer/executive producer mentioned by name in that article. The other two were just executive producers. I took it as Yockey would be the day to day head writer/show runner (as Kripke was for SN season one) and the other two would be involved with background stuff. Edited March 12, 2018 by Wayward Son Link to comment
gonzosgirrl March 12, 2018 Share March 12, 2018 8 minutes ago, catrox14 said: I didn't realize he was going to be the showrunner. That hurts me even more! Seriously, could they not take Dabb and let Yockey be SPN showrunner. Heck, they could throw Perez in and sweeten the pot. :) 6 Link to comment
catrox14 March 12, 2018 Share March 12, 2018 I'm seriously bummed about it. He's written the best episodes of SPN in the past 3 seasons IMO 3 Link to comment
catrox14 March 15, 2018 Share March 15, 2018 Article on Stuck in the Middle with Davy Perez https://www.hypable.com/supernatural-davy-perez-tarantino-interview/ Link to comment
ahrtee March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 You know, I've been reading all the bitterness here and in the bitter spoilers thread aimed at Dean for all the things he's done wrong over the years: selling his soul and thereby driving Sam into Ruby's clutches and BTW breaking the first seal; coercing Sam into *not* closing the gates of hell; allowing Sam to be possessed by an angel; taking away Sam's right to choose whether to live or die; taking on the MoC; killing baby Styne; becoming a demon; killing death and *not* killing Amara; and generally disregarding the rest of the world in order to save Sam, and I've decided that yes, all that is Dean's fault, and all because of one "moronic" decision--not letting Sam stay dead in season 2. All the horrible things that happened over the next 11 years all came about because of that one stupid move: because Dean chose to make a decision to bring Sam back from the dead (of course, it had to be unilateral, because at that point in the show he had no way to actually *ask* Sam if he wanted to stay dead or not.) :) Hell, even Sam's future questionable decisions would never have happened if he'd stayed dead, so he would have no need for absolution, and no need to be put in situations where he would be "wrong" all the time. Dean would have no reason to make those colossally stupid decisions just to save his brother. Cas wouldn't be in the show at all--he'd still be in heaven following orders blindly, since Dean wouldn't have gone to hell and so there would be no need for them to even meet. No Lucifer or Michael. No alliances with vampires, witches or Crowley. No continual world-threatening crises--at least, not Winchester-caused ones. Whatever happened with heaven and hell would have nothing to do with them. No more BvJ. No more blame or finger-pointing. No more bitterness about who's getting more love from the writers, directors or showrunners. Just Dean, hunting monsters, maybe helped by Bobby and a few other hunters. Those who dislike Dean could find another show with characters more to their liking and wouldn't need to point out all Dean's flaws. It wouldn't be our SPN, but it would certainly make this site more pleasant to read. //sarcasm off// 5 Link to comment
gonzosgirrl March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 (edited) On 2018-03-09 at 11:40 PM, ahrtee said: Everyone I can think of has said that Sam is the "smart one" (which also implies that Dean is the "stupid one.") Singer himself said it again last night at the Paleyfest panel. Granted, he was using the comment to (jokingly) insult Jared, but the fact remains, he referred to Sam as the 'smart one'. No matter how you slice it, there is no need to define a 'smart one' unless you're differentiating him from the 'not smart one'. Sam is smart is not the same thing as Sam is the smart one. It's just not. Edited March 22, 2018 by gonzosgirrl 7 Link to comment
Wayward Son March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 10 minutes ago, ahrtee said: You know, I've been reading all the bitterness here and in the bitter spoilers thread aimed at Dean for all the things he's done wrong over the years: selling his soul and thereby driving Sam into Ruby's clutches and BTW breaking the first seal; coercing Sam into *not* closing the gates of hell; allowing Sam to be possessed by an angel; taking away Sam's right to choose whether to live or die; taking on the MoC; killing baby Styne; becoming a demon; killing death and *not* killing Amara; and generally disregarding the rest of the world in order to save Sam, and I've decided that yes, all that is Dean's fault, and all because of one "moronic" decision--not letting Sam stay dead in season 2. All the horrible things that happened over the next 11 years all came about because of that one stupid move: because Dean chose to make a decision to bring Sam back from the dead (of course, it had to be unilateral, because at that point in the show he had no way to actually *ask* Sam if he wanted to stay dead or not.) :) Hell, even Sam's future questionable decisions would never have happened if he'd stayed dead, so he would have no need for absolution, and no need to be put in situations where he would be "wrong" all the time. Dean would have no reason to make those colossally stupid decisions just to save his brother. Cas wouldn't be in the show at all--he'd still be in heaven following orders blindly, since Dean wouldn't have gone to hell and so there would be no need for them to even meet. No Lucifer or Michael. No alliances with vampires, witches or Crowley. No continual world-threatening crises--at least, not Winchester-caused ones. Whatever happened with heaven and hell would have nothing to do with them. No more BvJ. No more blame or finger-pointing. No more bitterness about who's getting more love from the writers, directors or showrunners. Just Dean, hunting monsters, maybe helped by Bobby and a few other hunters. Those who dislike Dean could find another show with characters more to their liking and wouldn't need to point out all Dean's flaws. It wouldn't be our SPN, but it would certainly make this site more pleasant to read. //sarcasm off// Or better yet have Sam not save Dean during Faith. Then he wouldn’t be distracted by the arrival of Dean and Bobby in AHBL I and he might avoid getting stabbed by jake and dying in the first place. Boom no apocalypse. Link to comment
catrox14 March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 14 minutes ago, Wayward Son said: Or better yet have Sam not save Dean during Faith. Then he wouldn’t be distracted by the arrival of Dean and Bobby in AHBL I and he might avoid getting stabbed by jake and dying in the first place. Boom no apocalypse. With Azazel dead, John and Dean dead, Sam has no reason to keep hunting, and he never wanted to hunt in the first place, so he'd just go back to school. THE END. 2 Link to comment
gonzosgirrl March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 33 minutes ago, Wayward Son said: Or better yet have Sam not save Dean during Faith. Then he wouldn’t be distracted by the arrival of Dean and Bobby in AHBL I and he might avoid getting stabbed by jake and dying in the first place. Boom no apocalypse. Without Dean as his conscience, Azazel would have had an open playing field to go after 'The Boy King' and an embittered Sam (who couldn't save his brother) would've succumbed. Boom, world-ending apocalypse. 5 Link to comment
Myrelle March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said: Singer himself said it again last night at the Paleyfest panel. Granted, he was using the comment to (jokingly) insult Jared, but the fact remains, he referred to Sam as the 'smart one'. No matter how you slice it, there is no need to define a 'smart one' unless you're differentiating him from the 'not smart one'. Sam is smart is not the same thing as Sam is the smart one. It's just not. Yeah, I just saw this. And Singer is an executive producer/showrunner on the show-and now a writer, too. So according to this post that I just read in another thread, Quote Yes, it is an opinion. In the absence of the showrunners specifically and unambiguously saying "We see Dean as X," it is the definition of an opinion. Can this now be thought of as a writing proclivity where it concerns Sam? And if so, where does that leave Dean, then, where it concerns the showrunners' and producers' and the writers' thoughts on Dean? As The Less Smart One, maybe? Or maybe the One Who's Not as Smart as the Smart One? Or maybe even the Dumb One, since there can only be a singular Smart "One". Edited March 22, 2018 by Myrelle 3 Link to comment
Myrelle March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 Quote So it doesn't sound to me like a role reversal is what is wanted here. Just my opinion. A role reversal of the culmination of the five year sl that Sam/JP was gifted with in S5 is what I'm hoping for, to be perfectly honest and more clear-because how this bunch of writers would get there will likely be nonsensical anyway, as nonsensical is the best descriptor that I can come up with for their overall storytelling, in any case. The set-up doesn't matter to them, so why should it matter to me. What I really find to be sad is that, at this point in the series, in order for the writing to be better for both actor and character, I have to hope that they will write Dean as an altogether different character. 2 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 24 minutes ago, Myrelle said: Can this now officially be thought of as a writing proclivity where it concerns Sam. And if so, where does that leave Dean, then where it concerns the showrunners and producers and the writers of the show? The Less Smart One, maybe? Or maybe the One Who's Not as Smart as the Smart One? Or maybe even the Dumb One, since there can only be a singular Smart "One". This seems to be implying that it's a given that the label of "Smart one" means the writers would somehow like that character more or think being the "smart one" somehow translates somehow into "better." I don't necessarily think that's the case. As I've said before, often on this show - especially in academic settings - the "smart one" is not actually the smart one. Or they are a jerk, or too arrogant, and it leads to their downfall despite their knowledge. On this show, I don't think "the smart one" really means much of anything. In general on this show in my opinion, it's usually been shown that experience, heart, and ingenuity are things that matter just as much (if not more) and are the things that save the day. I don't buy into the notion that for the writers "smart" is somehow better... it's just different. And in the monster hunting world - which is what this show is about - being "the smart one" doesn't really mean all that much, in my opinion. A person can be "smart" and still make really stupid decisions... which then somewhat invalidates or at least lessens the "smart" part. An exaggerated example, but still appropriate: someone can be intellectually brilliant, but if they step out in front of a bus and are killed, them being smart didn't really mean all that much in the end. So as for where that leaves Dean? It leaves Dean as the one who has the most experience, has good intuition, and has a lot of ingenuity... which the show has shown often enough are the things that get it done. Sam may be "the smart one," but that doesn't exclude him from making really stupid decisions or mean that he's more likely to get the job done than Dean. Brought over from the Spoiler Bitterness thread: 7 hours ago, catrox14 said: The thing is that if AU Michael is a bigger threat to SPN Verse than Dean is actually making the smart play by saying yes to our Michael to fight him. And I'm sure there will be consequences galore. There always are. Dean took on the Mark of Cain and was killed by Metatron for his troubles. So hes' really not consequence free. I differ here in how I look at things, because while this was a consequence, it was more of a personal consequence. For me that isn't the same thing as a consequence that starts an apocalypse and gets thousands to hundreds of thousands of people killed which is usually what happens to Sam and Castiel when they make similar kinds of decisions. Dean was killed by Metatron, but it was also somewhat of a heroic sacrifice, whether intended or not. By fighting with Metatron, Dean delayed him enough that Castiel was able to destroy his source of power and stop him from trying to wipe out humanity. So while a bad consequence for Dean, there were also good consequences for the world as a whole. I understand that others don't look at it this way, but for me, the big picture - i.e. does what a character do have a positive or negative effect on saving the world - is an important consideration in this kind of show. 10 hours ago, trxr4kids said: You mean like Sam saying yes to Lucifer should have gone badly if not for the sun and the green army man? Sorry I'll take the dead horse with me on my way out. I'm going to be picky here and wonder how a huge earthquake in Boston, Portland, Hong Kong, Berlin etc. with an estimated six figure death toll - which is what happened as soon as Sam said "yes" and so is therefore presumably a direct result of Sam saying "yes" - is not things "[going] badly." Yes, Sam eventually fell into the hole and saved the world, but first there were consequences - huge consequences where things went very badly - for Sam making that decision. I'm not sure how much more "going badly" you needed things to get. 3 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 44 minutes ago, Myrelle said: A role reversal of the culmination of the five year sl that Sam/JP was gifted with in S5 is what I'm hoping for, to be perfectly honest and more clear-because how this bunch of writers would get there will likely be nonsensical anyway, as nonsensical is the best descriptor that I can come up with for their overall storytelling, in any case. The set-up doesn't matter to them, so why should it matter to me. If it doesn't matter how we get there, then it shouldn't matter that Sam's season 5 save was a culmination of a five year storyline (putting aside that I disagree with that). But I do care how the writers get there, and for me there's a difference in a storyline where a character needs redemption for huge mistakes made along the way and one where he/she gets to save the world by fixing the mistakes of other characters. For me, the first one needs to be a little bigger because the character has something to make up for. In the second one, the character isn't starting in a hole. So this is why - for me - I find Sam and Dean fairly equal in terms of world-saving result. Sam's was a little flashier, but he had potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths to make up for, while Dean either didn't have any (Azazel, Dick Roman, and Amara) or maybe one or two, if you want to count Kevin and baby Stein (Metatron) in the world-saving that he contributed to. So basically, I'm saying that in the world-saving department, I really don't think Dean has somehow been ignored by the writers and think he's at least on par with Sam. Dean's had multiple world saving assists and one mostly on his own save without major life-costing mistakes starting him out in a hole. 3 Link to comment
SueB March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 7 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said: If it doesn't matter how we get there, then it shouldn't matter that Sam's season 5 save was a culmination of a five year storyline (putting aside that I disagree with that). But I do care how the writers get there, and for me there's a difference in a storyline where a character needs redemption for huge mistakes made along the way and one where he/she gets to save the world by fixing the mistakes of other characters. For me, the first one needs to be a little bigger because the character has something to make up for. In the second one, the character isn't starting in a hole. So this is why - for me - I find Sam and Dean fairly equal in terms of world-saving result. Sam's was a little flashier, but he had potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths to make up for, while Dean either didn't have any (Azazel, Dick Roman, and Amara) or maybe one or two, if you want to count Kevin and baby Stein (Metatron) in the world-saving that he contributed to. So basically, I'm saying that in the world-saving department, I really don't think Dean has somehow been ignored by the writers and think he's at least on par with Sam. Dean's had multiple world saving assists and one mostly on his own save without major life-costing mistakes starting him out in a hole. ITA (bolded part). As for "smart one" comment, I think that's the simple read on the characters and the writers/producers know how smart Dean is. I'd say rather than claim one is "smarter than the other", the show is very good about making it clear that what makes the Winchesters so effective is the teaming up of the two. There's no simple "brains and brawn" team up. These are complex characters with strengths and weaknesses who have each other's back. If Dean needs Sam to go into BadAss mode, Sam will do so. If Sam needs Dean to figure out some sophisticated issue, Dean will do it. Said differently, both are capable, but the two combine to bring exactly what needs to be brought at the moment to pull out a win. Now it wouldn't be an interesting story if they ALWAYS won. They wouldn't be interesting characters if they didn't have weaknesses and personal failures. This show is all about overcoming those challenges via Team Free Will. Oh, and on the current topic of mytharcs... I think both have had awesome mytharcs. Yes, the show started with Sam having the psychic mytharc and Dean being the everyman problem solver. But Dean's Mark of Cain arc went S9-S11 and still reverberates. And then there's running themes .. Dean's relationship with Chuck, Sam's relationship with Lucifer.... I could write a 20,000 word essay on culpability and credit equivalancy but ultimately it comes down to the viewer's POV. What is the worse crime, what is the more valuable victory. That's a subjective value statement. Universal agreement on those value judgement is unobtanium IMO. But I do have a bitterness statement: Why does Jack get all the nudity?!?! Where was the beefcake for the boys? Why are they constantly punishing us with 3 layers? 4 Link to comment
gonzosgirrl March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes ago, SueB said: As for "smart one" comment, I think that's the simple read on the characters and the writers/producers know how smart Dean is. I'd say rather than claim one is "smarter than the other", the show is very good about making it clear that what makes the Winchesters so effective is the teaming up of the two. Then where are the Singer/producer comments about how strong/strategic Dean is, when they are busy calling Sam the 'smart one'. Have there been any? Because honestly, all I recall is Singer saying Dean was a little dim, possibly brain damaged*. There is no quid pro quo, and for me at least, that's why all the 'smart Sam' comments rankle. And I am not talking about what we are supposed to 'see' on the show, I'm talking about public commentary from the producers of the show. *paraphrased, but that was the take away. Edited March 22, 2018 by gonzosgirrl 7 Link to comment
companionenvy March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 I agree that "the smart one" comment bugs, although my guess is what they meant by it is "Sam is book smart" rather than "Dean's a moron," which he clearly isn't. As far as what's on screen, I do think the show, of late, has been trying to get too much mileage out of "doofus Dean" moments that don't ring true, but I agree with Sue that, taking the show as a whole, I don't think what is on screen supports the idea either than Dean is objectively stupid or that the show treats him as such. You simply don't get an episode like, say, Advanced Thanatology, to name the most recent one that comes to mind, from a writing team that believes that Sam is the star of the show and Dean is the comic sidekick. So while I suffer through moments like Dean stumbling over an Italian name, when the chips are down, this is a show that treats Dean as someone who is taken seriously by awesome cosmic powers - indeed, I'd argue that both incarnations of Death, God, and Amara seem to take Dean much more seriously than they do Sam, or at least have a more significant relationship with him. 3 Link to comment
Myrelle March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said: Then where are the Singer/producer comments about how strong/strategic Dean is, when they are busy calling Sam the 'smart one' This is my beef also. The writers and showrunners down through the history of the show have praised the Sam character out the wazoo. He's the Smart One or the Empathetic One. His soul is so Incredibly Beautiful. Sam is "wonderful", according to Sam Smith. The best that I can ever remember hearing about Dean from the writers et.al. is that he's "complicated" or "reckless". Have they ever even called him "brave" in an interview? The absolute best thing that I can ever remember any of the showrunners saying about him came from Carver in a TV Guide interview years ago in which he called Dean an Everyman Hero-which I'll admit was nice, but as far as compliments go-well, I'm sure it was enough for some and even Jensen, just not for me-not after hearing all the gushing over Sam from the writers down through the years. Usually it's like pulling teeth to even get them to talk about the character, but maybe that's for the best when they say things like he's dim bulb or the Brawn part of the Brains and the Brawn or a natural born killer. So yeah, I DO think there's less love and respect for the Dean character in the writers'/showrunners' room. And it matters because what they think of the characters is being reflected in the writing now more than ever before, IMO. The present set of writers/showrunners DO see and think of Dean as "less" than Sam in so many more ways than any of them ever have before, IMO. I'm actually wondering if even Jensen got sick of it and felt that he had to put his foot down over this yet again-and that's why we're finally getting something better for him out of this bunch. I hope so because he seems to be the only whose opinion they value on the character and it's not too hard to figure out why that is-if he's not happy, then the gravy train is in danger of stopping for all of them. Edited March 22, 2018 by Myrelle 4 Link to comment
catrox14 March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 53 minutes ago, SueB said: But Dean's Mark of Cain arc went S9-S11 and still reverberates. I'm not seeing this reverberation really. Just in A Most Holy Man, the blood wasn't from Dean, who's blood mattered in Scorpion and the Frog, who is the firewall and was/is the Righteous Man. The comments from the showrunners about Dean that rankle. Bob Singer and even Dabb seems to take joy in crapping on Dean in public commentary. He never says anything positive about him and mostly mocks Dean. His wife and her writing partner speak pretty shitty of Dean in commentaries. They write him as a fucking caricature more often than not. The writers who do give Dean layers and keep him three dimensional seem to only be able to do that for a few episodes before they end up caricature writing of Dean. So if Singer has nothing nice to say about one of the two main characters, Dabb IMO gives Dean only emo stuff and then snatches it away as being bad or wrong, then who is really in charge of the character and his SL? Jensen might have more control over the characterization of Dean but he doesn't control the SL. If he did, Demon Dean and Purgatory would not have ended when they did. 5 Link to comment
catrox14 March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 47 minutes ago, companionenvy said: You simply don't get an episode like, say, Advanced Thanatology, to name the most recent one that comes to mind, from a writing team that believes that Sam is the star of the show and Dean is the comic sidekick. These moments come from new writers, like Steve Yockey, that AT, who seemed to have respect for Dean, and really all the characters, more than the showrunners...but as of Various and Sundry Villains even Yockey turned Dean into caricature mode. 2 Link to comment
catrox14 March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 49 minutes ago, companionenvy said: eath, God, and Amara seem to take Dean much more seriously than they do Sam, or at least have a more significant relationship with him. I think that's because Dean was/is the character who did not have faith or believe in "God". Dean believe in humanity and understood it. Sam already had faith in God and believed in angels. The story couldn't take Sam to faith because he had it. But taking his faith away was his trajectory in s4 IMO with demon blood. AFAIR, Sam was chosen by Azazel from the beginning. Dean wasn't chosen by Amara. Unless one thinks Chuck was moving the pieces around for Dean to take on the Mark of Cain it was happenstance, and the connection was to whoever had the Mark. Amara, wrongly, believed Dean set her free. He didn't. Rowena actually did by her spell. IMO, the writing was all over the place on Dean/Amara/Mark of Cain because that was the transition period from Carver to Dabb. So I'm not seeing this idea that the writers were giving Dean this special status. IMO the only reason Dean ever got the Mark of Cain mytharc was maybe even Robbie Thompson creating it. I don't know if he pitched it or Carver asked for it. I don't think Singer and Dabb wanted that for Dean. spoilers for s13 Spoiler I'm waiting to see whether or not Jensen's new role is Dean possession or something else to decide how much the showrunners respect Dean, the character. 3 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 9 minutes ago, Myrelle said: The writers and showrunners down through the history of the show have praised the Sam character out the wazoo. He's the Smart One or the Empathetic One. His soul is so Incredibly Beautiful. Sam is "wonderful", according to Sam Smith. For me, the proof is in the pudding so to speak. Writers can tell me all they want that they think Sam is "mature" or is the empathetic one, but unless I actually see evidence of them writing that onscreen rather than stuff that appears to contradict that, I'm going to think they are like used car salesmen trying to pull a fast one on me. Or just trying to assure me "don't worry, what you are seeing isn't what we really mean, it actually means this; you'll see." Even though I don't, and it never materializes. It could be that I'm somewhat jaded by showrunners like Joss Whedon telling me one thing but actually giving me something else in his show that I don't really pay attention to or believe what showrunners are telling me. I often find it just words trying to assure me of things just to appease me while the actions on the show are actually showing me something else which is what they really wanted to show but didn't want me to know is what they really wanted, so tried to sugar coat it. (Like "sure we have Sam doing all of these immature / selfish / misguided or outright stupid things onscreen, but that's okay, because we actually think Sam is mature / empathetic / smart, so we're not really meaning any of this stuff you're actually seeing. See?" Um, nope, I don't, and your pretty words don't appease me one bit.) 4 minutes ago, catrox14 said: So if Singer has nothing nice to say about one of the two main characters, Dabb IMO gives Dean only emo stuff and then snatches it away as being bad or wrong, then who is really in charge of the character and his SL? Jensen might have more control over the characterization of Dean but he doesn't control the SL. If he did, Demon Dean and Purgatory would not have ended when they did. But is Sam - the supposed favored character - getting any better characterization or story arcs during this time? The awful Amelia arc, the short (9 episodes) - and ultimately failing - trial arc. The Gadreel possession that ended up being more about Gadreel and redeeming him than Sam (In my opinion). Season 10 which started out promising, but generally ended up just being more Sam-lies-to-Dean-so-bad-things-happen. The BMoL storyline that had Sam joining up enthusiastically with the organization that tortured him just to show him that well, yeah, they are bad news (duh). And as for emotional arcs where those emotions are dismissed or shown as "wrong," again I give the Gadreel arc as an example. All of those emotional notes turned on their head and dismissed with "I lied." (IMO.) The emotional season 10 arc for Sam where he's shown as wrong by starting an apocalypse and Chuck / God telling us as such. Season 11 - which ironically I loved - where Sam's pretty much a non-entity arc-wise, but thankfully at least seems to be in character and not deceiving Dean or doing something (too) stupid and reckless. Basically, I'm saying that for me, being the supposed favored character isn't really translating into anything all that favorable on screen, in my opinion. I'd even say comparatively that Dean's arcs have been much more meaty and character-driven in the past 5 seasons than Sam's have been by a good margin. Opinions are obviously going to vary. 3 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 8 minutes ago, catrox14 said: AFAIR, Sam was chosen by Azazel from the beginning. Dean wasn't chosen by Amara. I disagree concerning the last part. The way that I saw it, Amara saw Dean after feeling the connection with him through the mark*** and decided that he represented Chuck's creations on earth. It helped that they - for whatever reason - couldn't hurt one another. This meant that Amara could interact with Dean without worrying that she would harm him. That part wasn't chosen, but Amara did choose to continue her connection with Dean, to be interested in him, and to listen to him. And this is where there is a bit of a difference to me. Sam was chosen by Azazel, and was his "favorite," but that wasn't because Azazel wanted any kind of input from Sam, unless it was his physical ability or one where he could corrupt Sam to his way of thinking. Azazel wanted to change Sam. He didn't care about Sam as he originally was. With Dean these higher beings actually listen to him and put weight to his input. Death, Chuck, Amara: they listen to what Dean has to say and consider it. To me, that shows that Dean's opinions and presence are important in the show. Otherwise these representations of power in the show would just dismiss Dean and pay no attention to what he has to say. Ironically, Michael is probably the strongest supernatural being who doesn't seem to consider to what Dean has to say at all and appears to just want to wear him as a meatsuit... which is one of the reasons why I dislike him as a character and want him nowhere near Dean. Michael obviously has no taste or intelligence. ; ) *** It seemed to me by what we aw and were told concerning Lucifer that maybe whoever wore the mark could be influenced by either it or even indirectly by Amara. Amara seemed to say that she saw or knew Dean beforehand. My theory is that Amara could get a sense of the person / people who wore the mark through that connection. Like looking through a keyhole. 2 Link to comment
catrox14 March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 30 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said: Basically, I'm saying that for me, being the supposed favored character isn't really translating into anything all that favorable on screen, in my opinion. I'd even say comparatively that Dean's arcs have been much more meaty and character-driven in the past 5 seasons than Sam's have been by a good margin. Opinions are obviously going to v I don't know because I wasnt thinking about Sam with my comment. I was only speaking to how i think Dean is treated. Sam being poorly handled doesn't negate Dean being poorly handled. 2 Link to comment
gonzosgirrl March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, catrox14 said: I don't know because I wasnt thinking about Sam with my comment. I was only speaking to how i think Dean is treated. Sam being poorly handled doesn't negate Dean being poorly handled. So true. So often when the treatment of either brother comes up, it is answered with a but.. but Sam! (or Dean). It's frustrating, for exactly the reason you state here. 1 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 Just now, catrox14 said: I don't know because I wasnt thinking about Sam with my comment. I was only speaking to how i think Dean is treated. Sam being poorly handled doesn't negate Dean being poorly handled. I don't disagree. My point was just that I, personally, don't really see any in show benefits for the writers seeming to imply that Sam is the smarter/ more empathetic/ whatever character nor comparative losses for Dean supposedly being implied as the less smart / less empathetic / etc. For me, unless there is proof in show, these are just pretty words the writers are saying maybe because they want me to keep watching, and I'm likely going to question their meaning or sincerity. 10 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said: So true. So often when the treatment of either brother comes up, it is answered with a but.. but Sam! (or Dean). It's frustrating, for exactly the reason you state here. I'm sorry if this annoys you. And I admit that one or two out of my many responses does fit this criteria. However, I came into this particular discussion with 2 out of 3 of my inputs answering such a question (if Sam X then what about Dean?) so if someone doesn't want such questions answered, maybe they could put something that says that this is a rhetorical question, and I won't answer it or add to the discussion, because then I will know the person asking the question isn't really looking for a discussion, but for agreement. I actually was looking for discussion when I asked mine, because I'm seeing a lot of "The writers say Sam is smarter, better, etc. so this must mean they like him better and dislike Dean." However, I personally am not seeing evidence of that within the show. I think they are both getting some crappy storylines and characterizations along with the good and I don't see so much favoritism reflected in the storylines. But if someone has input to the contrary, I'm actually interested and have been known to change my mind and admit as such, or to say that a point is a good or fair one that I'm going to have to think on and consider, or even that I've been shown to be outright wrong about something. I enjoy discussion and alternative viewpoints. It also seems weird to me that in a thread with "Bitch vs Jerk" in the title and whose purpose is to discuss which brother the writers screwed this week, that the "more" isn't implied via the "vs" part in the title, and that discussions are not going to include examples that compare and contrast the "bitch" versus the "jerk" mentioned. But maybe I'm interpreting the purpose of this thread incorrectly, in which case I again apologize. 2 Link to comment
catrox14 March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said: My point was just that I, personally, don't really see any in show benefits for the writers seeming to imply that Sam is the smarter/ more empathetic/ whatever character nor comparative losses for Dean supposedly being implied as the less smart / less empathetic / etc. For me, unless there is proof in show, these are just pretty words the writers are saying maybe because they want me to keep watching, and I'm likely going to question their meaning or sincerity. Sorry. I wasn't intending to be dismissive with my reply. Just being honest that I wasn't really considering Sam in that situation. For me, the showrunners commentaries seem to always be much more favorable towards Sam's intelligence and "moral fiber" whereas with Dean it's not even a topic. It's Dean is all about the ladies, or he's tough and rumble and murderous. I don't get much from them about how good Dean's heart is and that his loyalty to family is a good trait. So I wonder if they think of him that way at all. I think they mostly see Dean in very limited terms. I still say it's only Jensen with a few writers over the years, and especially Kim Manners in s1 and s2, who gave Dean the depth that he has. Edited March 22, 2018 by catrox14 5 Link to comment
trxr4kids March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 11 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said: For me that isn't the same thing as a consequence that starts an apocalypse and gets thousands to hundreds of thousands of people killed which is usually what happens to Sam and Castiel when they make similar kinds of decisions. IMO if Dean had not sold his sold his soul or at least had not broken in hell there would never have been an apocalypse to begin with. Dean was of course never given redemption for that instead he learned the very valuable lesson of letting Sammy go which clearly stuck (see S9). <eye roll> If he had never taken the MoC, the Darkness never would have been released. Again, I personally saw no redemption only a willingness to atone and sacrifice which I never thought was lacking in the character in the first place. 11 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said: I'm going to be picky here and wonder how a huge earthquake in Boston, Portland, Hong Kong, Berlin etc. with an estimated six figure death toll - which is what happened as soon as Sam said "yes" and so is therefore presumably a direct result of Sam saying "yes" - is not things "[going] badly. See my above point, none of that could have or would have happened if not for Dean breaking the first seal which he was never given redemption for. 29 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said: So true. So often when the treatment of either brother comes up, it is answered with a but.. but Sam! (or Dean). I think I may have started it by flogging the dead horse that is SS, *hangs head in shame*. I lie, I have no remorse what so ever, this show has been on so long, it's practically impossible not to retread tired old ground when speculating about potential SL's or character developments because we all have precedent for our opinions regardless of if we agree or not on our perceptions or interpretations of said precedent. IMO Dean's chance at redemption is snatched away frequently last minute just like the football for Charlie brown, so I guess that makes Dean Charlie and the show Lucy. No wonder I always hated those cartoons. 4 Link to comment
Myrelle March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 (edited) 40 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said: My point was just that I, personally, don't really see any in show benefits for the writers seeming to imply that Sam is the smarter/ more empathetic/ whatever character nor comparative losses for Dean supposedly being implied as the less smart / less empathetic / etc. For me, unless there is proof in show, these are just pretty words the writers are saying maybe because they want me to keep watching, and I'm likely going to question their meaning or sincerity. I'm going to just say that IMO the acting also has a lot to do with whether one can continue to like any given character on this particular show precisely because the writing is certainly not stellar overall and never really has been and it's gone steadily downhill since the episode The End in S4 to where it became an absolute joke in S11 and 12-with 12 being the worst written season of the show by far, again IMO. And what they say in interviews and such is not lying or subterfuge on their parts, IMO. It's an explanation of their intent-which is important to them so that they can let us know what their intent writing-wise was even if the acting undermined it somehow and/or in some way-which makes it rankle even more that they refuse to give Dean the love and/or respect that they give Sam in those interviews. IOW, the Sam love only rankles because they give none to Dean. If in interviews they gave the love to both characters (I'm not talking about the actors here-just strictly the characters) you'd never hear a peep out of me-not on this subject, anyway. ;-) Edited March 22, 2018 by Myrelle 3 Link to comment
trxr4kids March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 32 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said: My point was just that I, personally, don't really see any in show benefits for the writers seeming to imply that Sam is the smarter/ more empathetic/ whatever character nor comparative losses for Dean supposedly being implied as the less smart / less empathetic / etc. I don't think I'd have any issue with Sam being called the smarter one but he's called the smart one, full stop. I wouldn't have a problem with the show runners/writers saying Sam is empathetic if it wasn't in contrast to the comments about Dean being a dick, a natural born killer, etc. 9 minutes ago, Myrelle said: IOW, the Sam love only rankles because they give none to Dean. If in interviews they gave the love to both characters (I'm not talking about not the actors here-just strictly the characters) you'd never hear a peep out of me. Or what Myrelle said better than I did. 3 Link to comment
gonzosgirrl March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, trxr4kids said: I don't think I'd have any issue with Sam being called the smarter one but he's called the smart one, full stop. I wouldn't have a problem with the show runners/writers saying Sam is empathetic if it wasn't in contrast to the comments about Dean being a dick, a natural born killer, etc. Or what Myrelle said better than I did. + 1 million It's these public comments by the producers and the lines the writers give other characters to say that engender the hard feelings and competitiveness in fandom, IMO. It feels manipulative sometimes (as long as they are talking, who cares what they are talking about), but most times I don't give them that much credit. I just think they let their own feelings about the characters fly. Edited March 22, 2018 by gonzosgirrl 7 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, catrox14 said: For me, the showrunners commentaries seem to always be much more favorable towards Sam's intelligence and "moral fiber" whereas with Dean it's not even a topic. It's Dean is all about the ladies, or he's tough and rumble and murderous. I don't get much from them about how good Dean's heart is and that his loyalty to family is a good trait. So I wonder if they think of him that way at all. I think they mostly see Dean in very limited terms. I still say it's only Jensen with a few writers and especially Kim Manners in s1 and s2 who gave Dean the depth that he has. This is long, so please feel free to skip or just hit the bolded parts. I can see this. I guess for me, it's hard to take writers' favorable comments about Sam's intelligence and moral fiber seriously when they don't necessarily actually show such things consistently within the show - example season 4 - or even outright poke fun at Sam's intelligence and moral fiber in dialogue and situations in the show. Two good examples: in "The Real Ghostbusters", an episode I really like and which is partially written by Kripke, there is the funny line from Fritz questioning how Sam and Dean (though we know Dean already knew, because we saw season 4) that Ruby isn't evil, because it is obvious... and it's funny because it's true, so obviously Kripke is poking fun at Sam's lack of intelligence here. It happens again at least in "Frontierland" (written by Dabb) and "Reading is Fundamental." And the writers had Sam sleeping with a demon - in a dead body - drinking her blood, drunk on power, and actually killing an innocent woman to achieve his goal which actually turned out to be raising Lucifer... and this is on top of outright lying to Dean and treating Dean badly. More recently they have Sam teaching a teenager how to commit credit card fraud, because *shrug* (paraphrase) "we otherwise do more good than harm." How is any of that supposed to make me think the writers actually believe they think Sam has this superior "moral fiber?" I mean I do actually watch the show. As for Dean's loyalty and heart, I don't know why the writers don't comment much on it, because - for me anyway - it comes across in the writing that this is an extremely important thing in the show. Entire arcs are devoted to it. Even recently the writing generally seems to show Dean being loyal to his family and friends and especially Sam = good. If Dean saving Sam via Gadreel was supposed to be awful, then the show could have shown that by having Gadreel cause really bad, earth endangering consequences, but instead Gadreel learned from the experience and redeemed himself.*** So to me, the message wasn't Dean saving Sam = bad, because that's not what they showed me. The season 10 finale was another good example for me. If Dean killing Death and choosing Sam wasn't supposed to be a good thing, then, for me, the show could have shown that by something bad happening because of it. Even a small thing, but nope nothing... and actually Billie showing up turned out to be fortuitous, because Billy helped them to defeat Amara. Even Dean being loyal to Castiel and Benny in season 8 was shown in a good light. Dean was shown to selflessly delay his own saving to look for Castiel (while Sam abandoned Kevin, and no this contrast was not lost on me), and his loyalty to Benny was justified in that Benny was good and saved Sam. Again if this trait of Dean's isn't important then the effort the show puts into showing that it is selfless and good and useful doesn't make sense to me. So the conclusion I get from these examples is that Dean's loyalty to family and friends is an important and respected part of the show. Summary - So from what I'm seeing in the show, what the writers^^^ do say, they don't seem all that interested in backing up in the story, and what they don't say, they devote entire arcs to showing why these things are good and something to be admired. I guess this is why I'm so skeptical of what the writers are saying and don't really think their commentary on such things really means all that much. *** As I've said, a really good twist in that regard would have been if the angel that showed up to "heal" Sam had been Metatron. ^^^ Here I'm mostly referring to the writers post season 7. I don't generally have a problem with the Kripke and Gamble years. 5 minutes ago, Myrelle said: I'm going to just say that IMO the acting also has a lot to do with whether one can continue to like any given character on this particular show precisely because the writing is certainly not stellar overall and never really has been and it's gone steadily downhill since the episode The End in S4 to where it became an absolute joke in S11 and 12-with 12 being the worst written season of the show by far, again IMO. And I'm going to disagree. I actually think the writing was great for quite a bit of the show's run up until season 8. I thought several episodes in season 6 and 7 were brilliant. I also thought the writing in season 10 and 11 was really good, with some great episodes in both seasons - at least 3 episodes in season 10 and 4 in season 11 hit my top 25 episodes of all time for the show. Season 11 makes my top 5 of seasons for the show, in fact. So, I personally don't find the writing in season 11 to be an "absolute joke." Obviously your opinion varies, but I think mine is just as valid. 10 minutes ago, Myrelle said: It's an explanation of their intent-which is important to them so that they can let us know what their intent writing-wise was even if the acting undermined it somehow and/or in some way- For me acting didn't "undermine" any intent the writers showed in season 4 to have Sam go dark, drink demon blood, and have sex with a demon. Nor did acting undermine Sam abandoning Kevin - which the dialogue pointed out specifically and repeatedly as a crappy thing to do - nor give Sam any real explanation for why he did it. That was all the writing. And if they didn't want Jared to act the way he did in season 8, the directors could have changed it - or put their intent in through dialogue. They chose neither, so I am going to assume that they wanted Sam to appear immature, hypocritical, abandoning, delusional, and wrong, because that's what the writing showed me. Them saying that Sam was "mature" didn't come across at all in anything they wrote, in my opinion, and no amount of acting would have changed that. So they can tell me that was their intent all they want, but I have a hard time believing it. I'm skeptical that way and more tend to believe what I see. Just my opinion on that one. 1 hour ago, trxr4kids said: IMO if Dean had not sold his sold his soul or at least had not broken in hell there would never have been an apocalypse to begin with. I'm going to respectfully disagree. It was implied even by the early years that the angels intended to have their apocalypse and they likely would have found another way to get that first seal broken. And I think in my interpretation of the current season that the alternate dimension showed just that. Even without Dean and Sam, the angels managed to get Lucifer risen and started an apocalypse. 1 hour ago, trxr4kids said: See my above point, none of that could have or would have happened if not for Dean breaking the first seal which he was never given redemption for. In your opinion. Sam could have not said "yes" to Lucifer - in fact at that point Dean didn't want Sam to because Lucifer knew of their plan, and Dean emphatically said not to say yes - but Sam did anyway (my interpretation is that the demon blood he had to drink according to Castiel made him overconfident). So Sam's "yes" was his decision alone and the results from that - the earthquakes - in my opinion were on Sam. In my opinion, the show also holds that stance. Many references are made to Sam's choices in the matter. It was Dean's choice that lead to the first seal breaking, but it could have stopped there. Sam's choices lead to the last seal breaking and to his saying "yes." Along the way, many forces were working against them to sway those decisions, sure, but they hold some responsibility. And none of that takes away from my original point that there actually were consequences to Sam saying "yes" to Lucifer and things did "go badly" before Lucifer was finally contained. 1 Link to comment
trxr4kids March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 (edited) 35 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said: It was implied even by the early years that the angels intended to have their apocalypse and they likely would have found another way to get that first seal broken. That's distinctly possible considering Dean was made completely irrelevant in the entire SL. 35 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said: Sam's choices lead to the last seal breaking and to his saying "yes." Along the way, many forces were working against them to sway those decisions, sure, but they hold some responsibility. It's also possible that the angels could have also found a way to break the last seal or another way to free Lucifer entirely ( see the HM's rings).Emphasis mine: My point was more that Sam was redeemed for his deeds and Dean was not, primarily because he was made irrelevant not because Sam is somehow more at fault. Edited March 22, 2018 by trxr4kids added emphasis, clarity 3 Link to comment
trxr4kids March 22, 2018 Share March 22, 2018 Thinking more on it @AwesomO4000, maybe the disconnect is that you don't feel that Dean needed redemption, where as I did. I felt that Dean, himself felt that he needed redemption and I don't think he's ever recovered from it's lack. 5 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 March 23, 2018 Share March 23, 2018 4 hours ago, trxr4kids said: It's also possible that the angels could have also found a way to break the last seal or another way to free Lucifer entirely ( see the HM's rings). I agree, because apparently they did find an alternative way to free Lucifer in the Alternate Universe. However in the show's original universe that isn't what happened and in my opinion, some aspects of free will were in play - which is why I say that the brothers each hold some responsibility for their respective decisions. 4 hours ago, trxr4kids said: My point was more that Sam was redeemed for his deeds and Dean was not, primarily because he was made irrelevant not because Sam is somehow more at fault. This is long (again), but I'm trying to work my way through a sort of revelation I had here during this discussion, so I apologize for that. I guess I can see that if you feel that Dean not saying "yes" to Michael means that made him irrelevant. I don't see it that way though. For me, if the Alternate Universe can be seen as an offshoot of the real one - a real "this is what would have happened without Sam and Dean there" - then Michael with a willing, powerful host does not appear to have turned out to be a good thing. Lucifer was killed, but it didn't stop the apocalypse there as maybe Michael had implied to Dean. The war didn't end with Lucifer's death, and eventually the angels turned on humans, too. So if Dean had said "yes" to Michael - and this is just my opinion; no one else has to agree - I think things would have gone differently in a really not good way also. And I think the Alternate Universe this season is an attempt to show that yes, this was exactly the case. That Michael given his "true vessel" = really bad things happening. That Dean being there and throwing away the playbook as Chuck said, was important. It just so happened that Dean saying "no" and refusing to step up and play the part that the angels insisted was his duty and tried to bully him into was maybe the very thing that made a huge difference. And actually thinking about this, I think I've come to a new revelation. I guess for me, what happened in season 5 makes sense, because thinking about it, being told to say "yes" to Michael was an analogy(?) of everything Dean had been told his entire life and so then had been telling himself. You have to keep Sam safe, Dean, because that's what's important. You have to save people, hunt things to have worth, Dean. You have to save the world Dean, and you have to do that by doing what we tell you to do and say "yes" to Michael, because you are only useful as Michael's meatsuit... and Dean almost bought it, but he didn't. He stood up for himself and said "no." He chose what he thought felt right to do with his "unimportant little life." So for me, it wasn't that Dean had to learn to let his brother go that was the point of season - especially since I don't think the show even believes that, myself. I think the point was that Dean learned that maybe he didn't have to take everything onto his shoulders because it was all on him if things went wrong as he'd been told his entire life, but that others also have a responsibility and even that he can sometimes trust that others are also there to help him whether that be Castiel, Bobby, or Sam.... in the end even Gabriel and Death... and those last two contributed - in my opinion - because of Dean's influence. (Especially with Gabriel since it was Dean who called Gabriel out, which Gabriel thought about and changed his mind on helping due to what Dean said, in my opinion.) So long story short, I don't think Dean was made so much irrelevant as he was made not the ONLY one - both in terms of responsibility and blame - but the part he did play by refusing to be bullied into "playing along" and by convincing others such as Gabriel to help was in itself important and paved the way for a real difference to be made. I think that if Dean had continued to believe that it was all on him to fix it and had said "yes" to Michael, that actually would have been disastrous... and I think that's what Dabb is trying to show with the AU - that Michael was bad news, and Dean saying "no" to him and doing things his and Sam's own way was a good thing. Of course, as always, opinions are going to vary. 5 hours ago, trxr4kids said: Thinking more on it @AwesomO4000, maybe the disconnect is that you don't feel that Dean needed redemption, where as I did. I felt that Dean, himself felt that he needed redemption and I don't think he's ever recovered from it's lack. I think this is partly it, except that I also think - as I said above - that for me Dean's redemption was his realizing that he didn't have to be the "good little soldier" or believe that everything was his fault (which is partly what got him into trouble with the deal, in my opinion) as he had started to learn in season 3 during "Dream a Little Dream..." and that Dean's own opinion does have worth and Dean figured that out and took back his own worth. Even though he wasn't the one to fall into the hole, for me he did play many important parts, including saying "no" despite all the pressure, getting Gabriel to help, convincing Death to help, and being there for Sam to help pick him up even when Sam (once again) stumbled. But I understand that what I think is relevant and important isn't necessarily good enough for others. 1 Link to comment
Myrelle March 23, 2018 Share March 23, 2018 (edited) 18 hours ago, catrox14 said: For me, the showrunners commentaries seem to always be much more favorable towards Sam's intelligence and "moral fiber" whereas with Dean it's not even a topic. It's Dean is all about the ladies, or he's tough and rumble and murderous. I don't get much from them about how good Dean's heart is and that his loyalty to family is a good trait. So I wonder if they think of him that way at all. I think they mostly see Dean in very limited terms. I still say it's only Jensen with a few writers over the years, and especially Kim Manners in s1 and s2, who gave Dean the depth that he has. IA so hard with this, especially the bolded part where it concerns the present writers. One of the things that Singer said that makes my blood boil every time I hear it is the one about how they like to take Dean down a peg or two. Why only Dean? Is Sam so perfect to them that he doesn't need that? Because from my POV and IMO, he needs it more, and has needed it more pretty much through-out the run of this series-especially where his brother is concerned-but then again, maybe that's me not seeing Sam as the more put-upon one in their relationship, as they likely want us to see him just going by the writing. 16 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said: For me acting didn't "undermine" any intent the writers showed in season 4 to have Sam go dark, drink demon blood, and have sex with a demon. Nor did acting undermine Sam abandoning Kevin - which the dialogue pointed out specifically and repeatedly as a crappy thing to do - nor give Sam any real explanation for why he did it. That was all the writing. And if they didn't want Jared to act the way he did in season 8, the directors could have changed it - or put their intent in through dialogue. They chose neither, so I am going to assume that they wanted Sam to appear immature, hypocritical, abandoning, delusional, and wrong, because that's what the writing showed me. Them saying that Sam was "mature" didn't come across at all in anything they wrote, in my opinion, and no amount of acting would have changed that. So they can tell me that was their intent all they want, but I have a hard time believing it. I'm skeptical that way and more tend to believe what I see. Just my opinion on that one. I think the first eight seasons of this show gave JP every opportunity to strut his stuff as an actor, but that would have depended on him being able to soften(or yes, undermine the writing) both in the case of the Ruby debacle and in the Samelia storyline. Both storylines were pretty much completely dependent on him being able to sell Sam's conflicted love and concern for the character he was acting opposite in each case. Both were miserable failures in that regard, again IMO. I think he may have tried with Ruby, but in the Samelia sl both actors seemed as if they would rather have been doing anything other than what they were doing in pretty much every scene they shared. That's how it seemed to me anyway, but IMO, the writers wanted us to feel worse and more sorry for Sam at having lost another chance at normal happiness again-and they wanted us to see Dean as the more selfish, inconsiderate, and unthinking one who'd returned from the dead-after finding a year in Purgatory to be "Pure" for him-to screw it all up for him. I remember Singer even saying something derogatory about Dean in an interview back then concerning this. And then there was Charlie who drove it all home for everyone in the larping episode with Dean's loss of Benny set up to be nothing more than an afterthought. IA that the writing sucks for both of them, but it doesn't suck for Sam more than it sucks for Dean AND Sam(to me) has the writers in his corner where it concerns at least their desire to make everything that Sam does come off as sympathetic in the end-even if this means blaming Dean, in one way or another, for Sam's mistakes as well as his own. They even expanded that to include Mary last season. And let's not forget that they're still asking/demanding that Jensen somehow soften the natural born killer who enjoys torturing role and who also eats like a pig and is little more than a horndog with the ladies. And he's still trying to do that for them. Trying with everything that's in him, but man, it has to be getting to him big-time at this point. Spoiler I bet that's part of the reason why he's so pumped to play a character who's not Dean at this point. I'm not going to go into the differences in the acting from my perspective other than to say that I think Jensen is far better than JP is at softening any material he's ever been given as an actor, both on this show and in his previous roles. IDK, maybe he's had more practice or maybe it's just their differing approaches to their crafts, but that's how I see it. It's the acting, more than anything else that continues to sell this show, IMO, as I said, I think the writing has been the weak link from the very beginning, but that's my next post for the writers' thread. And FWIW, S9 and 10 are in my top 4 favorite seasons, but this in spite of the writing, not because of it, to be sure. Edited March 23, 2018 by Myrelle 4 Link to comment
catrox14 March 23, 2018 Share March 23, 2018 For me, when the showrunners themselves bash a character in public, repeatedly, it can lead the audience to question the charcter, and the intent of the writers w regard to the character. Robert Kirkman seems to really hate Rick Grimes based on how he talks about him in interviews. IMO, there is no way to interpret what Singer said at Playfest about Jared faux pas with the "He plays the smart one" as anything other than Singer sees Sam as the smart one which is a comparative that implies Dean is not the smart one. He threw Dean under the bus to make a joke about Jared. But the joke was IMO a frank insight into how at least one , and sadly,possibly the most influential, producer views Dean. Kim Manners seem to have been the only producer and director who wanted and encouraged both to find the layers and play what is not on the page. And honestly if not for Jensen doing that and the occasional writer willing to write to Dean's goodness, and kindness and obvious emotional vulnerability, Dean could be a terrible character. 8 Link to comment
Myrelle March 23, 2018 Share March 23, 2018 4 minutes ago, catrox14 said: Kim Manners seem to have been the only producer and director who wanted and encouraged both to find the layers and play what is not on the page. And honestly if not for Jensen doing that and the occasional writer willing to write to Dean's goodness, and kindness and obvious emotional vulnerability, Dean could be a terrible character. I just now caught the end of the Girl Next Door and talk about saving the character from disaster. I remember watching that one live and thinking while they were discussing it that they should not be letting this one live. Not IMO. But when Dean took her out with the kid coming in on them, I also remember thinking that the fandom was going to roast him over this one(which many did) and that the writers wanted that. And then on top of that they had him withhold the knowledge from Sam for a number of episodes. I still can't figure out how the resolution in The Mentalists was okayed, but that WAS the only episode that pair of writers ever wrote for the show. Jensen has saved Dean for me too many times than I can count. I really think that that's the biggest reason that I love him so much. 3 Link to comment
belbar March 23, 2018 Share March 23, 2018 38 minutes ago, catrox14 said: For me, when the showrunners themselves bash a character in public, repeatedly, it can lead the audience to question the charcter, and the intent of the writers w regard to the character. Robert Kirkman seems to really hate Rick Grimes based on how he talks about him in interviews. IMO, there is no way to interpret what Singer said at Playfest about Jared faux pas with the "He plays the smart one" as anything other than Singer sees Sam as the smart one which is a comparative that implies Dean is not the smart one. He threw Dean under the bus to make a joke about Jared. But the joke was IMO a frank insight into how at least one , and sadly,possibly the most influential, producer views Dean. Kim Manners seem to have been the only producer and director who wanted and encouraged both to find the layers and play what is not on the page. And honestly if not for Jensen doing that and the occasional writer willing to write to Dean's goodness, and kindness and obvious emotional vulnerability, Dean could be a terrible character. + 1000 1 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 March 23, 2018 Share March 23, 2018 The usual bolded stuff for the Too Long: Didn't Read people is in effect here. 3 hours ago, Myrelle said: I think the first eight seasons of this show gave JP every opportunity to strut his stuff as an actor, but that would have depended on him being able to soften(or yes, undermine the writing) both in the case of the Ruby debacle and in the Samelia storyline. Both storylines were pretty much completely dependent on him being able to sell Sam's conflicted love and concern for the character he was acting opposite in each case. Both were miserable failures in that regard, again IMO. I think he may have tried with Ruby, but in the Samelia sl both actors seemed as if they would rather have been doing anything other than what they were doing in pretty much every scene they shared. I'm not sure I would have wanted to see Jared play the Sam / Ruby thing any softer, myself. Sam was supposed to be using Ruby or at least know somewhere under there that she was a demon and that he shouldn't trust her entirely. If the writers' intent was to have Sam be in love with Ruby - and I don't think it was - then, to me, that would have been trashing the character rather than just giving him an already questionably dark arc. I personally wouldn't have wanted Jared to play "love and concern" for Ruby by Sam, conflicted or otherwise. It would have made him look like even more of an idiot than the writing already made him look for believing her. At least in the way Jared played it, I could believe that Sam thought he was in control of the situation - something that Sam wanted and needed with all of the mess in his life that was out of his control at that point - and it got out of hand. But in love with Ruby? No, I would have hated that. A lot. As for Amelia, I'm not sure I blame Jared for phoning it in if that's what he did. Not only was Amelia just a blech character (in my opinion), in order for me to buy this storyline, I would've had to buy the whole revisionist history Carver was trying to sell that Sam "had never had this before." And Carver did this after having Sam reference Jessica in the first episode (which he wrote). To me that was an insult right off the bat. Sam loved Jessica and he had normal with her for quite a while. I wouldn't want to believe Sam loved Amelia more than anyone ever. In my opinion, it was an insult to Sam's character by cheapening Sam's history, and also in my opinion, if Jared was undermining that, I say good for him. The storyline was crap and terribly set up in my opinion, because it tried to rewrite Sam's history in order to force something that wasn't there for who knows what reason. And the best evidence to me that it was insulting was what happened in "Goodbye Stranger" (an episode by a writer I usually like). Even though Sam / Amelia wasn't working, the writers took one last opportunity to have Sam spout how Amelia was supposedly the love of his life with Meg, of all people - a demon who forcefully took over his body, killed someone with it, tried to kill Dean in it, and who knows what else. Oh and caused Jo and Ellen to be killed, killed Caleb, and was part of the plot to ruin their dad. But I'm supposed to believe that Sam is having a revealing, soul-bearing conversation with this demon. A conversation that belittles Jessica's importance and what she meant to Sam. Truthfully, I didn't want to believe Sam's love for Amelia... the storyline was just insulting, in my opinion. And it's main purpose seemed to be to force conflict that 1) shouldn't have been there to begin with and 2) was being misrepresented for who knows what reason beyond causing angst and unearned conflict. Quote That's how it seemed to me anyway, but IMO, the writers wanted us to feel worse and more sorry for Sam at having lost another chance at normal happiness again-and they wanted us to see Dean as the more selfish, inconsiderate, and unthinking one who'd returned from the dead-after finding a year in Purgatory to be "Pure" for him-to screw it all up for him. If that's what the writers wanted me to see, then they would have had to write the entire Benny arc differently. Basically what I saw was the writers trying to push Benny as the bestest, most patient brother ever and then prove this by having Benny be good and sacrifice himself to save Sam. If the writers wanted me to feel sorry for Sam having to leave "normal" because of Dean, then they wouldn't have had Sam leave Amelia before he even found Dean - meaning normal was already not working for Sam - and then not have thrown a returning dead husband into the mix. Make Sam have to choose to leave a more available woman. The writers didn't even make me believe that there was any real reason for Sam to have to return to hunting to begin with if he didn't want to. There was no apocalypse that needed to be stopped. Nothing was stopping Sam from leaving. But that's because in my opinion, the point was to show Sam as wrong for wanting to leave hunting, not show him as sympathetic. (And season 10 Sam learning that hunting is what he really wanted to do after all was the culmination of this.) Because really, am I suppose to believe that the writers don't think hunting - the whole focus of the show - is not the thing the brothers should be doing? And that it's not about "saving people, hunting things?" The writing in the season premier with Kevin's "Eeeeat mes" showing Sam as someone abandoning the mission for his own selfish reasons - Carver made little attempt to make Sam look burned out, shell-shocked, or out of his mind with grief. All of that was downplayed - entirely contradicts, in my opinion, any "have sympathy for Sam" message. So as with the "mature" thing, the writers can imply all they want that this is what they were doing, but the writing seemed to contradict that. Having Sam knowingly commit adultery only to leave Amelia anyway was just more insult to Sam's character, and proof to me that portraying Sam sympathetically was not what the writers had in mind. Again, I take what the writers say with a grain of salt and saw more "damage control" when some fans were - understandably in my opinion - upset that Sam was being written so out of character (or at least over the top, Sam's bad characteristics on steroids) and so the writers went with "but Sam's was the 'mature' position for wanting to break from hunting and Dean" - which they later then proceeded to backtrack on with the Benny and Castiel storylines, showing how Dean not walking away was the right thing to do and with everything that subsequently happened in season 9 through 10 and with Sam ultimately learning that hunting was what he wanted to do after all! (Big surprise - not at all, in my opinion. I was complaining in season 8 that Sam wanting normal was out of character for Sam at that point in his character development.) So yeah, I think I have some reason to be skeptical of what the writers say when, in my opinion, there is very little show evidence that they mean any of it. It's like the CNN commercial. They can say banana, banana, banana all they want, but if they are showing me an apple... I'm gonna see the apple. Sorry about that. Apparently I had some more stuff to get off my chest. 3 Link to comment
ILoveReading March 23, 2018 Share March 23, 2018 Typical. Jensen gives a spoiler about Dean. I want to get excited. Then Dabb speaks and that’s the end of that 3 Link to comment
gonzosgirrl March 23, 2018 Share March 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, ILoveReading said: Typical. Jensen gives a spoiler about Dean. I want to get excited. Then Dabb speaks and that’s the end of that What are you referring to? Link to comment
Myrelle March 23, 2018 Share March 23, 2018 4 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said: In my opinion, it was an insult to Sam's character by cheapening Sam's history, and also in my opinion, if Jared was undermining that, I say good for him. Just to be clear, I think the basic problem is that Jared often lacks the acting skillset to undermine the poor writing enough so that the viewer can really feel for him and his dilemmas. And I realize that that is completely subjective, but I've come to realize that that's been the biggest problem for me with the Sam character since pretty much Day One of this show. 4 minutes ago, ILoveReading said: Typical. Jensen gives a spoiler about Dean. I want to get excited. Then Dabb speaks and that’s the end of that Oh no. What did he say? 1 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 March 23, 2018 Share March 23, 2018 1 minute ago, Myrelle said: Just to be clear, I think the basic problem is that Jared often lacks the acting skillset to undermine the poor writing enough so that the viewer can really feel for him and his dilemmas. And I realize that that is completely subjective, but I've come to realize that that's been the biggest problem for me with the Sam character since pretty much Day One of this show. Oh, I know that's what you meant. My point was that I wouldn't have wanted to buy the Amelia / Sam storyline anyway. It was insulting to Sam, in my opinion, and me seeing this great love between them wouldn't have made it any better or made me sympathize with am any more. I would've been thinking "What about Jessica, Sam? Did you forget her?" 1 Link to comment
Myrelle March 23, 2018 Share March 23, 2018 Quote To be fair if we got something on Sam, Dean fans would be asking what's in store for Dean. Also... just bc we find out something is in store for Sam, that doesn't take away Dean fans getting something for Dean. So really I don't see the problem here with asking about a character on the show that's not Dean. Brought over from the spoiler thread The problem is not that people ask, it's that when things are reversed we get crickets on Dean, while they can't give us answers fast enough on what's in store for Sam, too. 1 Link to comment
gonzosgirrl March 23, 2018 Share March 23, 2018 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Myrelle said: Brought over from the spoiler thread The problem is not that people ask, it's that when things are reversed we get crickets on Dean, while they can't give us answers fast enough on what's in store for Sam, too. To be fair (heh), that's probably because there is rarely anything new and exciting to tell about Dean. And the one (recent) time there is, it's immediately followed up with a 'yeah, yeah, Dean blah blah blah, what about Sam?' ask and answer. Bleh. Moved from Spoilers thread. 26 minutes ago, Reganne said: To be fair if we got something on Sam, Dean fans would be asking what's in store for Dean. Also... just bc we find out something is in store for Sam, that doesn't take away getting something for Dean. So really I don't see the problem here with asking about a character on the show that's not Dean. The only thing I'm going to say on this is: we got one spoiler/exciting bit of news on Dean/Jensen in a LONG time. Yay for us. And if the Sam fans want spoilers on Sam - understandable and YAY for them. Ask about Sam. Prefacing their request with 'well, we got Dean news, but what about Saaaaaaaam' is what I have a problem with. This is the kind of crap that stokes the fires of resentment. Just ask about Sam ffs, and leave the crumb we finally got about Dean out of it. Edited March 23, 2018 by gonzosgirrl 3 Link to comment
Reganne March 23, 2018 Share March 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, Myrelle said: Brought over from the spoiler thread The problem is not that people ask, it's that when things are reversed we get crickets on Dean, while they can't give us answers fast enough on what's in store for Sam, too. Maybe Jared shares more about future Sam than Jensen does with Dean. This was from a recent interview... you can't just expect Jared to stay quiet on his character just bc you guys feel you don't get to hear enough about Dean prior to episodes. 2 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said: To be fair (heh), that's probably because there is rarely anything new and exciting to tell about Dean. And the one (recent) time there is, it's immediately followed up with a 'yeah, yeah, Dean blah blah blah, what about Sam?' ask and answer. Bleh. There hasn't been anything interesting for Sam in seasons IMO and this new information isn't all that interesting or different for Sam for me either. The only thing he has done lately is get hit over the head and knocked out multiple times. Getting the crap beat out of him is essentially continuing that trend IMO. 1 Link to comment
Myrelle March 23, 2018 Share March 23, 2018 4 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said: To be fair (heh), that's probably because there is rarely anything new and exciting to tell about Dean. And the one (recent) time there is, it's immediately followed up with a 'yeah, yeah, Dean blah blah blah, what about Sam?' ask and answer. Bleh. You made a good point in the spoiler thread. 1 Link to comment
trxr4kids March 23, 2018 Share March 23, 2018 (edited) 16 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said: I guess I can see that if you feel that Dean not saying "yes" to Michael means that made him irrelevant That's not why I feel he was irrelevant. We were told that Sam and Dean specifically were the vessels, cupids had even brought John and Mary together for that purpose, but hey good thing John didn't become a monk after Mary died. We were also told that the one who begins it must end it, not so much unless we're to believe that army man is actually to blame. Lucifer used Nick and was falling apart because Nick wasn't strong enough to contain him but not Adam, he could even come back within minutes of being molotov'd and to add insult McAdam tells Dean he's no longer relevant. I would have been fine with an inferior vessel with blistering skin not named Adam, I would have been fine with Sam gaining control because he was being used to kill his brother with no army man montage included. Basically I feel Dean as a character was treated as poorly as you feel Sam the character was treated in S8 and hate it with the fire of a thousand suns. 16 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said: He stood up for himself and said "no." He chose what he thought felt right to do with his "unimportant little life." So for me, it wasn't that Dean had to learn to let his brother go that was the point of season - especially since I don't think the show even believes that, myself. I think the point was that Dean learned that maybe he didn't have to take everything onto his shoulders because it was all on him if things went wrong as he'd been told his entire life, but that others also have a responsibility and even that he can sometimes trust that others are also there to help him whether that be Castiel, Bobby, or Sam.... Except for me he not only didn't learn any of that, he went to live with Lisa because Sam made him promise, the show tacking in one little dream segment to set it up doesn't work for me at all. The show then double downed on his burdens and responsibilities the following 2 seasons, but ha ha at least there were dick jokes to combat the relentlessly grim despair. I wish I could see it it your way, I really do, I'd have less bitterness for damn sure. Edited March 23, 2018 by trxr4kids I'm and I'd aren't the same 7 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 March 23, 2018 Share March 23, 2018 12 minutes ago, trxr4kids said: That's not why I feel he was irrelevant. We were told that Sam and Dean specifically were the vessels, cupids had even brought John and Mary together for that purpose, but hey good thing John didn't become a monk after Mary died. We were also told that the one who begins it must end it, not so much unless we're to believe that army man is actually to blame. Lucifer used Nick and was falling apart because Nick wasn't strong enough to contain him but not Adam, he could even come back within minutes of being molotov'd and to add insult McAdam tells Dean he's no longer relevant. I would have been fine with an inferior vessel with blistering skin not named Adam, I would have been fine with Sam gaining control because he was being used to kill his brother with no army man montage included. Basically I feel Dean as a character was treated as poorly as you feel Sam the character was treated in S8 and hate it with the fire of a thousand suns. Nick was falling apart wasn't unexpected for me. Not only was Lucifer in that meatsuit for months and months, he was using that meatsuit to do heavy duty magic like binding Lucifer, and Nick wasn't even in one of the chosen bloodlines. By that time, Lucifer was using his meatsuit so heavily that even Sam - his supposed "chosen vessel" - had to drink gallons of demon blood to not explode when Lucifer took him over. Adam was at least in the family bloodline - meaning that Michael taking him as a vessel wasn't exactly unprecedented since he also used John - and he hadn't been in Adam all that long. Michael taking another vessel not in the bloodline that was falling apart would have in my opinion been strategically a disaster, so I wouldn't see the writers having Michael using a falling apart vessel just so it would be the same as Nick/Lucifer. Michael may be a jerk, but I doubt he would have been stupid enough to try to take on Lucifer in Sam in a non-compatible meatsuit. I also think that the "you're no longer relevant" from Michael was intended to be ironic, not some comment on what the writers thought, because Michael turned out to be the one who ended up in the hole, irrelevant, while Dean went on to kill many big bads and stop multiple apocalypses. But that's just my opinion on that, and I understand that you see things differently. I also agree that the army man montage was a bad choice in terms of the storyline, and probably mainly there for the romantic notion of making Baby important, and I get that you hate that and see it as an affront to Dean, but for me, it wasn't that Sam's character was just shortchanged in the main plot or made to look irrelevant that I thought was insulting. I thought the entire thing*** was insulting. And I think that's where we differ. I think that our disconnect is in what we each see as important. I mean, if all that happened to Sam that season was Sam being set up to do something important only for that not to happen - which ironically did happen to Sam in season 8 - I wouldn't be complaining. But not only did Sam not close the gates to hell, his failure to do so left behind a bunch of loose ends - like Abbadon and Metetron and himself dying - which caused problems that Dean had to clean up for seasons to come. And for me, his character was trashed in the process. So, I'm not objecting to Sam being made irrelevant in terms of the main plot. I can entirely live with that and still really enjoy a season - like season 7 and 11 for example, two of my favorite seasons where Sam had little to no affect on the main plot. I'm objecting to what I saw as character assassination. Because character is what is important to me over plot. A bait and switch plot thing I can live with. Character assassination on my favorite character for no apparent reason to the point I stop watching the show for a few weeks (as I did in season 8) is another thing altogether. One for me is much easier to fix than the other. Once a character is "assassinated," it takes time and some finesse to bring him/her back. For me in terms of Carver and the mess he made, that turned out to be 2 seasons or more, and considering the real deal was mostly in season 11, I might have to credit Dabb with some of that. *** The not looking for Dean, the abandoning Kevin (and not only Kevin, but the fact that Crowley had a potentially dangerous tablet along with the prophet to translate it), the leaving hunting with potentially a bunch of leviathan running around (did Sam even check to make sure they all went poof with Dick Roman?), the threatening to kill Benny plot, having sex with Amelia after he knew she was married: it all seemed to be set up just to make Sam look bad. There was no payoff to any of it where I could say "okay, yeah, I see why Sam is doing that." The whole time I was saying "who the hell is his person? Is Sam delusional and this is all just a fever dream?" ...And yes for about 4 episodes I actually thought Amelia wasn't real and that Sam had made her up in his head, and yes, I really thought that, I thought the characterization was so bad.) 1 hour ago, trxr4kids said: The show then double downed on his burdens and responsibilities the following 2 seasons, but ha ha at least there were dick jokes to combat the relentlessly grim despair. I wish I could see it it your way, I really do, I'm have less bitterness for damn sure. I guess it depends on the way you look at it. I didn't see the doubling down on his burdens, myself, especially in terms of season 7. Despite his craziness, Sam was pretty self-sufficient. In "Season 7, Time for a Wedding," Sam even told Dean that he could try harder to take care of himself, so Dean could focus on taking care of himself. And it might be just my taste, but despite the grim subject matter, I didn't find season 7 entirely grim. I thought there was enough dark humor in there and genuine brother moments: like "Hello Cruel World," "Slash Fiction," "Time After Time..," "Plucky Pennywhistles'..." and "How to Win Friends," oh, and "Out With the Old" to soften that. I personally found season 4 - where there was a total disconnect between Sam and Dean and the shit piled on Dean Never. Seemed. To. End. - more depressing. Season 7 has a bunch more "go to" episodes for me when I just want a fun, distracting episode. But I get that opinions are going to vary. Link to comment
Icarus March 23, 2018 Share March 23, 2018 I don't have enough history on this site to know why anyone is very anti any character, but more especially the actual actor on Supernatural. I read with interest lots of the different views and I consider myself mainly a fan of the show (not that that means the writers oh no!). I shout at Sam more that Dean but that does not mean that I am totally in Deans corner – I have longed for a mytharc for Dean in the past but am now just watching each episode to enjoy what I can get from it. I loved the Souless Sam arc (mostly after it happened!), hated the Amelia disaster....so decided to (with many other fans) as it became more and more obvious that it was not just a dream to decide to ignore and blot that out. I was quite vociforous in wanting Cas to go early on as it just seemed untentable to have an Angel so powered up etc and they could not write a decent story line for him – but now he is so entrenched in the show that I would hate him to go although I think this is the first year for a while that his story actually fits in. Lots more to say but getting late in the UK and time for bed! 4 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.