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

[DeeDee79]

1 hour ago, Icarus said:

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 agree; I don't understand this either. Disliking a character is one thing but when it bleeds over into disdain for the actual actor that one has never even met it's a little odd IMO.

[Wayward Son]

6 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

I agree; I don't understand this either. Disliking a character is one thing but when it bleeds over into disdain for the actual actor that one has never even met it's a little odd IMO.

Could the same not be said about loving and really admiring a person you’ve never met? If they can do positive things to earn your admiration then equally can they not do negative things to gain someone else’s dislike? 

[DeeDee79]

Just now, Wayward Son said:

Could the same not be said about loving and really admiring a person you’ve never met? If they can do positive things to earn your admiration then equally can they not do negative things to gain someone else’s dislike? 

Celebs that do awful things ( Cosby, Weinstein, Chris Brown ) deserve our disdain. We're also given full disclosure of what they did to make them deserve it. Celebs that annoy me with statements or actions may make me roll my eyes a little but I don't judge them based on soundbites. I'm sure it's hard being in the public eye and being judged by people who you've never even met and don't know who you are beyond the brief period of time that we may see them on camera. I stand by what I stated: I don't understand having disdain for someone that I don't even know.

[trxr4kids]

6 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

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.

Except IMO Dean was set up to do something important and his failure (to actually end the apocalypse) also led to a bunch of loose ends-like Raphael, soulless Sam, heavenly civil war, mother of all, etc, which caused problems that had to be cleaned up because the one who began it didn't end it.

That being said my new head cannon is that the army man was evil, even though he somehow started the apocalypse, he pinned it on Dean and he never wanted it to end, that bastard!

 

6 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

So, I'm not objecting to Sam being made irrelevant in terms of the main plot.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear, I didn't think that was your objection, I was just comparing that we each loathe those plot points with equal vehemence.

6 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

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.

I looked at it as he now had a SO and child, soulless brother,suspiciously resurrected grandpa, lying pseudo father figure, hell wall broken Sam and treacherous angel (lol I typed angle first) friend/savior to contend with ,<not necessarily in that order>. Then he get's to leave his former savior/bff in the care of a demon, who guess what, was Azazel's daughter in order to save Sam who lol Azazel corrupted to begin with, hijinks ensue. There's Leviathan, tablets, broodingDean, crazySam, evilcorporations, clowns, bibbing, drunkDean, prophets, hellucinations, deadBobby!, moroseDean, ghostBobby!, scar tissueSam!, amnesiaCas!, meat products, high fructose corn syrup,bees, crazyCas, more stuff happened with bones and such that I don't wanna recall and then finally yipee purgatory, finally a dim light at the end of the dark road.

Really we could go round and round and never agree but I'm okay with that and appreciate your viewpoint, it's always interesting to me as it differs so much from mine. 

[gonzosgirrl]

13 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

Except IMO Dean was set up to do something important and his failure (to actually end the apocalypse) also led to a bunch of loose ends-like Raphael, soulless Sam, heavenly civil war, mother of all, etc, which caused problems that had to be cleaned up because the one who began it didn't end it

How do you think Dean could have ended it? By saying yes to Michael and killing Sam? The apocalypse still would've happened, just a different flavour, since Michael and Raphael wanted humanity gone, too. Only difference is Lucifer would be gone. Even if they managed to trick him back into the cage, would that have ended It, or just given Michael the power instead? Hmmmm.

[trxr4kids]

2 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

Could the same not be said about loving and really admiring a person you’ve never met? If they can do positive things to earn your admiration then equally can they not do negative things to gain someone else’s dislike? 

 

2 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

Celebs that annoy me with statements or actions may make me roll my eyes a little but I don't judge them based on soundbites. I'm sure it's hard being in the public eye and being judged by people who you've never even met and don't know who you are beyond the brief period of time that we may see them on camera. I stand by what I stated: I don't understand having disdain for someone that I don't even know.

Eh, I kinda see both sides, sucks to be me. I realize I shouldn't judge or be annoyed by snippets of someone's life, which is why I avoid SM and shows that focus on celebrity gossip. On the other hand some celebs just rub me the wrong way when I inevitably see them on something often for no reason that I can articulate. Case in point, although I've never actually seen Ben Stiller interviewed, he somehow annoys me, Night At The Museum was amusing despite him IMO. Again for no real reason what so ever.

[DeeDee79]

2 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

 

Eh, I kinda see both sides, sucks to be me. I realize I shouldn't judge or be annoyed by snippets of someone's life, which is why I avoid SM and shows that focus on celebrity gossip. On the other hand some celebs just rub me the wrong way when I inevitably see them on something often for no reason that I can articulate. Case in point, although I've never actually seen Ben Stiller interviewed, he somehow annoys me, Night At The Museum was amusing despite him IMO. Again for no real reason what so ever.

That was kinda my point. We all see celebs that may annoy us with their comments or mannerisms at times but I believe that's a far cry from feeling disdain for someone that you don't know. I can't get behind viciously bad mouthing someone that you only see in bits and pieces on TV or YouTube.

[trxr4kids]

3 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

How do you think Dean could have ended it? By saying yes to Michael and killing Sam? The apocalypse still would've happened, just a different flavour, since Michael and Raphael wanted humanity gone, too. Only difference is Lucifer would be gone. Even if they managed to trick him back into the cage, would that have ended It, or just given Michael the power instead? Hmmmm.

I honestly have no idea how he could have ended it but that was the set up, the righteous man yadda yadda, and the apocalypse just kept rolling on after the army man saved the day. I would've liked for Dean and Michael to communicate for more than a hot minute so that perhaps Michael like other angels could've been swayed to humanities side and maybe together and with help they could have found a way to *kill Lucifer* without too much damage, barring that, I would think if Gabriel knew of the rings than Michael also did and they could have hurled Nickifer back to the pit.

*My wish is that they'd killed Lucifer because I'm so over him and have been forever. Samifer was the best incarnation of the character IMO and SS sucks even harder because he wasn't wearing that ridiculous suit.*

[trxr4kids]

1 hour ago, DeeDee79 said:

I can't get behind viciously bad mouthing someone that you only see in bits and pieces on TV or YouTube.

Me either but I generally don't get a lot of stuff people do, ie: my sister whose older mind you, has multiple pictures of her cat, grandkids, husband doing lawn work on facebook as well as those little inspirational sayings. I know about this because my adult kids show me sometimes and ask me if she's feeling okay, (because of the sayings and the lawn mowing uncle, they all know she's weird about the cat (it has a harness and leash) and grandkids/little cousins are cute).She also has a weird addiction to snapchat and other things, honestly sometimes I rue the day I convinced her to switch from dial up access, lol. If you knew my sister this would this would be hilarious.

ETA: I also find it hysterical when she almost always accidentally tries to face time me instead of calling and I know damn well she not only saw me a week ago but she only does face time with the GK's, lol.

Edited March 24, 2018 by trxr4kids
extra if

[AwesomO4000]

3 hours ago, trxr4kids said:

Except IMO Dean was set up to do something important and his failure (to actually end the apocalypse) also led to a bunch of loose ends-like Raphael, soulless Sam, heavenly civil war, mother of all, etc, which caused problems that had to be cleaned up because the one who began it didn't end it.

That being said my new head cannon is that the army man was evil, even though he somehow started the apocalypse, he pinned it on Dean and he never wanted it to end, that bastard!

Hee!

My head canon is that Dean "ended it" it when he killed Dick Roman, thereby fulfilling the prophecy, tying up all the loose ends, and actually ending that apocalypse for good this time. Your headcanon is more amusing, though.

I also probably should have noted better that it wasn't so much the loose ends Sam left behind that bugged... it was that someone else had to tie up Sam's loose ends (namely Dean and Castiel).  Also did I not emphasize enough the character assassination? ; ) Really everything else for me was minor compared to that. Sam leaving Kevin to a demon he knew was likely to torture the kid and just shrugging his shoulders was just a writing choice I will never understand Carver making for the character... and in a way, making light of it with Kevin's "funny" voice messages for me was just in poor taste and rubbing salt in the wounds of that character assassination. I hated it with the fire of those 1,000 suns you mentioned. Okay 500 suns... another 450 came with "Citizen Fang" (haaaaate!) and 50 more came with Sam sleeping with Amelia again and all the other crappy things they had Sam do.

3 hours ago, trxr4kids said:

There's Leviathan, tablets, broodingDean, crazySam, evilcorporations, clowns, bibbing, drunkDean, prophets, hellucinations, deadBobby!, moroseDean, ghostBobby!, scar tissueSam!, amnesiaCas!, meat products, high fructose corn syrup,bees, crazyCas, more stuff happened with bones and such that I don't wanna recall and then finally yipee purgatory, finally a dim light at the end of the dark road.

And don't forget the cursed ballet slippers (and vintage porn!), Leviathan Chet, Ranger Rick, paranoid Frank, Eliot Ness, salads of self-righteousness***, the giant slinky, and My Little Pony slaying, hatchback cursing, "All Out Of Love" lipsynching Dean! Oh, man, this is making me nostalgic for season 7 so much right now. I wish the current show writers had imagination like that.

*** Seriously, I laughed out loud at that line. It was brilliant.

3 hours ago, trxr4kids said:

Really we could go round and round and never agree but I'm okay with that and appreciate your viewpoint, it's always interesting to me as it differs so much from mine

Agreed. I feel the same way.

[AwesomO4000]

Brought over from the "Spoilers Bitterness" thread:

2 hours ago, Castiels Cat said:

In my opinion seasons 8-11 focused on Sam's fatal flaw and lead to a redemption arc in 11.

Sam's fatal flaw was hubris which grew out of feeling like an outsider who needed to prove himself. 

I greatly disagree. I don't see how the arc in season 8 or 9 had much to do with Sam's hubris. And I also didn't see much redemption.

First, I don't get how not looking for Dean and abandoning Kevin has something to do with hubris. And the Amelia arc - complete with a soap-opera cliched suddenly not dead husband - had even less to do with hubris. For me, it was out of character. Sam looked for Dean in season 7 with even less information when Dean disappeared than he had when Dick Roman blew up. To me, it looked more like Carver just decided he was going to ignore Sam's character development in season 6.5 through 7 and regress Sam back to like season 1 or maybe late season 4.

He had Sam weirdly just shrug his shoulders and stop hunting. To me, even though Sam early on in season 7 said that he had thought he paid enough for his mistakes, this did not include stopping hunting. Season 7 Sam very much considered hunting an important part of his life and a way to make a difference. He was usually the one to find cases and keep he and Dean hunting. He thought hunting with Dean was important and appreciated Dean having his back. There were multiple times Sam told Dean exactly this during seasons 6.5 through 7. In my opinion, Carver just chose to ignore that character development for reasons I don't understand. Even if Sam had decided he'd had enough and was going to give it up, I don't see him just abandoning Kevin to Crowley under normal circumstances. He should have found Kevin first, and then retired. What should have happened to cause Sam to do what he did is if Sam had a mental break. This is what it appeared that Gamble was going for with the set up with Crowley saying that Sam was all alone. Carver throwing all of that out the window and having Sam callously leave Kevin at Crowley's mercy - and then poking fun at it even - in my opinion was little but character assassination.

For me a hubris arc would've made much more sense if Sam thought he would save Dean and then thumbed his nose at any consequences - similar to season 10 - without first having to learn what a very awful and disloyal brother he was in season 8. Why create a scenario painting Sam as a bad brother for not saving for Dean first - pretty much assuring that Sam would save Dean should the situation arise again - if the arc was supposedly about hubris? To me that doesn't make narrative sense. (And this is why I do not think that that was the point of the arc.)

I similarly didn't see what season 9 had to do with Sam's hubris. Sam had every right to be angry at Dean. Carver just didn't let Sam be angry about what he should have been angry about - Dean's months of deception - and instead turned it all around into Sam being wrong and learning that he would save Dean just like Dean had done for him... It's just that Carver, apparently being fickle, decided that Sam saving Dean somehow deserved to get slapped with starting an apocalypse in season 10... even as at the same time Dean was recklessly saving Sam - twice, there were few if any repercussions at all.

I think I've seen you say that part of Sam's redemption was him learning that he should be hunting with Dean after all, and that would've been fine if Sam hadn't already decided that in season 6 and 7, so in my opinion, there was no reason for Sam to learn that again. And again, if this was such a great thing for Sam to learn, why punish him for it later in the season by having him start an apocalypse.

And why should Sam have to relearn yet another lesson about hubris anyway, when apparently it's just fine for Dean to have it? Dean took on the mark recklessly yet still was able to achieve his goal of killing Abaddon. He decided for Sam that he was going to save him, continued the deception even when Sam was hurting from it, and then declared it was the right thing to do and he'd do it again. And even though Kevin died, Dean was otherwise justified in his actions (in my opinion). He then did something reckless yet again to save Sam when he killed Death... and surprise, surprise... nothing bad happened.

In my opinion, that's a pretty crappy message about hubris if apparently it's only a bad thing for one brother and not the other.

My opinion on that.

Quote

 

They are currently exploring Dean's fatal flaw, low self esteem plus depession lead him to make reckless saxrificez when he blameshimself for loss of family, either through death or alienation of affection and all stemming from the tragic loss of Mary and John's brutal parenting which always put the blame on Dean.

So yes reckless is the operative word.  And Mary's loss is,the most potent trigger for him to say yes to Michael.

 

If anything Dean learned the consequences of his reckless sacrifices way back in season 3, but apparently again, Carver thought that should be revisited, except this time he would change the message / outcome and Dean would be more justified.

So truthfully, I don't see why it should be any different this time around. Dean already did this in season 9 and 10 and both times it was apparently okay - at least in terms of Dean didn't have earth-shattering repercussions. That's just not the way this show seems to roll now. I already thought that it was somewhat of an unusual phenomenon that Jack didn't turn out to be evil. (Though I suppose there's still time for that to happen, yet.) I'd be surprised if Dean made another supernaturally adjacent wrong call. Dean's usually the one with the unusually good intuition about those things.

[Reganne]

8 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

 

I greatly disagree. I don't see how the arc in season 8 or 9 had much to do with Sam's hubris. And I also didn't see much redemption.

For me a hubris arc would've made much more sense if Sam thought he would save Dean and then thumbed his nose at any consequences - similar to season 10 - without first having to learn what a very awful and disloyal brother he was in season 8. Why create a scenario painting Sam as a bad brother for not saving for Dean first - pretty much assuring that Sam would save Dean should the situation arise again - if the arc was supposedly about hubris? To me that doesn't make narrative sense. (And this is why I do not think that that was the point of the arc.)

I similarly didn't see what season 9 had to do with Sam's hubris. Sam had every right to be angry at Dean. Carver just didn't let Sam be angry about what he should have been angry about - Dean's months of deception - and instead turned it all around into Sam being wrong and learning that he would save Dean just like Dean had done for him... It's just that Carver, apparently being fickle, decided that Sam saving Dean somehow deserved to get slapped with starting an apocalypse in season 10... even as at the same time Dean was recklessly saving Sam - twice, there were few if any repercussions at all.

I think I've seen you say that part of Sam's redemption was him learning that he should be hunting with Dean after all, and that would've been fine if Sam hadn't already decided that in season 6 and 7, so in my opinion, there was no reason for Sam to learn that again. And again, if this was such a great thing for Sam to learn, why punish him for it later in the season by having him start an apocalypse.

And why should Sam have to relearn yet another lesson about hubris anyway, when apparently it's just fine for Dean to have it? Dean took on the mark recklessly yet still was able to achieve his goal of killing Abaddon. He decided for Sam that he was going to save him, continued the deception even when Sam was hurting from it, and then declared it was the right thing to do and he'd do it again. And even though Kevin died, Dean was otherwise justified in his actions (in my opinion). He then did something reckless yet again to save Sam when he killed Death... and surprise, surprise... nothing bad happened.

In my opinion, that's a pretty crappy message about hubris if apparently it's only a bad thing for one brother and not the other.

My opinion on that.

If anything Dean learned the consequences of his reckless sacrifices way back in season 3, but apparently again, Carver thought that should be revisited, except this time he would change the message / outcome and Dean would be more justified.

So truthfully, I don't see why it should be any different this time around. Dean already did this in season 9 and 10 and both times it was apparently okay - at least in terms of Dean didn't have earth-shattering repercussions. That's just not the way this show seems to roll now. I already thought that it was somewhat of an unusual phenomenon that Jack didn't turn out to be evil. (Though I suppose there's still time for that to happen, yet.) I'd be surprised if Dean made another supernaturally adjacent wrong call. Dean's usually the one with the unusually good intuition about those things.

I agree completely about Sam in season 8,9, 10 and 11.  For me, there was no redemption for Sam in those seasons.  I also didn't see any hubris in those situations as well.  If Sam received and had redemption for having hubris at any point in the series, it was his redemption at the end of season 5 for the hubris that he showed in season 4 while hopped up on demon blood.  

 

IMO, Dean showed his hubris while going after Abaddon like you said and also when he went after Metatron.  Of course this was when he had the MOC.  I guess one could say he faced consequences after going after Metatron though since he was ultimately killed and turned into a demon.

Edited March 25, 2018 by Reganne

[Aeryn13]

I don`t think Seasons 6-11 had any messages or really coherent stories. Things happened, one after the other, but I see that as different.

Of course I never thought Sam redeemed himself for his hubris in Season 4 because that was outright validated in Season 5. But that was Kripke`s story.

 

After that we got Gamble who had her own ideas, than Carver who tried to show the brother`s relationship as horribly codependent and wanted to make a point about Sam`s maturity in early Season 8 by painting Dean as wrong for being upset. But that was so badly made and found so little positive response among fandom, he ran screaming in the other direction, gave Sam the trials, made Dean more codependent than ever to the point we got the Gadreel fiasco. Halfway through Season 9 they introduced a mytharc for Dean which had no set-up either. I just was so happy about it, I didn`t question that it wasn`t coherent storytelling. 

Then the MOC culminated in Demon!Dean but the writers had only thought of that as a "shocking" cliffhanger for the end of Season 9 and no idea what to do with it in Season 10 so they promptly abandoned it and did the exact same MOC storyline from Season 9.B again. That ended with the removal of the Mark and another cliffhanger that had no set-up beyond Death coming in at the 11th hour and giving the Mark a heretofore unheard backstory. If that was a Joss Whedon show this stuff would have been planned out and we would have gotten clues for it 2 years prior to even the introduction of the Mark. 

So afterwards they were struggling to think of what to do with the Darkness. Again, I was happy that Dean got an unexpected tie-in there but they didn`t do anything with it and the Finale was deliberately made lame. With two other "cliffhangers" that set up Season 12. Then they proceeded to ruin the Mary-character by going too far in the "OMG, whatever you do, she can`t be in any way motherly, she has to be an icecold bitch and uberhunter". Along with the BMOL storyline of "do we make sense? who cares". That Season had valium!Dean for most of it so I feel sleepy even thinking about it. 

Now Season 13 has the biggest mess in terms of storylines. Villains and minor villains crawl from every nook and cranny available. There is no really coherent storyline to speak of. Well, the recently introduced "lets collect four items to open the right" comes closest. At the beginning Dean was depressed, now  Sam is randomely depressed. Coherent writing? Not so much.

With all that, I don`t think anyone is adressing either character`s fatal flaw here nor is there gonna be a redemption story. Both characters stumble through events these days.   

[Reganne]

25 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

I don`t think Seasons 6-11 had any messages or really coherent stories. Things happened, one after the other, but I see that as different.

Of course I never thought Sam redeemed himself for his hubris in Season 4 because that was outright validated in Season 5. But that was Kripke`s story.

 

For me, his hubris in season 4 lead to killing Lilith and raising Lucifer.  The way Sam acted and came across in season 5 was much different for me.  Even until the end when he confronts Lucifer to say yes, he appears more frightened than confident.  Almost like he's trying to hide his fear and put up a front on his confidence for the others, but you can still see that the fear is there.  That to me doesn't come across as hubris as he wasn't entirely confident in himself at least to me in the way that Jared played it.  You can be successful without having Hubris.  The difference in season 4 is that Sam didn't show that fear.  He had that overconfidence and pride in himself that he could kill Lilith.  In the end, the results turned out to be more of a disaster than Lilith.  Sam's redemption for me was jumping into the cage and bringing Lucifer with him.  Him sacrificing himself for the better of the world and taking the consequences of staying in the cage in hell himself with Lucifer.  As Sam put it, he was the one who let him out, so he should be the one to put him back.  

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Sam's redemption for me was jumping into the cage and bringing Lucifer with him. 

For me that was anti-redemption. In Season 4 his hubris was in thinking he was "the one". And in Season 5 he proved to be "the one". I hated it then, hate it now and I will forever hate the Season 5 Finale. Short of someone inventing a time machine, going back and completely rewriting it, there is really nothing on that which could ever change my mind. 

[Reganne]

8 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

For me that was anti-redemption. In Season 4 his hubris was in thinking he was "the one". And in Season 5 he proved to be "the one". I hated it then, hate it now and I will forever hate the Season 5 Finale. Short of someone inventing a time machine, going back and completely rewriting it, there is really nothing on that which could ever change my mind. 

Not trying to change your mind.  Just clarifying why I see it that way.  At this point I don't think many people change their mind on the way they see things... including me.

[mertensia]

Again, the whole Samelia/abandoning Kevin storyline could have been fixed with one sentence: "Dean, after you and Cas vanished I fell apart and I ran until I couldn't anymore".  In my fanwanking,  he did say that, off camera. It makes me happy.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Again, the whole Samelia/abandoning Kevin storyline could have been fixed with one sentence: "Dean, after you and Cas vanished I fell apart and I ran until I couldn't anymore". 

In that case, I would need to see an entirely different attitude onscreen from him during early Season 8. Like, you`d have to flat-out reshoot multiple episodes to make that work for me. 

[catrox14]

Why diminish Sams saving the world in S5? He made  mistakes/bad choices, and used  his role as Lucifer's vessel to save the world. The show made Dean the bad guy between the two in S5 for deigning to not trust Sam, see Fallen Idols. And for deigning to even consider being Michaels vessel. I karrgek6tbink*. Dean was an afterthought in S5 which is why the set up for him being Michael's vessel was over run to make sure Sam jumped into the pit alone. 

For me, there is nothing about Dean taking on the Mark that was redemption. His pseudo save of Amara didn't happen when he had the Mark,  and it was only because she felt connected to, and wanted Dean around, that he was the one sent to be the soul bomb. Had she realized it was Rowena that freed her maybe she would have been stalking her instead of Dean. Regardless, that's not the same kind of on screen redeeming act as Sam readying himself, by taking an actual Jesus on the cross pose.  to fall backwards into the the Pit. Dean was not afforded that kind of imagery  before he was killed by Metatron. And definitely not when he killed Abaddon.

He got to kill Abaddon and it was not  framed at all by the narrative  as a heroic act by Dean. Rather the  narrative made it clear that Dean was more of monster than Abaddon because he went overboard when killing her, such to the extent that Sam called out Dean for it. That was when Sam started to be concerned about the affect of the Mark on Dean and at that point he had bigger fish to fry now that Dean was succumbing to the  Mark which would put  the rest of the world in peril. I don't know how much he was worried for Dean but he was definitely worried about Dean and his potential to become evil.

I really think a lot of viewers miss that detail. Sam wasn't okay with what Dean did, nor was he forgiving him. Dean is his brother and he didn't really want him to die when push came to shove. That doesn't make Sam a liar nor does it undermine his original position WRT to Dean actions. Both things still existed. One didn't erase the other. IMO Jared kind of screwed Sam by changing the dialogue to "I lied". And to this day it's unclear what he thinks Sam lied about? I've always taken it as Sam lying about letting Dean die in general which is not tacit forgiveness nor approval of Deans actions. I've never seen that as anything other than a poor choice by Jared and poor choice by Carver to let it stand.

Edited March 25, 2018 by catrox14
karrgek6tbink ...pretty sure this isn't a word. Also, f/u autocorrect

[DeeDee79]

Interesting tumblr post; seems to fall under BvJ. Some of the commenters seem to think that Dean is Dabb's preferred character to write for: http://denugis.tumblr.com/post/172064709165/the-elephant-in-the-room-the-lack-of-sam-in-spn

Edited March 25, 2018 by DeeDee79

[MysteryGuest]

26 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

Interesting tumblr post; seems to fall under BvJ. Some of the commenters seem to think that Dean is Dabb's preferred character to write for:

I still think that most of what we see is tainted by our own personal perspectives.  Frankly, when I listen to Dabb or Singer talk about the show (which isn't often), I wonder if they're even watching the same show I am.  Maybe they're simply not good at public speaking, but I never really get the impression they like the show or the characters they're writing for.  I got much more of that from Kripke when he was an active part and doing the interviews.  I have to assume, since both Jensen and Jared speak so highly about Singer, specifically, that what I see from him is not what they see from him behind the scenes.  Consequently, I tend to limit my exposure to their explanations about what's going on with the show.  They really tend to annoy me.

[DeeDee79]

5 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

I still think that most of what we see is tainted by our own personal perspectives.  Frankly, when I listen to Dabb or Singer talk about the show (which isn't often), I wonder if they're even watching the same show I am.  Maybe they're simply not good at public speaking, but I never really get the impression they like the show or the characters they're writing for.  I got much more of that from Kripke when he was an active part and doing the interviews.  I have to assume, since both Jensen and Jared speak so highly about Singer, specifically, that what I see from him is not what they see from him behind the scenes.  Consequently, I tend to limit my exposure to their explanations about what's going on with the show.  They really tend to annoy me.

I totally agree with all of this!

[gonzosgirrl]

5 hours ago, Reganne said:

I guess one could say he faced consequences after going after Metatron though since he was ultimately killed and turned into a demon.

Only on Supernatural could a sentiment like this exist. LOL!! Maybe getting murdered and turned into a demon is a consequence.

ETA: However the MoC/Metatron arc is seen, the fact remains that Dean got to feel what it was like to be utterly beaten, defeated by the Big Bad, stabbed through the chest, and die a painful death in front of his brother. Again. He had no idea that he would come back (or that Cas and Gadreel had succeeded on their side), so he got to die knowing he'd failed miserably and possibly doomed the world to Metatron's plans, despite his declaration that he was proud of them.  I'd call that a consequence, regardless of what ensued in S10.

 

2 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

Interesting tumblr post; seems to fall under BvJ. Some of the commenters seem to think that Dean is Dabb's preferred character to write for: http://denugis.tumblr.com/post/172064709165/the-elephant-in-the-room-the-lack-of-sam-in-spn

 

Lordy. There is literally one sentence in that post I agree with. I'm pretty sure it's obvious which one, lol. I'm not disparaging their opinion, I just can't wrap my head around it. Perspective really is everything. It really does make me wonder if we watch the same show or read/see the same interviews.

Edited March 25, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[DeeDee79]

14 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Lordy. There is literally one sentence in that post I agree with. I'm pretty sure it's obvious which one, lol. I'm not disparaging their opinion, I just can't wrap my head around it. Perspective really is everything. It really does make me wonder if we watch the same show or read/see the same interviews.

 

Was it this one?

Spoiler

[I know there are legitimate issues with the writing of Dean as well, aspects of Dean’s story that are neglected, points where his character seems flanderized or cheapened.

Edited March 25, 2018 by DeeDee79

[gonzosgirrl]

3 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

Was it this one?

  Hide contents

[I know there are legitimate issues with the writing of Dean as well, aspects of Dean’s story that are neglected, points where his character seems flanderized or cheapened.

Ding ding ding! :)

[DeeDee79]

1 minute ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Ding ding ding! :)

Given the context of the post it seemed like the writer decided throw that in just to placate the Dean fans that may have been reading. How can she state that while also stating that Dean is the favorite to write for? Isn't that a tad contradictory?

[DittyDotDot]

41 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

Given the context of the post it seemed like the writer decided throw that in just to placate the Dean fans that may have been reading. How can she state that while also stating that Dean is the favorite to write for? Isn't that a tad contradictory?

I'm not going to read that post, but I don't find it contradictory. Storylines change, get dropped or don't get the resolution a writer wants for many reasons, doesn't mean they hate or prefer the character. Sometimes things just don't work out. 

[DeeDee79]

6 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I'm not going to read that post, but I don't find it contradictory. Storylines change, get dropped or don't get the resolution a writer wants for many reasons, doesn't mean they hate or prefer the character. Sometimes things just don't work out. 

I agree with your general outlook in regards to the topic but I found it contradictory based on the what was written in the tumblr post.

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

The show made Dean the bad guy between the two in S5 for deigning to not trust Sam, see Fallen Idols. And for deigning to even consider being Michaels vessel.

For the Too Long: Didn't Read, please see the bold if you like for this one or just skip entirely...

I guess I just don't understand this. How would Dean trusting Sam have changed anything for the better? What would they have raised Lucifer even faster? Or if you mean only season 5, then was I suppose to question Dean not trusting Sam even though multiple other characters - War, other hunters, Castiel, even Sam himself, were also questioning Sam's trustworthiness? I just don't see it.

With "Fallen Idols" - which I thought we'd agreed had been used to death, but if it's going to be brought up then... - I just don't see how that's supposedly a comment that Dean should have trusted Sam about Ruby. That makes no sense to me, especially since the very next episode we have Castiel commenting on Sam making the wrong choice... and Sam agreeing and admitting it later in the episode. And later we have Sam saying the same - that he understands why Dean is in heaven, but why him (Sam) in "Dark Side..." - and Joshua confirming that Sam is there in spite of everything he did. "Fallen Idols" is one episode, and even it can be interpreted differently, imo - i.e. that Sam is trying now and deserves a chance to change and be listened to in their working relationship, and that Sam realizes his need to prove himself to be strong away from Dean was a bad thing^^^ Even if I did buy that Sam was blaming Dean... why would I think the writers agreed with Sam  here when there were more than a half dozen episodes before and after it that said the opposite, by emphasizing the point that Sam's choices were the wrong ones and were his own bad choices. If there was any question, for me, the writers even had Chuck - who turned out to be God - questioning Sam's motives (while at the same time ironically seeming to encourage him in his direction. Apparently Chuck is a capricious God.) back in season 4. I guess I'm just really at a loss as to how the show is somehow saying everything is Dean's fault for not trusting Sam, when it showed Dean as having a good reason not to trust Sam and him being entirely right about the Ruby situation and when killing Lilith - which Dean also warned Sam against on multiple occasions - raised Lucifer. To me if the message was "Dean should have trusted Sam," then the obvious way - to me - to show that was to show killing Lilith as the right thing to do, and there you go: Dean should have trusted Sam. Because yeah, if the show is going to have Sam raising Lucifer - and killing an innocent woman in that effort - my conclusion is not going to be "oh, yeah, Dean entirely should have been behind this plan and trusted Sam." And if they wanted me to believe Dean was wrong for not trusting Sam in season 5, they could've had other characters saying as such rather than multiple characters telling Sam how his bad decisions caused an apocalypse and how untrustworthy his motives are. Just my opinion on that.

So the show set up very well - I thought - that Dean had a good reason to question trusting Sam and that it would take a while to trust him again. As for Dean considering to be Michael's vessel - he had a lapse in judgement*** because he'd put a ton of pressure on himself, but Dean reconsidered. I hardly see that as painting Dean as the bad guy here. The narrative even has Bobby pointing out that Sam has a "boatload of character defects," so I'm not seeing how that's saying Dean should have somehow never questioned Sam to begin with. Obviously your miles vary here. Even when Sam failed at first in "Swan Song" there was Bobby declaring "well there wasn't much hope to begin with," so how could I fault Dean for having doubts when even Bobby says stuff like that?

^^^ No one is going to get me to believe that Sam thought his going off with Ruby was a good thing. To me the "if I could do it all over..." declaration addressed that. So for me, Sam was saying that he went with Ruby to make himself feel strong, but (also to me) obviously that ended badly ergo, Sam wasn't actually "stronger" he just thought he was, and that's what he was admitting - in my opinion. Others are obviously going to vary.

*** And yes, in my opinion it was a lapse in judgement, because Michael was bad news and was shown to be the driving force behind starting the apocalypse in the first place, so why should he be trusted to not make things worse? Michael just hid behind his lackey Zachariah and had him do all the dirty work. But having Castiel let Sam out of the panic room, having Zachariah stop Dean from going to Sam and locking him in the beautiful room, wiping Mary's and John's memory so Azazel could feed baby Sam demon blood, raising Adam to be bait and later an alternative host: that was all Michael. In my opinion, there's no way "employee of the month every month" Zach in a system where following orders is expected would have done that on his own. And "Point of No Return" showed us Michael giving Zach his orders.

2 hours ago, catrox14 said:

He got to kill Abaddon and it was not  framed at all by the narrative  as a heroic act by Dean. Rather the  narrative made it clear that Dean was more of monster than Abaddon because he went overboard when killing her, such to the extent that Sam called out Dean for it. That was when Sam started to be concerned about the affect of the Mark on Dean and at that point he had bigger fish to fry now that Dean was succumbing to the  Mark which would put  the rest of the world in peril. I don't know how much he was worried for Dean but he was definitely worried about Dean and his potential to become evil.

It may not have been framed as heroic when Dean killed Abbaddon, but my question is why should it have been? Dean was on a magic induced power trip that came out of a rash decision. When Sam went on one of those, he raised Lucifer and started an apocalypse, so if the show had presented Dean with the mark killing Abbadon as an entirely good thing, I would have been really annoyed, myself. And Sam should have been concerned for and about Dean after that, in my opinion. However Dean still got to have a role in helping to save the world with Castiel against Metatron (while Sam didn't), so there is that.

2 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I really think a lot of viewers miss that detail. Sam wasn't okay with what Dean did, nor was he forgiving him. Dean is his brother and he didn't really want him to die when push came to shove. That doesn't make Sam a liar nor does it undermine his original position WRT to Dean actions. Both things still existed. One didn't erase the other. IMO Jared kind of screwed Sam by changing the dialogue to "I lied". And to this day it's unclear what he thinks Sam lied about? I've always taken it as Sam lying about letting Dean die in general which is not tacit forgiveness nor approval of Deans actions. I've never seen that as anything other than a poor choice by Jared and poor choice by Carver to let it stand.

I didn't miss that detail, but that was the mark (see below). I thought it was fairly clear what the "I lied" was about. Sam was saying "I lied" about his saying that he wouldn't do the same thing as Dean did to save him if the situation was reversed. And that therefor invalidated Sam's former moral stance that he wouldn't do that to Dean under the same circumstances. Therefore it was a roundabout apology to Dean for saving Sam by helping Gadreel and lying about it. In my opinion, it was taking what Dean did concerning lying about Gadreel and saying "ehn, Sam would do the exact same thing - and just admitted so - so how bad could it really have been after all?" ...and then doubled down on that by turning Gadreel into a "real friend" and misunderstood guy who got to be redeemed. Gadreel even got a bigger role in stopping Metatron than Sam did... so good thing Dean covered for Gadreel, huh! That's likely not exactly what the writers were trying to say - though that "real friend" declaration and the Sam/Castiel dialogue about Gadreel "not feeling evil" and being "misunderstood" sure does make me wonder - but that's sure how it came across to me.

All of that stuff existed alongside Sam's worry about the mark's effect on Dean which was a separate issue. (A lot was going on with Dean in season 9 with two arcs at the same time.) On that point I agree with you. We still aren't exactly sure how Sam felt about Dean taking on the mark. However I think season 10 and the efforts Sam went through to cure Dean and his insistence that it "wasn't really Dean" - and his seeming to absorb Dean's later MoC breakdown as not really Dean seems to tell me that he forgave Dean's MoC behavior as not really Dean. Sam seemed to think that the mark was doing things to Dean. Also Sam has never brought up to Dean taking on the mark as a bad decision on Dean's part, so in my opinion, he doesn't seem to hold it against Dean - which (to me) is more in character with Sam than what they had him do in season 9 -  but that's just my interpretation. We have no for sure proof on that.

4 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Regardless, that's not the same kind of on screen redeeming act as Sam readying himself, by taking an actual Jesus on the cross pose.  to fall backwards into the the Pit. Dean was not afforded that kind of imagery  before he was killed by Metatron. And definitely not when he killed Abaddon.

True, but doesn't the sheer number of big bads Dean has gotten to kill and the apocalypses - that other people caused - that he's gotten a significant role in stopping count for anything? Does it only matter if it's exactly like Sam? As you asked, wouldn't that diminish Sam's sacrifice in season 5 - that Sam was put through a dark arc and screwed up a whole bunch before he got to get - if Dean just gets to do the same thing as well as all of the other stuff? In my opinion, Sam got that one big thing - as well as starting two apocalypses, and getting over a 100,000 people killed in the process - so why shouldn't Sam get to keep that one thing. Dean has plenty of other good deeds under his belt, and much less to make up for, in my opinion.

But in another way, I hope it does happen, and I hope it's glorious, so that once and for all some fans will maybe be happy and maybe stop lamenting Sam's one thing he got like it is somehow the only shining moment in all the show's history while ignoring all of the crap Sam's character had to get dragged through before he got that one thing. But I have a feeling that no matter how awesome it ended up being, somehow it wouldn't be good enough... so never mind. I think I give up... for now anyway.

1 minute ago, DeeDee79 said:

Given the context of the post it seemed like the writer decided throw that in just to placate the Dean fans that may have been reading. How can she state that while also stating that Dean is the favorite to write for? Isn't that a tad contradictory?

Yes? But then again I don't get the - to me - contradictory opinion that Carver was somehow supposedly favoring Sam in season 8 and showing him in a good light despite all of the crappy things he had Sam do and then showing him to be wrong on top of that, but it exists. As do likely a whole bunch of other seemingly contradictory opinions on both sides.

I'm not going to say that I agree with the poster either, though, in terms of his/her complaint, because Sam having an arc isn't my issue - though I'll admit I would like Sam to get to do something every once in while again. My issue is that often when Sam doesn't have much of an arc, he's also sometimes adapted to whatever the arc is even if his behavior seems to make little sense or is at least exaggerated to further along that other arc - examples: Sam's behavior in season 8A and 9B and the non-sensical "sure I'll join the organization that tortured me and I'll get Dean to join, too!" from season 12. I miss the days when Sam's characterization was more consistent and made sense. And interestingly those are generally my favorite seasons, regardless of whether Sam has an active role in the mytharc or not. Hmm. I've never consciously made that connection actually before, but now that I think about it, it's true.

[trxr4kids]

4 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

Interesting tumblr post; seems to fall under BvJ. Some of the commenters seem to think that Dean is Dabb's preferred character to write for: http://denugis.tumblr.com/post/172064709165/the-elephant-in-the-room-the-lack-of-sam-in-spn

 It's just amazing how we all see things completely differently, I feel like I'm in opposite world after reading that. 

[DeeDee79]

1 minute ago, trxr4kids said:

 It's just amazing how we all see things completely differently, I feel like I'm in opposite world after reading that. 

Right?! I'm glad it's not just me!

[catrox14]

38 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Or if you mean only season 5, then was I suppose to question Dean not trusting Sam even though multiple other characters - War, other hunters, Castiel, even Sam himself, were also questioning Sam's trustworthiness? I just don't see it.

I only meant s5.  However, to your point, other characters told Dean he was wrong to think of being Michael's vessel and told Sam he was right to be Lucifer's vessel.

[DeeDee79]

2 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I only meant s5.  However, to your point, other characters told Dean he was wrong to think of being Michael's vessel and told Sam he was right to be Lucifer's vessel.

Dean was also beat up after deciding to become Michael's vessel :(

[catrox14]

42 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

? Does it only matter if it's exactly like Sam? As you asked, wouldn't that diminish Sam's sacrifice in season 5 - that Sam was put through a dark arc and screwed up a whole bunch before he got to get - if Dean just gets to do the same thing as well as all of the other stuff? In my opinion, Sam got that one big thing - as well as starting two apocalypses, and getting over a 100,000 people killed in the process - so why shouldn't Sam get to keep that one thing.

Dean started Apocalypse 1.0 right along with Sam. That seems to be forgotten. But Dean never got the redemption for that action even as the Righteous Man.  So no it would not take away from what Sam did. It would give Dean what was being teased and promised for months in s4 and s5.

[Reganne]

8 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

 It's just amazing how we all see things completely differently, I feel like I'm in opposite world after reading that. 

I always seem to think I am of the opposite from what people say on here.  Most people here seem to think Sam is the favourite of the writers, however I haven't seen Sam do anything of importance for most of this season.  Everyone was concerned last year when Dean hadn't had kills from episode 12- 20 and some saying that it meant that Sam was writers favourite.  Now Sam hasn't had a kill since episode 7 of season 13 when he killed stunt demon number 3 and people are still saying that Sam is the favourite.  I can't understand how Sam is the favourite one, yet they aren't doing anything with his character.

5 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Dean started Apocalypse 1.0 right along with Sam. That seems to be forgotten. But Dean never got the redemption for that action even as the Righteous Man.  So no it would not take away from what Sam did. It would give Dean what was being teased and promised for months in s4 and s5.

It's forgotten because the narrative put the blame on Sam in season 5 and forgot all about Deans contribution to breaking the first seal.

10 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I only meant s5.  However, to your point, other characters told Dean he was wrong to think of being Michael's vessel and told Sam he was right to be Lucifer's vessel.

I think the difference was in their plans.  Dean was essentially giving up by saying yes to Michael while Sam was actually saying yes to Lucifer as a means of stopping the apocalypse.

[catrox14]

1 minute ago, Reganne said:

It's forgotten because the narrative put the blame on Sam in season 5 and forgot all about Deans contribution to breaking the first seal.

I disagree. The narrative didn't forget. It did shift most (not all) of the heat in order to set up Sam getting the solo redemption act.  Dean was still being shamed in the narrative for thinking of doing what Sam did.

[catrox14]

Re that Tumblr piece.

I literally have no idea what that person is talking about re lack of "publicity" about Sam. Sam had major stuff in s11 with "visions" that turned out to be Lucifer, which was discussed by Dabb in print and at comic con. And again in  s12 wtih the BMOL and Mary which was discussed in multiple interviews. And again at the beginning of s13, Sam was featured in the publicity blurbs WRT to his role with Jack which is a major thing. I don't get their argument that Sam isn't featured in publicity. He is. And so was Dean.

Spoilers for the rest of s13.

Spoiler

Not much came out about Sam or Dean at Paleyfest other than the tease of Jensen playing a new character which they won't talk about.

ETA: Jared is featured heavily in the promo materials as well. I'm legit puzzled by that post. But then the author said they don't really watch the live now and I'm thinking maybe they've missed the actual promotional stuff?

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I think the difference was in their plans.  Dean was essentially giving up by saying yes to Michael while Sam was actually saying yes to Lucifer as a means of stopping the apocalypse.

That rankled so much in Season 5 (among so many other things, of course), this narrative of "oh Dean, that weak quitter, better beat some sense into him" and "Sam, our hero, if anyone can overcome Lucifer himself, it`s the strong one, best plan ever".

With the Bobby worship in the penultimate episode with the "we`ve always been hard on him". You gotta be kidding me, Bobby, you`d never have given Sam a boohoo-speech. You said some things once as a demon and then immediately told Sam you dìdn`t mean any of it. Hard, my ass.  

It`s actually torture now when they sneak in shots from 5.22, especially that falling into a CGI hole. In that one episode with Lucifer they did and I had to avert my eyes. Sometimes, it is still in the previouslies and hits me unprepared, reminding me this episode exists and I once watched it all the way through in increasing horror. Praying something would turn around. Some last second hail Mary where Dean was important in the end but the episode ended and I just felt sick. 

These days, I have to go with disassociation when it comes to the Season 5 Finale.     

[catrox14]

30 minutes ago, Reganne said:

I think the difference was in their plans.  Dean was essentially giving up by saying yes to Michael while Sam was actually saying yes to Lucifer as a means of stopping the apocalypse.

That...doesn't matter to me.  I never subscribed to the idea that Dean was giving up. He saw the writing on the wall and was going to take action.It's still placing Dean's legitimately reasonable plan in a lower position and that Dean was wrong and terrible and no good and a very bad for wanting to save half the planet. 

[DeeDee79]

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

That...doesn't matter to me.  I never subscribed to the idea that Dean was giving up. He saw the writing on the wall and was going to take action.It's still placing Dean's legitimately reasonable plan in a lower position and that Dean was wrong and terrible and no good and a very bad for wanting to save half the planet. 

I didn't see it as giving up either. After realizing that the colt wouldn't kill Lucifer & Michael telling Dean that nothing that they did would stop the showdown he just decided that saying yes might be a way to save some of humanity instead of it being wiped out completely. IMO Sam saying yes to Lucifer was all a part of the redemption that he said that he wanted at the beginning of The End.

[Wayward Son]

16 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

That...doesn't matter to me.  I never subscribed to the idea that Dean was giving up. He saw the writing on the wall and was going to take action.It's still placing Dean's legitimately reasonable plan in a lower position and that Dean was wrong and terrible and no good and a very bad for wanting to save half the planet. 

 

6 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

I didn't see it as giving up either. After realizing that the colt wouldn't kill Lucifer & Michael telling Dean that nothing that they did would stop the showdown he just decided that saying yes might be a way to save some of humanity instead of it being wiped out completely. IMO Sam saying yes to Lucifer was all a part of the redemption that he said that he wanted at the beginning of The End.

IMO he did give up. Dialogue like “angel world, angel rules” “nuclear the only option we have left” are hardly the inspiring words of a man with a plan. If Dean wasn’t giving up and had some end game in mind it was up to him to inform Sam, Cas, Bobby and the audience what it was. 

 

Dean saying yes to Michael at that point would have been a spit in the face of everything they’d gone through in season 5. It would have made the loss of Bobby’s legs and the deaths of Jo and Ellen utterly pointless and in vain. They might as well have just said yes to Zachariah back in Sympathy for the Devil if Dean had just said yes because it’s “angel world, angel rules”. 

[DeeDee79]

1 minute ago, Wayward Son said:

 

IMO he did give up. Dialogue like “angel world, angel rules” “nuclear the only option we have left” are hardly the inspiring words of a man with a plan. If Dean wasn’t giving up and had some end game in mind it was up to him to inform Sam, Cas, Bobby and the audience what it was. 

 

Dean saying yes to Michael at that point would have been a spit in the face of everything they’d gone through in season 5. It would have made the loss of Bobby’s legs and the deaths of Jo and Ellen utterly pointless and in vain. They might as well have just said yes to Zachariah back in Sympathy for the Devil if Dean had just said yes because it’s “angel world, angel rules”. 

That's your opinion. I don't agree.

[catrox14]

5 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Dean saying yes to Michael at that point would have been a spit in the face of everything they’d gone through in season 5.

I'll never agree with this. Sam and Dean are literally doing the same act regardless of the rationale. Its the same thing. There is nothing bad or wrong or shitty about Dean's plan other than other characters telling him it's wrong. Doesn't mean those other characters are actually correct in their belief.  But then I have a completely different view of s5 than most viewers, which I'm fine with.

[DeeDee79]

2 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I'll never agree with this. Sam and Dean are literally doing the same act regardless of the rationale. Its the same thing. There is nothing bad or wrong or shitty about Dean's plan other than other characters telling him it's wrong. Doesn't mean those other characters are actually correct in their belief.  But then I have a completely different view of s5 than most viewers, which I'm fine with.

Very well stated!

[Wayward Son]

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

I'll never agree with this. Sam and Dean are literally doing the same act regardless of the rationale. Its the same thing. There is nothing bad or wrong or shitty about Dean's plan other than other characters telling him it's wrong. Doesn't mean those other characters are actually correct in their belief.  But then I have a completely different view of s5 than most viewers, which I'm fine with.

I don’t see how they are the same things at all. 

 

1. Dean’s plan - Give the angels what they want because “angel world, angel rules”. Let Michael and Lucifer possess them and have the big fight play out resulting in the death of billions. Like I said they might as well have just said yes back in Sympathy for the Devil and spared everyone the drama if they were just going to follow the angels plan anyway. 

2. Sam’s plan - Say yes to Lucifer, put Lucifer back in the cage before the big fight can occur. The losses are minimal (I believe ten thousand as opposed to billions) as a result and the angels plans is completely ruined because no big fight took place.

[catrox14]

ETA:

Sam's plan was not tested but it was approved anyway. It really was a terrible plan that relied on Sam being strong enough to not lose to Lucifer. That's a bad plan IMO. Dean at least had some idea that Michael wouldn't leave him a drooling mes and it would only be half the planet.

[companionenvy]

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

Sam and Dean are literally doing the same act regardless of the rationale. Its the same thing.

But IMO, rationale makes a big difference. And at least in intent, Sam and Dean weren't doing the same thing. Sam's plan was ridiculously risky, but the intended (and actual) outcome was to stop the apocalypse altogether. Dean was resigning himself to writing off half of humanity.

In pragmatic terms, there's actually something to be said for Dean's plan, since, while it worked in the end, it was so unlikely that they were going to actually succeed in stopping the apocalypse that maybe saving half of humanity was the better option. But just because both of them were saying "yes" to an archangel doesn't mean Sam and Dean were doing the same thing.

[Wayward Son]

1 minute ago, companionenvy said:

But IMO, rationale makes a big difference. And at least in intent, Sam and Dean weren't doing the same thing. Sam's plan was ridiculously risky, but the intended (and actual) outcome was to stop the apocalypse altogether. Dean was resigning himself to writing off half of humanity.

In pragmatic terms, there's actually something to be said for Dean's plan, since, while it worked in the end, it was so unlikely that they were going to actually succeed in stopping the apocalypse that maybe saving half of humanity was the better option. But just because both of them were saying "yes" to an archangel doesn't mean Sam and Dean were doing the same thing.

Well said! 

 

Lets be honest, it really comes down to some viewers prefer Dean’s plan because they wanted to see Dean!Michael. 

[catrox14]

Just now, Wayward Son said:

I don’t see how they are the same things at all. 

 

It's really only confirmation bias IMO that makes Sam right and Dean wrong. And because they needed Sam to jump into the pit alone.

I'm really okay with my view of s5. And Dean wouldn't have been a jerk for doing it no matter how much the writers or other fans want me to think he was.

[DeeDee79]

Just now, catrox14 said:

It's really only confirmation bias IMO that makes Sam right and Dean wrong. And because they needed Sam to jump into the pit alone.

I'm really okay with my view of s5. And Dean wouldn't have been a jerk for doing it no matter how much the writers or other fans want me to think he was.

Co-sign 100%.