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

[SueB]

Wanders in....

Hmmmm... hubris.  Well, I think both boys have had MAJOR self-esteem issues for most of their existence.  And although they've often exhibited some bravado, that's more about getting the "win" in a situation than genuine hubris IMO. Over the 13 years, I think we have had moments of genuine hubris (see TL:DR for summary), let's examine!
- Sam sending Dean to the site of the church fire presuming that this location combined with Baby's metal (which really, there isn't much iron there, it's steel), would be sufficient to "kill" racist ghost truck.  But that really felt more like Sam was looking at the situation from an intellectual POV than hubris.  I chalk it up to kinda rusty from non-hunting and not experiencing Dean's mortality (like he did in Faith).
- Dean and the ladies for the first few years.  I'd say it bordered on hubris although it lacked the snobbishness I associate with hubris.  But he was exceedingly self-confident in that regard. Not that it was unwarranted.  And faced with a three-dimensional female character, that arrogance dropped away.  But for random hook-ups of the week, he was pretty sure of himself.
- S4: Sam and his belief he could work with Ruby and "win".  Sam knew it was risky and before Dean was resurrected, he was just operating on grief and alcohol.  But his decision to go BACK to Ruby after "Criss Angel Is A Douchebag", to me that was hubris.  He believed he could "handle" the demon blood and the powers and be the one to kill Lilith and stop the Apocalypse.  Note:  I have NEVER blamed Sam for actually killing Lilith.  Dean was totally down with that plan.  I blame Sam for getting addicted to the demon blood and the power it brought because it was rooted in a desire to HAVE power (IMO) and he only fooled himself in thinking he was the only one who could save the planet.  To me that was text-book hubris and it was based on his confidence in his intellect.  But Sam, IMO, crashed and burned on that and spent a year doubting himself.  In the end he threw himself in the pit for redemption and I think it was earned.  
- S5: Dean's choices were bravado IMO versus hubris. He played the hand given to him and sometimes he KNEW the outcome ("When I get back, I'm gonna be pissed" -- as he was about to be killed, again.) but that's not the same as hubris.  That was a 'condition', a 'circumstance' and one that was not of his own making.
- S8: I'd say deciding they had a right to close the Gates of Hell was hubris, on the part of Dean.  I think Sam went along because he was ashamed of not looking for Dean and not taking care of Kevin.  But the belief that they could make the decision to "pull one of the big levers" was, IMO, arrogant.  Who were they to change the natural order on that kind of a scale.  Now Death has beaten Dean up about being a snarky amoba when it comes to presuming they could beat death for Sam (or himself).  That's kinda fair but I see that as more desperation than hubris. No, for me the hubris was believing they personally got to make a decision on a global scale.  Yes, they had been in that position for the Apocalypse.  And Godstiel. And the Leviathans.  So they got used to making big world-consequences decisions.  But those previous decisions were (IMO) playing the cards dealt them.   Shutting the Gates of Hell was because they WANTED to.  Because they thought if they COULD do a thing, they SHOULD do a thing.  IMO the show punished Dean by having Sam become shredded through the trials.  But the connection between them choosing to shut the Gates of Hell and Sam's condition as a consequence was never drawn very strongly.  
-S9: Dean helping Gadreel take over Sam.  That wasn't hubris IMO, that was desperation.  He TOTALLY violated Sam's agency but again, it wasn't done out of confidence or belief that he had a right to that.  It was Dean unwilling to let Sam die and a belief that he could talk Sam into it after the fact.  That did NOT work out for Dean.  Like, at all.  Kevin died and Dean, desperate for a win, took on the Mark of Cain. Again, I don't see taking on the MoC as hubris, I see that as trying to redeem himself from mistakes of the past.  OTOH, at the END of S9, while riding the wave of MoC power, Dean went into full-on hubris mode when he said "this isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship."  Sure, the MoC was effecting him, but underneath it, this was (IMO) Dean's equivalent failing to Sam's issues with power.  For Dean, it was never about power, it was about control.  And Dean, feeling the murderous buzz, felt he was the ONLY one to be able to stop Metatron.  Yes, there's a desperation there that softens the hubris but MoC Dean (pre-demon) showed some serious arrogance.
- S10: Dean showed humility except for when he realized he couldn't be killed.  And then it was less arrogance (IMO) and more back to playing the cards he had.  Sam, OTOH, choosing to save Dean was borderline hubris.  It was still driven out of the desire to "SAVE DEAN" but he knew there were cosmic consequences likely and did it anyway.  But it wasn't about Sam so much as it was Sam's confidence in his own judgement that this was right.  Still, I think the desperation to save Dean softens the hubris here.
- S11-S13:  I think the boys have dropped all signs of hubris but HAVE demonstrated genuine, well-earned, confidence.  They know what they can do and they keep doing it.  Because it's the right thing.  I think they've finally struck the right balance of using their abilities and making decisions for the greater good.  The speech Sam gave to Dean about "both parts of the bumper sticker" was a necessary reset on priorities for them.  I think they've shown a better balance since they made that deal.  And the deal to respect other's choices.  Even if they haven't always abided by either the deal or other's choices.  They accept, as an foundational principle, those concepts (individual agency, loss of each other if it's the necessary thing).  And then they violate them, AFTER they talk it through and only if they both agree.  I'm good with it.

Bottom Line for the TL; DR:  I think both Sam and Dean have had moments of hubris in the last 13 years.  I think it has often been tempered by true deperation to save someone but both have suffered consequences for true moments of hubris.  I think they are past that now and their self-confidence is both warranted and "checked" by a healthy dose of realism.  

Edited March 25, 2018 by SueB

[DeeDee79]

3 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

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

And some prefer Sam's plan because they don't like Dean.

[catrox14]

3 minutes 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.

The intent was to stop the Apocalpyse. That's it. There was no reason for the show to decide that saving EVERYONE was the only real answer. They haven't been able to save everyone for a long time.

Castiel's plan which it really was, did not guarantee saving even one person if Sam couldn't get control of Lucifer. Dean's plan at least was half the planet. So no it wasn't a bad plan either strategically or ethically. 

[DeeDee79]

2 minutes ago, SueB said:

Wanders in....

Hmmmm... hubris.  Well, I think both boys have had MAJOR self-esteem issues for most of their existence.  And although they've often exhibited some bravado, that's more about getting the "win" in a situation than genuine hubris IMO. Over the 13 years moments of genuine hubris (see TL:DR for summary):
- Sam sending Dean to the site of the church fire presuming that this location combined with Baby's metal (which really, there isn't much iron there, it's steel), would be sufficient to "kill" racist ghost truck.  But that really felt more like Sam was looking at the situation from an intellectual POV than hubris.  I chalk it up to kinda rusty from non-hunting and not experiencing Dean's mortality (like he did in Faith).
- Dean and the ladies for the first few years.  I'd say it bordered on hubris although it lacked the snobbishness I associate with hubris.  But he was exceedingly self-confident in that regard. Not that it was unwarranted.  And faced with a three-dimensional female character, that arrogance dropped away.  But for random hook-ups of the week, he was pretty sure of himself.
- S4: Sam and his belief he could work with Ruby and "win".  Sam knew it was risky and before Dean was resurrected, he was just operating on grief and alcohol.  But his decision to go BACK to Ruby after "Criss Angel Is A Douchebag", to me that was hubris.  He believed he could "handle" the demon blood and the powers and be the one to kill Lilith and stop the Apocalypse.  Note:  I have NEVER blamed Sam for actually killing Lilith.  Dean was totally down with that plan.  I blame Sam for getting addicted to the demon blood and the power it brought because it was rooted in a desire to HAVE power (IMO) and he only fooled himself in thinking he was the only one who could save the planet.  To me that was text-book hubris and it was based on his confidence in his intellect.  But Sam, IMO, crashed and burned on that and spent a year doubting himself.  In the end he threw himself in the pit for redemption and I think it was earned.  
- S5: Dean's choices were bravado IMO versus hubris. He played the hand given to him and sometimes he KNEW the outcome ("When I get back, I'm gonna be pissed" -- as he was about to be killed, again.) but that's not the same as hubris.  That was a 'condition', a 'circumstance' and one that was not of his own making.
- S8: I'd say deciding they had a right to close the Gates of Hell was hubris, on the part of Dean.  I think Sam went along because he was ashamed of not looking for Dean and not taking care of Kevin.  But the belief that they could make the decision to "pull one of the big levers" was, IMO, arrogant.  Who were they to change the natural order on that kind of a scale.  Now Death has beaten Dean up about being a snarky amoba when it comes to presuming they could beat death for Sam (or himself).  That's kinda fair but I see that as more desperation than hubris. No, for me the hubris was believing they personally got to make a decision on a global scale.  Yes, they had been in that position for the Apocalypse.  And Godstiel. And the Leviathans.  So they got used to making big world-consequences decisions.  But those previous decisions were (IMO) playing the cards dealt them.   Shutting the Gates of Hell was because they WANTED to.  Because they thought if they COULD do a thing, they SHOULD do a thing.  IMO the show punished Dean by having Sam become shredded through the trials.  But the connection between them choosing to shut the Gates of Hell and Sam's condition as a consequence was never drawn very strongly.  
-S9: Dean helping Gadreel take over Sam.  That wasn't hubris IMO, that was desperation.  He TOTALLY violated Sam's agency but again, it wasn't done out of confidence or belief that he had a right to that.  It was Dean unwilling to let Sam die and a belief that he could talk Sam into it after the fact.  That did NOT work out for Dean.  Like, at all.  Kevin died and Dean, desperate for a win, took on the Mark of Cain. Again, I don't see taking on the MoC as hubris, I see that as trying to redeem himself from mistakes of the past.  OTOH, at the END of S9, while riding the wave of MoC power, Dean went into full-on hubris mode when he said "this isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship."  Sure, the MoC was effecting him, but underneath it, this was (IMO) Dean's equivalent failing to Sam's issues with power.  For Dean, it was never about power, it was about control.  And Dean, feeling the murderous buzz, felt he was the ONLY one to be able to stop Metatron.  Yes, there's a desperation there that softens the hubris but MoC Dean (pre-demon) showed some serious arrogance.
- S10: Dean showed humility except for when he realized he couldn't be killed.  And then it was less arrogance (IMO) and more back to playing the cards he had.  Sam, OTOH, choosing to save Dean was borderline hubris.  It was still driven out of the desire to "SAVE DEAN" but he knew there were cosmic consequences likely and did it anyway.  But it wasn't about Sam so much as it was Sam's confidence in his own judgement that this was right.  Still, I think the desperation to save Dean softens the hubris here.
- S11-S13:  I think the boys have dropped all signs of hubris but HAVE demonstrated genuine, well-earned, confidence.  They know what they can do and they keep doing it.  Because it's the right thing.  I think they've finally struck the right balance of using their abilities and making decisions for the greater good.  The speech Sam gave to Dean about "both parts of the bumper sticker" was a necessary reset on priorities for them.  I think they've shown a better balance since they made that deal.  And the deal to respect other's choices.  Even if they haven't always abided by either the deal or other's choices.  They accept, as an foundational principle, those concepts (individual agency, loss of each other if it's the necessary thing).  And then they violate them, AFTER they talk it through and only if they both agree.  I'm good with it.

Bottom Line for the TL; DR:  I think both Sam and Dean have had moments of hubris in the last 13 years.  I think it has often been tempered by true deperation to save someone but both have suffered consequences for true moments of hubris.  I think they are past that now and their self-confidence is both warranted and "checked" by a healthy dose of realism.  

Wonderful, wonderful post @SueB.

[Wayward Son]

3 minutes ago, 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.

And it’s only confirmation bias and wanting to see Dean!Michael, which leads to attempts to describe Dean giving the angels what they want as it is “an angel world and angel rules” as anything other than giving up. 

 

Of course we can agree or disagree on whether giving up was a good or bad idea. I think giving up was a bad idea while you and @DeeDee79 think it was a good idea to give up. Either way though it was giving up. 

[DeeDee79]

Just now, Wayward Son said:

Either way though it was giving up. 

Which is your opinion, not an absolute.

[Wayward Son]

1 minute ago, DeeDee79 said:

Which is your opinion, not an absolute.

Agree to disagree. Doing exactly what the enemy wants is the very definition of giving up. Sometimes giving up can be the right thing or the wrong thing but it is still giving up. 

[catrox14]

1 minute ago, Wayward Son said:

And it’s only confirmation bias and wanting to see Dean!Michael, which leads to attempts to describe Dean giving the angels what they want as it is “an angel world and angel rules” as anything other than giving up. 

 

Nope. It's not confirmation because born of wanting to see Michael!Dean.  It's because the show was WRITING towards Michael!Dean for almost 2 seasons until they pulled Adam out of their asses.

The only way to put Sam in the pit alone is to remove Dean. To remove Dean they had to make him be wrong, even though he really wasn't wrong at all. That's what I mean by confirmation bias in the writing. Not because of fans.

I don't base my viewing opinions on other fans no matter which faction is involbed. I'm filtering it through my own views and my own opinions of what I think was being teased and promised for almost 2 seasons.

And you can think it was giving up but it wasn't. It was Dean deciding to work with the hand he was being dealt.

[AwesomO4000]

17 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.

14 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

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

Oh, I agree. I was only talking about the "Fallen Idols" thing and Dean not trusting Sam after season 4. My point was that I didn't see the narrative showing Dean as the bad guy for not trusting Sam, because the other characters I named (and others later) also questioned Sam for his bad decisions, because even if we believe in "Fallen Idols" that Sam was blaming things on Dean - which I do not, but say I did - that the rest of the episodes before and after that one pointed the finger at Sam (including Sam), so for me, the majority of the evidence would seem to be saying Sam.

But now that I see you are including Michael, that's a bit different, and I can see some of your argument. That wasn't on my radar when answering the question, because of "Fallen idols" and Ruby and such. With Michael, for me however, it wasn't Dean not trusting Sam that was the main factor why he considered saying "yes." I thought that "Sam, Interrupted" and what Dean said to Bobby showed that one of Dean's main considerations was that he felt responsible for stopping the apocalypse and that he couldn't live with himself if he didn't act and things went south. And this goes back to (stupid) John and his "save (or kill) Sam" nonsense. Dean was under considerable pressure, and since it had been his decision to say "no" to Michael to begin with and was maybe now - with things getting worse - questioning what Zachariah showed him, Dean was now having an understandable moment of doubt. But in that moment of doubt, he was having very unDean-like thoughts.

2 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.

I wouldn't call it giving up exactly so much as being desperate and not acting like himself - which if I remember was partially what Bobby and Sam were pointing out - because since when does Dean find such Machiavellian plans "reasonable?" This is the same guy who objected to killing one person - who was willing to sacrifice herself even - to potentially not only save everyone else, but to stop Lilith, too, because Dean doesn't believe in that strategy. And everyone else had bought into Dean's plan and his philosophy, and so I can see that they might be reasonably upset that suddenly - without their input, and with Dean telling them that their opinion didn't matter - Dean was entirely changing that plan. And that might look like Dean giving up to them, because we, the viewers, saw Dean's crisis, but Dean hadn't shared any of that with Castiel, Bobby or Sam. Also Sam didn't think Dean was wrong and terrible and very bad in the end. He decided to let Dean decide for himself and believed in him.

53 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

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.

3 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.

I don't think Sam's plan and Dean's were equivalent at all. They had a role reversal there with Dean with the Machiavellian plan and Sam with the pie in the sky we save everyone plan. In "Jus In Bello"  the positions were reversed, and Sam even considering Ruby's Machiavellian plan in "Jus In Bello" was shamed as awful and horrible, even though Dean's "let's let them all in and we'll all win or go down fighting" plan theoretically shouldn't have worked. So in my opinion, it was say "yes" to Michael vs say "yes" to Lucifer on a smaller scale. And true to the show's philosophy, the non-Machiavellian plan is the one the show endorses... although there are consequences (see below.)

2 minutes ago, 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.

Does that mean that it was only "confirmation bias" that had Dean's plan working in "Jus In Bello?" Because in my opinion, that plan shouldn't have worked either whereas Ruby's plan would theoretically have saved all but one of them, and even gotten rid of Ruby herself. But in my opinion the show was consistent in its view that he Machiavellian answer is the one you should go with...

Of course in both cases, there were also consequences. In "Jus In Bello" that consequence was that people died later. In "Swan Song" the consequence was that before Sam succeeded, about 100,000 people died.

22 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

...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.

Bobby's "well there never was much hope anyway" wasn't exactly a ringing endorsement of Sam or his plan if you ask me. Besides one of the reasons Dean went on to say yes, and likely Bobby was swayed, too, was because Death said that it was the best plan - I think he said the only plan. It's not like Death isn't a heavy hitter with a lot of clout, so if the partially omniscient being tells you that this is your best bet, I think that has something to do with your decision... and yet Bobby still hadn't expected Sam's plan to work or Sam to prevail apparently. Personally I'm not seeing the ringing endorsement you are.

It all depends on how you look at it.

[DeeDee79]

5 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Agree to disagree. Doing exactly what the enemy wants is the very definition of giving up. Sometimes giving up can be the right thing or the wrong thing but it is still giving up. 

Agree to disagree. Going with the lesser evil doesn't equate to giving up but it's all a matter of perspective.

5 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

And you can think it was giving up but it wasn't. It was Dean deciding to work with the hand he was being dealt.

This is how I see it also.

[gonzosgirrl]

9 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Agree to disagree. Doing exactly what the enemy wants is the very definition of giving up. Sometimes giving up can be the right thing or the wrong thing but it is still giving up. 

But Sam also did exactly what the enemy wanted in saying yes to Lucifer. The difference is that the show gave Sam the ability to prevail, while framing Dean's loss of faith* as giving up. 

I believe it was loss of faith, not giving up. He wanted to say yes then because he believed Sam would eventually give in and he was being proactive in at least having a chance to stop Lucifer.

Edited March 25, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[Wayward Son]

1 minute ago, gonzosgirrl said:

But Sam also did exactly what the enemy wanted in saying yes to Lucifer. The difference is that the show gave Sam the ability to prevail, while framing Dean's loss of faith* as giving up. 

I believe it was loss of faith, not giving up. He wanted to say yes then because he believed Sam would eventually give in.

I’ve already agreed to disagree so I am not posting this to continue a debate. This post is for clarification on your viewpoint. 

 

I agree with you that Dean lost faith, but for me this loss of faith was what led to Dean giving up and going along with the angels plan. A plan he had fought strongly against for months. 

 

How does ‘losing faith’ differ to ‘giving up’ in your mind? Like I said I’m not trying to argue with you. I’m just curious how they differ for you since in my mind one led to the other. 

[catrox14]

5 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Agree to disagree. Doing exactly what the enemy wants is the very definition of giving up. Sometimes giving up can be the right thing or the wrong thing but it is still giving up. 

Either saying yes could be construed as "giving up" if you want to see it that way. But I don't think either one was giving up. Look what happened in Detroit. That went sideways from the jump. In the graveyard,  Michael was coming back reinvigorated for that fight.

One had a completely unknown variable that is wildly unpredictable (Lucifer)  and the other had a known variable based on a conversation with an angel and having seen a terrible potential future. Neither gave up.

[AwesomO4000]

5 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

To remove Dean they had to make him be wrong, even though he really wasn't wrong at all. That's what I mean by confirmation bias in the writing. Not because of fans.

I don't know if that's actually true, or at least according to the show. As I said, in a way, I didn't think Sam was wrong wrong wrong to consider Ruby's plan in "Jus In Bello," but apparently the show did. For me, the show had been hinting at Michael as a bad guy for a little while, and confirmed it for me at least since "The Song Remains the Same."

2 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

The difference is that the show gave Sam the ability to prevail, while framing Dean's loss of faith* as giving up. 

For me the difference was that one plan was Machiavellian and one wasn't - and the show went with the "not" one being more preferable, no mater how crazy and or how big the chance to fail, just like it had done before.

[gonzosgirrl]

2 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I’ve already agreed to disagree so I am not posting this to continue a debate. This post is for clarification on your viewpoint. 

 

I agree with you that Dean lost faith, but for me this loss of faith was what led to Dean giving up and going along with the angels plan. A plan he had fought strongly against for months. 

 

How does ‘losing faith’ differ to ‘giving up’ in your mind? Like I said I’m not trying to argue with you. I’m just curious how they differ for you since in my mind one led to the other. 

Giving up would have been saying screw it, maybe grabbing some good weed and a case of Jack and heading down to Cabo to ride out the apocalypse.

He decided to fight in the only way he saw possible and maybe save half the planet instead of letting it all burn.

[catrox14]

6 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I don't know if that's actually true, or at least according to the show. As I said, in a way, I didn't think Sam was wrong wrong wrong to consider Ruby's plan in "Jus In Bello," but apparently the show did. For me, the show had been hinting at Michael as a bad guy for a little while, and confirmed it for me at least since "The Song Remains the Same."

I'm not saying Michael was a good guy. I'm saying that I think Dean had more reason to cautiously trust Michael than Sam had for trusting that he could beat Lucifer. Combined with what he saw in the future and had been trying and hoping to avoid was probably unavoidable as he became convinced that Sam would say yes to Lucifer.

For the life of me, I will never understand the need for the show in s5 to have made Dean's decision a moral or ethical failing of Dean other than to prop Sam's choice as being good and wise. It wasn't really IMO.

Edited March 25, 2018 by catrox14
not trusting Lucifer but trusting he could beat Lucifer. Big differene ! LOL whoops

[Wayward Son]

4 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Giving up would have been saying screw it, maybe grabbing some good weed and a case of Jack and heading down to Cabo to ride out the apocalypse.

He decided to fight in the only way he saw possible and maybe save half the planet instead of letting it all burn.

Thanks for clarifying. Unsurprisingly I disagree, but at least now I know what im disagreeing with lol. 

Edited March 25, 2018 by Wayward Son

[DeeDee79]

9 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

For me, the show had been hinting at Michael as a bad guy for a little while, and confirmed it for me at least since "The Song Remains the Same."

Which wasn't really surprising because all of the angels ( past and present ) aren't too much better than the demons. Cas isn't included in this IMO.

[gonzosgirrl]

5 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Thanks for clarifying. Unsurprisingly I disagree, but at least now I know what im disagreeing with lol. 

 

Dean made a choice and had a plan (which got him beaten half to death by Castiel and roundly denounced by Bobby and Sam)  Sam made a choice and had a plan (which worked because the others, including Dean supported him). So why was it only Dean that was giving up? They had no idea if Sam could really control Lucifer, so the risk was every bit as great, if not more so. It's only because in the end, they wrote Sam as right and Dean as wrong - but the foundation was there for the opposite to be just as true.  

Edited March 25, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[Wayward Son]

5 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Dean made a choice and had a plan (which got him beaten half to death by Castiel and roundly denounced by Bobby and Sam)  Sam made a choice and had a plan (which worked because the others, including Dean supported him). So why was it only Dean that was giving up? They had no idea if Sam could really control Lucifer, so the risk was every bit as great, if not more so. It's only because in the end, they wrote Sam as right and Dean as wrong - but the foundation was there for the opposite to be just as true.  

 

Since I’ve previously received a warning for continuing to post in here after “agreeing to disagree” I am not going to respond to your question in here just to be safe. I am happy to PM you and clarify rather than argue why I see one as giving up and not the other if you’d like though. 

Edited March 25, 2018 by Wayward Son

[Reganne]

5 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Dean made a choice and had a plan (which got him beaten half to death by Castiel and roundly denounced by Bobby and Sam)  Sam made a choice and had a plan (which worked because the others, including Dean supported him). So why was it only Dean that was giving up? They had no idea if Sam could really control Lucifer, so the risk was every bit as great, if not more so. It's only because in the end, they wrote Sam as right and Dean as wrong - but the foundation was there for the opposite to be just as true.  

But what exactly was Dean's plan?  Say yes to Michael and then what?

[DeeDee79]

11 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Dean made a choice and had a plan (which got him beaten half to death by Castiel and roundly denounced by Bobby and Sam)  Sam made a choice and had a plan (which worked because the others, including Dean supported him). So why was it only Dean that was giving up? They had no idea if Sam could really control Lucifer, so the risk was every bit as great, if not more so. It's only because in the end, they wrote Sam as right and Dean as wrong - but the foundation was there for the opposite to be just as true.  

I agree. 

[Wayward Son]

For the record, I don’t condone Castiel’s beat down of Dean. A simple finger tap to the head to knock him out would have sufficed. The beat down on Dean was clearly an unfair, gratuitous lashing out where he used Dean as an avatar for everyone Cas felt let him down (God, the other angels and now Dean).

 

I just thought I’d post this because I’ve seen the Cas beatdown referenced a few times, but I don’t think anyone who disagrees with Dean’s plan has said he deserved the beating. 

Edited March 25, 2018 by Wayward Son

[AwesomO4000]

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

For the life of me, I will never understand the need for the show in s5 to have made Dean's decision a moral or ethical failing of Dean other than to prop Sam's choice as being good and wise. It wasn't really IMO.

But Dean decided not to do it. On his own terms. No one forced him, so how is this saying Dean is an awful person? Dean obviously decided to return to his own "save everyone or go down fighting" beliefs rather than be bullied by the angels into accepting only half of humanity.

And as I said. This is the show's generally philosophy, in my opinion. They painted it just as wrong when Sam considered it in "Jus In Bello" and when Sam killed the nurse in season 4.*** If Michael wasn't a good guy - and all evidence said no - how could Dean be sure he could even trust him that half the planet would be saved? It was like Sam believing Ruby was telling the truth about the virgin spell. An iffy Michiavellian plan to save mostly everyone. It sounds good, but potentially a slippery slope.

...That Dean didn't go down, because he chose not to. So I'm not seeing how Dean is being shown as all that bad here. He had a short moment of doubt, but he didn't fall victim to it. I don't see how that's such a bad thing myself.

*** And we saw what happened when Sam did take that Machiavellian step. The show gave the worst possible outcome - exactly what they were trying to avoid. In general, Machiavellian strategy = bad on this show.

4 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Dean made a choice and had a plan (which got him beaten half to death by Castiel and roundly denounced by Bobby and Sam)  Sam made a choice and had a plan (which worked because the others, including Dean supported him). So why was it only Dean that was giving up? They had no idea if Sam could really control Lucifer, so the risk was every bit as great, if not more so. It's only because in the end, they wrote Sam as right and Dean as wrong - but the foundation was there for the opposite to be just as true.

Why was Sam's plan to get strong and use his powers to kill Lilith in season 4 considered bad and denounced by everyone while Dean following the angels - who were also bad - wasn't? The writers also had the chance for Sam's Machiavellian plans in season 4 to work and for killing Lilith to actually stop Lucifer from rising, but that's not what happened. They made Dean right in the end and Sam wrong.

Here at least, Dean changed his mind in the end, so if Dean was "wrong" it was just for an episode or two. Are you saying Dean shouldn't ever be wrong between the two brothers? I wouldn't find that much of a partnership between the two if only Sam is ever wrong.

So I'm saying both brothers have been painted as wrong. I don't think it's somehow only one or the other, which I think is the way it should be if the brothers are supposed to be equal. And they should each pick the other up when one makes a mistake in judgement - which is what I think happened here.

And it appears to me that the "wrong" strategy is usually based on whether the strategy is of the Machiavellian vs the save everyone strategy. And on that the show was usually consistent, in my opinion.

[catrox14]

5 minutes ago, Reganne said:

But what exactly was Dean's plan?  Say yes to Michael and then what?

Fight Lucifer to save half of humanity. What else would he have done? 

Castiel's plan didn't become a thing until after Dean had already been beaten in the narrative both figuratively and literally for his potential option. So whatever shaming Dean got was prior to the new plan. His plan was solid and valid until the narrative came up with a better one for Sam to use. And mind you they could have written it that both Dean and Sam dragged their vessels into Hell...but NOPE they didn't. 

There was no reason to not have them both say and both go into the Cage together once that plan became known. None other than well....Sam had to go it alone.

[MysteryGuest]

I always have a bit of trouble with these discussions, because I genuinely don't see the "blame" that other people claim to see.  When Dean decided to say yes to Michael, he had given up.  He'd given up on hoping they could save everyone.  He didn't Trust Sam not to say yes to Lucifer, so it was his pre-emptive strike.  But I don't see blame on either of their parts.  We're talking the Apocalypse here.  It's not like either Sam or Dean had a fricking clue what to do.  So if they get beaten down, or make a bad decision, or lose faith, for me, it's perfectly understandable.  I think we sometimes forget just what they're up against in this show.

Dean ultimately didn't say yes, because he didn't want to disappoint Sam.  Sam decided to say yes to Lucifer, thinking that maybe that way they had a chance to save everyone, and he could redeem himself.  Dean agreed with him, even if it was the last thing he wanted.  But I don't think either one of them were "wrong".  They were desperate and scrambling to come up with some plan to save the world.  Maybe I'm watching a different show because I never felt that one brother was right and the other was wrong.  But then I actually liked Swan Song and was perfectly happy to not have a Dean/Michael Sam/Lucifer battle.  I personally would have hated that.  I like what we got.  It was tragic and heartbreaking and very effective, I think.  

[catrox14]

12 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

But Dean decided not to do it. On his own terms. No one forced him, so how is this saying Dean is an awful person? Dean obviously decided to return to his own "save everyone or go down fighting" beliefs rather than be bullied by the angels into accepting only half of humanity.

Sure Dean decided not to do it, after being shamed and beaten and told how terrible and awful he was for even thinking it. Cas shamed Dean while he was beating him half to death. 

Dean always knew he couldn't save EVERYONE and that was always acceptable in the narrative and okay and not wrong, until it was in s5. And was used as the reason Castiel/Sam's plan was right and good and Dean's was wrong and bad.  That's what's always really irritated me about the shift in s5 as of PoNR. Just so annoying for me.

[companionenvy]

22 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Dean always knew he couldn't save EVERYONE and that was always acceptable in the narrative and okay and not wrong, until it was in s5.

I think there's a difference between not being able to save everyone and writing off half of the planet. Plus it wasn't clear that a victorious Michael was simply going to  leave the rest of humanity to continue on their merry way. In fact, the existence of AU-world suggests precisely the opposite. So, Dean's plan was going to result in half of the world dying and the rest of humanity probably being left in some apocalyptic hellscape. Sam's plan had a much lower chance of success, but the potential payoff was much greater. I can see why Dean was willing to accept the lesser of two evils, but I can also see why Bobby, Cas and Sam didn't think survival on the terms Michael was offering was worth the price. 

[trxr4kids]

You know the interesting thing to me about seasons 4 & 5 and seasons 8 & 9, is how divisive and controversial they seem to be. I don't know if that's a good or a bad thing but I don't really see that same kind of passion about other seasons. 

[catrox14]

1 minute ago, companionenvy said:

y. In fact, the existence of AU-world suggests precisely the opposite.

I'm disinclined to use something written and created in s13 to support something that wasn't shown to exist in s5.Dean did see a future where the world was destroyed because he didn't say yes. He saw that humans were still fighting on the earth that wasn't a Hellscape. And Michael in AW is not the Michael in s5. It's a different Michael. So I'm not quite following your train of thought here.

8 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

I think there's a difference between not being able to save everyone and writing off half of the planet. Plus it wasn't clear that a victorious Michael was simply going to  leave the rest of humanity to continue on their merry way. In fact, the existence of AU-world suggests precisely the opposite. So, Dean's plan was going to result in half of the world dying and the rest of humanity probably being left in some apocalyptic hellscape. Sam's plan had a much lower chance of success, but the potential payoff was much greater. I can see why Dean was willing to accept the lesser of two evils, but I can also see why Bobby, Cas and Sam didn't think survival on the terms Michael was offering was worth the price. 

[DeeDee79]

7 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

You know the interesting thing to me about seasons 4 & 5 and seasons 8 & 9, is how divisive and controversial they seem to be. I don't know if that's a good or a bad thing but I don't really see that same kind of passion about other seasons. 

True indeed. 

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I'm disinclined to use something written and created in s13 to support something that wasn't shown to exist in s5

Especially since Kripke and Dabb's visions are so incredibly different.

Edited March 26, 2018 by DeeDee79

[gonzosgirrl]

11 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

I think there's a difference between not being able to save everyone and writing off half of the planet. Plus it wasn't clear that a victorious Michael was simply going to  leave the rest of humanity to continue on their merry way. In fact, the existence of AU-world suggests precisely the opposite. So, Dean's plan was going to result in half of the world dying and the rest of humanity probably being left in some apocalyptic hellscape. Sam's plan had a much lower chance of success, but the potential payoff was much greater. I can see why Dean was willing to accept the lesser of two evils, but I can also see why Bobby, Cas and Sam didn't think survival on the terms Michael was offering was worth the price. 

It wasn't any more clear that Sam would be able to control Lucifer and save anyone. In fact, he very nearly didn't, and if Dean had left him to 'die alone', then the plan would've failed spectacularly.  And to the second bolded part, I don't agree. By the time Sam said yes, they knew Michael was at least as big a dick as Lucifer when it came to his disdain for humanity. As you say, the AU world now verifies that. Pulling Michael down with Lucifer was never part of the plan - it was a happy accident. So potentially, Sam's plan was every bit as reckless as Dean's - the only difference is that Sam got to be the hero.

Edited March 26, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[ahrtee]

36 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

I think there's a difference between not being able to save everyone and writing off half of the planet. Plus it wasn't clear that a victorious Michael was simply going to  leave the rest of humanity to continue on their merry way. In fact, the existence of AU-world suggests precisely the opposite. So, Dean's plan was going to result in half of the world dying and the rest of humanity probably being left in some apocalyptic hellscape. Sam's plan had a much lower chance of success, but the potential payoff was much greater. I can see why Dean was willing to accept the lesser of two evils, but I can also see why Bobby, Cas and Sam didn't think survival on the terms Michael was offering was worth the price. 

2014!DEAN: Well, when you get back home—you say 'yes'. You hear me? Say 'yes' to Michael.

DEAN: That's crazy. If I let him in, then Michael fights the devil. The battle's gonna torch half the planet.

2014!DEAN: Look around you, man. Half the planet's better than no planet, which is what we have now. If I could do it over again, I'd say 'yes' in a heartbeat.

That was episode 5.4.  Dean waited till episode 5.18 while they tried to come up with *any* plan, any other option, but had nothing.  It just happens that after that they found something, but what if they hadn't?  How long was he supposed to wait?  **

It seems to me that striking while Lucifer was still in rapidly-decaying Nick was more logical than handing his "true vessel" over on the off chance that Sam could overcome him.  

 

**Also--look at what they tried in those 14 episodes:  they tried to appeal to Gabriel to intercede.  They found the Colt and tried to kill Lucifer.  They tried to see if they could undo things by never being born, and to appeal to Michael.  They tried to appeal directly to god.  That sounds like a reasonable time to say "this is the only option left."    

Edited March 26, 2018 by ahrtee
one more thought.

[DeeDee79]

3 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

That was episode 5.4.  Dean waited till episode 5.18 while they tried to come up with *any* plan, any other option, but had nothing.  It just happens that after that they found something, but what if they hadn't? 

Very true. If it wasn't for Gabriel giving them the solution of collecting the rings to open the cage they would have still been floundering for an idea.

[ahrtee]

2 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

Very true. If it wasn't for Gabriel giving them the solution of collecting the rings to open the cage they would have still been floundering for an idea.

And if Sam hadn't managed to get control back, the battle *still* would have taken place.  Or if they'd fought before getting the cage opened, the world would still have been wiped.  Or if Michael hadn't fallen in together with Lucifer, we'd still have Michael to deal with (as others have pointed out, not trusting Michael to leave earth alone.)

Or if Dean had said yes to Michael and *then* they'd gotten the rings, the battle would have gone just as it did--except with Dean/Michael instead of Adam/Michael.  

So I don't see Sam's plan as being any more noble/hopeful, or Dean's as "giving up."  YMMV.

[DeeDee79]

2 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Or if Michael hadn't fallen in together with Lucifer, we'd still have Michael to deal with (as others have pointed out, not trusting Michael to leave earth alone.)

True! Michael could have simply pushed Sam/Lucifer into the cage before he had a chance to grab him and pull him in.

[trxr4kids]

29 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

I think there's a difference between not being able to save everyone and writing off half of the planet. Plus it wasn't clear that a victorious Michael was simply going to  leave the rest of humanity to continue on their merry way.

Okay sure but as @AwesomO4000 said:

Quote

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."

That's what happened after Sam said yes and failed to take control which clearly nobody remembers including me. 

IMO Dean was desperate to try to save half the planet because it was better than nothing and Sam was desperate to prove he could save the whole planet because he wanted to prove his *worthiness, neither had a guarantee. I guess one seems more selfless and the other more selfish to me.

* because he was tainted as a baby, drank demon blood, had sex with a demon, broke the last seal, was Lucifer's OTV, angels were mean to him, Dean didn't have faith in him, his dad didn't tell him about hunting, his dad made him hunt, Sam had many reasons to want to prove his own worth. 

But I get that everyone sees this differently and Guck knows nobody is changing their minds this late in the game.

[DeeDee79]

2 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

But I get that everyone sees this differently and Guck knows nobody is changing their minds this late in the game.

Especially considering that this is the millionth ( just an estimate! ) time that this is being discussed. 

[catrox14]

21 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

Especially considering that this is the millionth ( just an estimate! ) time that this is being discussed. 

Funny enough, I still get something new out of it each time it comes up. Some new perspective even if I don't agree necessarily

[companionenvy]

41 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

IMO Dean was desperate to try to save half the planet because it was better than nothing and Sam was desperate to prove he could save the whole planet because he wanted to prove his *worthiness, neither had a guarantee. I guess one seems more selfless and the other more selfish to me.

* because he was tainted as a baby, drank demon blood, had sex with a demon, broke the last seal, was Lucifer's OTV, angels were mean to him, Dean didn't have faith in him, his dad didn't tell him about hunting, his dad made him hunt, Sam had many reasons to want to prove his own worth. 

This is a really uncharitable reading of Sam's character, IMO. It is almost always possible to take a heroic or generous action and argue that a person is doing it because they like playing the hero or because they want to be seen as a good person. But in many cases -- and this is one of them -- I don't think that's a fair assessment, because it puts the hero in a can't win situation.

Most people like seeing themselves as good people. Most people have a desire to do good in the world. Most people want others to think well of them. Most people, if they've screwed up in some way in the past, or have some reason for self-doubt, have a desire to overcome that doubt and make good on their mistakes. These are just basic human traits and desires. So, if we jump to "you're just trying to prove yourself" every time someone does something decent or heroic, we're really not going to be left with many people to admire. And we're going to wind up condemning precisely those people who have some of the noblest traits -- willingness to sacrifice for others, courage, the impulse to make a difference.

If we're going to impute the worst possible motives to characters, than it seems to me equally reasonable to say that Dean was simply giving in to a personal despair that bordered on the suicidal, not selflessly giving himself up for the chance at saving half of humanity.

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

I'm disinclined to use something written and created in s13 to support something that wasn't shown to exist in s5.Dean did see a future where the world was destroyed because he didn't say yes. He saw that humans were still fighting on the earth that wasn't a Hellscape. And Michael in AW is not the Michael in s5. It's a different Michael. So I'm not quite following your train of thought here.

It is still highly debatable whether or not the End-verse was the actual future or a manipulation of Zachariah's, even if we ignore the Chuck as God retcon. And while you're right that the AU wasn't invented for years, even in S5, we were talking about the biblical apocalypse, which is not generally portrayed as a scenario in which things on Earth would continue business as usual for the survivors. It would be a lot more reasonable to imagine life after Michael wins as a bleak wasteland than as a more or less normally functioning human society. 

[trxr4kids]

2 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

This is a really uncharitable reading of Sam's character, IMO. It is almost always possible to take a heroic or generous action and argue that a person is doing it because they like playing the hero or because they want to be seen as a good person. But in many cases -- and this is one of them -- I don't think that's a fair assessment, because it puts the hero in a can't win situation.

I wasn't actually trying to be uncharitable towards Sam, I was listing valid reasons as stated repeatedly in show for why I thought Sam felt the way I thought he did, yes it seemed more selfish in comparison to me but that doesn't diminish what I perceived as valid reasons for Sam to feel that way. I'd like to point out that what I perceived as a reasonable and selfless plan on Dean's part is seen as reckless and defeatist to many. Clearly MMV

[catrox14]

6 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

It is still highly debatable whether or not the End-verse was the actual future or a manipulation of Zachariah's, even if we ignore the Chuck as God retcon. And while you're right that the AU wasn't invented for years, even in S5, we were talking about the biblical apocalypse, which is not generally portrayed as a scenario in which things on Earth would continue business as usual for the survivors. It would be a lot more reasonable to imagine life after Michael wins as a bleak wasteland than as a more or less normally functioning human society. 

From the viewers perspective it might be debatable. However for Dean, he saw what he saw and he remembered what he saw which was not a burned out Hellscape yet was still the apocalypse that he possibly could have prevented based on what his future self told him. 

[trxr4kids]

19 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

And while you're right that the AU wasn't invented for years, even in S5, we were talking about the biblical apocalypse, which is not generally portrayed as a scenario in which things on Earth would continue business as usual for the survivors. It would be a lot more reasonable to imagine life after Michael wins as a bleak wasteland than as a more or less normally functioning human society.

Why would that be more reasonable? Michael had promised to leave Dean intact ( not a drooling mess ), why would he bother if the world was going to go to shit? This whole Dean saying yes would have been worse or as bad scenario is contingent on Michael being as bad if not worse than Lucifer, which was never shown or even hinted at to me. His stated motivation was he was a good son and would kill his brother because it was what he believed his father wanted, Lucifer's motivation was he wouldn't bow down to the mud monkeys and wanted to prove humanity unworthy of his or his father's love. Given that Michael was willing to kill his brother for his wrongs against his father why would anyone assume Michael would willfully, recklessly harm humans whom he believed he was supposed to love.

Before anyone points out the various things Zach did presumably under orders from Michael, I'd point out that he saw Dean ( before the whole Adam BS ) as the only way to do as his father wanted. I think that like Lucifer, Michael was probably very single minded and focused, of course that's speculation really since we only saw him for about 10 minutes or so and in two different vessels, so it's hard to get an accurate read.

[OnceSane]

Please remember our Be Civil policy.  Snark the show, not your fellow posters.  And if you've made your point repeatedly, it's time to move on.

[Res]

3 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Fight Lucifer to save half of humanity. What else would he have done? 

Castiel's plan didn't become a thing until after Dean had already been beaten in the narrative both figuratively and literally for his potential option. So whatever shaming Dean got was prior to the new plan. His plan was solid and valid until the narrative came up with a better one for Sam to use. And mind you they could have written it that both Dean and Sam dragged their vessels into Hell...but NOPE they didn't. 

There was no reason to not have them both say and both go into the Cage together once that plan became known. None other than well....Sam had to go it alone.

Actually, I think that was Kripke's original vision but then the renewal came and he decided to go out with his hero saving the world. I'm sure Gamble definitely loved and highly encouraged that plan.

[ahrtee]

1 hour ago, companionenvy said:

It is still highly debatable whether or not the End-verse was the actual future or a manipulation of Zachariah's, even if we ignore the Chuck as God retcon. And while you're right that the AU wasn't invented for years, even in S5, we were talking about the biblical apocalypse, which is not generally portrayed as a scenario in which things on Earth would continue business as usual for the survivors. It would be a lot more reasonable to imagine life after Michael wins as a bleak wasteland than as a more or less normally functioning human society.

Actually, what everyone seems to be missing is that the Apocalypse wasn't supposed to let the world continue with "business as usual," or even a "normally functioning human society."  It was the final showdown between Good and Evil, and the angels wanted Good to win, which would then bring about Paradise.  Per Zachariah:   "When our side wins -- and we will -- it's paradise on earth. Now, what's not to like about that?"  Even Cas said: "What is so worth saving? I see nothing but pain here. I see inside you. I see your guilt, your anger, confusion. In paradise, all is forgiven. You'll be at peace. Even with Sam."

The angels wanted it because they were tired of spending their time watching over daddy's pets, and just wanted to get back to heaven.  It wasn't supposed to turn the world into a bleak wasteland, and (in theory) since everyone was going to wind up in judgment, it didn't matter if they were killed in the battle or not.  They would wind up in heaven or hell either way.

It was the Winchesters--*both* of them--who wanted to *prevent* the apocalypse by stopping the fight.  Per Dean:  "You can take your peace... and shove it up your lily-white ass. 'Cause I'll take the pain and the guilt. I'll even take Sam as is. It's a lot better than being some Stepford bitch in paradise." They wanted the world to keep going on as usual.  Maybe that was arrogant of them--to make that decision for the whole world--but since there was no way to ask everyone what they wanted , I suppose keeping the status quo seemed logical.

We don't know what happened in AU world to turn it into a wasteland, but we can't assume that anything that happened there has anything to do with our world, or that anything Sam or Dean did--or didn't do--here would create the same scenario.  Whoever won would do whatever they wanted to earth, with no one to stop them.  And if they followed Sam's plan to lock Lucifer in the cage, Michael would still have free rein on earth.  

So I'd guess Kripke's original plan--to have them *both* wind up in the cage--would be the only way to make sure the world kept on as usual.  

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

True! Michael could have simply pushed Sam/Lucifer into the cage before he had a chance to grab him and pull him in.

The problem was actually the opposite of this. Michael didn't want Lucifer in the cage. He wanted Lucifer out of the cage so he could kill him. Sam was actually about to fall in the cage when Michael tried to stop him and told Sam he couldn't fall in the cage, because he had to kill Lucifer. So basically Sam was going to solve the problem and save the world, but Michael would rather half of it got blown up just so he could kill Lucifer.

3 hours ago, ahrtee said:

That was episode 5.4.  Dean waited till episode 5.18 while they tried to come up with *any* plan, any other option, but had nothing.  It just happens that after that they found something, but what if they hadn't?  How long was he supposed to wait?  **

I think the same argument could be made in season 4 with Sam. How long did Sam wait while the seals kept breaking and the angels weren't seemingly doing anything to prevent it? But that still didn't mean Sam taking matters into his own hands was the best thing to do. And in my opinion, killing Lilith seemed like as much a viable plan at the time - since most everyone thought that killing Lilith would prevent the last seal from breaking - as Dean's plan to trust Michael. Still Sam's methods were not the way to go... and I think Dean's methods weren't either. Both required a necessary evil to get things done, and I don't think the show rolls that way.

3 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Sure Dean decided not to do it, after being shamed and beaten and told how terrible and awful he was for even thinking it. Cas shamed Dean while he was beating him half to death.

It was wrong of Castiel to beat on Dean, but if Dean was sure of his plan and reasoning, then he should have believed in it, and as far I could see Dean did. As I said above, how many told Sam he shouldn't use his powers and that he was an awful person for doing so? But that didn't stop Sam when he thought it was the only way. Sam himself decided when he stopped, and also decided to start up again - again when after many, many episodes no one had a better plan. Similarly, Dean's decision was his own. Dean just happened to not choose to do the necessary evil plan and to have faith for just a little bit longer, while Sam gave up on Dean and everyone else and took matters into his own hands - which turned out to be a bad thing.

Quote

Dean always knew he couldn't save EVERYONE and that was always acceptable in the narrative and okay and not wrong, until it was in s5. And was used as the reason Castiel/Sam's plan was right and good and Dean's was wrong and bad.  That's what's always really irritated me about the shift in s5 as of PoNR. Just so annoying for me.

I actually don't remember it this way. I remember Dean accepting that sometimes they couldn't save everyone, but I don't remember him not thinking he should make every effort to try to save everyone. Dean even talked about it in "Sam, Interrupted" when he said it was his job to save everybody. And generally that I remember, the narrative frowned on plans that tended to factor in acceptable sacrifices.

I'm actually a small bit baffled that it's generally accepted that Sam killing the nurse was an awful decision on Sam's part, even though Sam believed that doing so would save the planet, but somehow Dean wanting to sacrifice half the planet to save the rest is not only not awful, but argued as a reasonable plan. Or maybe I'm missing something? I'm honestly wondering, because the dichotomy seems odd to me, and maybe I'm just not seeing something obvious here.

54 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

Given that Michael was willing to kill his brother for his wrongs against his father why would anyone assume Michael would willfully, recklessly harm humans whom he believed he was supposed to love.

Because to do the first, Michael was willing to recklessly harm humans - and not just a few, but a LOT of humans. Michael recklessly killed humans just to make a "phone call" to Zachariah. Michael could have left Lucifer in the cage and no humans would have died at all. Michael could have stopped the seals from breaking, and the killing would have stopped. But to Michael, killing Lucifer was worth a couple billion human lives, and he made that very clear. After that why would I assume that Michael would suddenly put worth in the remaining humans and not just recklessly harm even more if he decided there was some other reason to do so - such as a demon war or an angel civil war or whatever?

2 hours ago, trxr4kids said:

That's what happened after Sam said yes and failed to take control which clearly nobody remembers including me. 

Hee, I remembered it - and Sam did also. That failing and loss of life was apparently on his mind and eating at his conscience at least some (to me), because of the way Sam asked about it in "The French Mistake".

And yes, it happened, but it was an accidental consequence, not an on purpose. There is a difference. I'm not sure to me exactly what that difference is, because I'm not necessarily sure I have a black and white view on those kinds of scenarios. But for me, I think that the show generally does take a more black and white view: honestly and to the best of your ability trying to save everyone and accidentally losing some is better than willfully deciding to sacrifice one or a few to save the rest.

I could be wrong, but I'm trying to think of a scenario where that wasn't the case on the show, and I'm coming up blank. It was even one of the things used to show that Soulless Sam was a psychopath and had to go - that he was callously willing to let a few innocents die in order to get the job done. So what if one innocent bartender got killed, I got the monster (who now couldn't kill anyone else) didn't I?

And no, I'm not saying Dean was like Soulless Sam - because remember regular Sam made a similar choice, too - I'm just saying that the show  seems to frown on it more than not, and enough so that they used it as a way to show Soulless Sam was bad news.

[ahrtee]

18 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I'm actually a small bit baffled that it's generally accepted that Sam killing the nurse was an awful decision on Sam's part, even though Sam believed that doing so would save the planet, but somehow Dean wanting to sacrifice half the planet to save the rest is not only not awful, but argued as a reasonable plan. Or maybe I'm missing something? I'm honestly wondering, because the dichotomy seems odd to me, and maybe I'm just not seeing something obvious here.

Consider it the difference between a soldier in a bomber pushing a button over an enemy base (even knowing there were civilians there) vs. one walking into town, taking an innocent civilian as hostage and cutting her throat just because you needed something she had.  Even if the end result is the same--the death of innocent people, it's a lot more personal and cold-blooded in person, and not something you'd want or expect from your hero, especially with her begging him for her life. 

Besides, I don't think Sam thought killing the nurse would save the planet directly.  It would give him the strength to *maybe* kill Lilith, which *hopefully* would stop the breaking of seals.   Not exactly the same as killing Lilith herself, even if she was wearing an innocent woman at the time (which nobody seemed to object to.) 

18 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I think the same argument could be made in season 4 with Sam. How long did Sam wait while the seals kept breaking and the angels weren't seemingly doing anything to prevent it? But that still didn't mean Sam taking matters into his own hands was the best thing to do. And in my opinion, killing Lilith seemed like as much a viable plan at the time - since most everyone thought that killing Lilith would prevent the last seal from breaking - as Dean's plan to trust Michael. Still Sam's methods were not the way to go... and I think Dean's methods weren't either. Both required a necessary evil to get things done, and I don't think the show rolls that way.

Sam had already made his decision to drink demon blood *before* season 4 started.  And he did that with the intention of "taking matters into his own hands."  He didn't even know about angels--or the seals--until later.  All he was after was revenge.  But everyone--including Dean--admitted that they thought killing Lilith to stop breaking the seal was a good thing.  But even Sam (in When the Levee Breaks) knew inside that he was mostly after revenge and trying to justify it by saying it was about saving the world.  

I still don't think giving in is a "necessary evil."  All wars have to end with one side admitting defeat, in order to save the rest of their people.  With no other options in sight, I'd say saving half the people seemed like the best deal available at the time.  

[mertensia]

15 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

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. 

I'm not sure my fanwank has to make anyone but me happy.

[AwesomO4000]

5 hours ago, ahrtee said:

Consider it the difference between a soldier in a bomber pushing a button over an enemy base (even knowing there were civilians there) vs. one walking into town, taking an innocent civilian as hostage and cutting her throat just because you needed something she had.  Even if the end result is the same--the death of innocent people, it's a lot more personal and cold-blooded in person, and not something you'd want or expect from your hero, especially with her begging him for her life. 

Besides, I don't think Sam thought killing the nurse would save the planet directly.  It would give him the strength to *maybe* kill Lilith, which *hopefully* would stop the breaking of seals.   Not exactly the same as killing Lilith herself, even if she was wearing an innocent woman at the time (which nobody seemed to object to.) 

(Thank you for answering)

But one also kills one person, while the other kills many, and in the case of Dean's plan, potentially millions. One is more hands on and seems colder, I agree,, but for me they both still involve dead, innocent people and the aftermath of those deaths accepted as collateral damage.

As for killing the nurse to save the planet, that's exactly how Ruby painted it, and Sam still had doubts at first:

Quote

(From Superwiki):

Ruby: I know that you're having a tough time here, Sam, but we're in the final lap here. Now is not the time to grow a persqueeter.
Sam: Would you drop the friggin' attitude? I'm about to bleed and drink an innocent woman. While she watches.
Ruby: And save the world as a result.
Sam: I don't know. I-I just... I'm starting to think... maybe Dean was right.
Ruby: About what?
Sam: About everything.
Ruby: We're gonna see this through, right, Sam? Sam?

So I think it was very much in Sam's head as he was deciding whether to actually go through with it or not. The final clincher after Ruby kept pushing, just ended up being the altered phone message where Sam heard that Dean would kill him once things went badly, as Sam knew they likely would. My impression: that taken care of, Sam could go ahead, figuring Dean would take him (Sam) down once he turned.

5 hours ago, ahrtee said:

Sam had already made his decision to drink demon blood *before* season 4 started.  And he did that with the intention of "taking matters into his own hands."  He didn't even know about angels--or the seals--until later.  All he was after was revenge.  But everyone--including Dean--admitted that they thought killing Lilith to stop breaking the seal was a good thing.  But even Sam (in When the Levee Breaks) knew inside that he was mostly after revenge and trying to justify it by saying it was about saving the world.  

I still don't think giving in is a "necessary evil."  All wars have to end with one side admitting defeat, in order to save the rest of their people.  With no other options in sight, I'd say saving half the people seemed like the best deal available at the time.  

Sam also stopped drinking the demon blood in season 4, saying that he was doing so because it felt wrong, and Sam was serious about that decision, even despite the things that the angels threw at him where he had to use power that was sometimes not there because he had stopped. But he still didn't drink demon blood again until many episodes later (about 9) and was still somewhat dragging his feet about it until 4 episodes after that. That was when the angels took Dean to have him torture Alastair and Sam learned that the angels had been lying and/or were misinformed the entire time... i.e. the angels weren't really working to stop anything and/or weren't making any progress. After that, Sam really got serious about taking things into his own hands.

I don't remember what Sam was referring to in "When the Levee Breaks." Maybe why he started drinking the demon blood in the first place? Because I agree, revenge is the main reason why Sam started doing it for sure. But I'm not sure about Sam restarting drinking blood because of revenge. And, in my opinion, it was the restarting the blood-drinking which was the important turning point in the whole thing. The reasoning the show gave in "Chris Angel..." was at the least partly crap and mostly plot driven, in my opinion, but still the way it sounded had little to do with revenge. "I don't want to be doing this when I'm old" sounds more like finishing things so they would be over rather than anything to do with revenge. But then soon after that, Sam's addiction was getting worse, and stopping like he had done in "Metamorphosis" no longer appeared to be an option.

So bottom line, in my opinion, when Sam restarted his blood drinking - which was an important turning point - he did so mostly with a different purpose in mind, and that purpose was ending the apocalypse, so he wouldn't be doing "this" when he was old, and revenge was no longer an important motivation at that point.

Edited March 26, 2018 by AwesomO4000