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

[AwesomO4000]

7 hours ago, trxr4kids said:

He absolutely knew Cas was bat shit, he'd been dealing with him for quite awhile. I think Dean staying in purgatory backs up my opinion that Dean thinks Sam is more important and superior to him. He believed Sam was capable of cleaning up after the latest mess, looking out for Kevin and still having time to try to rescue him. Thinking Sam is better doesn't equate to being glued to his side to me. 

Oh, you were meaning batshit from Sam's wall stuff... okay yes, Dean knew Castiel was still a bit messed up from that, but Castiel had appeared to be functioning okay. It was the mess later on from Naomi that I was thinking about, but that didn't happen until after Castiel got out. My mistake on that one. You're correct.

However I think my point about not even knowing if Castiel was still in purgatory stands. For all Dean knew, Castiel just took off and left him there alone in purgatory, no explanation given. As for Sam, the last Dean saw was Sam coming into the room as he and Dick Roman exploded. Why would Dean assume Sam would be okay after that? And that's not even factoring in Sam somehow being okay but left alone. Before Carver got a hold of the character in season 8, Sam had been a mess when left without Dean to stabilize him. Sam had been talking about it most of season 7 how he needed Dean there. Dean even knew this when he made his stone number 1 speech. Sure Sam's crazy problem was fixed, but he still had hell memories and history behind him showing otherwise. And ironically one of the biggest examples of that had been in one of Carver's own episodes , "Mystery Spot". Which based on that, Sam should have become a loner hunter trying to wipe the rest of the Leviathan off the planet and likely most definitely not okay. Season 4 was also not a good indication that Sam with Dean gone ended up making healthy choices, since duh: Ruby, suicidal mess, and addiction. Not healthy choices or attitudes there. So truthfully, I don't see why Dean would assume Sam was okay with him gone. Every indication previously - and there were many - would suggest the opposite. Sure Carver made Sam okay, but that doesn't mean, to me, based on past history that it made one bit of sense that he did.

As I said back then, if I had thought up 100 different scenarios of what would happen with Sam after the set up of season 7, what Carver came up with wouldn't have made the list in any way, shape, or iteration. For me there's unexpected and then there's just plain "what the hell is this?" Season 8 definitely fell into the latter category on that one for me. I kept waiting for the episode showing that this was all happening in Sam's head while he was having a nervous breakdown somewhere, Buffy-style, like "Normal Again" or "The Weight of the World."

My point being, I still contend that Dean stayed for Dean reasons and that Sam - or what he thought Sam would be doing or be able to do - wasn't really a part of that decision at all... and that is perfectly good and healthy and should have been an important character growth moment. It's what Carver did after that that wasn't healthy and in my opinion was just insulting to both Sam and Dean.

Warning: my vitriol laden opinion coming up here. All of what follows is my opinion only...

I see a lot of complaints here about what Dabb does to Dean, but in my opinion, Carver having Dean come back from a year in purgatory, some of it fighting on his own, and after learning he could be kickass, loyal, important, and independent only to come back with even lower self esteem and even more codependency than when he left was one of the most insulting things ever done to Dean's character. The purgatory arc should have been growth for Dean, but Carver treated it as an inconvenience and ignored it so that Dean could go back to being all about Sam... and in this case all about a Sam who inexplicably didn't even seem to be happy to be with him any more. I found it insulting to both characters and hated almost every minute of it. And that's not even mentioning yet the mess he made of Castiel's character and arc - which what the hell was that?

Carver had the chance to do something different and great for the show and was given the perfect set up for it. Instead he took both characters backwards and dragged both characters through the mud to do it, while elevating peripheral characters like Benny and Crowley. Dabb may not be great, but he at least has an excuse of awful and inexperienced writers. Carver managed to do what he did while dragging good writers down with him. (The only one he didn't manage to sink was Ben Edlund - 2 of whose episodes are the only ones I rewatch from that season. Robbie Thompson "coped" by being about Charlie (meh), but thankfully he got out a bit later, in my opinion).

[DeeDee79]

11 hours ago, trxr4kids said:

He absolutely knew Cas was bat shit, he'd been dealing with him for quite awhile.

Yes, I don't get the statement that "Dean had no idea that Cas was crazy". His mental state was shown every time he was on screen after he took on Sam's hallucinations. The angels that they encountered and Crowley even commented on it in front of the Winchesters.

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

Yes, I don't get the statement that "Dean had no idea that Cas was crazy". His mental state was shown every time he was on screen after he took on Sam's hallucinations. The angels that they encountered and Crowley even commented on it in front of the Winchesters.

I know, I know... I messed up. I admitted as such in my post above. I was thinking of Castiel's crazy from season 8 - since we were discussing season 8 - I momentarily forgot about Castiel's crazy from later season 7. Turns out poor Castiel was crazy for longer than I remembered him being for a moment there.

[trxr4kids]

18 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

However I think my point about not even knowing if Castiel was still in purgatory stands. For all Dean knew, Castiel just took off and left him there alone in purgatory, no explanation given.

Since the monsters seemed to be able to sense a human in purgatory they had to be able to sense an angel. Benny also didn't dispute that Castiel was there, he just didn't think Dean should waste his time looking for him.

18 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

As for Sam, the last Dean saw was Sam coming into the room as he and Dick Roman exploded. Why would Dean assume Sam would be okay after that? And that's not even factoring in Sam somehow being okay but left alone.

Like I've said in so many words is that I think Dean has an inflated view of Sam's intelligence, strength, skills, etc. I don't think it ever would've occurred to Dean that Sam wouldn't figure shit out and that's a pretty consistent viewpoint in Dean even under the Carver regime.

18 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

As I said back then, if I had thought up 100 different scenarios of what would happen with Sam after the set up of season 7, what Carver came up with wouldn't have made the list in any way, shape, or iteration. For me there's unexpected and then there's just plain "what the hell is this?"

I was hoping Amelia was some type of witch, it couldn't possibly have made Sam look worse than the "he hit a dog" did for me.

18 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I see a lot of complaints here about what Dabb does to Dean, but in my opinion, Carver having Dean come back from a year in purgatory, some of it fighting on his own, and after learning he could be kickass, loyal, important, and independent only to come back with even lower self esteem and even more codependency than when he left was one of the most insulting things ever done to Dean's character. The purgatory arc should have been growth for Dean, but Carver treated it as an inconvenience and ignored it so that Dean could go back to being all about Sam... and in this case all about a Sam who inexplicably didn't even seem to be happy to be with him any more.

I agree with this for the most part, we should mark our calendars, lol. I just don't think it makes even my top 5 of insulting things done to the character.

 

18 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Dabb may not be great, but he at least has an excuse of awful and inexperienced writers.

I just refuse to give him an excuse, I think he's getting exactly what he wants, it just happens to suck IMO.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I see a lot of complaints here about what Dabb does to Dean, but in my opinion, Carver having Dean come back from a year in purgatory, some of it fighting on his own, and after learning he could be kickass, loyal, important, and independent only to come back with even lower self esteem and even more codependency than when he left was one of the most insulting things ever done to Dean's character. The purgatory arc should have been growth for Dean, but Carver treated it as an inconvenience and ignored it so that Dean could go back to being all about Sam... and in this case all about a Sam who inexplicably didn't even seem to be happy to be with him any more. 

Well, that was Season 8.B and Season 9.A and those are certainly hated by a lot of Dean-fans. I found it abhorrent how Dean was during the trials, culminating in the one-two-punch combo of his pathetic speech in the Season 8 Finale and the giving him the villain`s role in the Season 9 Opener. I certainly hated those.

What I do give Carver credit for is the MOC storyline. Yes, it was mishandled, especially the Demon!Dean interlude, yes, there could have been so many more epic things with it. It wasn`t used to showcase Dean`s strength - even though I felt he showed quite a lot, the narrative in dialogue played it as if he was losing it 24/7. And yes, I spent every single episode of it petrified that the storyline would go over to Sam. 

That didn`t (last moment of near heart attack when Sam almost gets the Mark in Season 11) happen and it was a supernatural storyline where Dean got to have some supernatural powers here and there. He got some nice badass moments and even the odd flashy scene. Nothing that was made ludicrous by wire-work for example. For a Dean-fan like me, that was huge. Gigantic even. 

So far Dabb has not given me anything comparable. Who knows how long Michael!Dean is gonna last. An episode? Two? Who knows if he will get to display any powers. Who knows if Lucifer will come back right away in the Season 14 Finale and render the entirety of it meaningless. The odds for letdown on all accounts are quite high. 

[AwesomO4000]

11 hours ago, trxr4kids said:

I was hoping Amelia was some type of witch, it couldn't possibly have made Sam look worse than the "he hit a dog" did for me.

Almost nothing could have been worse than the "Sam hit a dog scenario" for me ...which was made even worse by Carver making a joke out of it. Ha ha ha you nearly destroyed one of my favorite characters for me. Excuse me that I'm not laughing. What I mentioned about Dean's character above? Many, many times worse for Sam's character. It's why for me Carver was just the worst.

10 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

What I do give Carver credit for is the MOC storyline. Yes, it was mishandled, especially the Demon!Dean interlude, yes, there could have been so many more epic things with it. It wasn`t used to showcase Dean`s strength - even though I felt he showed quite a lot, the narrative in dialogue played it as if he was losing it 24/7.

I agree it was a pretty good storyline... though I was a little bit disappointed that there weren't really any repercussions for Dean - besides becoming a demon for a minute, but even that was downplayed by the "see how much worse Sam was than Demon Dean" anvils of dooooom - and that instead everything became Sam's fault. Disappointed, but not surprised, since I predicted it at least 6 episodes out, but, well it was Carver who never really did Sam any favors as a showrunner, in my opinion. He couldn't even let Sam save Dean without turning it into a bad thing and giving me a headache with all the anvils making sure I knew it was a bad thing. *sigh*

Edited June 1, 2018 by AwesomO4000

[trxr4kids]

21 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Well, that was Season 8.B and Season 9.A and those are certainly hated by a lot of Dean-fans. I found it abhorrent how Dean was during the trials, culminating in the one-two-punch combo of his pathetic speech in the Season 8 Finale and the giving him the villain`s role in the Season 9 Opener. I certainly hated those.

Yeah, I have to retract my statement that it didn't rank in my top 5 insults done to the character, I had somehow blocked out the worst of it. Which for me was that after being in a 24/7 combat situation he failed the first part of the trial, became a nursemaid and words can't describe my loathing of the speech he gave in the S8 finale to Sam. I was however grateful he wasn't given the trials because we all know they were never going to follow through with closing the gates anyway.

 

11 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I agree it was a pretty good storyline... though I was a little bit disappointed that there weren't really any repercussions for Dean - besides becoming a demon for a minute, but even that was downplayed by the "see how much worse Sam was than Demon Dean" anvils of dooooom - and that instead everything became Sam's fault.

I was incredibly disappointed with the handling of the MoC storyline but disagree the repercussions for Dean were negligible. Repetitive yes, oh look! Dean literally becomes his worst nightmare but hey it's time for a musical, let's move on now. They have repeatedly hammered home Dean's self loathing, how he views himself as a blunt little instrument, less important than Sam, a screw up, a failure etc. without ever giving me a single moment where Dean has a singular win or other circumstance that causes an epiphany for him that hey, he's really not all of those things or only those things, if anything the show, through dialogue given to many characters, reinforces these ideas.

Here's my take on how the show sees the characters in relation to any storyline: Dean=funny yet depressed sidekick (he needs to be more supportive obviously because he occasionally tries to be the hero and has to be knocked back into place) Sam=reluctant hero, if only his sidekick wasn't so incompetent he might actually succeed (he needs to be reminded how awesome he is a lot via dialogue)

FYI I've completely lost the thread of our original conversation and am just bitching now, lol.

Edited June 1, 2018 by trxr4kids
signal isn't remotely equivalent to single

[BabySpinach]

2 hours ago, trxr4kids said:

Yeah, I have to retract my statement that it didn't rank in my top 5 insults done to the character, I had somehow blocked out the worst of it. Which for me was that after being in a 24/7 combat situation he failed the first part of the trial, became a nursemaid and words can't describe my loathing of the speech he gave in the S8 finale to Sam. I was however grateful he wasn't given the trials because we all know they were never going to follow through with closing the gates anyway.

 

I was incredibly disappointed with the handling of the MoC storyline but disagree the repercussions for Dean were negligible. Repetitive yes, oh look! Dean literally becomes his worst nightmare but hey it's time for a musical, let's move on now. They have repeatedly hammered home Dean's self loathing, how he views himself as a blunt little instrument, less important than Sam, a screw up, a failure etc. without ever giving me a single moment where Dean has a singular win or other circumstance that causes an epiphany for him that hey, he's really not all of those things or only those things, if anything the show, through dialogue given to many characters, reinforces these ideas.

Here's my take on how the show sees the characters in relation to any storyline: Dean=funny yet depressed sidekick (he needs to be more supportive obviously because he occasionally tries to be the hero and has to be knocked back into place) Sam=reluctant hero, if only his sidekick wasn't so incompetent he might actually succeed (he needs to be reminded how awesome he is a lot via dialogue)

FYI I've completely lost the thread of our original conversation and am just bitching now, lol.

As of now, Dean still hasn't singlehandedly launched an apocalyptic event unto the world, which can't be said for either Sam or Cas.

Almost every time that Sam has tried to do something big ie. drinking demon blood, removing the MoC, talking to Lucifer about Amara, it has either failed or caused unintended consequences. I really don't see Sam being painted as a reluctant hero. He's typically written as eager and well-intentioned-but-wrong, which I can also see as being rather tiring for Sam fans.

To me, it's Dean that's the reluctant hero. He always thinks the worst of himself, yet manages to draw ageless entities like God, the Darkness, and both versions of Death into his orbit. God called him the firewall between light and darkness. Death told him he was important. His human empathy for Amara literally saved the universe in season 11, when everyone else was telling him to kill her. 

Dean grew up assuming that Sam was the special, important one. Sam had the mysterious demon blood affliction and a destiny laid out for him, while Dean could only angst and worry. But the seasons from 9 onwards have shown that Dean is incredibly important on his own, and his skepticism (rather than embracing) of that importance is what makes him a reluctant hero. He's also killed more world-threatening Big Bads than any other character, as recently as in this season finale.

[SueB]

Watching the end of S4, start of S5 today and I've formed the following opinion regarding Kripke's writing for Sam and Dean:
- I think he thought he gave Sam the "meaty" redemption story and Dean the "tragic hero" story.  He loved both and tried to serve both stories correctly.

Having said that, I think there are things that Sam is "legit" responsible for and others which are trumped up to make it seem worse.  Same with Dean, things he's legit responsible for, others he's been blamed for and it's overexaggeration.

Legit Sam issues IMO:
- Liking the feeling of being powerful and strong enough to defeat his enemies.  In 5.2 he admits it.  In "Sam, Interrupted" he realizes that he's angry all the time and this is part of what is fueling his desire to be strong. And the demon blood/power addiction were a direct result of this desire. 
- Trusting only himself. which led to trusting Ruby.  This is based on arrogance regarding his own intellect.  He let himself be persuaded by Ruby because he trusted his own judgement and didn't listen to Dean, Bobby or Chuck.
- Drinking demon blood, killing humans to do so.  It's an inherently evil act.  I'll give a pass to the two before Swan Song and say they worked to find demons in dead meatsuits -- but the nurse was clearly human and he didn't take the time to find a different answer.

Legit Dean issues IMO:
- Dean is truly a controlling person with Sam on occasion. It's Dean's own personal devotion to being Sam's guardian.  It is likely fueled by abandonment issues. 
- Dean holds a grudge.  His "I don't trust you." in 5.1/5.2 was how he honestly felt but that was amplified from the sting of his bitterness/betrayal.  He wasn't over the sting of Sam trusting Ruby over himself.    But it's the way he presents it -- in a calm manner -- that mades it so cutting to Sam.  I honestly don't think Dean started fully trusting Sam again until "Point of No Return."  Yes, Sam's betrayal with Ruby was a great betrayal ... but Dean keeps a grudge long long after the sincere apologies and demonstrated changed behavior is in place.
- Selling his soul in the first place -- putting so little value on himself.  This lead to him being in Hell in the first place and being manipulated by demons.

NOT Legit Sam issues IMO:
- Starting the Apocalypse.  Yes, he killed Lillith and that broke the seal - thus freeing Lucifer.  Dean & Bobby were on the "kill Lilith" plan at the start of the episode.  Zachariah stopped the rapproachment from Dean reaching him, Ruby stopped him from seeing Dean was there at the end.  And he didn't intend to start the Apocalypse, he intended to end it.  So... he's responsible for trusting Ruby & getting addicted to Demon blood.  These manipulations enabled him killing Lillith.  But he he thought killing Lillith was a "good" thing. He thought he was sacrificing his "normal" to do a good thing.  
- Everyone who blames him afterwords are just characters pilling on to build up the ultimate redemption arc.

NOT Legit Dean issues IMO:
- Jumpstarting the Apocalypse with breaking the first seal: Dean had no clue 'breaking' in hell had a cosmic consequence. Only Angels and demons held him accountable and they were dicks so I think the narrative didn't really hold Dean more accountable (Dean held himself more accountable IMO).
- Leading Sam to Ruby. That was just a shitty way of building a case to set Dean up to let Sam jump into the pit at the end. 

So.... the NOT legit issue, IMO, were there to sell: "Sam jumps into the pit for Redemption and Dean lets him."  They weren't necessary IMO and caused relationship drama but it wasn't worth it.  But, I think that's why he did it.  Not because of love for one character over the other.  The legit issues, OTOH, worked for me in the story context.  Whether or not you LIKED that for whomever your favorite character is depends on your own value set and what is the "worst offense" (Sam's or Dean's legit issues).

JMO -- I have no intention of re-litigating Swan Song... like EVER.  But seeing the four episodes back-to-back today gave me some insights I thought I'd share. 

Edited June 1, 2018 by SueB

[trxr4kids]

9 minutes ago, BabySpinach said:

As of now, Dean still hasn't singlehandedly launched an apocalyptic event unto the world, which can't be said for either Sam or Cas.

If Dean hadn't sold his soul to save Sam and broken the first seal, no last seal could be broken. If Dean hadn't swayed Castiel towards free will there would be no heavenly civil war. If Dean hadn't taken on the MoC Amara wouldn't have been released since Cain was just tending bees. Cause and effect if you will, although the same can be said for Mary and John if you backtrack the same can't IMO be said for Sam. He reacts and responds to circumstances created by others beyond his control which makes him the reluctant hero of the story.

[BabySpinach]

3 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

If Dean hadn't sold his soul to save Sam and broken the first seal, no last seal could be broken. If Dean hadn't swayed Castiel towards free will there would be no heavenly civil war. If Dean hadn't taken on the MoC Amara wouldn't have been released since Cain was just tending bees. Cause and effect if you will, although the same can be said for Mary and John if you backtrack the same can't IMO be said for Sam. He reacts and responds to circumstances created by others beyond his control which makes him the reluctant hero of the story.

I don't see blame the way you do. For me, it's more about the journey than the eventual outcome. All of those things that Dean did were necessary and/or right. Tracing outcomes backwards like that is reductive and absolves all intermediary parties of responsibility. Since Dean is not omniscient, he is not responsible for others' choices. 

Another element I take into consideration is the motivation behind the choices. Cas' release of the leviathans was the culmination of his dishonest, immoral, blackmailing behavior in season 6. Sam made the choice to use the BotD, knowing that a great evil would be unleashed and forging ahead anyway. The closest equivalent for Dean is the MoC, but no matter how bad he got, he never would have endangered the entire world. He may have been able to live like Cain if Charlie hadn't died.

[trxr4kids]

17 minutes ago, SueB said:

Dean is truly a controlling person with Sam on occasion. It's Dean's own personal devotion to being Sam's guardian.  It is likely fueled by abandonment issues. 

My older sister who is 4 and a half years older just mentioned to me the other day that she tries to curb her bossiness ie: control issues and I was like what do you mean? She's 52 and I'm 48 btw, it never occurred to me that she saw herself that way because we were brought up with her being in charge and though I rebelled against the status quo, I never once thought of it as her wanting to be the boss of me. I was self aware enough at a fairly young age that it was a role that was foisted upon her. She's a successful mother, grandmother and employer, I'd bask in awe of her but she'd never let me hear the end of it, lol.

[trxr4kids]

33 minutes ago, BabySpinach said:

For me, it's more about the journey than the eventual outcome.

For me, Dean's journey has been a perpetual cycle of self hatred with zero reward.

 

35 minutes ago, BabySpinach said:

Since Dean is not omniscient, he is not responsible for others' choices. 

He's absolutely not but he, as well as many other characters in the show seem to think he is or should be.

 

37 minutes ago, BabySpinach said:

Another element I take into consideration is the motivation behind the choices. Cas' release of the leviathans was the culmination of his dishonest, immoral, blackmailing behavior in season 6. Sam made the choice to use the BotD, knowing that a great evil would be unleashed and forging ahead anyway. The closest equivalent for Dean is the MoC, but no matter how bad he got, he never would have endangered the entire world. He may have been able to live like Cain if Charlie hadn't died.

Preaching to the choir here! However that wasn't the message I got from the show at all. I should never have watched/read panels/interviews with TPTB because they've only reinforced my opinions on their viewpoints.

[BabySpinach]

1 minute ago, trxr4kids said:

He's absolutely not but he, as well as many other characters in the show seem to think he is or should be.

 

Preaching to the choir here! However that wasn't the message I got from the show at all. I should never have watched/read panels/interviews with TPTB because they've only reinforced my opinions on their viewpoints.

Dean gets unfairly blamed a lot of the time, but the text itself shows Dean being a hero, speaking as equals with God, Amara, and Death, and saving the day with his inherent empathy and gut instinct.

I also don't remember Dean's "corruption" of Castiel being framed negatively by anyone except the asshole characters. No one ever said or implied that the angel war was Dean's fault.

Similarly, Dean's culpability in the Darkness fiasco was mentioned in passing just a few times, mostly by Dean himself sharing the blame with Sam. I think there were enough instances of Sam and others putting it solely on him that I feel like it balanced out. It wasn't perfect, and Sam's weird speech about saving everyone in 11.01 made zero sense coming from him, but it could have been a lot worse.

Yup, I've also suffered a bit from the publicity snippets I've gotten. I guess I should be thankful that whatever they're saying about the story doesn't always successfully translate.

[trxr4kids]

1 hour ago, BabySpinach said:

As of now, Dean still hasn't singlehandedly launched an apocalyptic event unto the world, which can't be said for either Sam or Cas.

I was gonna edit but screw it, I meant to quote this in my post but lost it somehow. I don't think Sam or Cas has singlehandedly launched an apocalyptic event. In the case of Sam dialogue blame shifted so he could be given sole redemption, ie: Dean was no longer part of the story. In the case of Castiel IDK and refuse to rewatch since I seem to recall a lot of pitiful, wrong, rusty Dean during that time frame.

[BabySpinach]

17 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

I was gonna edit but screw it, I meant to quote this in my post but lost it somehow. I don't think Sam or Cas has singlehandedly launched an apocalyptic event. In the case of Sam dialogue blame shifted so he could be given sole redemption, ie: Dean was no longer part of the story. In the case of Castiel IDK and refuse to rewatch since I seem to recall a lot of pitiful, wrong, rusty Dean during that time frame.

With Sam I was referring to the Darkness, not the season 5 apocalypse. That was pretty much all him. He had the idea, he followed through with it, regardless of the collateral and the warnings. He pushed the plan to its end, so I'd say he was solely responsible for it.

Same with Cas. He had a plan, he pushed through regardless of the collateral and the betrayal, even double crossed his partner Crowley. Dean was the one trying to get him to stop, and as usual his instincts were right. Dean was treated badly in season 6, but he still turned out to be correct. The show contradicted the tell. 

[Pondlass1]

I often wonder if the writing teams realise the character of Dean is right a lot of the time.  I doubt they do it on purpose. It's weird.

[trxr4kids]

17 minutes ago, BabySpinach said:

With Sam I was referring to the Darkness, not the season 5 apocalypse. That was pretty much all him. He had the idea, he followed through with it, regardless of the collateral and the warnings. He pushed the plan to its end, so I'd say he was solely responsible for it.

IMO it's kinda the same thing in regards to S5 and releasing the Darkness, it couldn't have happened if Dean hadn't have done x but the narrative IMO shifted blame so that Dean wasn't given a proper redemption, ie: the character and many vocal fans placed blame on him but the army man and the pigeon lady were more crucial to the resolution than he was. It was a huge disservice to the character in my mind. His ultimate redemption for me would be realizing that he is a strong, valuable, intelligent person in his own right.

 

35 minutes ago, BabySpinach said:

Dean was treated badly in season 6, but he still turned out to be correct. The show contradicted the tell. 

He usually does turn out to be right but absolutely nobody on the show acknowledges it. It's the tv show equivalent of don't ask don't tell IMO. 

The show has long contradicted the show and tell, I swear I have posts dating back at least 5 years bitching about how it's been an issue since S4 or 5.

[ILoveReading]

Prior to Dabb I think Dean was:

10% writing

20% directing 

70% Jensen.

Under Dabb:

100% Jensen

[BabySpinach]

16 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

IMO it's kinda the same thing in regards to S5 and releasing the Darkness, it couldn't have happened if Dean hadn't have done x but the narrative IMO shifted blame so that Dean wasn't given a proper redemption, ie: the character and many vocal fans placed blame on him but the army man and the pigeon lady were more crucial to the resolution than he was. It was a huge disservice to the character in my mind. His ultimate redemption for me would be realizing that he is a strong, valuable, intelligent person in his own right.

 

He usually does turn out to be right but absolutely nobody on the show acknowledges it. It's the tv show equivalent of don't ask don't tell IMO. 

The show has long contradicted the show and tell, I swear I have posts dating back at least 5 years bitching about how it's been an issue since S4 or 5.

I guess I tend to put more stock in the show than the tell, which is why I don't think the show blames Dean for everything. HOWEVER, that does not make me immune to severe annoyance when the two don't match up. I totally get where your frustration lies, as I felt much the same in season 9 with the whole Gadreel thing. The part where Sam stayed mad at Dean while forgiving Gadreel, the one who actually killed Kevin, almost gave me an aneurysm. 

ETA: I consider the green army man and pigeon lady as triggers that wouldn't have accomplished anything if the history and context weren't there. I don't like Swan Song, but the idea, at least, was that Sam's memories of Dean were triggered by the action figure. It didn't mean anything on its own. Same with pigeon lady. If Amara hadn't already been having doubts about her vengeance, and if she hadn't been open to humanity and light as represented by Dean, pigeon lady wouldn't have changed anything.

Edited June 1, 2018 by BabySpinach

[SueB]

38 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Prior to Dabb I think Dean was:

10% writing

20% directing 

70% Jensen.

Under Dabb:

100% Jensen

I’m confused a bit... is there an aspect that is ‘Dean’ you are referring to that is 100% Jensen?  Because he doesn’t write the show. So...  it can’t be Dean’s plot because he didn’t write it. Example: Dean needed to forgive Mary.  His interpretation was awesome, but that a scene was written to have him forgive Mary was writing.  

Or I did I miss a post and I’m confused?

Edited June 1, 2018 by SueB

[trxr4kids]

3 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

I totally get where your frustration lies, as I felt much the same in season 9 with the whole Gadreel thing.

Sadly after 13 seasons I vacillate between apathy and blind rage depending on my mood when viewing. I passed frustration so long ago I can't even fondly look back on it to remember the good old days.

[ILoveReading]

13 hours ago, SueB said:

I’m confused a bit... is there an aspect that is ‘Dean’ you are referring to that is 100% Jensen?  Because he doesn’t write the show. So...  it can’t be Dean’s plot because he didn’t write it. Example: Dean needed to forgive Mary.  His interpretation was awesome, but that a scene was written to have him forgive Mary was writing.  

Or I did I miss a post and I’m confused?

 

That scene was the perfect example.  I personally never liked it (aside for Jensen's acting) because it was about addressing Sam's trauma and much Sam's suffered.    So that scene didn't work for me.   So IMO, Berens wrote that scene with Sam in mind.  Jensen was the one that connected back to Amara.   He made it about Dean.  Not the writer.  Berens was completely clueless as to what Jensen was talking about so obviously he didn't write it with Dean's need to forgive Mary in mind. 

So Dean is the character he is because Jensen acts against the writing.  Dabb doesnt' seem to think of his character.  He seems to be stuck in that shallow, simplistic stereotype Dean was in the pilot.   It's Jensen that adds the layers by changing the tone of the writing.

So my opinion stands, under Dabb, Jensen is 100% the reason Dean is still Dean.

Edited June 2, 2018 by ILoveReading

[catrox14]

4 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

That scene was the perfect example.  I personally never liked it (aside for Jensen's acting) because it was about addressing Sam's trauma and much Sam's suffered.    So that scene didn't work for me.   So IMO, Berens wrote that scene with Sam in mind.  Jensen was the one that connected back to Amara.   He made it about Dean.  Not the writer.  Berens was completely clueless as to what Jensen was talking about so obviously he didn't write it with Dean's need to forgive Mary in mind. 

So Dean is the character he is because Jensen acts against the writing.  Dabb doesnt' seem to think of his character.  He seems to be stuck in that shallow, simplistic stereotype Dean was in the pilot.   It's Jensen that adds the layers by changing the tone of the writing.

So my opinion stands, under Dabb, Jensen is 100% the reason Dean is still Dean.

Yeah, I believe that Jensen was being magnanimous  wrt to Berens and that Dabb/Berens didn't have it mapped out when Mary was resurrected that Dean needed to forgive her....given that back in s4 Dean had already seen her make the deal and forgave  her then.  

I'm not even convinced the forgiveness was for Dean either. Since that entire speech was really about Sam, I think Dean was forgivn Mary for what she did to Sam.

[ILoveReading]

Given how cheesy the fight and freeze frame was and how the wire fight came out, and how one sided it was, I do think Dabb/Singer are writing this storyline to set Dean up to fail so when it comes time for the real battle against Michael and Lucifer there will be a show based reason to put Dean on the bench and give OW Michael to Sam.

Hopefully Singer doesn't hold it against Jensen for not liking the wire fight.  Both Singer and Dabb come across as being very petty.  See their treatment of of Mark Sheppard.

[gonzosgirrl]

I was debating if this was Bitterness/Unpopular opinion or BvJ, but since it involves how they wrote Sam's response in both instances, I'm going with BvJ. 

So Jack, spawn of Lucifer and a human mother and supernaturally aged to teen-dom in hours, is afforded every benefit of the doubt, defended and protected from mean ol' Dean until such time as Dean learns his very important lessons and embraces him as family. But Emma, spawn of an Amazon and a human father (Dean) and aged to teen-dom in days, who had threatened but actually harmed no one, is summarily killed, never to be mentioned again. Seems like a double standard, especially when it's Sam doing the defending/killing in both instances.

[ILoveReading]

1 minute ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I was debating if this was Bitterness/Unpopular opinion or BvJ, but since it involves how they wrote Sam's response in both instances, I'm going with BvJ. 

So Jack, spawn of Lucifer and a human mother and supernaturally aged to teen-dom in hours, is afforded every benefit of the doubt, defended and protected from mean ol' Dean until such time as Dean learns his very important lessons and embraces him as family. But Emma, spawn of an Amazon and a human father (Dean) and aged to teen-dom in days, who had threatened but actually harmed no one, is summarily killed, never to be mentioned again. Seems like a double standard, especially when it's Sam doing the defending/killing in both instances.

Sam coudn't make the Emma situation all about Sam. 

That's the only difference I see.

[catrox14]

27 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Sam coudn't make the Emma situation all about Sam. 

Heh. He did eventually though when Benny came around.  Sam really is pretty self involved.

Oh wait, no, that was Amy.  Not Emma. my Bad. I still think Sam is kind of self involved when it comes to how he relates to monsters.

Edited June 19, 2018 by catrox14

[Res]

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

Heh. He did eventually though when Benny came around.  Sam really is pretty self involved.

That's a definite understatement.

[AwesomO4000]

37 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

So Jack, spawn of Lucifer and a human mother and supernaturally aged to teen-dom in hours, is afforded every benefit of the doubt, defended and protected from mean ol' Dean until such time as Dean learns his very important lessons and embraces him as family. But Emma, spawn of an Amazon and a human father (Dean) and aged to teen-dom in days, who had threatened but actually harmed no one, is summarily killed, never to be mentioned again. Seems like a double standard, especially when it's Sam doing the defending/killing in both instances.

I don't know. For me, it's mostly only a double standard if 5 seasons of different experiences and changing attitudes and the opinion of an angel and close friend are not taken into account, because Castiel had also wanted Jack to be born and had been defending him as good. Between season 7 and season 13, there have been more instances where Sam and Dean have come across monsters that have been able to overcome their instincts and live relatively normal and productive lives - like Garth and Beth, the other werewolf girl, Benny, a fairy princess (contrast the fairies in season 6 with the "princess" from "LARP and the Real Girl") , a golem, ghosts (compare ghost Kevin to what inevitably happened to ghost Bobby), and even to an extent a witch. Back in season 7, I wouldn't have imagined a scenario where Dean (especially) or Sam wouldn't - if possible - have the instinct to kill a real witch on sight, but yet now, apparently Rowena - who both Sam and Dean know have killed people (and likely lots and lots of them) for frivolous and/or evil reasons - is accepted as "part of the team."

When Carver took over in season 8, there was a marked shift from monsters being the bad guys to more of Dean and especially Sam being the bad guys and maybe they should give monsters, witches, and demons even, a break. Sam was turned into the "bad brother" while vampire Benny was proved to be good. Werewolves could live as good, helpful people. Crowley - though arguably entirely awful in season 8 - was given a "humanizing" storyline and ultimately turned into a frenemy rather than a straight up enemy. In other words: writer attitudes seem to have changed in Supernaturalverse. So in that respect, no, to me it isn't any more of a double standard than it was when Sam proclaimed Benny to be untrustworthy just because he was a vampire and was shown to be wrong... whereas without proof or some reason to think differently before then, vampires - even ones who didn't know that they were vampires and had been previously innocent (like that vampire girl in "Fresh Blood") - were killed with little hesitation, because they were dangerous. And even those who were at least somewhat "good" and given a chance - like Lenore and her nest - the brothers were taking a chance when letting them go... as evidenced by the fact that Lenore and the rest of the vampires in her nest did end up killing again under the right circumstances.

Around the time that Sam killed Emma, there had recently been the Amy arc where Amy was not given the benefit of the doubt that she wouldn't kill again, and this was shown as being the right thing to do. Emma hadn't killed yet, but the evidence was pointing more towards that she would rather than that she wouldn't. She made her choice. "So now someone has to kill someone." And when Dean told her to walk away and that he wouldn't go after her, she said "I can't. I don't have a choice." (Even though she arguably did.) Arguably Emma had been brainwashed, but she had perhaps more choice than, say, the vampire girl in "Fresh Blood" did who thought she was just taking a recreational drug and instead got turned.

So in my opinion, at that time in the show, Dean's attitude concerning Amy and Sam's concerning Emma were very much in tune with the show's philosophy at that time. Once Carver took over, for me the show's attitude has been shifting more towards the monsters deserve a chance, so it's no longer the same scenario. As an example, when the brothers needed to talk to a "good" monster to find out what was up with Eve in season 6, they were lucky to have come up with Lenore - who arguably was the only one. If a similar scenario happened on the show now, there are many different monsters they could've reached out to - several werewolves, a vampire, a golem, a phishtaco, the Zanna, whatever the heck Twig Alicia*** (from "Twigs and Twine and Tasha Banes") is now, even a reaper (well arguably now Death Herself). The pool is much bigger. (And I maybe even forgot one or two also.)

And in recent seasons, often the bad guy is/are human - like with arguably Sam in season 10 and the BMoL in season 11 - whereas the supernatural beings are mostly misunderstood - like Gadreel and Amara. Even (wonderfully, in my opinion) awful, villainous Metatron was redeemed in the end. Same with Crowley. Nowadays in the show, a lot of characters are getting a "chance."

*** Though I don't think Dean and Sam actually know about her.

[catrox14]

3 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I don't know. For me, it's mostly only a double standard if 5 seasons of different experiences and changing attitudes and the opinion of an angel and close friend are not taken into account, because Castiel had also wanted Jack to be born and had been defending him as g

IMO, the difference is that Jack in utero had influenced Cas. He put his Jack juice in him and I think that accounts for most all of Cas' decisions at the end of s12.  Of course, that's conveniently ignored after Jack resurrects Cas, but I didn't forget, and Dean didn't either, until Cas returned from the dead. We've never seen that Sam was influenced by Jack in the same way.  

[gonzosgirrl]

Those are valid thoughts and examples of the general change in tone of the show @AwesomO4000, but I don't think any are so personal as Dean/Emma/Sam and Lucifer/Jack/Sam. Even in the case of Dean killing Amy, she had been killing humans (albeit dirtbags) and it was pretty clear she would do so again if it meant her son's health. Emma, although threatening Dean, hadn't actually done anything yet and she was Dean's blood. She was never given the opportunity to try and be good, as Cas advocated for fetus-Jack, and Sam for NougatBaby-Jack, the blood of Lucifer.

[catrox14]

8 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Those are valid thoughts and examples of the general change in tone of the show @AwesomO4000, but I don't think any are so personal as Dean/Emma/Sam and Lucifer/Jack/Sam. Even in the case of Dean killing Amy, she had been killing humans (albeit dirtbags) and it was pretty clear she would do so again if it meant her son's health. Emma, although threatening Dean, hadn't actually done anything yet and she was Dean's blood. She was never given the opportunity to try and be good, as Cas advocated for fetus-Jack, and Sam for NougatBaby-Jack, the blood of Lucifer.

I could have even accepted Sam saying that maybe he regretted killing Emma so he's really trying to give Jack a chance.  But the show will never acknowledge that action.

ETA: I think that's why they made Amy the comparison instead of Emma with Benny; they don't want to acknowledge that Dean had a half monster child that Sam killed.

Edited June 19, 2018 by catrox14

[catrox14]

I think it would have been really interesting if Dean and Sam would have talked about Emma WRT to Jack.  I think that would have been one of Sam's best selling points on giving Jack a chance. That said, I still think Jack being the son of Satan is a lot more dangerous and untrustworthy than Emma because he had superpowers and it was said he would be the more powerful entity in the universe. Coupled with knowing ALL the things Lucifer has done to them and the human race, Jack was still potentially more risky to leave alive.

[ILoveReading]

In s12 they strongly implied that Lucifer was influencing Jack in the womb with that whole scene where Lucifer whispers his name.  There was a brief scene in episode 2 where Jack flashed back to Lucifer contacting him.   It was showed that he wouldn't let Kelly die.  She attempted suicide.  Jack prevented it.  So its a false narrative to say that Kelly chose to have Jack.  Jack didn't give her a choice. 

We never saw what Cas saw but it was also strongly implied he was brainwashed. 

But the show seemed to want to ignore this for baby nougat just wants to help everyone and be loved.   Then they doubled up on the mean Dean to make Jack seem even more like a sweet and innocent snowflake and make it look like Dean was just searching for excuses.

I don't believe the showrunners that they were going for a nature/nurture debate.  It was decided day one, not to mention canon on screen text that if Jack went bad it was Dean's fault not because he was the son of Satan.  The writers didn't care about Jack's satan half.  I think the true purpose was to make Dean look like the bad guy.

[AwesomO4000]

1 minute ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Emma, although threatening Dean, hadn't actually done anything yet and she was Dean's blood. She was never given the opportunity to try and be good, as Cas advocated for fetus-Jack, and Sam for NougatBaby-Jack, the blood of Lucifer.

I agree*** What I was trying to get across though was that maybe had the Emma scenario happened now, the outcome might have been different. Maybe even the Amy scenario might've been different. Those scenarios might've been more considered cold or wrong in the philosophy of the show now rather than the right thing to do as they were back then. Similar to the change with the werewolves where now they are sometimes given the chance to be good - like Garth - when back in the early days, it wasn't even considered for Madison. It was just accepted as a given that even though Madison didn't want to be a killer, that she would invariably kill again and so had to die.

*** Except with the Emma being Dean's blood part as I'm not sure about that since I think that's somewhat debatable (the Amazon DNA - according to the doctor - had nothing human in it. If Dean contributed any real anything, it should have been at least half human DNA, but that's the scientist in me talking... My theory is that it was gynogenesis. The Amazon molly reproduces this way, and it is named that with reference to the all female society of the Amazons of Greek myth. And though I don't think that the Amazons of Greek myth reproduced this way - I think they had male children, too, and killed them (?), I can't say that the Amazon monsters in Supernarural don't reproduce this way, since there was supposedly no human DNA.)

28 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Even in the case of Dean killing Amy, she had been killing humans (albeit dirtbags) and it was pretty clear she would do so again if it meant her son's health.

This is true, but looking at Benny, there should have been no guarantee that he wouldn't fall off the wagon again either, and he obviously killed in defense of his relative, and potentially could again. But that wasn't looked at as a reason to say he couldn't have a chance. And I realize that the scenarios are different, but the risk was - or at least should have been - still there. I think the general attitude about Benny and now Jack though was/is different. Much like with Jack, for me there never really was any real conflict that Benny was going to go bad. That's not really the vibe I got/get from the show. However, with both Amy and Emma, for me there was that definite feeling that more likely than not, they both would fall off the wagon. It just seemed to be the attitude of the show back then (for me). It's even why I have  the attitude about Real World Michael that I do. I just never got the vibe that he would be doing anything in any way "good" for humanity. His whole vibe came off as more menace and mayhem than indifference, because for me that's more the way the show was back then in terms of supernatural beings.

[AwesomO4000]

43 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I could have even accepted Sam saying that maybe he regretted killing Emma so he's really trying to give Jack a chance.  But the show will never acknowledge that action.

That would mean that the current showrunners would have to acknowledge character growth from something that happened during Gamble's time. I don't think that's going to happen as I think Carver pretty much tried to ignore/ reinvent/ get rid of most of the stuff that happened during her tenure. In my opinion. Which is why instead of growth - for any of the characters - we had Sam and Castiel making the same stupid mistakes in season 8 that they did back in seasons 4 and 6 respectively, and we had Dean going right back to having major self esteem issues.

[trxr4kids]

Dammit! I don't have time, carry on... But I'll be be back, my Austrian accent sucks btw : ( 

[Reganne]

The big difference for me between Emma and Jack was that Emma was threatening to kill and had the full determination to do so.  It also didn't help with the glare that she gave Sam because she knew she wasn't going to be able to manipulate him.  Only then did she act scared.  I agreed with what Sam did and I know that if the situations were reversed and it was Sam's "daughter" trying to kill Sam, Dean would have done the same.  What was he suppose to do?  Actually wait until she kills Dean and then kill her just to make sure she was actually going to do it?  Was he suppose to sleep with one eye open for the rest of his life to make sure Dean would still be alive in the morning?

 

 As far as Sam only having empathy for the monsters he sees himself in, I disagree that he couldn't have ever related to Emma if the situation had of lasted longer.  After all, both of them were essentially given dark paths right from infancy or with Emma from birth.  The problem with the Emma situation is that she was threatening Dean's life and Sam wasn't going to take any chances.  I don't blame him.

 

Another difference for me is also that they had no way to actually kill Jack.  Dean tried to shoot him right away and it backfired on him.  The bullets and the angel blade won't kill him and really they had nothing else really to do other than try to educate him about human life.  Yes, he was more of a danger than Emma if he were to turn down a dark path, but they really had no other choice but to take him in since they couldn't kill him.  Not to mention, Emma had been around for a few days prior to meeting up with Dean and she had been brainwashed and taught to kill him.  Jack actually had more of an influence from his mother IMO than anything.

30 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

 

This is true, but looking at Benny, there should have been no guarantee that he wouldn't fall off the wagon again either, and he obviously killed in defense of his relative, and potentially could again. But that wasn't looked at as a reason to say he couldn't have a chance. And I realize that the scenarios are different, but the risk was - or at least should have been - still there. I think the general attitude about Benny and now Jack though was/is different. Much like with Jack, for me there never really was any real conflict that Benny was going to go bad. That's not really the vibe I got/get from the show. However, with both Amy and Emma, for me there was that definite feeling that more likely than not, they both would fall off the wagon. It just seemed to be the attitude of the show back then (for me). It's even why I have  the attitude about Real World Michael that I do. I just never got the vibe that he would be doing anything in any way "good" for humanity. His whole vibe came off as more menace and mayhem than indifference, because for me that's more the way the show was back then in terms of supernatural beings.

I think Benny is more comparable in the sense that he hadn't done anything and wasn't actively trying to kill someone.  Of course he was fully grown by that point so there is that difference.

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

I could have even accepted Sam saying that maybe he regretted killing Emma so he's really trying to give Jack a chance.  But the show will never acknowledge that action.

ETA: I think that's why they made Amy the comparison instead of Emma with Benny; they don't want to acknowledge that Dean had a half monster child that Sam killed.

If anything that regret should go to his treatment of Benny and I say that as someone that doesn't even like the character.

[companionenvy]

Honestly, I think think this is simply a case of the meta-needs of the narrative winning out over consistency. The Slice Girls was a terrible one-off in which the writers decided to wring cheap emotion and drama out of giving Dean a "daughter." They never had any interest in adding Emma to the show and so she was disposable. Realistically, within the world of the show Sam should have been able to find a way to contain her without killing her; Emma was hardly the most formidable foe they've faced, and her status - as Dean's daughter, at least on some level, as a brainwashed insta-teen, as someone who hadn't actually killed yet -- should have warranted trying to save her if at all possible. But again, the writers simply didn't want her around past the episode, so they opted for the "no choice but to kill her" narrative. 

At the end of the episode, there are no  hard feelings between Sam and Dean, nor is Sam's choice fundamentally challenged; it is rather portrayed as him protecting Dean. I think that part of what makes TSG a crappy and manipulative episode is precisely the fact that by rights there should have been alternatives to killing Emma, and we're simply supposed to turn off our brains and not think of them, but I don't look at it as a reflection on Sam's character. The show failed in not sufficiently establishing why, in this case of all cases, Emma was apparently so formidable that nothing in the considerable Winchester bag of tricks could have let them neutralize her non-lethally, but the episode and its aftermath are otherwise written under the assumption that Sam did what he needed to do.

If I needed to find an in-universe explanation, however, I do think it makes a difference that Emma was actively trumpeting her intentions to kill Dean, whereas Jack has uniformly expressed a desire to do good and be helpful. If it were possible to kill him, there might be a pragmatic argument that he is simply too dangerous to live, but on moral and emotional terms, it is a lot easier to justify an in-crisis killing of a being threatening imminent harm to a loved one than it is to commit to what would have to be the premeditated execution of someone with the emotional maturity of a child, someone who is obviously eager to help and desperate for your approval. 

[DeeDee79]

40 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

If I needed to find an in-universe explanation, however, I do think it makes a difference that Emma was actively trumpeting her intentions to kill Dean, whereas Jack has uniformly expressed a desire to do good and be helpful.

I get what you're saying but if we're to focus on Jack's desire to be good we must also focus on young Emma being hesitant to follow along with the rituals as shown during the scene when the other Amazonian offspring accepted the flesh that they were given to eat without hesitance. Also, Emma said what she was there to do but she spent her time talking instead of attacking. As you've stated it's largely due to the narrative that chose to take the angsty route with Emma's story but it's still possible that she would have chosen to rebel against her DNA just as Jack did. Sure she pulled a knife on Dean but she also said that she didn't have a choice because it was what she was supposed to do; that screams brainwashed IMO. Personally I think that fandom ignores the possibly that Emma could have been turned onto a better path because of the reluctance to see Sam in a negative light for killing her when he's usually eager to help the monsters that could turn out good.

Edited June 20, 2018 by DeeDee79

[gonzosgirrl]

I was not on any boards or spoiled in any way (except knowing there were more seasons) and to me, it totally seemed to me there was a good measure of spite in Sam killing Emma. I'm actually kind of surprised it was never mentioned again, especially the times where Dean recounted Sam's 'sins'. As @companionenvy suggests, to the writers/showrunner, may well have been a throwaway episode and scene, but intended or not, Sam killing Emma and his snide reminder to Dean about Amy absolutely coloured my view of the character.

The Benny thing aside, Sam then championing Jack (another half-breed whose father is Lucifer) right from the jump based on nothing at all, and condemning Dean for not immediately falling in line, is all the more glaring.  

[companionenvy]

21 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

Personally I think that fandom ignores the possibly that Emma could have been tuned onto a better path because of the reluctance to see Sam in a negative light for killing her when he's usually eager to help the monsters that could turn out good.

Whereas I think fandom ignores it because the episode never suggests that Sam is in any way unjustified and seems to expect us to accept that the killing was necessary. 

I do think there are certain extreme situations when a writer's morality gets so conspicuously wonky that even if he or she seems to see an action as either particularly heinous or clearly justified, I simply can't look past my own sense of the situation, and do judge the character based on it. But things like characters having wildly inconsistent abilities to serve the needs of the plot are so common in genre fiction that while I'll point out the inconsistency as a fault, in assessing the character, I'm going to do so on the assumption that the super-dangerous thing really was super dangerous. 

On that assumption, Sam's behavior isn't really inconsistent. He's been receptive to sympathetic monsters in the past, but a) that sympathy is limited, given that he's still a professional monster-killer who, by necessity, often shoots first and asks questions later, and b) this particular monster is threatening Dean. This isn't comparable to a situation like the one with Lenore, in which she specifically tells him that she doesn't hurt people any more. Again, it requires us granting the writers the premise that Sam had no other way of neutralizing Emma, but as that isn't brought up as a bone of contention between Sam and Dean, I think we're supposed to think that the claim that he had to do it is legit. 

[DeeDee79]

1 minute ago, companionenvy said:

Whereas I think fandom ignores it because the episode never suggests that Sam is in any way unjustified and seems to expect us to accept that the killing was necessary. 

Interesting that this was the only part of my post that you chose to quote. Which somewhat supports my statement.

5 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

The Benny thing aside, Sam then championing Jack (another half-breed whose father is Lucifer) right from the jump based on nothing at all, and condemning Dean for not immediately falling in line, is all the more glaring.  

This.

[ILoveReading]

The problem is that Dean had the situation under control.  He was trying to talk to Emma and help her see that she did have a choice.  Emma was a teenager, untrained and had a knife.  Dean is a trained fighter (when the show remembers anyway) and he had a gun.  He had aimed on her.  She wasn't attacking. 

Sam busting in escalated the situation.  It triggered Emma into reacting and thinking she needed to protect herself. 

IMO, this is a big reason why it comes across as tit for tat.  Sam snidely bringing up Amy, after he admitted Dean was right, didn't help matters.  Same as with Benny.  It felt more spiteful than protective. 

Edited June 20, 2018 by ILoveReading

[DeeDee79]

1 minute ago, ILoveReading said:

IMO, this is a big reason why it comes across as tit for tat.  Sam snidely bringing up Amy, after he admitted Dean was right, didn't help matters.  Sam as with Benny.  It felt more spiteful than protective. 

This also.

[gonzosgirrl]

16 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

Whereas I think fandom ignores it because the episode never suggests that Sam is in any way unjustified and seems to expect us to accept that the killing was necessary. 

I don't know about never. I think if there was absolutely no reason to side-eye the killing, they wouldn't have had Dean emphasize that she was, indeed, his daughter, nor had him bring up Amy like he did. It may well be subjective and debatable, but I don't think that it's made up out of whole cloth.

(sorry DeeDee79 - I know that's not your quote - PTV won't let me change it. Quoting @companionenvy)

Edited June 20, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[DeeDee79]

4 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

(sorry DeeDee79 - I know that's not your quote - PTV won't let me change it. Quoting @companionenvy)

Thank you for pointing it out; I would never think this :)  Also, I'd like to add that if the episode wants fandom to believe that the killing was necessary then they must also believe that Sam acting like an asshole during much of season 8 in regards to Benny is also behavior that we're meant to accept as necessary rather than " the writers throwing Sam under the bus " as some fans love to state.

Edited June 20, 2018 by DeeDee79

[AwesomO4000]

3 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I was not on any boards or spoiled in any way (except knowing there were more seasons) and to me, it totally seemed to me there was a good measure of spite in Sam killing Emma. I'm actually kind of surprised it was never mentioned again, especially the times where Dean recounted Sam's 'sins'. As @companionenvy suggests, to the writers/showrunner, may well have been a throwaway episode and scene, but intended or not, Sam killing Emma and his snide reminder to Dean about Amy absolutely coloured my view of the character.

3 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

IMO, this is a big reason why it comes across as tit for tat.  Sam snidely bringing up Amy, after he admitted Dean was right, didn't help matters. 

Whereas I didn't see Sam mentioning Amy as snide at all. In my opinion, Sam was angry and worried and that's what the scene showed - Dean even mentioned Sam being pissed. For me, the reason why Sam mentioned that Dean was right before was because he thought Dean was right - and that like he (Sam) had been, Sam thought that Dean had been letting his emotions get the better of him in the Emma situation. And whether in character or not, Dean did not appear to be thinking entirely logically in the situation. His insistence that Emma could walk and he wouldn't follow*** was not something that the writer of the episode saw as a good idea. Sam was reiterating the writer consistent attitude that killing the monster rather than letting her go was the right thing to do. Just as Dean didn't do it delicately in "The Mentalists" neither did Sam do it delicately here, but I didn't see either brother being snide about it. For me, Sam being snide would have been him saying something like "Now we're even" rather than concluding his angry stint with "Just don't die"... which for me was what Sam was really angry about: that Dean had put himself at risk with Emma.

*** Just because Dean denied to Sam that he would have let Emma walk doesn't mean he was telling Sam the truth. Dean didn't know Sam had heard him say so, so his denial is in question for me.

3 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

Also, I'd like to add that if the episode wants fandom to believe that the killing was necessary then they must also believe that Sam acting like an asshole during much of season 8 in regards to Benny is also behavior that we're meant to accept as necessary rather than " the writers throwing Sam under the bus " as some fans love to state.

I don't see how these two things relate at all. For me the writers in season 8 had an entirely different attitude than they did in season 7. For me, if the writers had thought Sam acting like a jerk in season 8 was "necessary," then Benny would actually have been shown in some way to be dangerous - or even the least bit threatening - rather than entirely benign.

The reason why I say that the writers appeared to be throwing Sam under the bus in the situation was because the contrast between Sam and Benny's behavior was so glaring. For me there was no attempt at subtlety. No "both sides had a point" here. Sam was portrayed as judgemental, irrational, duplicitous, threatening, and angry - not to mention wrong! - while Benny, the supposed monster, was accommodating, patient, level-headed and innocent of all charges... pretty much a woobie who was being misjudged by mean old Sam until Sam learned a very special lesson about Benny. I'm really not sure how else to take that but as throwing Sam under the bus to make Benny look good. *shrug*

To me it's not much different than the argument that Dean was being painted dubiously for daring to question poor, nougat Jack. Which I agree... he kind of was in order to help paint Jack as innocent and increase the angst. At least Dean, however, got to change his mind before being painted as a complete ass and getting someone killed while being proven wrong... so there is at least that. In my opinion, for Dean the bus revved up and started roaring down the road, but swerved at the last moment maybe clipping him a little bit. For Sam the bus ran him over then backed up and ran him over again. And in both cases, I think it's reflecting the writers' shift in attitude concerning monsters.

Others' opinions will obviously vary on that.

Edited June 20, 2018 by AwesomO4000
because a double negative is a positive and not what I was trying to get across.

[companionenvy]

I do think Sam was acting like an asshole in season 8 re: Benny. I also think that it was throwing his character under the bus by making him uncharacteristically bloodthirsty and suspicious, just as I think both that Dean was dead wrong about Jack in S13 and that the show was throwing him under the bus by regressing him to a reflexive and under the circumstances immature "monsters must die" position he had long outgrown. In both cases, I think it was particularly bad because Sam and Dean were making decisions about whether or not another being deserved to live grounded in their personal issues -- Sam is jealous of Benny, Dean is grieving Cas and lashing out at the innocent cause of his death -- rather than in a morally mature or coherent assessment. 

I don't see Sam killing Emma the same way. I agree with AwesomeO that Sam was depicted as sincere in the claim that he acted out of fear for Dean, and did not use Amy as a cruel tit-for-tat justification.  Sam has at this point accepted that Amy needed to die (which I disagree with, but that's another issue), and is now equating the two situations: both Amy and Emma were someone Sam and Dean, respectively, couldn't be objective enough to kill, and so the other brother had to step in to to get the job done. 

Dean doesn't express anger at Sam for doing what he did. Sam is angry that Dean put himself in danger; Sam "choked" in the situation with Amy, and Dean "choked" in the situation with Emma. To the extent that Dean challenges this, it is to claim that he had always intended to kill Emma, not to argue that she should have been given a chance. Sam also offers his opinion that Emma wasn't really Dean's daughter in the first place. Dean does challenge this, but concedes "she also happened to be a crazy man-killing monster." The episode closes on Sam trying to get Dean to commit to getting back in the game and not letting himself be killed. 

Again, I think the situation was poorly constructed, as if the writers had wanted to make a longer arc out of it they could easily have found a way for the Winchesters to subdue Emma and make a sustained effort at appealing to her better nature. But I stand by the idea that while the writers allow us to feel some sympathy for Emma - and for Dean -- neither the narrative nor Dean ultimately thinks that Sam did the wrong thing here.