Airmid March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 Out of curiosity, do you all think the writers were even consciously aware at the end of last season that Chuck was putting the safety of earth into Dean's hands, aka Michael's vessel? Seeing that Michael was the last one Chuck left in charge as the guardian (whether he wanted to be or not and it didn't end well for him) it's strangely poetic and really messed up that now Dean's up. Of course his family to a lesser extent also but Chuck does pause before adding in Sam. I probably overthink things. Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3079302
catrox14 March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 1 minute ago, Airmid said: Out of curiosity, do you all think the writers were even consciously aware at the end of last season that Chuck was putting the safety of earth into Dean's hands, aka Michael's vessel? Seeing that Michael was the last one Chuck left in charge as the guardian (whether he wanted to be or not and it didn't end well for him) it's strangely poetic and really messed up that now Dean's up. Of course his family to a lesser extent also but Chuck does pause before adding in Sam. I probably overthink things. I thought about it, but I don't think it will amount to much of anything, unless they totally surprise me with Dean as the Michael!Sword swerve. I'd be shocked myself. 2 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3079316
AwesomO4000 March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 2 hours ago, Airmid said: So, no, I can't see that helping Dean feel redeemed or worthwhile in any way given his history. He's just the shmuck closest to the door who got caught with his pants down before Chuck peaced out. Yes, we definitely see this differently. Chuck is God. He could leave anyone he wanted in charge of his creation. I don't see why it's assumed he would just pick any old schmuck who happened to be there for an important job like that*. He chose the person who just helped save the world, who Amara said was exactly what she needed to change her mind. So that's why he chose Dean. If Dean ever wanted to be the chosen one - well now he was. No one said that being the chosen one was necessarily going to be easy. And Dean wasn't alone in it either - he had Sam to help him. * Even Metatron chose to feel chosen even after Chuck told him that he was just the schmuck closest to the door. Maybe so, he said, but you still chose me, and Metatron chose to own that. And I don't believe that choosing a scribe is comparable to choosing someone to watch over the world, so the angel nearest the door made sense in that case. 1 hour ago, ILoveReading said: Dean was busy making sure there was enough food. Do we really know that though? I don't think it's ever been shown as canon that John didn't provide enough food for Sam and Dean. Yes, Dean had to go to Sonny's because he stole food, but that was because he lost the food money playing poker. We don't know that the money he lost wouldn't have been enough to pay for all of the groceries - food in the late 80s /early 90s was relatively cheap. I know, because I went to college during that time, and supported myself - shared apartment, utilities, tuition, books, and food - on a 20 hour a week work-study job where I made minimum wage - which was maybe $4.00 an hour back then. I could feed myself on less than $20 a week in the 80s with food to spare. (it maybe went up to $30 in the 90s). Granted I ate a lot of Ramen noodles for lunch, but my point is, it likely wouldn't have been that expensive, in my opinion, so I can't see John not leaving enough money for food. And yes, I was a teenager. I went away to college when I was 17. I also disagree with the notion that Dean just gave up everything for others and had no life of his own, and I don't think that the show portrayed that either. We know that Dean used to take advantage of times when John was gone to go to movies, chase girls, and likely do all sorts of things Dean liked to do. He would drop Sam off at places like Plucky Pennywhistle's to go off on his own... in other words, do things that normal teens do. And he had every right to. And that was Dean's choice. Sam chose to get into his schoolwork and work to get himself into college, because that's what Sam wanted to do at that time. When Sam went off to college, Dean was likely around 22... he could've gone off on his own and done whatever he wanted if he'd wanted to. He chose to stay with John and hunt, because he enjoyed it. Sam didn't ditch Dean and leave him with the responsibility of looking after John... Dean chose to stay, and if he felt obligated, that was up to Dean and his choice, in my opinion. Though @rue721 also brings up a good point that Both Sam and Dean did know too much, so maybe not... which also makes in my opinion, the plot point in season 8 that Sam would just leave it all behind and claim that was okay, seem even more ridiculous. (Good gravy how I hated season 8.) 2 hours ago, rue721 said: I think that Sam would be unbearably restless in a normal life, and would probably end up blowing it up searching for some kind of Meaning-capital-M. Yes, this. This is what I was trying to convey on the previous page when I said that Sam likes the feeling of making a difference that he gets from hunting and would likely find that very difficult to give up. He comes back to that point again and again when talking to Dean about it - i.e. that he and Dean "make a difference" with what they do. And I think it maybe comes from his feeling "wrong" and his need - as you said - to prove himsel f. Maybe to prove that he's not "tainted" or wrong. And hunting provides Sam a way to do that - to prove himself in spite of everything. 2 hours ago, rue721 said: IMO when he's looking to purify himself or he's talking about a "taint," he's talking about something being objectively wrong with him, almost like he's got bad blood or something. By purifying himself IMO he wasn't trying to redeem himself -- more like he was trying to *cure* himself. Like he's got this sickness in him and it's still going to be there no matter how he behaves -- what he needs is a cure, not forgiveness. Interesting point, and maybe tied into the above mentioned need to prove himself: to prove that he can do good in spite of the "bad" blood. I think I mentioned on the previous page that this might have been a factor in his getting in trouble with the demon blood - Sam trying to use his "bad blood" and somehow do "good" with it - which likely made Ruby's job easier. 1 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3079574
Airmid March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 44 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said: Yes, we definitely see this differently. Chuck is God. He could leave anyone he wanted in charge of his creation. I don't see why it's assumed he would just pick any old schmuck who happened to be there for an important job like that*. He chose the person who just helped save the world, who Amara said was exactly what she needed to change her mind. So that's why he chose Dean. If Dean ever wanted to be the chosen one - well now he was. No one said that being the chosen one was necessarily going to be easy. And Dean wasn't alone in it either - he had Sam to help him. * Even Metatron chose to feel chosen even after Chuck told him that he was just the schmuck closest to the door. Maybe so, he said, but you still chose me, and Metatron chose to own that. And I don't believe that choosing a scribe is comparable to choosing someone to watch over the world, so the angel nearest the door made sense in that case. Whatever Metatron wanted to believe at the end of the day doesn't make Chuck any better. For starters, it would be wise to make sure your chosen protector actually wants the job. Dean always says that he's going to die with a gun in his hand because he feels like the war is never going to be over. That none of it is ever going to stop and he's never going to get peace. Which makes him different from Sam seeing that while Sam accepts his hunting life and wants to help others he thinks that there is going to be an end to it all. It may be one of his prime motivations for going with Mary outside of protecting his mom - hoping that BMOL actually has a plan that will allow them slow down and enjoy the world they're protecting. No one asked Dean if he wanted this role, felt suited for this role, or what happens if he encounters something too big and bad for him to take on. Yes he has Sam, which Chuck sort of tossed into his statement as an after thought. I can't see Chuck doing anything differently if Dean fails like Michael failed. Let alone poor Sam who made the right choice and got left in hell and had to be saved by Dean at the expense of Adam. Seeing the massive amount of damage that Chuck allowed to happen without caring, that Chuck couldn't even be bothered to stop them when Amara was about to be released and still had the gall to pass the buck on that one back to the brothers during his conversation with Metatron - well I can't see Dean finding comfort in him. Amara, maybe. Chuck, no. What Chuck could have done? Gave actual orders to heaven and spent thirty seconds straightening them out so they were doing what they were supposed to be doing and helping the brothers. That would of been more useful then a slight pep talk and how he was leaving again. Quote When Sam went off to college, Dean was likely around 22... he could've gone off on his own and done whatever he wanted if he'd wanted to. He chose to stay with John and hunt, because he enjoyed it. Sam didn't ditch Dean and leave him with the responsibility of looking after John... Dean chose to stay, and if he felt obligated, that was up to Dean and his choice, in my opinion. That's a very easy call to make if one hasn't spent their entire life being told that they had to do something and do it a certain way. By the time Dean was twenty-two he idolized John, drove his car, wore his jacket, wanted to make him proud and followed orders without question. Dean did have other interests, he did go out and do things but even early in his life he knew the price of disobeying as shown in Something Wicked. It's was a main trait of his and while Dean could be his own person he also had grown up in a family where it was etched into him from a very young age that this is what he was doing. Yes, there was always a choice that he could walk away but be much harder for him than Sam. And in some ways he was looking after John since the entire series starts off with John missing on his hunt for YED and then proceeding to follow his dad's orders after the events of the pilot and Sam coming back on board. That wasn't something Sam did to him, it was a part of Dean's childhood and how he was raised. Quote Do we really know that though? I don't think it's ever been shown as canon that John didn't provide enough food for Sam and Dean. Yes, Dean had to go to Sonny's because he stole food, but that was because he lost the food money playing poker. We don't know that the money he lost wouldn't have been enough to pay for all of the groceries - food in the late 80s /early 90s was relatively cheap. I know, because I went to college during that time, and supported myself - shared apartment, utilities, tuition, books, and food - on a 20 hour a week work-study job where I made minimum wage - which was maybe $4.00 an hour back then. I could feed myself on less than $20 a week in the 80s with food to spare. (it maybe went up to $30 in the 90s). Granted I ate a lot of Ramen noodles for lunch, but my point is, it likely wouldn't have been that expensive, in my opinion, so I can't see John not leaving enough money for food. And yes, I was a teenager. I went away to college when I was 17. I'm sure John didn't leave them to starve. He could and did get held up on hunts. So yeah, watching how much food they were using, what they had left, the limitations of being able to do anything fun. Not to mention just because you can eat for cheap doesn't mean it's what you want to eat. Yes, as adults we know that happens and it's the price of living but for a kid that has to say, give up the last of his favorite cereal because his brother wants it and they may not be able to get more? Well that just sucks and creates pressure on the child who is left holding the buck. Dean was placed into the supervisory position without a good way to back it up. He became a mouth piece for when John wasn't there and we don't know exactly how functional John was when he was. In fact if we want to look at Dean's role as a caretaker in this family we can look at In My Time of Dying: Quote JOHN - You know, when you were a kid, I'd come home from a hunt, and after what I'd seen, I'd be, I'd be wrecked. And you, you'd come up to me and you, you'd put your hand on my shoulder and you'd look me in the eye and you'd... You'd say "It's okay, Dad" (pauses) Dean, I'm sorry. DEAN - What? JOHN - You shouldn't have had to say that to me, I should have been saying that to you. You know, I put, I put too much on your shoulders, I made you grow up too fast. You took care of Sammy, you took care of me. You did that, and you didn't complain, not once. I just want you to know that I am so proud of you. DEAN - This really you talking? JOHN - Yeah. Yeah, it's really me. DEAN - Why are you saying this stuff? JOHN comes closer, puts a hand on DEAN'S shoulder. JOHN - I want you to watch out for Sammy, okay? DEAN - Yeah, dad, you know I will. You're scaring me. JOHN - Don't be scared, Dean. Not only is it apparent that Dean hasn't heard his dad speak like this before, say these sort of things including apologizing, he finishes this whole scene telling Dean that he may have to kill Sam. Sam never got any kind of goodbye or reconciliation with his dad like this that we know of. Yes Dean may have had a choice to leave, but I don't think it was one he was ever going to be able to take simply because of how entangled in the whole mess he was. Something that he tried to shield Sam from. 8 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3079825
rue721 March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 21 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said: When Sam went off to college, Dean was likely around 22... he could've gone off on his own and done whatever he wanted if he'd wanted to. I think that the period right when Sam left was when Dean was least likely to leave and would have been under the most pressure to stay. John seems like he had a strong personality. I can see him putting the emotional thumbscrews on at that point. He wouldn't have wanted to be totally abandoned and I'm sure would have done what he needed to do (emotionally) to make sure he wasn't. JMV, not canon -- but I think that it makes sense character-wise, and fits with how Dean reacts whenever that period of time is brought up. Seems like it was clearly a stressful time for him. Anyway, what I think made it possible for Sam to go is that he was running *to* something. He wanted to go to college and be a "normal" guy and assimilate, and that was a meaningful goal for him. So he was able to keep his eyes on the prize (which he is very good at anyway!). The sacrifices and transformations he had to go through were going to be worth it, because they were all in service of a goal he believed in. But Dean didn't have anything to run to, really. Also, I think Dean finds "normal life" harder to deal with than hunting in a way, because he's out of his element there. Dean is pretty adaptable, but when he's been thrown into a "normal life" situation (that's not just him faking it for the benefit of a case), he's dragged a lot of hunting baggage along with him. Even in that Bad Boys episode, he was carving up his bedposts and putting salt on the parameter and stuff IIRC. I'm not surprised that he would struggle and reject normalcy -- he's not comfortable there. It's not what he was raised for and it's not what he's used to. (The same could be true of Sam, but that's where I think the differences in their personalities come into play). 1 hour ago, Airmid said: I'm sure John didn't leave them to starve. He could and did get held up on hunts. So yeah, watching how much food they were using, what they had left, the limitations of being able to do anything fun. I know the show will never go into this, but I find the mechanics of how they lived kind of baffling and I wish the show would go into it more. A big reason I loved Baby so much as an episode was because it showed a lot more of that kind of thing than usual. Like, what IS it like being rogue demon hunters? (tm Wesley Wyndam-Pryce). It would have been cute if Mary had tried to introduce some traditions from her family into their lives. Even if the actual traditions ended up being a depressing flop, it would have been interesting to see what hers were and how theirs differed. That could have been an interesting setup for a flashback episode even. Ah well, she's still alive so maybe there's still a chance for the show to do that. Oh gosh how off-topic is this. Sorry. Back to regularly scheduled programming. Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3080008
ahrtee March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 28 minutes ago, rue721 said: I think that the period right when Sam left was when Dean was least likely to leave and would have been under the most pressure to stay. John seems like he had a strong personality. I can see him putting the emotional thumbscrews on at that point. He wouldn't have wanted to be totally abandoned and I'm sure would have done what he needed to do (emotionally) to make sure he wasn't. JMV, not canon -- but I think that it makes sense character-wise, and fits with how Dean reacts whenever that period of time is brought up. Seems like it was clearly a stressful time for him. Anyway, what I think made it possible for Sam to go is that he was running *to* something. He wanted to go to college and be a "normal" guy and assimilate, and that was a meaningful goal for him. So he was able to keep his eyes on the prize (which he is very good at anyway!). The sacrifices and transformations he had to go through were going to be worth it, because they were all in service of a goal he believed in. But Dean didn't have anything to run to, really. Also, I think Dean finds "normal life" harder to deal with than hunting in a way, because he's out of his element there. Dean is pretty adaptable, but when he's been thrown into a "normal life" situation (that's not just him faking it for the benefit of a case), he's dragged a lot of hunting baggage along with him. Even in that Bad Boys episode, he was carving up his bedposts and putting salt on the parameter and stuff IIRC. I'm not surprised that he would struggle and reject normalcy -- he's not comfortable there. It's not what he was raised for and it's not what he's used to. (The same could be true of Sam, but that's where I think the differences in their personalities come into play). IA with this, but I also wonder...Dean met Cassie around that time, while Sam was in college (I don't think they specified *when* during that time?) It might have been a coincidence, but I think the timing is interesting--that it wasn't till Sam left that Dean was apparently considering a "real" relationship with someone, enough to actually tell her the truth about his life and hunting--the *only* time he'd ever told anyone. Maybe he felt that, with Sam gone, he didn't have to stay with John (especially since John seemed to be dumping him more and more.) Or maybe, when he saw that Sam had apparently been successful in leaving the life and was happy, it made him rethink his own life and consider other options besides the path John had laid out for him. I don't think he really wanted to give up hunting--IMO, not only was it the only thing he felt he was good at, but it also gave him a sense of self-worth--remember, "saving people" is the *FIRST* part of the family motto. But I could see him maybe wanting a longer-term, more serious relationship--someone he could come back to between hunts. So--he told Cassie the truth...and she got mad/scared, and threw him out. And he became convinced that there was no use in even trying to be honest with a woman (especially one he cared about), and no way to leave the life. And after that, he stuck to one-night (or one-weekend) stands and obeying John blindly--because in his mind, John had been right again. 1 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3080082
DittyDotDot March 15, 2017 Author Share March 15, 2017 1 hour ago, rue721 said: Also, I think Dean finds "normal life" harder to deal with than hunting in a way, because he's out of his element there. Dean is pretty adaptable, but when he's been thrown into a "normal life" situation (that's not just him faking it for the benefit of a case), he's dragged a lot of hunting baggage along with him. Even in that Bad Boys episode, he was carving up his bedposts and putting salt on the parameter and stuff IIRC. I'm not surprised that he would struggle and reject normalcy -- he's not comfortable there. It's not what he was raised for and it's not what he's used to. (The same could be true of Sam, but that's where I think the differences in their personalities come into play). Yeah, I personally think Dean is being honest at the end when he says "It just didn't feel right." That's not to say he didn't find a certain amount of happiness there, but, at the end of the day, I think, Dean chose to go back to the thing he knew and understood rather than make a fuss over something he didn't ultimately didn't think he wanted. I personally think Dean made the right choice. I just don't think Dean would've truly been happy there and trying to stay would've just tarnished a pleasant memory. It's kinda like when you see the doomed writing on the wall on a relationship with someone you truly do love and care about; Sometimes it's better to end it before you end up hating them. Oh, and consequently, I also think why Sam ultimately is able to break away is because he never felt as though he fit into John and Dean's world. But, then again, I don't think Sam has ever felt like he really fit anywhere. Even now, I'm not sure Sam is comfortable in his own skin. That might be why Sam's been so understanding of Mary; maybe Sam sees something in Mary he sees in himself? Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3080121
ILoveReading March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 8 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said: Do we really know that though? I don't think it's ever been shown as canon that John didn't provide enough food for Sam and Dean. Yes, Dean had to go to Sonny's because he stole food, but that was because he lost the food money playing poker. We don't know that the money he lost wouldn't have been enough to pay for all of the groceries - food in the late 80s /early 90s was relatively cheap. I know, because I went to college during that time, and supported myself - shared apartment, utilities, tuition, books, and food - on a 20 hour a week work-study job where I made minimum wage - which was maybe $4.00 an hour back then. I could feed myself on less than $20 a week in the 80s with food to spare. (it maybe went up to $30 in the 90s). Granted I ate a lot of Ramen noodles for lunch, but my point is, it likely wouldn't have been that expensive, in my opinion, so I can't see John not leaving enough money for food. And yes, I was a teenager. I went away to college when I was 17. My opinion on this comes from Metamorphsis, where they are discussing the whether they should kill the Rugaru Quote TRAVIS So what do we do? Sit and hope and wait for a body count? SAM No, we talk to him. Explain what's happening. That way he can fight it. TRAVIS Fight it? He laughs TRAVIS Are you kidding me? You ever been really hungry? This gets DEAN's attention, who's been looking at the papers SAM brought with him. TRAVISI mean, haven't-eaten-in-days hungry?DEAN Yeah. TRAVIS Yeah. Right then. So somebody slaps a big, juicy sirloin in front of you, you walking away? DEAN looks thoughtfull for a second and then admits "no" without words, only raising of eyebrows. He slowly looks over at SAM. I don't think John left them to starve, but the above suggests there was times when the food did run out, because John got delayed. I always wondered if the reason Dean gambled the food money was because he needed more and what he had wasn't enough. Not canon, but not out of the realm of possibility. 2 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3080255
Myrelle March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 (edited) Quote What do you mean by their satisfaction with the life coming from far different aspects of it, and that what Dean loves could not fit under the umbrella of "normal"? Not snark, honest question. In a way, and to me, you kind of answered your own question with this comment: Quote Also, I think Dean finds "normal life" harder to deal with than hunting in a way, because he's out of his element there. Dean is pretty adaptable, but when he's been thrown into a "normal life" situation (that's not just him faking it for the benefit of a case), he's dragged a lot of hunting baggage along with him. Even in that Bad Boys episode, he was carving up his bedposts and putting salt on the parameter and stuff IIRC. I'm not surprised that he would struggle and reject normalcy -- he's not comfortable there. It's not what he was raised for and it's not what he's used to. (The same could be true of Sam, but that's where I think the differences in their personalities come into play). But the bolded part is key. In answering your question I went to imdb and looked up the answer to this FAQ pertaining to the movie The Hurt Locker: Why did James go back to Iraq at the end of the movie? And I think this answer points straight to the heart of one of the greatest personality differences between the two Winchester brothers and the bolded part in the quote below is where I feel that Jensen feels that the writing on this show has slowly been taking Dean from pretty much Day One of this series. He even referenced this movie while they were filming the part of S8 when Dean was trying to transition back to this world after having been in Purgatory for the previous year; and while he mostly talked about it in relation to that one scene when he(Dean) was trying choose something from the vending machine and likening it to James trying to choose a cereal from the cereal aisle in the film, as the show has gone on, I, too, think that they are further trying to mine material from this movie where it regards Dean-and again, the bolded part especially. Quote As the quote at the beginning of the film says "...war is a drug." The idea of veterans coming back and adjusting to life at home is an old concept: many soldiers who have gone through traumatic experiences in war have trouble easing back into their former lives. Seems like the only way James could be happy was by going back to Iraq for another tour (a military one) and starting to defuse bombs again. There is also the scene at the end where James is speaking to his infant son and describes how in getting older the number of things we love diminishes ... even, he says, down to one. The addictive compulsion of war is apparently James' most persistent and remaining love And I think that this has been an intense source of inner conflict in Dean from Day One of this show. That he was forced from childhood into the role of being a surrogate parent to Sam may even have been his saving grace in some ways in that taking on the parent role to such a degree and at such a young age his more loving, kind, tender and empathetic qualities-which are inherent in most humans (albeit in differing degrees) from birth, IMO-were brought more to the forefront through that most important time in his life, when he was being molded as a human being more than at any other time. Sam was the beneficiary of those feelings and IMO, THAT has made all the difference in the world to both brothers when we talk about that most important time in a human being's life when the shaping and the molding are most likely to "take" and, as such, stay with us into adulthood. After his mom died, Dean, for the most part, ceased to be the beneficiary of those same loving, kind, tender, and empathetic feelings that his mom provided(and I DO believe that she provided those to him. His 4-5 year old memories of her are genuine and true, IMO). John may have tried when he was around, but I'm skeptical as to how much he was physically present in their lives even from right after Mary was killed. And not only were they taken from him, but likely by the time he was even 7-9 years old, he also felt obligated to provide them to John and Sam in his mom's absence. And therein lies the reason for the biggest differences in their personalities, IMO. Sam had really never been asked or felt obligated in the same way as Dean to provide those things to another child. Sam DID develop the ability to do that, IMO, but while they were both children he remained a child who was not given or ever experienced the added burden of the obligations of parenthood to the same extent that Dean was or did. And Dean was(and still is) a wild thing in some ways that Sam never was or is either, IMO. And I honestly think that part of Dean is in his DNA(AKA nature not nurture)-hence Dean's fascination with the hunt. I don't think that his fascination/interest in the hunt was ALL about just pleasing dad, but pleasing dad was absolutely in the mix, as it would be for any child. I think how Dean has felt about the normal life was at first total rejection for numerous reasons(he did like/enjoy the idea of the hunting life-it was exciting and he is/was a wild thing and the "danger vibe" appealed to him, too; and this from childhood into adulthood-AND he wanted to please dad AND make mom proud AND it WAS the family business), but when he lost John that changed all of his feelings about the hunt. No longer was it as exciting to him when he began to lose loved ones again, or when he had to contemplate killing the brother(and yes, surrogate son in his own mind, IMO) whom he'd helped to raise a great deal, from that brother's infancy. It was then that he began to consider the thought that his choices had been taken from him through and predominantly because of John's obsessions concerning the hunt, and he began to question many things about himself and the life he that he thought he'd chosen and his father and Sam and it was then that Dean began to be curious about what a normal life would be like and feel like beyond the hunting world. And while this was happening in Dean the same was likely happening in Sam, too-but in an almost opposite manner in every way. I want to add that, like Catrox, I think that hell did a huge number on Dean and his already messed up psyche that was messed up beyond words even before he went there. I also agree that he has never recovered from that experience and that he has never and does not want to examine it too closely to this day, but I think that he may have to very soon. And lest we forget The Werther Box wherein Dean stated that Purgatory was as good of an afterlife as any for him. I think that the SPN version of Heaven would bore Dean to tears. I think that my fascination with the Dean character reached a sort of zenith for me in the episode when they met Gordon for the first time. I'm blanking on the title right now, but that scene when he beheaded the vamp was like nothing I'd ever seen/felt before and I don't think I've come down from there yet. But I'll leave that for the Dean thread and a later time. Edited March 15, 2017 by Myrelle 5 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3080371
Katy M March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 3 hours ago, ILoveReading said: I don't think John left them to starve, but the above suggests there was times when the food did run out, because John got delayed. I always wondered if the reason Dean gambled the food money was because he needed more and what he had wasn't enough. Not canon, but not out of the realm of possibility. I've kind of gone back and forth on that. I figure that Dean might not want to risk Sam's food money (he might be more willing to risk his own) if there was enough. But, at the same time, if they were close to running out, John should have realized that and not been a complete jerk by leaving Dean to have the best month he ever had. As for the comment in Metamorphosis, I always figured Dean was hungry in Hell. Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3080862
AwesomO4000 March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, ILoveReading said: I don't think John left them to starve, but the above suggests there was times when the food did run out, because John got delayed. I always wondered if the reason Dean gambled the food money was because he needed more and what he had wasn't enough. Not canon, but not out of the realm of possibility. I agree it could be possible, but I guess for some reason I always thought Dean's comment had something to do with his experiences in hell. (Even though we didn't know about Dean remembering yet... once we found out, I thought that it was part of the foreshadowing.) I guess because I always saw Dean as resourceful and good at planning ahead - like maybe even saving food from school lunches for later. I just generally thought that he'd be more likely to figure something out before it got to the point of no food - and I personally can't imagine Sam as that naive to where he would be eating and not notice that Dean didn't have any food (since this was the kid who found John's journal and gun and asked questions all the damn time), but I could be wrong. 5 minutes ago, Katy M said: As for the comment in Metamorphosis, I always figured Dean was hungry in Hell. Hee, great minds think alike? Edited March 15, 2017 by AwesomO4000 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3080880
Wayward Son March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 2 hours ago, Myrelle said: I think that my fascination with the Dean character reached a sort of zenith for me in the episode when they met Gordon for the first time. I'm blanking on the title right now, but that scene when he beheaded the vamp was like nothing I'd ever seen/felt before and I don't think I've come down from there yet. But I'll leave that for the Dean thread and a later time. We first met him during the season two episode Blood Lust Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3080898
rue721 March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 So disturbing to think of them not eating for days. Given their circumstances, there would have been a thousand ways to keep that from happening -- so I'm going to ahead and believe the best, and that they didn't go through that. ;) I always wondered what would have happened if John had died on the job, though. I hope he had a dead man's switch of some kind, so that one of his friends (Bobby?) would come by and pick up the kids. What always bothered me about Bad Boys was imagining what was going on with Sam once Dean had gotten picked up by the cops. Apparently there was no food in the house, and Sam would have had no idea what had happened to Dean, either. So first their dad is gone, then they run out of food, then Dean disappears....? I just imagine Sam going to bed that first night without Dean thinking, OK, don't panic, he'll be back tomorrow. And then waking up the next day and Dean's still not there -- maybe dead for all Sam knows. So scary. I found it weird how the episode just glossed over that. I mean, it was an episode about Dean, not Sam, but still. 3 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3081258
ahrtee March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, rue721 said: I always wondered what would have happened if John had died on the job, though. I hope he had a dead man's switch of some kind, so that one of his friends (Bobby?) would come by and pick up the kids. In Something Wicked, John's final words to Dean as he left were "If I'm not back in three days..." and Dean finished, "call Pastor Jim. I know." So I think they had a plan in place. I'm also assuming that Sam would call Bobby, at least, if not John, when Dean disappeared. But it seemed that the cops got hold of John pretty quickly--Dean said that--but John decided to leave him to stew, so I'm also guessing that John picked up Sam and deposited him with either Bobby or Pastor Jim so he could finish his hunt. Edited March 15, 2017 by ahrtee 2 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3081518
catrox14 March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, rue721 said: So disturbing to think of them not eating for days. Given their circumstances, there would have been a thousand ways to keep that from happening -- so I'm going to ahead and believe the best, and that they didn't go through that. ;) I think Dean does have issues with food insecurity. In general, I subscribe to the notion that Dean eats whenever he can because he did go without food more than he should have as a child. Dean NEVER turns down food, and he sure doesn't seem to have an eating disorder. Like he doesn't binge and purge and he's definitely NOT anorexic. OTOH, Sam never seems to be worried about acquiring a meal and he also doesn't have an eating disorder. So, what is the difference if they both had the same access to food? As was mentioned upthread, Dean specifically said he knows what it's like to go for days without food, and IMO that's because Dean gave up meals more than once, so Sam could eat. Like when he gave up the spaghettios for the cereal. Yeah, Dean could have just eaten the spaghettios but he was an aggravated 9 year old trying to do do his best to take care of his 6 year old brother. I don't think that was a one time deal. I mean the first two seasons were all about world building for these boys that lived a pretty shitty abnormal life so I don't think they would put that out there as something that only happened once. IMO Bad Boys had a lot to say about Dean and food. I think it's really interesting that Dean's first real girlfriend was a foodie and her Dad owned a diner. Quote DEAN (continues) I lost the food money that Dad left for us in a card game. Created by ERIC KRIPKE DEAN (continues) I knew you'd get hungry, so ... I tried taking the five-finger discount at the local market and got busted. I wasn't on a hunt. They sent me to a boys' home. SAM A boys' home, like a … reform school? Written by ADAM GLASS DEAN Yeah, more or less. It was a farm, and the guy who ran it – Sonny – he, uh, you know, he looked after me. SAM Wait. Does Sonny know what we do? DEAN Yeah. He's good people. I gave him the number to the Bat Phone, and sounds like he's got something in our wheelhouse. My head!canon and it's just my interpretation, given the way Dean said it and Sam's skeptical reaction and then later Sonny's questioning of Dean, that Dean was taking the blame for losing the money in a card game rather than Sam thinking John didn't leave them enough food money. Now if Dean did lose the money gambling then IMO it would have been in a pool scheme gone awry rather than a card game. Again that's just my head!canon. Much of my head!canon comes from the exchange between Sonny, Dean and the cop. young!Dean was snarky and cocky a little bit (Dean's bravado started young). He was kind of proud of having punched the cop so why wouldn't he be proud to tell Sonny he lost the money in a card game? Sonny wasn't going to bounce him for that no matter given that he said everyone deserves a chance. Sonny had been in a gang, so he got it. IMO, Dean shrug was him trying to play it cool that he loved his little brother and stole to feed him. IMO, YMMV (I can also see that maybe Dean did blow the money but he was still stealing the food to feed Sam rather than himself. JMHO) Quote SONNY turns back toward the cuffs, opening up them with the paperclip, and removing them. SONNY stands up and starts walking out of the room. Freed, YOUNG DEAN stands up too, shaking his hands. DEAN So, how do you know I won't just run away? SONNY Because you're hungry. YOUNG DEAN No, I'm not. SONNY Well, then, why'd you steal bread and peanut butter? YOUNG DEAN shrugs. YOUNG DEAN So, what is this place, anyway? SONNY It's for boys like you. You work the land. Teaches you some discipline and responsibility. Keep you out of trouble. YOUNG DEAN (laughs) That's lame. SONNY Beats jail. Come on. I'll fix you something to eat. Quote DEAN nods. SAM (continues) Kind of like you did with this place. I mean, here I was thinking this was the worst part of your life, and it turns out it was the best. Why'd you ever leave? DEAN Never felt right. SAM Really? DEAN It was two months, Sam, okay? And I couldn't wait to get out of here. I don't know what to tell you. It wasn't me. DEAN gets into the IMPALA. SAM Dean ... Thank you. DEAN For what? SAM For always being there, for – having my back. Look, I know it always hasn't been easy … DEAN I don't know what the hell you're talking about. DEAN starts the car. SAM shuts his car door. They drive off into the night. Given the motif of Dean lying to himself and Sam with the whole Gadreel thing, IMO Dean was lying to Sam about having gone to the reform school because he lost the food money and that he didn't leave because it didn't feel right. IMO, Dean was downplaying his attachment to the boys home for Sam's benefit and IMO Sam pinged on that which, is why he stressed how much he realized Dean had given up in his life, for Sam, and why he thanked him for it. YMMV. Edited March 15, 2017 by catrox14 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3081604
catrox14 March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 3 hours ago, Katy M said: As for the comment in Metamorphosis, I always figured Dean was hungry in Hell. That's interesting. It never occurred to me that hunger was a factor in Hell at all. Like I didn't think they even ate food. IMO the Metamorphoses comment was related to his childhood and not Hell. Dean didn't look terrified about if he was thinking of Hell. And in 4.01 Dean's veneer cracked when he pretended he didn't remember Hell. I think in that case he would not have been reacted that way if he was thinking about starving in Hell. That would have been a whole other fucked up kind of torture for Alastair to put on Dean. Thanks for that little horrible thought :(. (NOT) 2 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3081642
Katy M March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 2 minutes ago, catrox14 said: That's interesting. It never occurred to me that hunger was a factor in Hell at all. Like I didn't think they even ate food. I don't think they ate food either, hence why they were hungry. And no water, which is why they're thirsty. I don't think Dean went days without eating as a child. If it happened on earth, it was as an adult for some reason. Remember in Something Wicked, Dean felt he had enough food to throw out perfectly good Spaghettio-s. He had money for food in A Very Supernatural Christmas. And if they ran out, he wouldn't be above shoplifting--we know that from Bad Boys, plus he also steals Christmas presents in the Christmas episode. So, if he were caught shoplifting, he'd get fed by the cops. If he wasn't caught, they'd have the food. Plus, if they got really desperate, they had Pastor Jim and Bobby to call. Plus, they had that babysitter Donna that we met in Swap Meat. Nobody was going to let these kids starve 1 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3081662
catrox14 March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 3 minutes ago, Katy M said: I don't think they ate food either, hence why they were hungry. And no water, which is why they're thirsty. No I meant I didn't think they had the experience of hunger because they had no physical body to feed or physical thirst to quench. Unless they have a hell body like @AwesomO4000 theorizes. Quote I don't think Dean went days without eating as a child. If it happened on earth, it was as an adult for some reason. Remember in Something Wicked, Dean felt he had enough food to throw out perfectly good Spaghettio-s. He had money for food in A Very Supernatural Christmas. And if they ran out, he wouldn't be above shoplifting--we know that from Bad Boys, plus he also steals Christmas presents in the Christmas episode. So, if he were caught shoplifting, he'd get fed by the cops. If he wasn't caught, they'd have the food. Plus, if they got really desperate, they had Pastor Jim and Bobby to call. Plus, they had that babysitter Donna that we met in Swap Meat. Nobody was going to let these kids starve I addressed this a previous comment but I'll elaborate. I see this argument a lot, that if Dean were really lacking food or under nourished in some way that he should have been smart enough or starving enough or emotionally not compromised to not waste food. FFS he was 9 YEARS OLD. Both boys were sick of spaghettios and wanted the cereal. He tried to stand his ground until 6 year old Sammy kind of whined about wanting the cereal and then gave him the puppy dog eyes. Heaven forfend a 9 year old try to make a big brother decision and then be rash and emotional and throw away some food in anger. I'm dis-inclined to hold a 9 year old's feet to the fire for getting frustrated and throwing it away. Nor consider that just because he made a 9 year old brain decision, doesn't mean he wasn't going without food more than he should. More than he should = a couple of days. It doesn't have to be 4 or 5 days. 2 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3081771
bearcatfan March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 10 minutes ago, catrox14 said: No I meant I didn't think they had the experience of hunger because they had no physical body to feed or physical thirst to quench. Unless they have a hell body like @AwesomO4000 theorizes Maybe hunger is experienced in hell because it's a form of torture and the physical body isn't necessary? I don't really feel strongly about when Dean experienced hunger. I can see the reasoning behind all theories stated. Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3081841
AwesomO4000 March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 27 minutes ago, catrox14 said: Dean NEVER turns down food, and he sure doesn't seem to have an eating disorder. Like he doesn't binge and purge and he's definitely NOT anorexic. OTOH, Sam never seems to be worried about acquiring a meal and he also doesn't have an eating disorder. So, what is the difference if they both had the same access to food? You could be right. For me, I always looked at Sam and Dean's relationship with food as a reflection of their personality. Just in general, I think that Dean enjoys the simple pleasures more than Sam does. Sure Sam will enjoy a good coffee or a burger* but I think more often Sam tends to look at it as coffee = caffeine and the burger = food/fuel. Even though Sam does enjoy his frou frou coffee, I don't imagine him that bummed if he only could get regular instead - it would still do the job. But Dean likes his burgers and his exotic croissant / cookie hybrids, and in my opinion, he'd be bummed if he could only eat say veggie burgers all of the time. So I generally looked at it as Sam eats, because he needs the food. He may enjoy it, but that's just a bonus. The main goal - since Sam is fairly goal orientated, I think - is to keep his body fed and healthy. Whereas with Dean, I think enjoying the food is part of it. Dean likes to enjoy the journey along the way. Getting full is nice and all, but enjoying the food on the way to that is maybe the best part for him. But I could be wrong, I don't know. It's true that Dean doesn't turn down food, so that could mean something more. I've known a few people (mainly my Grampa, Nana, and my mother-in-law) who had to worry about having enough food, from either growing up in the depression era or because of abuse, and generally there was a form of "hoarding" of food involved (i.e. buying more than they could possibly eat before it would go bad just to have extra in the fridge.) Not always. My Nana was actually food averse in a way, in that she tended not to eat much and even as a child would refuse to eat a lot of the time. But both my Grampa and my mother-in-law: yes, there is/was that semi-"hoarding" behavior. My Grampa is still doing it 80 years later. I don't think we've seen that from Dean yet... even if he does tend to keep food maybe longer than he should (like the time that Sam referred to Dean's food as "Darwinism"). Hee, I tend to do it for George Carlin reasons "When I first wrap up the leftover and put it in the refrigerator, I feel really intelligent: 'I'm saving food.' And then a week later when it has mold growing on it, and I throw it away, I feel... really intelligent: 'I'm saving my life.'" Mostly kidding - I usually do eat my leftovers... mostly. And weirdly now that I think of it... I guess after college, I tend to do a little food "hoarding" myself - but with me it's pantry stuff. My excuse is that I usually "bought it on sale" or in the case of our local grocery store, that I better buy as much as I can now, because next week they'll no longer carry it. (It happens all the time at our grocery store. It's extremely annoying.) * Like the one Dean made him in the bunker. 3 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3081850
catrox14 March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 1 minute ago, bearcatfan said: Maybe hunger is experienced in hell because it's a form of torture and the physical body isn't necessary? Yeah I was thinking that when I mentioned a new form of torture from Alastair. Like a mind game thing. Hell torture is always confusing. LOL Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3081855
Airmid March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 41 minutes ago, Katy M said: I don't think they ate food either, hence why they were hungry. And no water, which is why they're thirsty. I don't think Dean went days without eating as a child. If it happened on earth, it was as an adult for some reason. Remember in Something Wicked, Dean felt he had enough food to throw out perfectly good Spaghettio-s. He had money for food in A Very Supernatural Christmas. And if they ran out, he wouldn't be above shoplifting--we know that from Bad Boys, plus he also steals Christmas presents in the Christmas episode. So, if he were caught shoplifting, he'd get fed by the cops. If he wasn't caught, they'd have the food. Plus, if they got really desperate, they had Pastor Jim and Bobby to call. Plus, they had that babysitter Donna that we met in Swap Meat. Nobody was going to let these kids starve Calling is a whole lot different when you have somewhere steady to lay down your head vs. always on the road. Yes, they did have the emergency plans but given how much John moved around they could 1k+ miles from help. That's a long ways to drive to get to a situation where John couldn't come back and at best they would have had to make plans on wiring money to Dean who was a minor. And that's if Dean felt it got bad enough to even tell anybody. I'd think, with his attachment and issues with John, that he'd be more prone to waiting and not thinking about getting caught then immediately asking for help. I don't ever think John left them intentionally without food or money. I also don't think them having some food issues was a frequent occurrence. But seeing what Dean was stealing to land himself at Sonny's it pretty much a given they had nothing. As for if he really lost it in poker, I can't see it, not if it jeopardized Sam at that point. But Dean also wouldn't have said 'Dad's not back yet and my baby brother's hungry' either. That would be telling strangers family business and they didn't do that. He would also lie through his teeth and make sure Sam didn't suspect how bad things were simply because Sam wouldn't let him starve himself while they waited for John. 54 minutes ago, catrox14 said: That's interesting. It never occurred to me that hunger was a factor in Hell at all. Like I didn't think they even ate food. IMO the Metamorphoses comment was related to his childhood and not Hell. Dean didn't look terrified about if he was thinking of Hell. And in 4.01 Dean's veneer cracked when he pretended he didn't remember Hell. I think in that case he would not have been reacted that way if he was thinking about starving in Hell. That would have been a whole other fucked up kind of torture for Alastair to put on Dean. Thanks for that little horrible thought :(. (NOT) I would think that if there was a hunger from hell it would be spiritual not physical. Seeing what they did to him (tortured him to the point where they got him to actually enjoy the next part of his torture, doing the same to others) I could see some sort of hunger there. It's not a good thought, but it would make sense given what he's been through. Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3081857
Bessie March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 11 minutes ago, catrox14 said: I see this argument a lot, that if Dean were really lacking food or under nourished in some way that he should have been smart enough or starving enough or emotionally not compromised to not waste food. I subscribe to this argument. A child of Dean's age (10 or 11 in Something Wicked, I think) who experiences food insecurity on a regular or semi-regular basis is not going to throw away a can of food. Maybe a 5 or 6 year old would, but even that is a stretch for me. It doesn't mean Dean never experienced hunger, but I don't believe, if he did, that it was something that happened very often. That's not to say that I think Dean had an easy childhood, but I don't think it included food insecurity. 3 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3081880
catrox14 March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 6 minutes ago, Airmid said: Calling is a whole lot different when you have somewhere steady to lay down your head vs. always on the road. Yes, they did have the emergency plans but given how much John moved around they could 1k+ miles from help. That's a long ways to drive to get to a situation where John couldn't come back and at best they would have had to make plans on wiring money to Dean who was a minor. And that's if Dean felt it got bad enough to even tell anybody. I'd think, with his attachment and issues with John, that he'd be more prone to waiting and not thinking about getting caught then immediately asking for help. I don't ever think John left them intentionally without food or money. I also don't think them having some food issues was a frequent occurrence. But seeing what Dean was stealing to land himself at Sonny's it pretty much a given they had nothing. As for if he really lost it in poker, I can't see it, not if it jeopardized Sam at that point. But Dean also wouldn't have said 'Dad's not back yet and my baby brother's hungry' either. That would be telling strangers family business and they didn't do that. He would also lie through his teeth and make sure Sam didn't suspect how bad things were simply because Sam wouldn't let him starve himself while they waited for John. I would think that if there was a hunger from hell it would be spiritual not physical. Seeing what they did to him (tortured him to the point where they got him to actually enjoy the next part of his torture, doing the same to others) I could see some sort of hunger there. It's not a good thought, but it would make sense given what he's been through. I get it. For some reason, I never considered starvation or thirst as a torture technique for human souls. But yeah it makes sense to me now that it would be. I still don't think that is what Dean was referring to when he said he went hungry for days. 1 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3081886
Airmid March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 1 minute ago, catrox14 said: I get it. For some reason, I never considered starvation or thirst as a torture technique for human souls. But yeah it makes sense to me now that it would be. I still don't think that is what Dean was referring to when he said he went hungry for days. Definitely for the episode with the Rugaru. I would think, since the whole thing revolved around eating and what makes you a monster (poor Sammy) I would say that one was all earth stuff. Now Famine, yeah that hints at something much more terrible and something that is never really fully addressed for Dean. Or if the same could have happened to Sam just differently given what has happened to both souls. Quote DEAN So this is your big trick? Huh? Making people cuckoo for cocoa puffs? FAMINE Doesn't take much--hardly a push. Oh, America--all-you-can-eat, all the time. Consume, consume. A swarm of locusts in stretch pants. And yet, you're all still starving because hunger doesn't just come from the body, it also comes from the soul. DEAN It's funny, it doesn't seem to be coming from mine. FAMINE Yes. I noticed that. Have you wondered why that is? How you could even walk in my presence? DEAN Well, I like to think it's because of my strength of character. FAMINE I disagree. (Famine moves closer to Dean and touches him) Yes. I see. That's one deep, dark nothing you got there, Dean. Can't fill it, can you? Not with food or drink. Not even with sex. DEAN Oh, you're so full of crap. FAMINE Oh, you can smirk and joke and lie to your brother, lie to yourself, but not to me! I can see inside you, Dean. I can see how broken you are, how defeated. You can't win, and you know it. But you just keep fighting. Just... keep going through the motions. You're not hungry, Dean, because inside, you're already...dead. Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3081907
ILoveReading March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 8 minutes ago, catrox14 said: I get it. For some reason, I never considered starvation or thirst as a torture technique for human souls. But yeah it makes sense to me now that it would be. I still don't think that is what Dean was referring to when he said he went hungry for days. This would make an interesting question at a con. While not canon there was a con where Jensen implied that Dean might have sold himself. I tried to find the clip but couldn't. Not to change topics but there is one part of their childhood I'd have liked to see a flashback episode about. Hunting is a rough gig and I'm sure the boys had bumps and bruises. They were in a hotel for days at a time with no adult supervision. Now, I know that it was probably out of the way no-tell motel but someone at some point must have noticed, or a teacher notice the bruises. It makes me wonder if Dean ever had to deal with social services. Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3081937
MysteryGuest March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 I'm not sure how often Sam and Dean went to bed hungry, but I would think it happened now and again. They never really talked about whether John ever cooked for them when he was home, and I mean actual meals...meat, vegetables, etc., not just SpaghettiOs or macaroni and cheese. But considering the many different ways Dean doctored up the mac and cheese just to make it palatable, I'm guessing they ate a damn lot of it. It was cheap, and could be cooked over a hotplate that they might have in one of their seedy motels. They went from eating that to a steady diet of fast-food burgers and tacos. I would guess they didn't and still don't eat out in normal restaurants all that often. I can't see them heading to Olive Garden for dinner. It still looks like they shop at the local gas station rather than a grocery store, even now that they live in the Bunker. I suppose there's no point in stocking up on fresh produce when you never know how long you might be gone on a job. It's no wonder they were so impressed by Jody's cooking skills when they had dinner at her house. While it certainly isn't difficult to roast a chicken, they must never do it for themselves. Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3081964
catrox14 March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 1 minute ago, Bessie said: I subscribe to this argument. A child of Dean's age (10 or 11 in Something Wicked, I think) who experiences food insecurity on a regular or semi-regular basis is not going to throw away a can of food. Maybe a 5 or 6 year old would, but even that is a stretch for me. It doesn't mean Dean never experienced hunger, but I don't believe, if he did, that it was something that happened very often. That's not to say that I think Dean had an easy childhood, but I don't think it included food insecurity Dean would have been 9 or 10 given it's said that hunt happened 16 or 17 years ago and Dean was 26ish. But even if he was 11, he's still a child and can have a moment of anger, frustration and have fit of temper and throw away some food he was sick of. Given that food insecurity is a lack of regular access to adequate food and a consistent state of not knowing where the next meal is coming from I think Dean (and Sam to a lesser extent) did suffer from food insecurity. No they were not starving but I think they fall under food insecurity. It's too bad John couldn't have signed them up for food stamps. FTR, I don't think John purposefully didn't give his kids enough food money. I think John just didn't have enough money all the time to give them. Maybe he misjudged. Maybe Dean or Sammy ate more than they intended or the money might not go as far as planned. 1 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3081975
Aeryn13 March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 Quote But even if he was 11, he's still a child and can have a moment of anger, frustration and have fit of temper and throw away some food he was sick of. Yes, even an adult might do that, I don`t see why a kid - or possibly just Dean - should be held to higher standards. Just as I don`t think he could make big life choices at the age of 14 or 15. People twice that age can`t hack this nowadays. Remembering back to my teenage years, yes, I made choices and yes, there were times I thought for sure I had my life all figured out. In hindsight, not even close. Quote I think John just didn't have enough money all the time to give them. Maybe he misjudged. Maybe Dean or Sammy ate more than they intended or the money might not go as far as planned. All it takes is for one hunt to take longer or for him to get hurt badly enough that he can`t get back in time before the food runs out. 1 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3082005
catrox14 March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 25 minutes ago, ILoveReading said: While not canon there was a con where Jensen implied that Dean might have sold himself. I tried to find the clip but couldn't. I remember reading about this. It was an interview or something maybe even from one of the London cons where they aren't supposed to record things. He said something about hustling for food money and he didn't mean pool. Here it is. http://fandomdebunker.tumblr.com/post/57789469298/the-rumor-that-jensen-said-that-dean-might-have Quote The rumor that Jensen said that Dean might have turned tricks is CONFIRMED. The rumor originates from an interview he gave with the Australian magazine TV Week in 2008 during season 3: “Dean’s a bit of a pool shark and also a bit of a gambler. It doesn’t really show it all the time, but it’s definitely implied that there are poker games and pool matches that they can win some money on. And who knows? Dean’s a promiscuous kind of guy. Who knows how he drums up the funds that they use?” (x) The quote implies a certain amount of ambiguity, allowing room for fan interpretation; however, given that Jensen did in fact suggest the idea, this rumor is CONFIRMED. (As always, please swing by our ask box if you have any new information or rumors for us to debunk!) Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3082024
Bessie March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 You know, for the most part I've really enjoyed the flashback to the boys' childhood episodes we've had. They give me insight into the men they are today and their relationship. I wish they'd do them more regularly. I think they're a great opportunity to build on characterization and would allow for J2 to have time off while still focusing on them. 1 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3082041
catrox14 March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 Just now, Bessie said: You know, for the most part I've really enjoyed the flashback to the boys' childhood episodes we've had. They give me insight into the men they are today and their relationship. I wish they'd do them more regularly. I think they're a great opportunity to build on characterization and would allow for J2 to have time off while still focusing on them. This would be good but I'm not convinced of their ability to cast the younger Winchesters anymore. I have to say, the most recent young!Sam was not good casting IMO. He didn't look like Sam in the least, nor did I think he seemed like Sam. I'm probably spoiled on Colin Ford. I know Dylan Everett doesn't really look like Jensen but he sure as hell captures Dean to a T that I buy it. 2 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3082055
Wayward Son March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, catrox14 said: This would be good but I'm not convinced of their ability to cast the younger Winchesters anymore. I have to say, the most recent young!Sam was not good casting IMO. He didn't look like Sam in the least, nor did I think he seemed like Sam. I'm probably spoiled on Colin Ford. I know Dylan Everett doesn't really look like Jensen but he sure as hell captures Dean to a T that I buy it. Dylan really impressed me when I first saw him as young Dean. The reason he pulls off Dean is that he actually showed professionalism and he has watched previous episodes to learn from Jensen's portrayal. Unlike some *cough* the writers *count* Edited March 15, 2017 by Wayward Son 4 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3082076
catrox14 March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 Just now, Wayward Son said: Dylan really impressed me when I first saw him as young Dean. The reason he pulls off Dean is that he actually showed professionalism and he has watched previous episodes to learn from Jensen's portrayal. I was rewatching Bad Boys because of our ongoing discussion. And he really nails even the minor things, like how Dean holds his arms and walks. Dean does this thing where he holds his arms to his sides and kind of swings his arms. Dylan totally did that. 2 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3082095
7kstar March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 1 hour ago, MysteryGuest said: I'm not sure how often Sam and Dean went to bed hungry, but I would think it happened now and again. They never really talked about whether John ever cooked for them when he was home, and I mean actual meals...meat, vegetables, etc., not just SpaghettiOs or macaroni and cheese. But considering the many different ways Dean doctored up the mac and cheese just to make it palatable, I'm guessing they ate a damn lot of it. It was cheap, and could be cooked over a hotplate that they might have in one of their seedy motels. I think it shows up in Adult Dean. How he is always grabbing free food, stuffing his mouth. I know some of the issues I dealt with growing up still effects me. Not being allowed to drink on trips, being forced to eat when I wasn't hungry. I go to friends homes with a glass. Even when they tell me they will have a free lunch, I bring a just in case meal. Dean being the older brother, it has been implied in many eps that he made sure Sam had enough so Dean could keep him in the dark about the issues. I think if they took the time to cast correctly it would be interesting to see a flash back to the boys trying to hide the fact that their father was late or missing or even trying to explain away the hidden injuries. But that would mean that the writers would want to mine the many plot holes of the past. But it is fun to think about. :) 4 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3082229
FlickChick March 15, 2017 Share March 15, 2017 57 minutes ago, catrox14 said: I was rewatching Bad Boys because of our ongoing discussion. And he really nails even the minor things, like how Dean holds his arms and walks. Dean does this thing where he holds his arms to his sides and kind of swings his arms. Dylan totally did that. And in "About a Boy", he absolutely nails adult Dean in every way - expressions, body language, choices, and the way he interacts with Sam - just as if he were late thirties, not a teen. And the bit with the cake will NEVER not be funny! 3 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3082239
ahrtee March 16, 2017 Share March 16, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, 7kstar said: I think if they took the time to cast correctly it would be interesting to see a flash back to the boys trying to hide the fact that their father was late or missing or even trying to explain away the hidden injuries. But that would mean that the writers would want to mine the many plot holes of the past. But it is fun to think about. :) I would love to see it as a way to force Mary to face what her children had gone through to make them into the men they are today. There could be an episode with her reading John's journal and going into flashback from there, then cutting back to what they were doing in the present so she/we could see where some of their behaviors came from. But IA it would be hard without Colin Ford. Edited March 16, 2017 by ahrtee with and without are *not* interchangeable 3 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3082557
rue721 March 16, 2017 Share March 16, 2017 4 hours ago, 7kstar said: I think if they took the time to cast correctly it would be interesting to see a flash back to the boys trying to hide the fact that their father was late or missing or even trying to explain away the hidden injuries. How much was John meant to be gone? Because on the one hand, it seems like quite a bit, but on the other, why would he bother dragging them around the country if he was always planning on being at a different location from them anyway? I mean, at that point, why not just leave them in one location for the school year and come back to visit in between hunts? And if he wasn't around, when was he training them? Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3083551
rue721 March 16, 2017 Share March 16, 2017 5 hours ago, catrox14 said: Dean would have been 9 or 10 given it's said that hunt happened 16 or 17 years ago and Dean was 26ish. But even if he was 11, he's still a child and can have a moment of anger, frustration and have fit of temper and throw away some food he was sick of. Sure, a kid can -- but a kid who thinks of food as valuable or scarce probably wouldn't. Plus, wasting food like that is so taboo, but the show had him do it so casually. Meanwhile, I'm looking on in horror LOL. Eh the point is, it just didn't ring true to me. YMMV. I actually don't think that their childhoods were meant to seem all that shitty. I don't think the show was trying to make John a monstrous father or their childhoods a depressing saga of deprivation or anything like that at all -- I think that their childhoods were just meant to look "gritty," not bad. 1 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3083615
SueB March 16, 2017 Share March 16, 2017 16 minutes ago, rue721 said: How much was John meant to be gone? Because on the one hand, it seems like quite a bit, but on the other, why would he bother dragging them around the country if he was always planning on being at a different location from them anyway? I mean, at that point, why not just leave them in one location for the school year and come back to visit in between hunts? And if he wasn't around, when was he training them? Since you are asking a question, I'll answer: I think John dragged them around because he suspected that the demon was after Sam right from the jump. I don't think he knew WHY but I believe that was part of his "look out for Sammy" directive. He was worried the demon was trying to steal Sam is my guess. And by moving them around, he was trying to keep them off the demon's radar. It simultaneously allowed him to protect the kids (by not staying in one location long enough to be found) and gave him the opportunity to hunt/seek intel. As for training versus being absent, I think it was both. He'd be with them for some weeks (when training could occur) and then be gone for some weeks. And once you've done the basics of training AND they are old enough, he could simply insist they continue to follow a certain daily regime. BUT, if you think about it, even if he was gone only half the time, that's still 26 weeks a year. Conversely, he also had 26 weeks a year to be with them. In the summer there's plenty of time to take them out for survival training. In the winter, teaching them weapons, lore, etc... They really didn't have any hobbies. They had school and 'Hunter 101'. Yes, Sam did theater in at least one school, but it doesn't seem like they were ever on sports teams (except for Dean when he was at that home). With no actual job, that pretty much gave John a lot of time with the boys when he wasn't physically absent. I hope this makes sense. It does in my head. Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3083667
catrox14 March 16, 2017 Share March 16, 2017 3 minutes ago, rue721 said: Sure, a kid can -- but a kid who thinks of food as valuable or scarce probably wouldn't. Plus, wasting food like that is so taboo, but the show had him do it so casually. Meanwhile, I'm looking on in horror LOL. Eh the point is, it just didn't ring true to me. YMMV. But he didn't do it casually. He was pissed and frustrated and defeated. Children are not robots and they don't always do things that an adult would do. They have temper tantrums and use poor judgment at times. In the same episode, Dean went off and spent too much time playing video games which is why the shtriga almost got to Sammy and why John gave Dean a look that could kill. Kids have poor judgment at times. Even a generally responsible child. My head!canon is this hunt is why Dean doubled down on Save Sammy and made sure Sam had food henceforth. I'd bet John punished him for the shtriga and the food. John couldn't even show up to the hospital or call or communicate in anyway when his eldest child was quite literally dying. That's pretty monstrous IMO. But as always MV 1 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3083670
rue721 March 16, 2017 Share March 16, 2017 3 minutes ago, SueB said: I think John dragged them around because he suspected that the demon was after Sam right from the jump. The part that I think is confusing is, why would John take them somewhere and set them up in a motel room and stuff, only to leave and go stay in ANOTHER motel himself? Why not all just stay together? 1 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3083702
SueB March 16, 2017 Share March 16, 2017 Just now, rue721 said: The part that I think is confusing is, why would John take them somewhere and set them up in a motel room and stuff, only to leave and go stay in ANOTHER motel himself? Why not all just stay together? I think he'd 'park' them in a central location for a few weeks so they could attend school and he'd hunt the local area. But only be in another motel if the hunt was too far away to get back to the 'central' location. I don't think he'd go to a different hotel if he was right there in the same city. He wouldn't waste the money and it would make no sense. 1 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3083711
rue721 March 16, 2017 Share March 16, 2017 Just now, SueB said: I think he'd 'park' them in a central location for a few weeks so they could attend school and he'd hunt the local area. But only be in another motel if the hunt was too far away to get back to the 'central' location. I don't think he'd go to a different hotel if he was right there in the same city. He wouldn't waste the money and it would make no sense. That's basically what I had envisioned, but wouldn't he have been around most of the time if that were the case? Like, just going off for a few days at a time for longer-range cases? I'm just confused because sometimes it seems like he had really long absences, but it also seems like their lives were purposefully set up to limit his absences (or at least the length of them). Just intrigued by the logistics of their childhood, I guess. 7 minutes ago, catrox14 said: But he didn't do it casually. He was pissed and frustrated and defeated. He did it casually in that he didn't seem to have any "oh shit what did I do?!" reaction after. Which come on. He had just dumped out a whole bowl of perfectly good food. That's kind of a big deal! It's not about being sensible. Like I said, it's that he did something taboo. Or, I guess it wasn't taboo in their household, but that also makes me think that food wasn't all that scarce in their household. I doubt it was meant to be a big deal in the world of the show. But in general, I don't get the feeling that either Sam or Dean has any issues with food or even economizing. IMO they seem very easy-come-easy-go. Which I think is a good thing. 1 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3083741
companionenvy March 16, 2017 Share March 16, 2017 (edited) Yeah, I think there's a middle-ground between Dean and Sam's childhood being a total hellscape and them having it very rough, but still (usually) being fed and clothed. The latter, to me, isn't incompatible with Dean now and then having to go hungry, which is different from utterly starving. I do think that the way the scene with Sonny was written implies that Dean wasn't just stealing because he had frivolously lost their money at cards -- if he did lose his money at cards, which I see no reason to doubt, he was probably playing precisely because they were running low on supplies and he was getting desperate. Maybe not the smartest choice, but understandable for a teenager in a tough spot. As for the other logistics of their childhood, my interpretation is that the family would set up in one motel for a few months at a time and John would take local-ish hunts while Sam and Dean went to school. Sometimes, this meant coming home every night; sometimes, it meant a few days on the road leaving Dean in charge. They would only relocate as a family, IMO, when John found a case that was going to be more long-term, which happened often enough for Sam and Dean to have very little stability, but to the tune of moving twice or three times during the school year, rather than being constantly on the road. I suspect John left the boys with sitters when it was geographically feasible, but that wouldn't have always been the case, especially if he did have some recognition that they needed to attend school with some regularity. And, of course, he might have been gone for longer sometimes if he was following a YED related lead, which he wouldn't have wanted Sam and Dean involved with, but would have felt compelled to follow. I do wonder what John did right after Mary died, when even he couldn't have expected Dean to be left on his own taking care of Sam. What was their life like when Dean was six and Sam was a toddler, for instance? Edited March 16, 2017 by companionenvy Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3083768
catrox14 March 16, 2017 Share March 16, 2017 4 minutes ago, rue721 said: He did it casually in that he didn't seem to have any "oh shit what did I do?!" reaction after. Which come on. He had just dumped out a whole bowl of perfectly good food. That's kind of a big deal! It's not about being sensible. Like I said, it's that he did something taboo. Or, I guess it wasn't taboo in their household, but that also makes me think that food wasn't all that scarce in their household. I don't think he actually cared in that moment whether he broke a rule or whatever. I don't think it's thing other than he got mad and threw it away. Maybe he did it in protest. "Fuck these fucking spaghettios. Here's your cereal." 2 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3083777
rue721 March 16, 2017 Share March 16, 2017 5 minutes ago, catrox14 said: I don't think he actually cared in that moment whether he broke a rule or whatever. I don't think it's thing other than he got mad and threw it away. Maybe he did it in protest. "Fuck these fucking spaghettios. Here's your cereal." No, he didn't seem to care -- that's my point. That makes me think he doesn't have much of a hangup about wasting food, and that wasting food wasn't a big deal in their family. Fair enough. But IMO that's also a sign that food wasn't that scarce. To be honest, I think it was OOC in the sense that I would think that even as a kid, Dean would have been more practical/pragmatic than to just toss it instead of at least try to eat it first. But eh. Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3083837
catrox14 March 16, 2017 Share March 16, 2017 1 minute ago, rue721 said: No, he didn't seem to care -- that's my point. Okay I guess we are using "didn't care" in different ways. I thought because you thought he just casually threw the food away that he had no feelings/emotions about the food. I didn't think he was casual in his behavior. I thought he was a frustrated, angry child who was like "fuck this" and threw the food away without giving a thought to the consequence which is not the same as not caring. It was a rash, impulsive emotional reaction. 1 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3083877
SueB March 16, 2017 Share March 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, rue721 said: No, he didn't seem to care -- that's my point. That makes me think he doesn't have much of a hangup about wasting food, and that wasting food wasn't a big deal in their family. Fair enough. But IMO that's also a sign that food wasn't that scarce. To be honest, I think it was OOC in the sense that I would think that even as a kid, Dean would have been more practical/pragmatic than to just toss it instead of at least try to eat it first. But eh. I'm convinced food was scarce for Dean (in general) growing up. Dean's enthusiastic "Yeah." response to their Travis asking "Have you ever been really hungry? I mean haven't-eaten-for-days hungry?" (Metamorphisis) was a big indicator that he knew real hunger. We know he robbed at least one time to get peanut butter and bread (Bad Boys) and generally didn't spend a lot of money on food (the mac & cheese story in About a Boy). He also seemed responsible for feeding Sam (again, that mac & cheese story, the Funions moment, and the cereal moment). Plus there's the willingness to eat just about anything (prison food 2X). Then there's this conversation from "My Bloody Valentine" Quote CASTIEL Well, slowly but surely, everyone in this town is falling prey to Famine, but so far, you seem unaffected. DEAN Hey, when I want to drink, I drink. When I want sex, I go get it. Same goes for a sandwich or a fight. CASTIEL So...you're saying you're just well-adjusted? DEAN God, no. I'm just well-fed. So: Booze, Sex, Food, Fight. These would be the things on Dean's priority list. Booze, Sex & Fight are all wants, Food is a need. But he puts it on his list of things that make him satisfied. Plus he defines himself as be "well-fed". Of course that's now, versus his childhood. In short, I've always gotten the impression Dean was happy to get ANY food. And yeah, that one time he threw away the Spaghettios is a counter-indication, but there's too much evidence of Dean's appreciation for food now for me to think it's no big deal. Sam, OTOH, can take or leave food. He's much more picky. To me, it supports the idea that while Dean knew hunger as a child, Sam was generally okay. Not that Sam was fed correctly, just that he had sufficient volume. I also have the theory that Sam now eats salad because he was raised on the cheap junk food Dean gave him growing up. 5 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3083893
rue721 March 16, 2017 Share March 16, 2017 11 minutes ago, SueB said: I'm convinced food was scarce for Dean (in general) growing up. Dean's enthusiastic "Yeah." response to their Travis asking "Have you ever been really hungry? I mean haven't-eaten-for-days hungry?" (Metamorphisis) was a big indicator that he knew real hunger. We know he robbed at least one time to get peanut butter and bread (Bad Boys) and generally didn't spend a lot of money on food (the mac & cheese story in About a Boy). He also seemed responsible for feeding Sam (again, that mac & cheese story, the Funions moment, and the cereal moment). Plus there's the willingness to eat just about anything (prison food 2X). To me, Dean comes off more like a "food is love" kind of person than someone with issues about food qua food. That's what the way he stuffs his face reminds me of. YMMV. (That also puts Mary's "I don't cook" and Cheeseburgers & Beer of Betrayal in a differently light, right? ;) ). IMO if he had an issue with food scarcity, he would more likely save more of his food and eat less of it. Like at the prison or wherever. Set some aside for later. And/or I think his favorite foods would probably not be stuff you buy at a diner or convenience food, they'd more likely be some version of "dressed up" cheap food, like "dressed up" ramen or some kind of weird hodgepodge dish or something. I mean, I don't think they ate like kings as kids. But I don't think that they were literally starving, either. But that's sort of beside the point, because who can even know. I guess the main point that I care about is that I don't think that their childhood was ever meant to be unremittingly bleak. And it's pretty unremittingly bleak to think of these little children starving for days. I mean damn. 2 Link to comment https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/54626-%E2%80%9Cbitch%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Cjerk%E2%80%9D-where-we-discuss-who-the-writers-screwed-this-weekseasonever/page/16/#findComment-3083999
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.