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

Pondlass1 · January 6, 2019

Jared plays Sam as if he’s irritated with Dean. The Winchesters need some time apart I think 🤣🤣

ILoveReading · January 6, 2019

2 hours ago, trudysmom said:

just watched Stand by Me

I love that movie.

Topic:

1 hour ago, DeeDee79 said:

just seems so humorless and serious all of the time IMO

I agree. It's pretty bad when the general consensuses when something as simple as Sam playing with a fidgit spinner is seen more as Jared and OOC for Sam.

catrox14 · January 6, 2019

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

agree. It's pretty bad when the general consensuses when something as simple as Sam playing with a fidgit spinner is seen more as Jared and OOC for Sam.

I can't see even early seasons Sam playing with a fidget spinner. I can't see Dean playing with one either. It was a stupid sight gag that flopped IMO. Maybe Jack could have played with it.

MysteryGuest · January 7, 2019

I'm not sure it's fair to compare the brother's relationship from the early seasons to the current seasons. Considering all they've been through, and the fact that they're not young men anymore (no, they're not old, but they're not kids), it's not too surprising that their senses of humor are harder to find. I miss the humor as much as the next person, but I think it makes sense within the story.

It seemed that people were getting tired of the overt co-dependence between the brothers, and now that they've backed off from that and made them each more independent, it doesn't feel the same. But I do think it's actually a normal progression for the characters. It also makes it easier for the writers to expand the amount of time one or the other brother is on the screen. Considering they're in less scenes now than ever, if they were in the majority of those scenes together, it would seem like they're barely in their own show. It already feels that way sometimes, regardless.

But all of that being said, I still think their bond as brothers is unchanged.

ILoveReading · January 7, 2019

10 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

It seemed that people were getting tired of the overt co-dependence between the brothers, and now that they've backed off from that and made them each more independent, it doesn't feel the same.

I don't feel like Dabb has made the brothers more independent. Sam yes, Dean no. He's just as co-dependent and clingy as ever, maybe even more so. He still makes ever decision based on how it effect Sam. The show refuses to acknowledge Dean said yes to stop Lucifer. It was just about saving Sam (and Jack). Deans' really back to his season one self, mostly following orders from Chief and not really having a back bone. He might give a token protest but in the end he's made to cave. He took Jack out for some fun and apologized for that, that maybe he made it worse. Earlier that episode they had Sam question that decision and then they had Sam endorse it.

Prior to Dabb, I feel like if Dean wanted to take Jack on hunts he would have said. We'll see about taking you out more. He didn't. He said "I'll talk to Sam about getting you out on more hunts" like Supreme Leader Chief now makes every decision and Dean needs his permission. I knew this wold happen the minute Dabb declared Sam was now the leader.

Dean hasn't grown. He's regressed. He's went from being John's blunt intrument, yes man to Sam's.

Edited January 7, 2019 by ILoveReading

devlin · January 7, 2019

14 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

I'm not sure it's fair to compare the brother's relationship from the early seasons to the current seasons. Considering all they've been through, and the fact that they're not young men anymore (no, they're not old, but they're not kids), it's not too surprising that their senses of humor are harder to find. I miss the humor as much as the next person, but I think it makes sense within the story.

It seemed that people were getting tired of the overt co-dependence between the brothers, and now that they've backed off from that and made them each more independent, it doesn't feel the same. But I do think it's actually a normal progression for the characters. It also makes it easier for the writers to expand the amount of time one or the other brother is on the screen. Considering they're in less scenes now than ever, if they were in the majority of those scenes together, it would seem like they're barely in their own show. It already feels that way sometimes, regardless.

But all of that being said, I still think their bond as brothers is unchanged.

As far as I see dean has not gained independence but is once again under the thumb of someone who doesn’t respect him. Why is dean all of a sudden deferring to sam? Sam’s growing independence shouldn’t result in him treating dean like something stuck to the bottom of his shoe

MysteryGuest · January 7, 2019

I don't really see Dean deferring to Sam. Yes, Sam took charge of the AU people when Dean wasn't around, but even that only lasted for an episode or two. Sam acknowledged a few seasons ago that he needed to take the lead more and follow less. That's positive growth for Sam. Dean had always been a leader, so it wasn't an area he needed to work on. So, if Dean chooses to occasionally defer to Sam as a way of supporting and encouraging him, I don't have an issue with that. We had a lot of years of Dean making the decisions, so having Sam take on more of that role, or just more of an equal role, doesn't bother me. And it doesn't appear to bother Dean, either. In fact, maybe Dean feels less of a burden now, since it's not all on him.

Sam, Jack and Cas have all told Dean that he's not to blame about Michael, and that they all understand why he did what he did. The writers should have included the line "and saved the world" at least somewhere in their comments, but we know they kinda suck, so we have to fill those blanks in ourselves. I know why Dean did what he did. Yes, he wanted to save Sam above all else, but he also had run out of options. Lucifer was loose and more powerful than ever, and hell bent on destruction.

Where the writers completely failed is by bringing Lucifer back, in any form. It definitely takes the edge off Dean's sacrifice, and weakens the impact of Michael, IMO, knowing that Lucifer is looming somewhere out there. All of the screen time spent having Lucifer/Nick run around trying to solve the mystery of his wife and child's murder (which I couldn't care less about if I tried) would have been much better spent on giving us more insight into the Michael/Dean connection, and just what Michael's plan for the world is. If it's just hybrid monsters, then we need to actually see them win some battles and give us a reason to fear them on behalf of Sam, Dean, Cas and Jack. So far, that hasn't really happened.

trudysmom · January 8, 2019

I like reading your take on the characters, MysteryGuest. I may not fully agree on all your points, I can definitely see where you're coming from. I admit to being a Dean girl from the very first episode I saw, so my opinions tend to slant toward wanting more for him, but at the same time I can recognize his shortcomings.

Terrible writing, directing, soundtrack music aside, at the end of the day what I love about the show is the brothers. Yes Dean is my favorite, but he has always been driven by the need to save Sam, and after that, everyone else. so I can accept that from him. After all these years, I can't say what Sam's drive is. Does it change based on the current crisis? Is it for the Greater Good, and if so, according to whom? Is it to live up to what John or Dean taught/expected of him? I just don't know. I feel like I should know by now. "Saving people, hunting things" was Dean's motto, was it ever Sam's? Maybe because the writing has taken them spinning from one apocalypse to another that that premise got lost. Sorry, I'm rambling. All I really mean to say is Dean is still Dean, after 13 seasons. So far into season 14 I'm not sure who Sam is anymore, except someone who's preachy and annoying.

MysteryGuest · January 8, 2019

10 minutes ago, trudysmom said:

I like reading your take on the characters, MysteryGuest. I may not fully agree on all your points, I can definitely see where you're coming from. I admit to being a Dean girl from the very first episode I saw, so my opinions tend to slant toward wanting more for him, but at the same time I can recognize his shortcomings.

Terrible writing, directing, soundtrack music aside, at the end of the day what I love about the show is the brothers. Yes Dean is my favorite, but he has always been driven by the need to save Sam, and after that, everyone else. so I can accept that from him. After all these years, I can't say what Sam's drive is. Does it change based on the current crisis? Is it for the Greater Good, and if so, according to whom? Is it to live up to what John or Dean taught/expected of him? I just don't know. I feel like I should know by now. "Saving people, hunting things" was Dean's motto, was it ever Sam's? Maybe because the writing has taken them spinning from one apocalypse to another that that premise got lost. Sorry, I'm rambling. All I really mean to say is Dean is still Dean, after 13 seasons. So far into season 14 I'm not sure who Sam is anymore, except someone who's preachy and annoying.

I think they had to make a point of showing that Sam has now embraced the hunting life because they spent so many of the early seasons telling us just the opposite. He wanted to go back to school, he wanted a normal life, he thought his upbringing was dysfunctional as hell. But if you're going to continue to do the same thing for 14 years, you need to come around to accepting what you do, or you look like an ass for still doing it. Sam didn't really acknowledge "enjoying" hunting until he was talking to Charlie while they were looking for a cure for the Mark of Cain. It took him a long time to make peace with the idea and I think he now takes pride in what they do.

Dean embraced his father's outlook on hunting from the get go. Lots of reasons for that...wanting his father's approval, feeling responsible for Sam, etc., but I think he also genuinely liked the idea of hunting. There were bad things out there, and he was pretty good at getting rid of them. He was content with the "saving people, hunting things" mission statement and never really questioned it. I don't mean to say that he's never thought about another life for himself, but I just think he was resigned to the fact that this is what he was meant to do. Sam always balked against the idea, but Dean never did. I never minded that they had totally different perspectives, because it definitely made their relationship more interesting.

Cambion · January 8, 2019

57 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

I think they had to make a point of showing that Sam has now embraced the hunting life because they spent so many of the early seasons telling us just the opposite. He wanted to go back to school, he wanted a normal life, he thought his upbringing was dysfunctional as hell. But if you're going to continue to do the same thing for 14 years, you need to come around to accepting what you do, or you look like an ass for still doing it. Sam didn't really acknowledge "enjoying" hunting until he was talking to Charlie while they were looking for a cure for the Mark of Cain. It took him a long time to make peace with the idea and I think he now takes pride in what they do.

Dean embraced his father's outlook on hunting from the get go. Lots of reasons for that...wanting his father's approval, feeling responsible for Sam, etc., but I think he also genuinely liked the idea of hunting. There were bad things out there, and he was pretty good at getting rid of them. He was content with the "saving people, hunting things" mission statement and never really questioned it. I don't mean to say that he's never thought about another life for himself, but I just think he was resigned to the fact that this is what he was meant to do. Sam always balked against the idea, but Dean never did. I never minded that they had totally different perspectives, because it definitely made their relationship more interesting.

I agree with this. I actually like seeing Sam grow the way he has. For such a long time he seemed so unsure of where his core was. Did he want to hunt, did he want to go back to school, did he want to settle down and have a normal life, etc. I think after seeing the AU it has really settled in for both brothers just what it means that they "saved the world". I know for me, seeing the AU and episodes like "The End" really underscores the other path this story could have taken. (It would have been much more Walking Dead like and frankly, I don't think many of us would like it nearly as much.) But the point is, leadership is the kind of role I see someone with Sam's personality take on at this point in his story for lots of reasons,

Where Dean is at right now, for me, makes sense as well. Particularly after all the self-flagellation he's done in past seasons and the things he's done which were motivated by guilt. He didn't want to come back from Deanmon because he didn't feel anything, so the guilt and weight of the world was off him, and, I also think he saw it as a punishment for all the things he blames himself for that he thought he deserved. So, he wouldn't seek a leadership position. He is a natural leader and will take on that role without thinking about it, and does consistently, but he would never have given thought to organize the new folks and arrange training and send people out and have them check in and add body cameras to share and learn from like Sam did. Dean's a strong character but with the weight of the world that he already carries he's not going to create more responsibility for himself. Sam is more organized and cares for other as much as Dean does, he just manifests it in a different way.

So, I'm pretty satisfied with the broad strokes of where the characters are right now. And I think their relationship as brothers is pretty much on point, as well. They've been through lots. They've proven to each other that despite all the bumps in the road in the past, ultimately they are still there for each other. So they don't really need to be all over each other. Besides, I read elsewhere where someone mentioned that they never really say "I love you" to each other. And they don't. They don't need to. They know. And it actually is more meaningful when they say things like from Scorpion and the Frog when Sam tells Dean "Don't get dead."

As for Sam's irritation, I haven't been seeing it that way, and I want to go back and rewatch some of the recent episodes now with that in mind. Maybe I'm just missing it. But on the other hand, maybe it's just the reaction of a couple of guys who have pretty much been with each other for 24/7 for their entire lives. After being together nearly 25/7 for a decade and a half Jared and Jensen are going to have shorthand and reactions of their own that may or may not be part of the characters and be showing up on screen and not mean a thing in the context of the story or to the fans. It's not like those kind of things are easily controllable. I dunno, maybe in my infancy with this fandom I'm not ready to delve so deep, I'm just still enjoying it. All of it. :)

tessathereaper · January 8, 2019

On 1/6/2019 at 10:18 PM, devlin said:

As far as I see dean has not gained independence but is once again under the thumb of someone who doesn’t respect him. Why is dean all of a sudden deferring to sam? Sam’s growing independence shouldn’t result in him treating dean like something stuck to the bottom of his shoe

Same. There was no need at all for "Leader Sam" especially not at the expense of Dean, who has always been a natural leader and still is, which is completely unacknowledge while propping up Sam with all these "you're a natural"/"you're born to do it" speeches. No he wasn't and he's not that good at it frankly(he's good because the writers say so, not because he's shown any real leadership ability IMO). They created a whole unnatural thing just so they could say "hey look at what an awesome better than Dean has ever been leader Sam is" - those "AU hunters" who have zero reason for doing it or for following "Chief". And Sam STILL doesn't come across as a better leader because he doesn't project leadership, either you have or you don't and he doesn't.

And Dean wouldn't think of body cams? That's absolutely untrue. That's another thing, somehow they've managed to forget (and make a lot of fans forgot apparently) that Dean is VERY tech savvy and ALWAYS has been. He has NEVER ever been against innovation(except when they want to prop up Sam) and in fact has been responsible for a good part of that innovation himself(does everyone forget that they didn't use rock salt rifles before Sam left for college? I believe it was brought up in Hookman maybe? That was DEAN's idea, Dean built an EMF from a walkman(which Sam mocked) and made an EMP "bomb" to erase the Ghost Chasers hard drives, his knowledge of complicated security systems and getting around them and learned quite a few great hacking tricks from Frank in very short order, etc, etc not to mention his quick and ready knowledge of herbs and plants as well as mind for noticing and remembering symbols - all very definitely skills and talents Dean has had which somehow end up well virtually not there anymore, along with his leadership).

What Dean wouldn't do is send out a bunch of "strangers in a strange land" on hunts in the first place within practically days of arriving, which SHOULD be a disaster waiting to happen, only that would make Chief Sam look bad, so it hasn't been. And if Dean did decide they were ready, what Dean would do is delegate, he'd give the job of watching bodycams to someone else - if Sam was really better organized he wouldn't have been running himself ragged doing everything rather than delegating(only then all the AU hunters conveniently "disappear" again because Sam having to deal with that while most of this other stuff has been going on would make him look bad most likely because he should not be able to do a good job of it) so they have them conveniently suddenly are not around to be dealt with, until they can show how "Sam's AU Hunter Army" save the day in the next episode and then suddenly oh look there they are all thanks to Chief Sam, the "natural leader"!

Cambion · January 8, 2019

1 hour ago, tessathereaper said:

Same. There was no need at all for "Leader Sam" especially not at the expense of Dean, who has always been a natural leader and still is, which is completely unacknowledge while propping up Sam with all these "you're a natural"/"you're born to do it" speeches. No he wasn't and he's not that good at it frankly(he's good because the writers say so, not because he's shown any real leadership ability IMO). They created a whole unnatural thing just so they could say "hey look at what an awesome better than Dean has ever been leader Sam is" - those "AU hunters" who have zero reason for doing it or for following "Chief". And Sam STILL doesn't come across as a better leader because he doesn't project leadership, either you have or you don't and he doesn't.

And Dean wouldn't think of body cams? That's absolutely untrue. That's another thing, somehow they've managed to forget (and make a lot of fans forgot apparently) that Dean is VERY tech savvy and ALWAYS has been. He has NEVER ever been against innovation(except when they want to prop up Sam) and in fact has been responsible for a good part of that innovation himself(does everyone forget that they didn't use rock salt rifles before Sam left for college? I believe it was brought up in Hookman maybe? That was DEAN's idea, Dean built an EMF from a walkman(which Sam mocked) and made an EMP "bomb" to erase the Ghost Chasers hard drives, his knowledge of complicated security systems and getting around them and learned quite a few great hacking tricks from Frank in very short order, etc, etc not to mention his quick and ready knowledge of herbs and plants as well as mind for noticing and remembering symbols - all very definitely skills and talents Dean has had which somehow end up well virtually not there anymore, along with his leadership).

What Dean wouldn't do is send out a bunch of "strangers in a strange land" on hunts in the first place within practically days of arriving, which SHOULD be a disaster waiting to happen, only that would make Chief Sam look bad, so it hasn't been. And if Dean did decide they were ready, what Dean would do is delegate, he'd give the job of watching bodycams to someone else - if Sam was really better organized he wouldn't have been running himself ragged doing everything rather than delegating(only then all the AU hunters conveniently "disappear" again because Sam having to deal with that while most of this other stuff has been going on would make him look bad most likely because he should not be able to do a good job of it) so they have them conveniently suddenly are not around to be dealt with, until they can show how "Sam's AU Hunter Army" save the day in the next episode and then suddenly oh look there they are all thanks to Chief Sam, the "natural leader"!

Good points all. Thanks for the food for thought.

AwesomO4000 · January 8, 2019

7 hours ago, MysteryGuest said:

I think they had to make a point of showing that Sam has now embraced the hunting life because they spent so many of the early seasons telling us just the opposite. He wanted to go back to school, he wanted a normal life, he thought his upbringing was dysfunctional as hell. But if you're going to continue to do the same thing for 14 years, you need to come around to accepting what you do, or you look like an ass for still doing it. Sam didn't really acknowledge "enjoying" hunting until he was talking to Charlie while they were looking for a cure for the Mark of Cain. It took him a long time to make peace with the idea and I think he now takes pride in what they do.

While I mainly agree with this, for me it was more because of the damage Carver did to Sam's character, in my opinion, than Sam not really acknowledging that he enjoyed at least some aspects of hunting until season 10. I actually think Sam's predilection to wanting to stay with hunting started way back in season 2 (most prevalent in "What Is..."), but was cemented for me in season 5 in "Swap Meat." In my opinion Sam was being entirely sincere when he told Dean that they hadn't missed a damn thing by not having the apple pie life. And I might have been able to see that as an anomaly, but Sam expressed similar opinions throughout season 6B and season 7, most notably in "The French Mistake" when it was Sam who most wanted to return and was most happy to be back in their reality rather than the alternate TV show universe whereas Dean was somewhat nonplussed about their return.

However the Amelia arc pretty much erased much of that Sam character progression and so I agree with you that something more overt was likely needed to put that - travesty in my opinion - in the past for good.

However I agree that the reason I think Sam is drawn to hunting is different from Dean. I think for Sam, it's maybe not as much the hunting itself - though I think he has come to appreciate that more too now - but that hunting makes him feel like he makes a difference, and I think Sam likes making a difference. ("We just don't mean the same thing here.")

3 hours ago, tessathereaper said:

They created a whole unnatural thing just so they could say "hey look at what an awesome better than Dean has ever been leader Sam is"

I never read it as that at all, so we disagree on this entirely. I read it more as Dean didn't want to be leader of that bunch of AU people, and why would he? He has his own style and his own way of doing things and being leader. Dean likes to do things more spontaneously, including leading situations. The way Dean leads is to quickly assess what resources he has, including people, and figure out how to work with that. The way Sam set things up is Sam's style (and more on this later) and just because it's different and maybe effective in its own way doesn't necessarily mean anything else. Just because something is good on a different way doesn't mean one has to be better than the other. In my opinion, not everything is a competition. For me, sometimes an apple is an apple while an orange is an orange. Both are delicious and good for you but in entirely different ways that don't have to be judged as better or worse.

In other words just because this is Sam's leadership arc (such as it is since I've already made clear what I think of this arc and how it reflects on Sam's character previously) doesn't mean - in my opinion - that it is somehow a reflection or comment on Dean's leadership abilities. In my opinion, we've already had Dean's leadership abilities acknowledged by Chuck in season 11 when he gave stewardship of humanity to Dean. But that's me.

Quote

What Dean wouldn't do is send out a bunch of "strangers in a strange land" on hunts in the first place within practically days of arriving, which SHOULD be a disaster waiting to happen, only that would make Chief Sam look bad, so it hasn't been.

No, but Dean has been known to use people who have little experience when the need arises. In my opinion, the reason he wouldn't send the AU people out in some organized way is because that's not Dean's style.

As for things that should be a disaster but aren't: in my opinion, it was somewhat overdue that Sam got one of those. In my opinion, Dean has gotten enough of those kinds of situations over the years*** that Sam gets a situation like that for once, in my opinion, isn't some huge conspiracy but maybe some luck finally coming Sam's way for once. I would say twice if you want to count his plan to jump in the cage with Lucifer, but that plan actually didn't work at first, but instead failed spectacularly, so I don't generally count that...

*** Dean's plan in "Jus In Bello" is a good example. No way, in my opinion, should all of those people have come out of that situation unscathed, but they of course did, because it was Dean's plan, so it had to work.

3 hours ago, tessathereaper said:

And Dean wouldn't think of body cams? That's absolutely untrue. That's another thing, somehow they've managed to forget (and make a lot of fans forgot apparently) that Dean is VERY tech savvy and ALWAYS has been. He has NEVER ever been against innovation(except when they want to prop up Sam) and in fact has been responsible for a good part of that innovation himself(does everyone forget that they didn't use rock salt rifles before Sam left for college? I believe it was brought up in Hookman maybe? That was DEAN's idea, Dean built an EMF from a walkman(which Sam mocked) and made an EMP "bomb" to erase the Ghost Chasers hard drives, his knowledge of complicated security systems and getting around them and learned quite a few great hacking tricks from Frank in very short order, etc, etc not to mention his quick and ready knowledge of herbs and plants as well as mind for noticing and remembering symbols - all very definitely skills and talents Dean has had which somehow end up well virtually not there anymore, along with his leadership).

Yup, I agree that Dean has shown himself to be tech savvy when needed, but I don't think he's never been shown to be against innovation. He absolutely was against an iPod in Baby and likely thinks vinyl sounds better than CD. In that vein, just because Dean might understand body cams to me doesn't mean that he would necessarily embrace them... especially on himself. I could see Dean seeing them as an invasion of privacy or cumbersome/restrictive in some way. I would more think Dean would prefer some kind of tracking devices or personal alarm type devices maybe rather than body cams. Just my opinion on that.

So no, I don't think Dean has only been shown to be against innovation just to "prop up Sam." I think that it's in Dean's personality that sometimes he actually prefers old school rather than the latest thing, and there's nothing wrong with that, nor do I think the show is saying that either. This is coming from someone who until about a month ago insisted on using a flip phone and only switched to an android because my phone service gave it to me for free because I bought my semi-annual $100 worth of minutes and so qualified for a free promotional phone. (I still kept my flip phone in case I want to go back to it.)

Quote

...if Sam was really better organized he wouldn't have been running himself ragged doing everything rather than delegating(only then all the AU hunters conveniently "disappear" again because Sam having to deal with that while most of this other stuff has been going on would make him look bad most likely because he should not be able to do a good job of it) so they have them conveniently suddenly are not around to be dealt with, until they can show how "Sam's AU Hunter Army" save the day in the next episode and then suddenly oh look there they are all thanks to Chief Sam, the "natural leader"!

I saw this entirely differently. I didn't think the point was that Sam was supposed to be "organized" or a super leader here. I thought Sam was showing his usual freaked out behavior he almost always shows when Dean is dead / missing / in need of being found just in a new way. For me, the beginning of season 8 was an aberration and out of character. Usually Sam runs himself ragged like in pre-season 4 and early season 10. So to me, Sam running himself ragged by doing everything concerning his AU hunter army made total sense in terms of Sam's character.

It also makes sense in terms of Sam using it as a diversion. I've done this kind of thing myself at times... that big report that's due in a week, but is daunting and scary? ...sure I should be doing that now, but somehow it's suddenly imperative that the laundry / grocery shopping / dishes be done right now instead, so the report can wait, giving me a semi-legitimate excuse not to think about that report for a little while longer. Sam not delegating but instead doing everything with the AU hunters means Sam could use that as a subconscious excuse as to why he isn't looking for Dean 24 / 7, because that's an entirely daunting task while the AU management tasks are more manageable. If he isn't doing those tasks - like say sleeping - he then has to think about how he should be looking for Dean and feeling guilty that he can't find him.

To me, Sam's behavior made total sense. And of course he wasn't doing all that after Dean came back... because Dean was back. Sam didn't need to distract himself any more, so he probably did delegate some. And he sleeps now, too... again because Dean was back. For me that wasn't about Sam being "super-leader" at all, but about Sam being the usual, crazy, freaked out, can't rest, going to run himself ragged until he gets Dean back Sam he usually is in those circumstances. That made total sense to me character-wise.

I guess there was some progression for Sam in that at least he channeled his crazy into something semi-productive and only suffered from lack of sleep rather than drinking himself into oblivion and trying to commit suicide via demon or ending up with a wrecked arm and looking like he'd half wasted away. Progress I guess.

I have no idea what's going to happen in terms of the hunter army in the next episode, so I can't say what that will mean yet.

Edited January 8, 2019 by AwesomO4000

Myrelle · January 8, 2019

On ‎1‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 9:59 PM, ILoveReading said:

Dean hasn't grown. He's regressed. He's went from being John's blunt intrument, yes man to Sam's.

IA.

And it's because of this that the storylines on this show no longer interest me in the least. If they ever decide to change that aspect, my interest might return, but as of now, I'm tuning in strictly for Jensen's performances of the crumbs that he's being given by this set of numbskull writers and hoping and looking forward to anything else that Jensen is doing or might be doing outside of Supernatural and any promotion of it-because the show blows chunks now, IMO, and mainly because of what's going on in and with the ineptitude and lack of talent and skills of the present writers' room-and especially, and more specifically, within the leadership therein.

tessathereaper · January 8, 2019

6 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

but I don't think he's never been shown to be against innovation. He absolutely was against an iPod in Baby and likely thinks vinyl sounds better than CD.

Weird to pick this out of all the things to respond to, I know. :) But I think that's really entirely different. I mean that's very specific and also has nothing to do with HUNTING, which is exactly what I was talking about - innovation in hunting techniques.

I happen to frequent a music board with a lot of audiophiles(I'm not one of them, I just go there for occasionally discussing bands I like:)) and they still go on about compression levels and the loudness wars, etc. Me personally I can't tell the difference between a lightly compressed and heavily compressed recording but it's something that really affects some people's ability to enjoy listening to music, it literally, I guess a way to describe it, is makes their ears tires. It becomes physically uncomfortable for them to listen to highly compressed music for long periods of time. So IF Dean enjoyed analog(vinyl) more than digital(CD) - which we don't actually know - he wouldn't be alone and it wouldn't have anything to do with being against innovation. Not all innovations are for the best and not all of them are for everybody.

That said, Dean's never been shown to be against listening to digital music outside of his car - I remember one of the earlier cell phones he had was one that was popular at the time for listening to music on(the LG "Chocolate" - they had different names depending on the color) and it was specifically marketed as a phone/mp3 hybrid type of thing, it came out in 2006(right around the time Season 2 started filming).

So if he didn't want an "iPod" in Baby, it doesn't have much to do with innovation IMO and more to do with his connection to Baby specifically. She's a classic and he prefers to keep her that way.

MysteryGuest · January 8, 2019

I don't see how Sam's taking more of a leadership role has in any way diminished Dean's natural abilities. Why does it have to be either or? At no time did anyone say that "now that Dean sucks, Sam's going to have to pick up the slack". That has never been said or even inferred, in my opinion. Any praise for Sam is not a slam against Dean. I love Dean and he is far and away my favorite character, but not everything good that happens to Sam is somehow bad for Dean.

We know that Dean's a strong and able hunter. We know he's a natural leader. We know he'd lay down and die for any of the people he considers family without batting an eye, and that he'd risk his life for absolute strangers. He can be impulsive, but it's always out of his desire to fix the problem. He's smart, intuitive, and kind hearted. All of these things are great qualities that Dean possesses and are the reasons why I like him so much. No "propping up", or positive words about Sam take anything away from who Dean is. In the same way that speaking positively about Dean in any way means that Sam is somehow less than. I honestly don't understand why everything is somehow looked at as a shot against Dean.

The writers have consistently fucked with both brother's characters whenever they've felt the need, but I agree with AwesomeO4000 that Sam has been the brunt of the worst of the character assassinations. I will just point to season 8 and leave it at that.

AwesomO4000 · January 8, 2019

1 hour ago, tessathereaper said:

Not all innovations are for the best and not all of them are for everybody.

...So if he didn't want an "iPod" in Baby, it doesn't have much to do with innovation IMO and more to do with his connection to Baby specifically. She's a classic and he prefers to keep her that way.

I agree with these sentiments...

My iPod example doesn't have to do with hunting, no, but it's an example of both of your points above. In my opinion, Dean might also prefer "the classics" sometimes when it comes to hunting also, because that's what he has experience with and knows in and out, and because tried and true is sometimes more dependable.*** And there isn't anything wrong with or about that. As you said above with your music examples: it's a legitimate position. Different, but just as legitimate.

And that's what I was trying to say. I'll admit to not knowing much about a lot of technology, so I chose an example from the show that I could relate to (on both sides of the debate) - the iPod - rather than something I didn't.^^^ Not the best example, I agree, but...

Maybe a better example might have been the EMF meter Dean made? If it relied on more mechanically based components rather than digital ones (I personally have no idea), then I would bet my money on Dean's EMF meter over a more "advanced" digital one, because in my opinion a digital one might be more likely to be messed up by psychic, ghostly activity throwing ozone or electrical currents or whatever into the air... However I have no idea how Dean's handmade EMF meter worked in the physical sense (I have almost no aptitude in that area) or if it actually was less advanced in that way (i.e. "mechanically" based) than a regular EMF meter or not, so I was hesitant to use that as an example. Admittedly, I also hate that particular scene for various reasons. @@@

*** Too Much Information example: In my kitchen, I have an 18 year old refrigerator and an oven I paid $50 more for in order to get one without the digital component. It's a gas stove - which I prefer - and the oven part has just a knob I turn on and off rather than a digital display up above that I have to complete 10 or more steps in order to turn it on. And that's not an exaggeration. When I went through the manual that came with my new oven, it had information for all of the related ovens in that line. The instructions for my oven "1) turn the oven knob to the temperature desired." The instructions for the digital display oven was 15 steps long. No thank you. I gladly paid the extra $50 to not have to deal with that. When I turn the knob to 350, I know it's on and will be at 350 when it warms up... not till preheating or whatever else the digital ones do (I don't care) until I press the right display button. When I want it off, I'll turn it off after I decide the food is how I want it rather than pre-put in a potential cook time or whatever else the digital ones do (again I don't care).

Also since I live in an old neighborhood with large trees which tend to fall down, have branches that disrupt power lines, etc., a digital display is more likely to be affected by power outages long term - wearing out if the power goes out multiple times - making the stove go bad before its time or needing complicated repairs. A knob doesn't have that problem. Less technology, but more reliable, in my opinion, for my situation. If I have my choice, I'll never get a more technologically advanced, digital display stove ...but alo in my opinion, it's a legitimate, practical decision, not just because I'm pigheaded or ill-informed or something. I think it's a legitimate and practical position to not go with the technological advancements.

And I support and understand Dean's positions on the same... which was what I was trying to say.

^^^ TMI example #2: I personally prefer to carry around my CDs to play in the car rather than mess with my hubby's iPod most of the time. Not cassette tapes, but still not the latest thing.

@@@ I never felt that that writer was legitimately part of the usual writer pool at that time's opinions of the characters. I didn't like how that writer wrote Sam or Dean or the show "lore" ... The John talking up Sam story especially made no sense to me for a bunch of different reasons. The demon aspects of possession weren't carried over to the rest of the show, and - to me - the characterizations I don't feel were what they should be. For me - and this is just my opinion - having Dean be all hurt about Sam's (in my opinion, over-the-top) criticism of the EMF meter was off. Dean is a badass hunter who at that time didn't feel that college education was practical for hunting and was sure of his own hunting abilities. In my opinion, Dean should have been saying - in his best Big Brother tone - "dude, this thing kicks ass. It works so much better than that junk in the store," complete with "dude, seriously" facial expressions... and he should have meant it. Or even if he was hurt for some reason, he should have hidden it from Sam, because Dean was definitely the big brother in the relationship at that time and he should have been acting like it there, not some shrinking violet being oh, so hurt by Sam's comments. Like the iPod. That reaction from Dean was right - i.e. "your iPod is lame. I know what's right for my Baby, and I'm not going to put up with your saying differently."

For me, Dean being all hurt was off there. I thought that scene was cheap, manipulative, "oh look at poor, hurt, sensitive Dean" crap that didn't fit character-wise with what else was going on or with Dean's previous characterization on the show so far and really overblew the "Sam is a snotty college boy" crap. I mean yes, Sam was that to an extent at that time, but in my opinion he wasn't that condescending in the early years and wasn't again ....except in that same writer's second (and last) episode.

So I was glad that that writer didn't write any more than those two episodes, because I didn't like his interpretation of the characters.

Just my opinion on all that, and I don't expect anyone else to agree.

Aeryn13 · January 8, 2019

18 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

I don't see how Sam's taking more of a leadership role has in any way diminished Dean's natural abilities. Why does it have to be either or? At no time did anyone say that "now that Dean sucks, Sam's going to have to pick up the slack". That has never been said or even inferred, in my opinion. Any praise for Sam is not a slam against Dean. I love Dean and he is far and away my favorite character, but not everything good that happens to Sam is somehow bad for Dean.

We know that Dean's a strong and able hunter. We know he's a natural leader. We know he'd lay down and die for any of the people he considers family without batting an eye, and that he'd risk his life for absolute strangers. He can be impulsive, but it's always out of his desire to fix the problem. He's smart, intuitive, and kind hearted. All of these things are great qualities that Dean possesses and are the reasons why I like him so much. No "propping up", or positive words about Sam take anything away from who Dean is. In the same way that speaking positively about Dean in any way means that Sam is somehow less than. I honestly don't understand why everything is somehow looked at as a shot against Dean.

The writers have consistently fucked with both brother's characters whenever they've felt the need, but I agree with AwesomeO4000 that Sam has been the brunt of the worst of the character assassinations. I will just point to season 8 and leave it at that.

Because Dean doesn't get that in-show propping or acknowledgment. In the entirety of the show noone ever verbally acknowledged that Dean even has leadership skills, let alone good ones. The current storyline establishes leader!Sam in technicolour. And even Dean falls in line.

They are not presented or treated as equals. How can that not look like Sam is shown as "better than". That's why it takes away from Dean.

Lots of viewers absolutely don't know and don't think Dean ever had leadership abilities. They think the opposite BECAUSE of the current Sam story. And why wouldn't they? The show never adressed this or made it a storyline like with Sam. Silence speaks volumes, too.

If they would take the time to verbally acknowledge Dean's own leadership skills while just making it clear that he currently has no interest in the leadership of the AU hunters, if in the "Sam, you were born to do this, my king" propping episode, they could have brought it up - and yes it would actually flow organically there - it would make all the difference. Same as some acknowledgment that Dean said yes also because Lucifer was a threat.

I'm thouroughly sick of always having to kinda squint and infer positive things about Dean. That frankly the writers clearly don't think and don't want to say. Because if they would, he would get the in-depth dialogue propping that everyone else gets.

And I'm also sick of the 1001 excuses every single time on why it's good writing that the other characters get the propping and why it would be bad writing if Dean did. Equally the 1001 excuses on why it's always good writing and fitting when Dean gets verbally dragged through the mud. No matter what, it's also something this and that that apparently makes it okay.

Edited January 8, 2019 by Aeryn13

gonzosgirrl · January 8, 2019

16 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

I'm thouroughly sick of always having to kinda squint and infer positive things about Dean. That frankly the writers clearly don't think and don't want to say. Because if they would, he would get the in-depth dialogue propping that everyone else gets.

And I'm also sick of the 1001 excuses every single time on why it's good writing that the other characters get the propping and why it would be bad writing if Dean did. Equally the 1001 excuses on why it's always good writing and fitting when Dean gets verbally dragged through the mud. No matter what, it's also something this and that that apparently makes it okay.

This, to the nth. They aren't afraid of being too on the nose, leading us by the hand, outright stating verbally and vociferously, when it comes to other characters. Not just Sam, but other supporting characters as well. Apart from Jody (twice?) and a mildly impressed hunter at Asa Fox's wake, I can't remember the last time Dean benefited from that 'good writing'.

MysteryGuest · January 8, 2019

13 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

And I'm also sick of the 1001 excuses every single time on why it's good writing that the other characters get the propping and why it would be bad writing if Dean did. Equally the 1001 excuses on why it's always good writing and fitting when Dean gets verbally dragged through the mud. No matter what, it's also something this and that that apparently makes it okay.

I've been pretty consistent in saying that it's bad writing, across the board. I just don't see a reason to feel slighted on Dean's behalf. I watch the show, and I basically watch for Dean and for the brother's relationship. I honestly don't see what others are seeing, or I don't interpret it the same way. Maybe it's simply that I don't frequent any sites where people discuss how bad Dean is and how great Sam is. I go by what I see with my own eyes, not someone else's opinion. Because these writers are so bad at telling stories, I'm not going to rely on them to tell me who Dean or Sam are. They're just not good at it anymore. I've watched 14 seasons of this show, and I know who they are, even when the show runners sometimes don't.

Aeryn13 · January 8, 2019

13 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

I've been pretty consistent in saying that it's bad writing, across the board. I just don't see a reason to feel slighted on Dean's behalf. I watch the show, and I basically watch for Dean and for the brother's relationship. I honestly don't see what others are seeing, or I don't interpret it the same way. Maybe it's simply that I don't frequent any sites where people discuss how bad Dean is and how great Sam is. I go by what I see with my own eyes, not someone else's opinion. Because these writers are so bad at telling stories, I'm not going to rely on them to tell me who Dean or Sam are. They're just not good at it anymore. I've watched 14 seasons of this show, and I know who they are, even when the show runners sometimes don't.

For me it's basically like 5.22 over and over again. Even if you hate the Sam-character, it is impossible to argue that Sam didn't grab a hold on Lucifer and jumped into the cage with him and Michael. This is what is factually onscreen.

Dean's role in it can ne everything from nothing to kinda helpful sidekick to valid part, depending on your preferences and ideas.

And that is simply how it always works. They don't bother to give Dean the clear acknowledgment like this when they almost always go out of their way to prop other characters. It's noticeable if their approach is propping with everyone else BUT one character.

Propping is done to sell something to the majority of the audience. And frankly, most of the time it works.The writers are bad nur not so bad they don't intentionally use propping. Meaning they also intentionally do not use it for Dean. If they wanted to give the character AS clear an acknowledgment as every other character, they would do it. So why the either disinterest or anti-interest to give Dean positive things that can't be argued away and that don't have bis character specifically flapping in the wind?

The negative stuff, they are very clear with for him. No such vagueness.

Edited January 8, 2019 by Aeryn13

AwesomO4000 · January 8, 2019

2 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

And that is simply how it always works. They don't bother to give Dean the clear acknowledgment like this when they almost always go out of their way to prop other characters. It's noticeable if their approach is propping with everyone else BUT one character.

And I disagree that this is how it always works.

We've heard "you were right" said to Dean many times about many things. And whereas we had your 5.22 example for Sam as the main - and I would argue likely the only - example of such a thing for Sam, we've had so many more for Dean... some where it is Dean as the only brother of the two who saves the world. Even if it's sometimes with another partner like John or Castiel, that's a whole lot of Dean was the only brother there, in my opinion, to be implying that Dean is not being shown as an important component.

Personally even though I don't think it's some kind of writer conspiracy,*** if I wanted to argue for one, I could say that it looks like the writers go out of their way to make sure that Sam isn't there for many of the big bad moments, generally being conveniently offscreen. Even if Sam isn't knocked down or out somewhere (which surprisingly happened more than once), and he is supposedly doing something important, too... we the audience don't see that something at all, and so it could therefore be looked at as being maybe of lesser importance than what Dean is doing which we are seeing front and center.

If you want to say that Dean had no part in the "Swan Song" finale, fine - I disagree, but fine - then that's 1 big resolution Dean wasn't a part of... Two if you count Alistair. And Dean was at least there for one. Sam by comparison has been absent from or extremely peripheral to at least 5 major showdowns, including 4 season finales (nearly 1/3 of the finales). Season 12 is different. Dean wasn't there for the final showdown, but he was given equal time in terms of his mission and what he was doing. Season 4 is similar. Even though Dean technically shows up at the end of the "showdown," we spend considerable screen time watching his part of the struggle to get there. Compare that to the season 7 finale where Sam's role in the resolution (his destroying the tainted food destined to go out to America) was given maybe one line and zero screentime... not even an in the background, not seen but at least heard explosion that I remember. More splashy coverage was given to Meg - of all people's - role in the mission.

So if I wanted to argue conspiracy theories and lack of acknowledgement, I think I would have a legitimate argument for Sam being excluded from big showdowns and finales, myself.

And last, but certainly not least in my opinion, God himself said to Dean "Earth will be fine. It's got you..." The "And Sam" was after an obvious pause to show that it was Dean - not Sam - who was the first thought and most important part of that equation. I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but to me, that's a pretty clear and straightforward acknowledgement. I'm not sure how much more straightforward the writers could get but to have their universe's God acknowledge that he thinks that the world will be fine because Dean is there to look after it.

*** My maybe exception to this might be season 8 and 9, because that was way too weird for me not to be somewhat of an on purpose. Or at the very least an "ehn who cares how it makes the characters look as long as it makes 'teh drama.'"

tessathereaper · January 8, 2019

41 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I agree with these sentiments...

My iPod example doesn't have to do with hunting, no, but it's an example of both of your points above. In my opinion, Dean might also prefer "the classics" sometimes when it comes to hunting also, because that's what he has experience with and knows in and out, and because tried and true is sometimes more dependable.*** And there isn't anything wrong with or about that. As you said above with your music examples: it's a legitimate position. Different, but just as legitimate.

And that's what I was trying to say. I'll admit to not knowing much about a lot of technology, so I chose an example from the show that I could relate to (on both sides of the debate) - the iPod - rather than something I didn't.^^^ Not the best example, I agree, but...

Maybe a better example might have been the EMF meter Dean made? If it relied on more mechanically based components rather than digital ones (I personally have no idea), then I would bet my money on Dean's EMF meter over a more "advanced" digital one, because in my opinion a digital one might be more likely to be messed up by psychic, ghostly activity throwing ozone or electrical currents or whatever into the air... However I have no idea how Dean's handmade EMF meter worked in the physical sense (I have almost no aptitude in that area) or if it actually was less advanced in that way (i.e. "mechanically" based) than a regular EMF meter or not, so I was hesitant to use that as an example. Admittedly, I also hate that particular scene for various reasons. @@@

*** Too Much Information example: In my kitchen, I have an 18 year old refrigerator and an oven I paid $50 more for in order to get one without the digital component. It's a gas stove - which I prefer - and the oven part has just a knob I turn on and off rather than a digital display up above that I have to complete 10 or more steps in order to turn it on. And that's not an exaggeration. When I went through the manual that came with my new oven, it had information for all of the related ovens in that line. The instructions for my oven "1) turn the oven knob to the temperature desired." The instructions for the digital display oven was 15 steps long. No thank you. I gladly paid the extra $50 to not have to deal with that. When I turn the knob to 350, I know it's on and will be at 350 when it warms up... not till preheating or whatever else the digital ones do (I don't care) until I press the right display button. When I want it off, I'll turn it off after I decide the food is how I want it rather than pre-put in a potential cook time or whatever else the digital ones do (again I don't care).

Also since I live in an old neighborhood with large trees which tend to fall down, have branches that disrupt power lines, etc., a digital display is more likely to be affected by power outages long term - wearing out if the power goes out multiple times - making the stove go bad before its time or needing complicated repairs. A knob doesn't have that problem. Less technology, but more reliable, in my opinion, for my situation. If I have my choice, I'll never get a more technologically advanced, digital display stove ...but alo in my opinion, it's a legitimate, practical decision, not just because I'm pigheaded or ill-informed or something. I think it's a legitimate and practical position to not go with the technological advancements.

And I support and understand Dean's positions on the same... which was what I was trying to say.

^^^ TMI example #2: I personally prefer to carry around my CDs to play in the car rather than mess with my hubby's iPod most of the time. Not cassette tapes, but still not the latest thing.

@@@ I never felt that that writer was legitimately part of the usual writer pool at that time's opinions of the characters. I didn't like how that writer wrote Sam or Dean or the show "lore" ... The John talking up Sam story especially made no sense to me for a bunch of different reasons. The demon aspects of possession weren't carried over to the rest of the show, and - to me - the characterizations I don't feel were what they should be. For me - and this is just my opinion - having Dean be all hurt about Sam's (in my opinion, over-the-top) criticism of the EMF meter was off. Dean is a badass hunter who at that time didn't feel that college education was practical for hunting and was sure of his own hunting abilities. In my opinion, Dean should have been saying - in his best Big Brother tone - "dude, this thing kicks ass. It works so much better than that junk in the store," complete with "dude, seriously" facial expressions... and he should have meant it. Or even if he was hurt for some reason, he should have hidden it from Sam, because Dean was definitely the big brother in the relationship at that time and he should have been acting like it there, not some shrinking violet being oh, so hurt by Sam's comments. Like the iPod. That reaction from Dean was right - i.e. "your iPod is lame. I know what's right for my Baby, and I'm not going to put up with your saying differently."

For me, Dean being all hurt was off there. I thought that scene was cheap, manipulative, "oh look at poor, hurt, sensitive Dean" crap that didn't fit character-wise with what else was going on or with Dean's previous characterization on the show so far and really overblew the "Sam is a snotty college boy" crap. I mean yes, Sam was that to an extent at that time, but in my opinion he wasn't that condescending in the early years and wasn't again ....except in that same writer's second (and last) episode.

So I was glad that that writer didn't write any more than those two episodes, because I didn't like his interpretation of the characters.

Just my opinion on all that, and I don't expect anyone else to agree.

I'm not quite sure which you're referring to here? The EMF meter scene? Because if so, given that was like the 4th episode of the show, is it out of character? Sam had already been condescending and yes I think it fit quite well with the level of condescending he'd showed thus far. And as for Dean? How was it out of character for Dean, again 4th episode of the show and Dean had already shown he was actually sensitive, a few times already. The 4th episode of the first season pretty much anything is in character at that point. It's manipulative to give insight into characters you are just getting to know by showing how they react to things?

Dean's EMF meter was no less technologically advanced because it was homemade, the only thing it might have been missing was a fancy screen, which would be difficult to fabricate in his situation, but everything else was every bit as technologically advanced as one you'd buy in a store. And he made it. That's not old fashioned, that's like saying because Tony Stark was able to build the first Iron Man suit "in a cave, with a box of scraps!!"(sorry it's a funny line--TMI myself, I actually can't stand Tony Stark, like at all--I will not argue this, I'm firm on this point LOL) - he's an old fashioned kind of dude without much interest in technology. It wasn't pretty but it worked. He made due with what he had.

The very fact that Dean was able to build it himself, out of a walkman(and without any sort of fancy education or you know, Electrical apprenticeship) shows that Dean was interested in technology, interested in how it worked and interested enough to make something with what he basically had laying around because he didn't have money to do otherwise. It's reaching to say that Dean is somehow against using new or better equipment for hunting and even more that he wouldn't even THINK of it, which is blatantly untrue because he's "thought of it" before, because somehow because he doesn't want an iPod in his car it means he's some sort of Luddite.

Aeryn13 · January 8, 2019

Quote

And whereas we had your 5.22 example for Sam as the main - and I would argue likely the only - example of such a thing for Sam, we've had so many more for Dean... some where it is Dean as the only brother of the two who saves the world. Even if it's sometimes with another partner like John or Castiel, that's a whole lot of Dean was the only brother there, in my opinion, to be implying that Dean is not being shown as an important component.

They made sure to muddy the waters with Amara enough that you can give all the kudos to random bird lady. I can not refute any claim that she didn`t because the episode never bothered to make that an obvious fallacy. They made sure to give Sam the valid contribution against Lucifer while Michael!Dean was getting beat up.

But it`s not just the world-saving. It`s stuff like leadership. The writers want to say Sam is a great natural leader, that`s why there is now a storyline (with more focus than Michael for Dean) and very overt dialogue to get that across. There were multiple times when IF they wanted to say Dean has leadership abilities, it would have been organic to put that dialogue in there. They never did. So when especially now I read a lot of metas on how Sam is a great leader and Dean obviously never was one or had no capabilities whatsoever, I know it is because the show has done nothing to contradict that assessment in a manner that can not be refuted.

They haste to make all kind of overt claims about Dean in the show: he doesn`t know this and that, he is uncouth bla bla bla. Negative or comic relief bumbling stuff or the "he is doing feelings wrong" or "he is just a killer" are hammered home and home and home and home. Meanwhile, there has not been a single line in almost 300 episodes about Dean being a capable or a natural born leader. And I can say with almost certainty that there never will be. For that to happen, the writers would have to see him as one in the first place.

Cambion · January 8, 2019

Lots of stuff I agree with here. And lots of food for thought. I don't really have time to address everything, so just everybody know I liked reading your thoughts. this is exactly the kind of stuff I sought out a fan community for!

Anyway, I do have one question: I'm seeing references to things the writers said, where are these type of articles/interviews usually found?

Edited January 8, 2019 by Cambion
Rogue apostrophes!!

Myrelle · January 8, 2019

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

Because Dean doesn't get that in-show propping or acknowledgment. In the entirety of the show noone ever verbally acknowledged that Dean even has leadership skills, let alone good ones. The current storyline establishes leader!Sam in technicolour. And even Dean falls in line.

They are not presented or treated as equals. How can that not look like Sam is shown as "better than". That's why it takes away from Dean.

Lots of viewers absolutely don't know and don't think Dean ever had leadership abilities. They think the opposite BECAUSE of the current Sam story. And why wouldn't they? The show never adressed this or made it a storyline like with Sam. Silence speaks volumes, too.

If they would take the time to verbally acknowledge Dean's own leadership skills while just making it clear that he currently has no interest in the leadership of the AU hunters, if in the "Sam, you were born to do this, my king" propping episode, they could have brought it up - and yes it would actually flow organically there - it would make all the difference. Same as some acknowledgment that Dean said yes also because Lucifer was a threat.

I'm thouroughly sick of always having to kinda squint and infer positive things about Dean. That frankly the writers clearly don't think and don't want to say. Because if they would, he would get the in-depth dialogue propping that everyone else gets.

And I'm also sick of the 1001 excuses every single time on why it's good writing that the other characters get the propping and why it would be bad writing if Dean did. Equally the 1001 excuses on why it's always good writing and fitting when Dean gets verbally dragged through the mud. No matter what, it's also something this and that that apparently makes it okay.

+1000 to this entire post, and then 1,000 more.

Leader!Sam was just the straw that broke the camel's back regarding these thoughts for most of the Deanfans that I know, including myself.

gonzosgirrl · January 8, 2019

1 minute ago, tessathereaper said:

It's reaching to say that Dean is somehow against using new or better equipment for hunting and even more that he wouldn't even THINK of it, which is blatantly untrue because he's "thought of it" before, because somehow because he doesn't want an iPod in his car it means he's some sort of Luddite.

It was a pretty high-tech sniper rifle he was using in 2x05, so yeah, I'd say he's up for better equipment as far as hunting goes. He's just a master at making do, so using anything he has at hand as a weapon might make him seem less high tech. :)

ILoveReading · January 8, 2019

20 hours ago, MysteryGuest said:

In fact, maybe Dean feels less of a burden now, since it's not all on him.

The problem here is that this is a tv show. Less of a burden on Dean would be great if he was real, but since he's not it translates to Dean wondering around the bunker with no role in it whatsoever. If they wanted to push Sam into taking more responsibility, they didn't totally have to take this role away from Dean. There was room for both. Its not like Sam has never stepped up or lead before. He has when necessary but its never been something Sam has ever really show an interest in until one moment when Sam decided he needed to lead. It wasn't just stepping up, it was taking over. His big speech was follow me, not us, and when he made it he had no idea Dean was staying home.

As for the leadership position, it was taken from Dean, because Sam stepped in and took over when Dean was gone, and when Dean came back, he was never asked or shown not wanting it. If he did how it would be just presented as Dean not trusting or babying Sam. Not taking the leadership role was never a choice or an option for Dean.

Dabb treats it as an either or he said that Sam was the natural born leader and it was Dean that prevented him from taking it or saying that they needed to get Dean off screen to let other characters breath. He's never said anything about Dean or even acknowledged Dean was a leader.

Yes, Dean comes across as the leader when the AU people aren't on screen and IMO, is that is just Jensen's dominate screen presence. (This is what Dabb's breathing room comment was about). I bet if asked the writers would never say "yeah, I meant Dean to come across as the leader here." The writers don't see him that way.

This current crew especially see Dean as comic relief, inferior to Sam in every way, and a bully and a killer. They don't highlight his strengths.

Sam, at this point was the researcher, lore expert, weapons expert, he was given the majority of scenes with the guest stars, came up with most of the plans and got the majority of big kills. He didn't need to be the best leader in the history of leaders too. He's starting to turn into a massive Mary Sue because under Dabb he can do no wrong. Dabb certainly didn't need to make it so over the top that Sam is just the most amazing thing that they all just want to call him chief and obey his every order because he's just that awesome.

I bet there will be a very special episode in the future were we see Sam get in trouble and all his flunkies will come to his rescue because he's inspired that much loyalty. (not a spoiler, just speculation).

There is an imbalance in the way they show Sam's strenghts and Deans. Asa Fox is a good example. it was nice that Dean was verbally acknowledged, but Sam's fan boy just had to get up from the table and run to see his hero and talk about his accomplishments, whereas Dean got, didn't you die four times.

IMO, there is a clear slant towards Sam.

If they were going to take the leadership role away from Dean, they should have given him something else in return they didn't. He just wonders around the bunker.

Edited January 8, 2019 by ILoveReading

MysteryGuest · January 8, 2019

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

The problem here is that this is a tv show. Less of a burden on Dean would be great if he was real, but since he's not it translates to Dean wondering around the bunker with no role in it whatsoever. If they wanted to push Sam into taking more responsibility, they didn't totally have to take this role away from Dean. There was room for both. Its not like Sam has never stepped up or lead before. He has when necessary but its never been something Sam has ever really show an interest in until one moment when Sam decided he needed to lead. It wasn't just stepping up, it was taking over. His big speech was follow me, not us, and when he made it he had no idea Dean was staying home.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. Why should Sam surrender any leadership of the AU people to Dean the minute he returned? That would be absurd, IMO. Dean clearly had some issues going on, and he was pretty obvious about wanting no part in "leading" the AU hunters, and Sam had it under control. And Dean hasn't just been wandering around doing nothing. He hung out in his room for a week after being released from Michael's possession, but I would think he'd earned that. Then he was right back at doing what they've always done. As for Sam's speech about leading, it didn't take anything away from Dean. Dean was proud of him, and said as much when he opted to stay behind and try to save Mary. Again, I don't see growth for Sam as taking anything away from Dean.

ILoveReading · January 8, 2019

12 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

Why should Sam surrender any leadership of the AU people to Dean the minute he returned?

They didnt' even have to go there in the first place. They could have focused the ep on what Sam was doing to find Dean. I would have prefered they cut out the ridculous demon stuff and show us more Michael Dean. The AU hunters weren't even living in the bunker at the end of last season and Bobby was the leader. Why would they follow Sam when Bobby and Mary where right there. Bobby still saw himself as their leader at that point. I dont' buy "from AU world." He knew about Trump and the Apprentice. Their worlds aren't that different. Plus, Mary was from out world and she was going to abandon her sons for these people.

They could have folded Dean in, and showed him training some of the younger members, or taking over the field and leading them on hunts while Sam did the organization and logistics. There was room for both. It didn't have to be all or nothing.

12 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

Dean clearly had some issues going on,

Dean's issues were dropped pretty much the minute he walked thorugh the door. He has antibodies against trauma. An actual quote from buck lemming. He was in his room because he was uncomfortable with the AU hunters invading his home. After that ep they could have showed him attempting to get to know some of them. As it is they come across as red shirts hired just to give Sam the appearance of being in the lead.

12 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

As for Sam's speech about leading, it didn't take anything away from Dean.

It did because from that moment on, Dean's leadership abilities were pushed the side and treated as non existent and the show acted like he never had them and never was a leader. He was just bossy and holding poor little Sammy back from his rightful place.

12 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

Dean was proud of him, and said as much when he opted to stay behind and try to save Mary. A

But Sam didn't know this when he made his big speech. Which he was preaching to a choir. In a well written show they should have asked why they should follow the person who was dumb enough to take up with them in the first place. No one else did. Why didn't Sam say follow us since at that point he believed Dean was going on the raid with them. Sam declarded himself in charge from that moment on. Again, if Dean attempts to lead from this moment its just going to be another round of Dean being accused of treating Sam like a baby/not trusting him.

I wouldn't have such an issue if the show would acknowledge Dean was a damn good leader. It didn't. Dean is bossy, and he was never a leader, is what the show is trying to sell. Co-leaders would have been okay. This all or nothing approach is what bothers me.

So in my opinion this was very much a quality of Dean's that was taken from him, gift wrapped and handed to Sam on a silver platter.

This is not meant as snark. What is Dean's role now in the bunker? (emotional support doesn't count, because that's not a role).

Edited January 8, 2019 by ILoveReading

AwesomO4000 · January 8, 2019

1 hour ago, tessathereaper said:

I'm not quite sure which you're referring to here? 1) The EMF meter scene? Because if so, given that was like the 4th episode of the show, is it out of character? 2) Sam had already been condescending and yes I think it fit quite well with the level of condescending he'd showed thus far. 3) And as for Dean? How was it out of character for Dean, again 4th episode of the show and Dean had already shown he was actually sensitive, a few times already. 4) The 4th episode of the first season pretty much anything is in character at that point. 5) It's manipulative to give insight into characters you are just getting to know by showing how they react to things?

All of the following is in my opinion.

1) Yes, that is the scene that I am referring to, and in my opinion it was a bit out of character - actually I referred to it as over the top rather than completely out of character - because compared to the first 3 episodes which I thought established the character's personalities very well, that comment from Sam and Dean's reaction took me entirely out of the episode. For me it was jarring and in an entirely different tone than we'd seen previously. Just because you didn't see it that way doesn't mean that I saw it the same way.

2) Sam had been snotty - which I specifically acknowledged in my post - but in my opinion he had also been complimentary and impressed with what he was learning about Dean. Sam acknowledged that the salt shot gun shells were a great idea, not mocked them or said "ehn I could've thought of that one." Sam seemed at the same time impressed by but not surprised by Dean's using the M&Ms as a way to track him - like "of course Dean would think to do that," and he generally seemed respectful of Dean's hunting abilities even if he didn't agree at that time that it was what he, Sam, wanted to do. Sure he made fun of Dean trying to get in good with the women they were trying to save, but I didn't find that "condescending" any more than Dean's mocking Sam's going to college and supposed inadequacies with women. I entirely disagree that Sam was condescending to Dean in those first 3 episodes. Even in the pilot when Sam at first didn't want to listen to Dean - who at the time was making it difficult for Sam to do so considering he was hitting on and ogling his girlfriend at the time immediately changed his tune and gave Dean his full attention and respect once Dean got serious and made a real case for what he was there for "Dad went on a hunting trip and he didn't come home." And by the end of that episode Sam was apologizing for not acknowledging Dean's feelings enough earlier (even though Dean was the one who got rough) and was nothing but respectful to him. Just because Sam didn't immediately decide to drop everything he had worked for in college to continue on with Dean didn't - in my opinion - make him somehow disrespectful of or condescending to Dean. Sam even asks Dean to keep in touch and let him know if he finds John and leaves the door open for them getting back together again later. In my opinion, Sam having different opinions from Dean and expressing those opinions doesn't make him somehow disrespectful to Dean. So you may think that EMF scene fit with what was shown previously, but I didn't - at all. I thought it was jarring and it left me scratching my head as to why Sam was acting that way when he hadn't previously. And that Dean was acting all kicked puppy hurt.

3) There's sensitive, and then there's woobie. That reaction, in my opinion, was bordering on woobie. I found it quite a bit different and jarring from Dean's previous reactions. This is a guy who has the confidence to hit on women, and if he gets rejected, just shrug and move on to the next one pretty much "ehn could've been fun, oh well." He'd stood up to Sam regarding his feelings about Mary, and when Sam asked "dad let you hunt on your own?" answered with obvious and earned indignation "Dude, I'm 26 years old" with the right amount of "you're an idiot" in his tone. To me, that was the same kind of response Dean should have had concerning the EMF meter, not all suddenly unsure of his own abilities and insecure. If there was anything Dean was secure about, it was his hunting abilities. I knew that after the third episode, so yes, Dean's reaction even there seemed out of character to me. Obviously your mileage varies, but I think my opinion is just as valid.

4) I disagree. Especially if those things are later not shown again to that same extent - except in that same writer's other episode - or are later taken back. And it wasn't just Sam and Dean either. I thought the whole scene about the pilot talking about Sam and what John supposedly said about Sam took me out of the episode also. It was weird to me that that would be a conversation under the circumstances or even that john would do something like that in the first place. This is a guy who is very secretive, verging on paranoid, and keeps the things he does to himself - even with and from his own family - even communicating his location in code with his sons, and I'm supposed to believe he's just spouting off information about one of his sons going to college to some random person he meets on a case? To me, that really didn't fit with John's personality or character. Others' mileage may vary, but it took me out of the episode.

5) Yes, I think it's manipulative to have a character who originally stood up for himself just fine to his brother many times before suddenly be all kicked puppy while having said brother being - in my opinion - uncharacteristically nasty and unapologetic. It makes me think that there was something else there... and considering that writer's second episode - "Asylum" - where he had that trend continue, then that's why I found it a bit manipulative in retrospect. At first I just found it jarring and it took me out of the episode. That there was a later episode ("Something Wicked") just to address what happened in that second episode and "correct" it - to me - hints to me that yes, the characterization shown in that writer's episodes was something the rest of the writers felt a need to readdress and change/correct even if in retrospect.

Again as I said above, that's just my opinion, no one else has to agree.

Aeryn13 · January 8, 2019

Quote

As for Sam's speech about leading, it didn't take anything away from Dean. Dean was proud of him, and said as much when he opted to stay behind and try to save Mary.

When Sam talked earlier about leadership when him and Dean were alone, it would have been the perfect time for an acknowledment on Dean`s thought about leadership or previously ever filling that role. Crickets. Then Sam made the speech about how he wanted the hunters in the room to follow him now - and all looked at him like awe-struck fools. He clearly expected Dean to come along, under his, Sam`s, leadership. When Dean bowed out on accounts of his leg, Sam was confused at first, he had expected to TAKE leadership and that Dean would submit to that as well as the others. He said he would "take Dean busted up". Despite the outward complimentary nature of the statement, it is clear that Sam had slotted Dean into underling role there.

So Dean is proud of how Sam declared himself general and I`m supposed to squee and be happy about that? Sorry, not really seeing that as some awww-moment.

And now Dean talks about checking with Sam if he is allowed to go out with Jack. He makes call-ins like all the other AU flunkies. And was the "chief" really supposed to be joking? Mary would drop dead before telling Dean he is a "natural at this" the way she did Sam. She has never said anything complimentary about Dean in EVER since she came back.

Dean is not in the "old mentor role". He is not watching his young charge grow up, being proud about it before he himself dies soon. That is a perfect role for much older characters who soon are out of the picture. It doesn`t work for anyone who is supposed to be an equal hero.

What role does Dean still hold that Sam hasn`t taken over? What capabilities? There is lots Sam has a monopoly on where the show makes it clear that only Sam is good at it and Dean couldn`t do it 10 % as well. But that doesn`t work the other way around. Sam finds the hunts, calls the shots, knows all the lore, comes up with the plans and makes the decisions now.

And nope, this isn`t because of the Michael thing. This is a permanent change they have introduced into the dynamics now. Dean may get a very occasional bone thrown here but Dean is now his footman. And he will remain that for the rest of the show. Lets not kid ourselves here. If that is supposed to be equality and Dean is oh-so-proud on becoming Sam`s obedient little tool because he has no dignity or pride of his own, this is not a good thing.

MysteryGuest · January 8, 2019

6 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

When Sam talked earlier about leadership when him and Dean were alone, it would have been the perfect time for an acknowledment on Dean`s thought about leadership or previously ever filling that role. Crickets. Then Sam made the speech about how he wanted the hunters in the room to follow him now - and all looked at him like awe-struck fools. He clearly expected Dean to come along, under his, Sam`s, leadership. When Dean bowed out on accounts of his leg, Sam was confused at first, he had expected to TAKE leadership and that Dean would submit to that as well as the others. He said he would "take Dean busted up". Despite the outward complimentary nature of the statement, it is clear that Sam had slotted Dean into underling role there.

This isn't at all how I saw that scene, so again, we'll need to agree to disagree. Sam was trying to rally the other hunters to help them with the BMOL, but I never saw anything to indicate that he expected Dean to follow him. He and Dean were going to lead them together. Sam taking a leadership role doesn't relegate Dean to a lowly follower. And frankly, when Dean was leading and Sam felt he was following, he was never treated as a lowly follower by Dean, nor did I ever see him that way.

devlin · January 8, 2019

13 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

They didnt' even have to go there in the first place. They could have focused the ep on what Sam was doing to find Dean. I would have prefered they cut out the ridculous demon stuff and show us more Michael Dean. The AU hunters weren't even living in the bunker at the end of last season and Bobby was the leader. Why would they follow Sam when Bobby and Mary where right there. Bobby still saw himself as their leader at that point. I dont' buy "from AU world." He knew about Trump and the Apprentice. Their worlds aren't that different. Plus, Mary was from out world and she was going to abandon her sons for these people.

They could have folded Dean in, and showed him training some of the younger members, or taking over the field and leading them on hunts while Sam did the organization and logistics. There was room for both. It didn't have to be all or nothing.

Dean's issues were dropped pretty much the minute he walked thorugh the door. He has antibodies against trauma. An actual quote from buck lemming. He was in his room because he was uncomfortable with the AU hunters invading his home. After that ep they could have showed him attempting to get to know some of them. As it is they come across as red shirts hired just to give Sam the appearance of being in the lead.

I agree. They spent so much time on setting up leader sam if it was your first time watching the show, you wouldn’t even know sam had a brother who was missing. What was shown to us was that sam was an awesome chief who had a well oiled operation. The only hint that dean had any importance to sam was a “memorial to my dead brother ” neatly trimmed grief beard.

AwesomO4000 · January 8, 2019

2 hours ago, tessathereaper said:

Dean's EMF meter was no less technologically advanced because it was homemade, the only thing it might have been missing was a fancy screen, which would be difficult to fabricate in his situation, but everything else was every bit as technologically advanced as one you'd buy in a store. And he made it. That's not old fashioned, that's like saying because Tony Stark was able to build the first Iron Man suit "in a cave, with a box of scraps!!"(sorry it's a funny line--TMI myself, I actually can't stand Tony Stark, like at all--I will not argue this, I'm firm on this point LOL) - he's an old fashioned kind of dude without much interest in technology. It wasn't pretty but it worked. He made due with what he had.

The very fact that Dean was able to build it himself, out of a walkman(and without any sort of fancy education or you know, Electrical apprenticeship) shows that Dean was interested in technology, interested in how it worked and interested enough to make something with what he basically had laying around because he didn't have money to do otherwise. It's reaching to say that Dean is somehow against using new or better equipment for hunting and even more that he wouldn't even THINK of it, which is blatantly untrue because he's "thought of it" before, because somehow because he doesn't want an iPod in his car it means he's some sort of Luddite.

Apparently I didn't make myself clear, because I'm not sure how you got this out of what I said.

I thought that I was pretty clear that I thought that if Dean's homemade Walkman EMF meter was mechanical rather than digital that I thought that it would potentially be more reliable as a hunting tool, since - as I explained via example - that there were obvious circumstances when I thought mechanical beats digital any day of the week and ghosts that interfere with electrical currents and such certainly apply, in my opinion. And I entirely think Dean knows technology and how to build it - way more than I do and likely more than Sam does, too - but that doesn't mean that I think he always has to think that it's the most reliable tool at his disposal, just a tool at his disposal. I personally think some people put way too much reliance on certain technology when it isn't always the best answer.

I'm not sure how you got that I think Dean is a Luddite out of that, but *shrug.*

devlin · January 8, 2019

16 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

This isn't at all how I saw that scene, so again, we'll need to agree to disagree. Sam was trying to rally the other hunters to help them with the BMOL, but I never saw anything to indicate that he expected Dean to follow him. He and Dean were going to lead them together. Sam taking a leadership role doesn't relegate Dean to a lowly follower. And frankly, when Dean was leading and Sam felt he was following, he was never treated as a lowly follower by Dean, nor did I ever see him that way.

All the writers had to do was have sam say follow us instead of me, so the fact they went with follow me suggests to me that it was intentional that sam was set up as leader

Aeryn13 · January 8, 2019

Quote

but I never saw anything to indicate that he expected Dean to follow him. He and Dean were going to lead them together. Sam taking a leadership role doesn't relegate Dean to a lowly follower.

Sam said that he expected Dean to follow. And he made a point of starting his leadership approach with "I" and ended with "follow ME". He very clearly did not sell or intend it as any kind of joint operation. The scene did not sell it as such either. It was Sam`s leadership as clearly as "Chief" is now calling the shots in the bunker.

Quote

And frankly, when Dean was leading and Sam felt he was following, he was never treated as a lowly follower by Dean, nor did I ever see him that way.

Dean was never leading in the way Sam is shown to be leading now. Ever. Okay, in the pretend future by Zachariah where Dean led a camp. That was the only time Dean led a larger group and the episode made a point to say he was a bad person now. Also, Sam wasn`t around.

Other than that, Dean has never been granted leadership or authority over Sam in the way Sam has now been granted authority. So nope, Sam has never been a lowly follower because he never served in any kind of army as led by Dean. The opposite is the status quo now, though.

MysteryGuest · January 8, 2019

Like I said, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I simply don't see this the same way some of you do, and that's ok. To each his own. As a Dean fan, I just never really feel that he's getting the short end of the stick in the storylines. That doesn't mean I'm always happy with the writing, or the story arcs, but I don't see Dean faring any worse than Sam does when the writing goes sideways.

ster1 · January 8, 2019

39 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

What role does Dean still hold that Sam hasn`t taken over? What capabilities? There is lots Sam has a monopoly on where the show makes it clear that only Sam is good at it and Dean couldn`t do it 10 % as well. But that doesn`t work the other way around. Sam finds the hunts, calls the shots, knows all the lore, comes up with the plans and makes the decisions now.

1

Sam also does all the magic and suddenly knows more than Dean about fixing the Colt.

That's exactly why Chief Sam bothers me so very, very much. Sure, we've seen Sam occasionally lead but it never seemed like something he naturally gravitated to. But suddenly he has "room to breathe" and viola! Insta- Leader Sam. In 3 weeks, he not only took over the AU hunters but revolutionalized modern hunting. Now there's mandatory check-ins, body cams, hunting in pairs, and a coordinated mission control center. Not that those are bad things (although I'm not sure they're really improvements either) but it's like the writers can't just settle for Sam doing a decent job; he has to be even more special than everyone else. Kip decides to ask Sam's permission to lead Hell. Sam kills Kip instead and declares he won't allow a new King of Hell, at which point all the demons flee from him in terror. Okay then. It's a bit much.

I used to enjoy the way each brother had their own niche on the show. Sam has always been the info expert. Dean can obviously do research but it's not something he particularly enjoys. If Sam went missing, it's a sure bet that Dean wouldn't suddenly become the lore guru and have hunters calling him for esoteric lore. Nor would I expect the show to go there because that's Sam's area of expertise. But when it comes to Dean's strengths, it's a different story. Under Dabb, Sam's skills are Sam's and Dean's skills are Sam's too. Sam has become a One Man Hunting Wonder. He can strategize, lead field operations, recite all the lore, kill the biggest bad guys, empathize with civilians, and overcome pretty much any obstacle. That's exactly how Dabb wrote him in "Form", "Red Meat" and "Stranger". I agree with you, @Aeryn13 . At this point, I'm not sure what purpose Dean serves other than as Sam's back up and support.

When Carver introduced the MoL, I truly believed Sam would archive their library and become the new American MoL lore expert. Dean, otoh, would catalogue all the magical weapons and become the MoL field operations/hunting leader. Maybe if Carver had stayed on, eventually that might have happened. But now that Dabb's in charge, I can't see Dean ever being allowed to shine in that way.

SueB · January 9, 2019

Under "show" versus "tell", we have probably 275 of 290+ episodes where Dean is shown to be the OBVIOUS Leader.

But since some have claimed that it's never been said ("tell"):

Quote

11.23
SAM: No. We're both in this fight. You're leading this army.

Sam speaking to Dean.

As for now? Sam is running a Hunter's Hogwarts. Dean is supportive but I don't think he's interested in taking that on. He gets Sammy's idea and supports it but he's NOT going to take orders from Sam and he's not going to undermine him. So when Sam said Jack wasn't hunting, Dean called to let Sam know he was going to take him. But he didn't ask permission.

And Dean is leading TFW 2.0. Still.

So I think the 'leadership' of Hunter's Hogwarts may be Sam's new project but Dean is still the leader when it comes to the core team.

Edited January 9, 2019 by SueB

AwesomO4000 · January 9, 2019

Just now, devlin said:

All the writers had to do was have sam say follow us instead of me, so the fact they went with follow me suggests to me that it was intentional that sam was set up as leader

Maybe they didn't want to group Dean in with Sam's dumb initial decision to follow the BMoL?

Besides, in my opinion, if this Sam as leader thing was supposedly such a priority at the time, why did the writers then completely drop it and ignore it without so much as a mention for an entire season. Doesn't seem to me it was that much of a priority.

35 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Dean was never leading in the way Sam is shown to be leading now. Ever.

I would say - off the top of my head, there are likely others - that "Ghostfacers," "Jus in Bello," and the main action of "Nightshifter" come pretty close. Maybe "Fanfcition." too.

11 minutes ago, ster1 said:

That's exactly why Chief Sam bothers me so very, very much. Sure, we've seen Sam occasionally lead but it never seemed like something he naturally gravitated to. But suddenly he has "room to breathe" and viola! Insta- Leader Sam. In 3 weeks, he not only took over the AU hunters but revolutionalized modern hunting. Now there's mandatory check-ins, body cams, hunting in pairs, and a coordinated mission control center. Not that those are bad things (although I'm not sure they're really improvements either) but it's like the writers can't just settle for Sam doing a decent job; he has to be even more special than everyone else.

Whereas I don't see this. Sam in my opinion was shown to make mistakes. He didn't take care of himself or delegate - and I still say that that was in character with what Sam does when Dean gets killed or is missing - and he almost got Maggie (?) killed. That she didn't get killed was perhaps a bit of (in my opinion, overdue) luck for Sam, but not any consideration we haven't seen given to Dean before in similar circumstances. Maybe the reason why it seems so jarring now is because usually when Sam messes up in any way he isn't given that kind of consideration and really bad things happen, so now seems like it's something out of the ordinary.

21 minutes ago, ster1 said:

I used to enjoy the way each brother had their own niche on the show. Sam has always been the info expert. If Sam went missing, it's a sure bet that Dean wouldn't suddenly become the lore guru and have hunters calling him for esoteric lore. Nor would I expect the show to go there because that's Sam's area of expertise.

I don't really remember this myself. Sure Sam likes to research more than Dean does, but that's not a skill. Dean seems to know just as much about lore, important herbs, his Bible, literature, symbols, etc. as Sam does. With symbols even, Dean is the go to guy usually. (except in one instance in season 8, I think). Sam seems to know a bit more about languages, but when Castiel is available, he usually takes that duty over. Often when Sam is the "expert" on some kind of subject, it's something bizarre - like animal scales - or something Dean makes fun of him for - like fairy tales or ancient plant seeds. Or it's something kind of freaky like his knowledge of / fetish with serial killers.

And hunters didn't call Sam for that kind of information either... They called Bobby. Bobby, in my opinion, was the lore and information expert and took over even what small role Sam filled of that pretty early on.

Sam did have some interesting areas of expertise at one time. He usually had a knack for remembering and finding similarities and difference in photographs and paintings, and he did use to use that in solving some cases early on (examples: recognizing the ghost in "Hollywood Babylon" the witch in "Something Wicked" and the changing painting in "Provenance"), there have been a few more recent (as in season 4 on) times, but the writers don't use that skill of Sam's much any more, and when it came up as something needed more recently, it was Jack who got that skill, not Sam. Picking locks - which Sam also used to be somewhat good at - also went to Jack recently. Apparently he learned from the internet, so so much for it being a unique skill set.

39 minutes ago, ster1 said:

Under Dabb, Sam's skills are Sam's and Dean's skills are Sam's too.

I disagree. I don't think Sam's skills - except for the photograph thing - were ever really "Sam's skills" so to speak. As I said, Bobby quickly became the information guru. Sam also used to be good with knives and Ruby gave the demon-killing knife to him, but not too long after, somehow that knife became more Dean's weapon than Sam's, and we seldom saw Sam do much with knives any more.

Dean, however, did have quite a few unique skills... most if not all he still has as his as far as I know. Dean's marksmanship, his mechanical abilities - I doubt we'll see Sam under the hood of a car any time soon.*** His planning ability. Dean still does that. When it's just the four main characters, it's Dean who comes up with the strategy and plan and he's the leader of the group. Dean's driving ability. It's Dean we see doing the heroic car escapes. Dean's fighting ability. Silly wireworks aside, generally when we see someone in a skilled brawl or weapons fight, it's Dean. Dean is usually the one to come up with a good strategic plan on the fly, and I believe we still don't see Sam doing that. Dean is generally the good cook, too. He's usually the one making yummy things - even burgers that Sam will make a point to come back for - in the kitchen. As for the criticism "but they show Dean as a slob" ...none of you have ever seen me cook. People like my cooking quite a bit, but organized I am not^^^ and messy is the name of the game. (I would not have an "open concept" kitchen - my poor guests don't want to see that, and if I want to do the dishes later... or tomorrow, that's my business thank you very much. You can keep your "open concept." But I digress.)

As far as I'm concerned Dean still has all of the above things I mentioned as pretty much "uniquely Dean" skills. As far as I know that far outweighs any "uniquely Sam" skills that I am aware of. Maybe they do let Sam share some "Dean" skills, because 1) Sam, in my opinion, needed some more skills he was good at, and 2) as with @MysteryGuest said about Sam continuing hunting for 14 seasons while still hating it makes little sense, in my opinion, Sam continuing hunting for 14 seasons while not being an expert in weapons or any basic strategy would similarly be ridiculous. You would think after 14 seasons Sam would become an expert in something that had to do with hunting, otherwise he would just suck at it and might as well give it up.

That's my opinion on that.

And to be fair, concerning the "empathy" thing, it usually was Sam - whether acted or genuine - who was the one who had the most patience for that aspect of hunting. (In terms of interviews and getting information from victims and witnesses). That was never only a Dean thing or even one of Dean's stronger suits.

***(Sam being a handyman was ridiculous and just something Carver wanted to do to Sam even though it didn't fit. I don't think Sam's ever been shown doing anything mechanical since then, and I doubt he's good at it.)

^^^ With the food and having stuff laid out ahead of time anyway. My pots and pans, bowls, gadgets, and utensils, however, better be right where I had them, because I want to know exactly where they are and be ready to grab them at a moment's notice, because see the aforementioned not being "organized" ahead of time when I cook. Also if you come in my kitchen when I'm cooking, you better stay out of my way unless you are helping, because if I run into you with a hot pot of something... that's not my fault. You were warned. ; )

Cambion · January 9, 2019

49 minutes ago, SueB said:

Under "show" versus "tell", we have probably 275 of 290+ episodes where Dean is shown to be the OBVIOUS Leader.

But since some have claimed that it's never been said ("tell"):

Sam speaking to Dean.

As for now? Sam is running a Hunter's Hogwarts. Dean is supportive but I don't think he's interested in taking that on. He gets Sammy's idea and supports it but he's NOT going to take orders from Sam and he's not going to undermine him. So when Sam said Jack wasn't hunting, Dean called to let Sam know he was going to take him. But he didn't ask permission.

And Dean is leading TFW 2.0. Still.

So I think the 'leadership' of Hunter's Hogwarts may be Sam's new project but Dean is still the leader when it comes to the core team.

Yeah, my whole take on Dean supports that he wouldn't want to take on responsibility for a whole bunch of people in any capacity. It only adds to his "gotta take care of everyone" angst. Plus, since the first episode, I saw Sam as being someone who thinks about his actions and Dean as someone who reacts with his emotions. That is not to say, or in any way infer, that either one can't be smart and emotional and anything else. It's just that in my eyes, I see Sam as relying more on thinking and learning and planning as his first go to, and action as the second. With Dean being the reverse, action his first go to and his intellect the second. I think this is why they compliment each other as hunters, and good characters because they can seesaw back and forth and fill in the holes of what's happening with the other.

And starting a Hunter's Hogwarts (great name, SueB, B T Dubs!), Seems more in character for Sam anyway. Sam started teaching Adam about weapons, etc., almost immediately upon learning he was their brother (and why the hell have they never, ever gone back for him? Yeah, another thread I'm sure.) I dunno, it just seems more in character for him, to me.

One last thing,then I gotta hang it up for the night. Both of the boys did a lot of mental distraction and numbing in the first few episodes of this season. Sam threw himself into the Hunter's Hogwarts, and when Dean got back he spent a week in his room watching favorite old horror flicks. People do this all the time after trauma. Sure, these are some very resilient men, but they aren't always going to get up, dust off and kill the next vamp before taking a step. Sometimes they're going to flail around and act dumb and hide and eat too much and concentrate on anything but the real problem because it just hurts. too. much.

Again, just my take, and I can't pretend to know what the writers were thinking, but this is how MY Dean and Sam are reacting....lol

ETA and Sam's "grief beard" for me that was a "I can't look myself in the mirror because I don't know what the freakin' hell I'm going to do to get my brother back THIS time" beard.

Edited January 9, 2019 by Cambion

AwesomO4000 · January 9, 2019

15 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

His big speech was follow me, not us, and when he made it he had no idea Dean was staying home.

Warning: This is likely going to piss some people off. This is my opinion only, and I think it's just as valid as others' opinions and that I'm entitled to it. No one has to agree. So read on at your own risk:

Even if I interpreted it exactly this way - which I didn't - my next question is: What's so wrong with that?

Would that really be so awful of Sam? He wants to lead the group to get rid of the British Men of Letters that he feels betrayed him and rectify a huge mistake he made. What's so wrong about him wanting to lead this and maybe rectify this mistake he made by himself? Instead he's suppose to step to the side and make sure that Dean has equal representation just because. Well maybe Sam wants to step up and fix this one on his own, and my question is why the hell not?

In season 7, when Dean needed his revenge against Dick Roman for killing Bobby, Sam let Dean do what he needed to do. He didn't butt in on Dean's research or try to take over. He let Dean do it himself, because Dean needed to do that. When it came time to kill Dick Roman, the narrative didn't make it so that Sam also had to be there to make it "equal." That was Dean's vendetta and his mission and the narrative let Dean have that. Season 9... same thing. Dean said he was going to be the one to take on Metatron, and Sam wasn't there either, because it was more of Dean's fight. In season 11 with Amara, it was Dean's connection with Amara that was highlighted. As SueB showed above, Sam entirely gave over to this being Dean "leading this army," because this was Dean's thing he needed to solve / fix / beat. The narrative didn't insist on Sam having to be there, too, or be acknowledged as just as capable in order to make things "equal" there either. Sam had little role at all in that except to be a cheerleader and support Dean. And that was fine. I had no problem with that. I loved season 11.

So why when this particular beef with the BMoL is more Sam's beef can't it be Sam that leads the damn thing and maybe it's not as much about Dean this one time in how many seasons? It's not like Dean didn't have his own storyline in the episode, because he did, and in my opinion, it was a very good one. But why is it that when Dean has a storyline that has more to do with him, it's just fine if it's all about Dean without Sam really in the picture, but when a storyline just might have to do more with Sam, then Sam's expected to share the spotlight with Dean, too and not want to step up on his own?

After thinking about it, my opinion is that if the intention was that Sam and Sam alone should lead this thing and even take the initiative and think he alone should lead this thing, so he could make it right, then I say "good. Why not?" It's never been in question when Dean does that and Sam isn't given equal representation or even acknowledgement, so why shouldn't Sam decide he should take initiative and solve his own damn mess himself... even lead the way and maybe hope that Dean will support him in that endeavor as Sam has done for Dean before multiple times (as exampled above)?

That's my opinion after thinking about it. I don't think it should have to be apologized for if Sam gets a rare leadership role. It was more Sam's story. I think it was fitting that Sam end it and that it just be about Sam this time. Sam had enough times in recent seasons where he had little to nothing to do with the big battle and resolution and let Dean have the spotlight. Why should there have to be apologies when he finally gets a turn?

I don't think there should have to be... Only my opinion on that one. No one else has to agree with me, because miles vary and all that.

Edited January 9, 2019 by AwesomO4000
Ranting is not always compatible with proper grammar and spelling and such.

7kstar · January 9, 2019

10 hours ago, Cambion said:

Lots of stuff I agree with here. And lots of food for thought. I don't really have time to address everything, so just everybody know I liked reading your thoughts. this is exactly the kind of stuff I sought out a fan community for!

Anyway, I do have one question: I'm seeing references to things the writers said, where are these type of articles/interviews usually found?

Maybe by quoting you someone else will give a better hint. I'm a little tired but I think I've found some con videos in the media thread too.

Looks like my major expectation will happen. That Dean taken over by Michael won't mean much, so if you just enjoy the quick moment maybe it will be satisfying, somewhat. I don't mind Dean having traits unique for Dean and Sam having traits that are unique for him...I think this is the biggest issue. Too many times what is written isn't because this belongs to this brother but we need to say X and oh how about Sam says it this time. Next time we can have Dean or whoever. It's about what makes the plot work somewhat instead of this makes a great story.

It is perfectly fine for you to love what is happening on the show. I'm just agreeing that this season doesn't feel like it's doing anything other than showing some big point and then something else happens, oh wait we need a new big point, let's throw it in here. Making it not satisfactory or trying to please too many chiefs. maybe that makes sense, lol

Myrelle · January 9, 2019

19 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

For me it's basically like 5.22 over and over again. Even if you hate the Sam-character, it is impossible to argue that Sam didn't grab a hold on Lucifer and jumped into the cage with him and Michael. This is what is factually onscreen.

Dean's role in it can ne everything from nothing to kinda helpful sidekick to valid part, depending on your preferences and ideas.

And that is simply how it always works. They don't bother to give Dean the clear acknowledgment like this when they almost always go out of their way to prop other characters. It's noticeable if their approach is propping with everyone else BUT one character.

Propping is done to sell something to the majority of the audience. And frankly, most of the time it works.The writers are bad nur not so bad they don't intentionally use propping. Meaning they also intentionally do not use it for Dean. If they wanted to give the character AS clear an acknowledgment as every other character, they would do it. So why the either disinterest or anti-interest to give Dean positive things that can't be argued away and that don't have bis character specifically flapping in the wind?

The negative stuff, they are very clear with for him. No such vagueness.

This is how it's been under Dabb to me also.

And I will always hold that from S9B through S11 Carver simply tried to "balance" the show out better for Dean in terms of the main myth-arc storyline revolving around only one of the brothers. And while I wasn't thrilled with the execution of it in S11(you could feel Dabb's fingerprints all over that season and he's even said that Sam's leadership role was something that had been in the making for years before this season-and even if you don't/didn't read it, he still said it and that goes directly to writers' intention), I DID feel that Carver had somewhat succeeded in balancing things out better for Dean after S11.

But then along came Dabb, with his own idea of "balance"-that I would never expect any Samfan to argue or disagree with, btw-but who, in the mind of the few Deanfans who still watch this show, hoping to see Dean come into his own-individually and separate from his brother(and as Sam has been written in the past and is being written now, IMO)- actually just wrote Sam(and JP) as usurping the Dean leadership role entirely while pretending to give Dean the C lead involving a myth-arc role-behind Jack's A role and Lucifer's B, but with the bone being that it was in front of Cas' D role, I suppose-although the jury is still out on that one-in addition to regressing Dean back to being predominantly the blunt little instrument(ITA that it's for Sam now, instead of John), familial cheerleader, and/or comic relief role-and all of this, more than ever before.

So for me, we're back to that same type of imbalance in the writing that we had before Carver's own attempt-that being that only one of the two main characters is actually being written as a main character and only one of the lead actors is actually being written as a lead, and that one isn't Dean/JA-same as it was under Kripke, for the most part, but especially during S5 and under Gamble for most of her run, too-up until the second half of S7, which was too little and too late to try and start. IMO, of course.

7 hours ago, 7kstar said:

It is perfectly fine for you to love what is happening on the show. I'm just agreeing that this season doesn't feel like it's doing anything other than showing some big point and then something else happens, oh wait we need a new big point, let's throw it in here

I understand this perfectly and even if one claims to not have a favorite, I wouldn't argue or disagree with this view of the writing at all.

In fact, I think it's spot on and, to me, that's not writing at a professional level at all.

ILoveReading · January 9, 2019

20 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

For me it's basically like 5.22 over and over again.

I think this is exactly where the season is headed with Sam and his red-shirts battling Lucifer and Michael and Sam getting to take out both. Dean gazing adoringly from the sidelines because if he enters the battle, Michael might possess him again. Its a convenient way to leave Dean and Jensen out of the action.

Which is what Dabb wants. No one will ever convince me he doesn't hate the character of Dean and is doing his best to strip away Dean's legacy.

AwesomO4000 · January 9, 2019

6 hours ago, Myrelle said:

And I will always hold that from S9B through S11 Carver simply tried to "balance" the show out better for Dean in terms of the main myth-arc storyline revolving around only one of the brothers.

I wouldn't have had a problem at all with Carver doing this if in the process of doing this, he hadn't at the same time damaged Sam's character further after already doing an excellent job of that in season 8. In my opinion, he didn't only give the entire mytharc to Dean in season 9, he gave all of the point of view and strangely in the end, all of the moral high ground. All of the set up was switched around to make Sam the bad guy - and I've already expounded ad nauseum as to why I think this: a whole set of things which if just one had gone Sam's way wouldn't have made him look like the bad guy.

That was my problem with how Carver did things. It wasn't that he gave Dean the mytharc. I could've cared less about that. It was that under his reign, the brothers were kept at odds almost all of the time due to some manufactured something or other. And not only were they at odds, but at any one time, one or the other of them had to be shown as "wrong." Rather than both brothers having a valid opinion that just happened to be different, one of them was always wrong while the other was right. However, who was "right" and who was "wrong" changed around depending on the particular episode writer's prerogative or whichever way the wind happened to be blowing that day, because they couldn't even seem to pick something and stick with it throughout an arc.

And it started in season 8... the tone of how season 8 started out was not the same as how it ended. Season 9 was the same. Sam went from being victimized by Gadreel without his knowledge to maybe having potentially known something was up all along and calling Gadreel "a friend." From hapless angel host to crappy brother who was a hypocrite liar who just should have forgiven Dean for lying all that time to begin with. Gadreel went from being a villain to "misunderstood" redeemed almost hero. In my opinion, whatever convolutions the writers had to do to make sure that Sam and Dean were on opposite sides of the issue whether it made sense or not - that's what they did. (The "our real friends like Gadreel" thing is a perfect example of this, because that made little sense and if things weren't twisted around, they both should have wanted to kill Gadreel... heck Sam did want to kill Gadreel not just a few episodes before... but nope we had to have Sam and Dean always on opposite sides and with opposite outlooks whether they made sense or not.)

That was the thing that made me dislike that time of Carver's reign... except season 11. I loved season 11, mainly because all of that "the brothers must be at odds at all times" thing was finally done away with and they faced the problem together (I also thought that the quality of the standalone episodes was better in season 11). I think that may have likely been due to some of Dabb's influence, however, because even during season 10, we were still getting the brothers having to be on opposite sides with keeping secrets and lies and going off on rage filled tangents and such. And they still couldn't keep the tone consistent... was Dean "out of control" or not... or was it just Sam and Castiel being judgemental of poor Dean? The writers couldn't seem to decide, because even though they wanted Sam and Dean at odds and on opposite sides, they couldn't commit to who was "right" with any consistency, so they let it waffle back and forth so they wouldn't have to be clear about that... as I said: it seemed to me that the tone was trying to say that one or the other was "right," but who that was seemed to change with the writer or the direction of the wind.

Who was it that gave that quote "pick a lane!"?

mertensia · January 10, 2019

On 1/8/2019 at 11:00 AM, MysteryGuest said:

I don't see how Sam's taking more of a leadership role has in any way diminished Dean's natural abilities. Why does it have to be either or? At no time did anyone say that "now that Dean sucks, Sam's going to have to pick up the slack". That has never been said or even inferred, in my opinion. Any praise for Sam is not a slam against Dean. I love Dean and he is far and away my favorite character, but not everything good that happens to Sam is somehow bad for Dean.

We know that Dean's a strong and able hunter. We know he's a natural leader. We know he'd lay down and die for any of the people he considers family without batting an eye, and that he'd risk his life for absolute strangers. He can be impulsive, but it's always out of his desire to fix the problem. He's smart, intuitive, and kind hearted. All of these things are great qualities that Dean possesses and are the reasons why I like him so much. No "propping up", or positive words about Sam take anything away from who Dean is. In the same way that speaking positively about Dean in any way means that Sam is somehow less than. I honestly don't understand why everything is somehow looked at as a shot against Dean.

The writers have consistently fucked with both brother's characters whenever they've felt the need, but I agree with AwesomeO4000 that Sam has been the brunt of the worst of the character assassinations. I will just point to season 8 and leave it at that.

Preach it, sister.

Myrelle · January 10, 2019

16 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I wouldn't have had a problem at all with Carver doing this if in the process of doing this, he hadn't at the same time damaged Sam's character further after already doing an excellent job of that in season 8. In my opinion, he didn't only give the entire mytharc to Dean in season 9, he gave all of the point of view and strangely in the end, all of the moral high ground. All of the set up was switched around to make Sam the bad guy - and I've already expounded ad nauseum as to why I think this: a whole set of things which if just one had gone Sam's way wouldn't have made him look like the bad guy.

As a Deanfan, I feel the exact same way about what Kripke did to Dean in S4 and 5. Four was the season that Dean came back from hell with the realization that he liked torturing and was really little more than a natural born killer with daddy issues. And I've expounded ad nauseum on why, to me, S5 made Dean look wrong, wrong, wrong about everything concerning his brother and all that Sam had done or said to Dean in S4-and they also did this by having Dean behave completely OOC in the episode that supported that more than any other in that season-Fallen Idols. In fact, I point to that episode and the last few of S5 as the episodes that were more telling than any others in this series as to who the writers view as THEIR favorite character and the one that they've used as their own mouthpiece in regards to writer intent, more often than not, on this show.

So 8 and 9 worked plenty good as a balance to 4 and 5 for this Deanfan-and all aspects of both of them, tbh-but again, I would never expect any Samfan or even a bibro who just hates the brothers fighting and now wants to avoid that at all costs to agree with that sentiment or even consider it.

16 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

That was my problem with how Carver did things. It wasn't that he gave Dean the mytharc. I could've cared less about that. It was that under his reign, the brothers were kept at odds almost all of the time due to some manufactured something or other. And not only were they at odds, but at any one time, one or the other of them had to be shown as "wrong." Rather than both brothers having a valid opinion that just happened to be different, one of them was always wrong while the other was right. However, who was "right" and who was "wrong" changed around depending on the particular episode writer's prerogative or whichever way the wind happened to be blowing that day, because they couldn't even seem to pick something and stick with it throughout an arc.

And it started in season 8... the tone of how season 8 started out was not the same as how it ended. Season 9 was the same. Sam went from being victimized by Gadreel without his knowledge to maybe having potentially known something was up all along and calling Gadreel "a friend." From hapless angel host to crappy brother who was a hypocrite liar who just should have forgiven Dean for lying all that time to begin with. Gadreel went from being a villain to "misunderstood" redeemed almost hero. In my opinion, whatever convolutions the writers had to do to make sure that Sam and Dean were on opposite sides of the issue whether it made sense or not - that's what they did. (The "our real friends like Gadreel" thing is a perfect example of this, because that made little sense and if things weren't twisted around, they both should have wanted to kill Gadreel... heck Sam did want to kill Gadreel not just a few episodes before... but nope we had to have Sam and Dean always on opposite sides and with opposite outlooks whether they made sense or not.)

Again, as a Deanfan, I feel the exact same way about S4 and 5. And as for the "right" and "wrong" of their disagreeing, at least Dean was allowed to defend himself and his thoughts and feelings and POV, once in a while when they argued and they were allowed to stand.

I guess that was before he started taking his valium in larger doses under Dabb, though.

16 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

That was the thing that made me dislike that time of Carver's reign... except season 11. I loved season 11, mainly because all of that "the brothers must be at odds at all times" thing was finally done away with and they faced the problem together (I also thought that the quality of the standalone episodes was better in season 11). I think that may have likely been due to some of Dabb's influence, however, because even during season 10, we were still getting the brothers having to be on opposite sides with keeping secrets and lies and going off on rage filled tangents and such.

But the "brothers must be at odds at all times" thing being done away with came at the expense of Dean's POV. IIRC, no few Samfans at this site hated that purportedly being done to Sam and they were very loud and vociferous about it, but now that it's happening to Dean, it's okay because there's "peace" within the relationship?!-Bah! I call bullshit on that. Big time.

But, the present set of writers are seemingly good with that, too.

2 hours ago, mertensia said:

The writers have consistently fucked with both brother's characters whenever they've felt the need, but I agree with AwesomeO4000 that Sam has been the brunt of the worst of the character assassinations. I will just point to season 8 and leave it at that.

I think that Dabb is trying to remedy that for you, but once again, at Dean's expense.

And again I'll posit that Sam has only seemed to catch the brunt of the worst of the character assassinations because JP isn't as good at softening them as JA has always been.

I mean, from where I sit, JP has had the job of softening a sometimes self-involved asshole who really only just wanted a life of his own, but who is often supported and looked after by his loved ones anyway and who is, at his core, really a natural born leader of men; and JA has been given the task of softening a character who, at his core, is predominantly a natural born killer(and who sometimes even enjoys torturing too!), who gets very little support from his loved ones because he doesn't really need it that much.

Oh, and apparently only Dean is a dick and a bully on this show, too-so JA has to soften that purported aspect of his character, too.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Myrelle

ILoveReading · January 10, 2019

11 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

Oh, and apparently only Dean is a dick on this show, too-so JA has to soften that purported aspect of his character, too.

Don't forget to add bully to that list.

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Aeryn13

BabySpinach

BabySpinach

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment