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

[ILoveReading]

38 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I will be surprised if he does show up at this point. Not showing up for the 300th party and not even acknowledging it beyond having his sycophant assistant issue a weak-sauce tweet is bizarre enough, in my opinion, to question what his role even is now.

I keep going back to how positive they all were at that point that 300 was just another milestone and there was no (definitive) end in site. I simply don't believe anybody was lying or obfuscating at the time. Something happened - whether it was Jensen finally reading ahead and seeing the NougatNatural writing on the wall, or 'straw that broke the camel's back' situation, or what, but something went down that caused them to pull the plug. If it wasn't a personal situation (ie, Jared's health), then I believe it was the insult of being relegated to supporting characters in their own story, and I won't believe otherwise unless/until I hear something definitive from the horses' mouths.

This is feeling a lot like a scorched earth.  Part of me wonders if both Dabb and Berens are going to be gone at the end of this season.   It would explain giving two newbies scripts. 

But unfortunately, there is no one to really take over.  I doubt they'd be able to get someone new and talented to take over for one year.

TBH, as much as Dabb sucks, Berens would be worse.  But since Beren's is now writing Doom Patrol if he left that puts Buck/Lemming in charge. 

The only upside to that is that they see Dean as a killer so maybe he would be allowed to kill some stuff again.

There really is no one to step up.  Yockey, maybe but he probably doesn't have the seniority.

[Wateroflife]

32 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

There really is no one to step up.  Yockey, maybe but he probably doesn't have the seniority.

I would really like to see what Yockey could come up with out Dabb giving him plot notes, given that he is the only current writer that seems to care about earlier canon. If they have Singer to handle the $ issues, why worry about seniority. Unfortunately, I think you're right about BuckLemming. But honestly, except for Nick, I kind of enjoyed some of their episodes this season.

I wish Edlund would come back. I have always liked the direction he has said he would've pushed the show.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Wateroflife
When you accidentally type the opposite of what you meant to say

[Lastcall]

11 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

This is feeling a lot like a scorched earth.  Part of me wonders if both Dabb and Berens are going to be gone at the end of this season.   It would explain giving two newbies scripts. 

But unfortunately, there is no one to really take over.  I doubt they'd be able to get someone new and talented to take over for one year.

TBH, as much as Dabb sucks, Berens would be worse.  But since Beren's is now writing Doom Patrol if he left that puts Buck/Lemming in charge. 

The only upside to that is that they see Dean as a killer so maybe he would be allowed to kill some stuff again.

There really is no one to step up.  Yockey, maybe but he probably doesn't have the seniority.

All of this, especially the Dean gets to kill again part. Yes the past two episodes really do seem like housecleaning but I have little hope we will ever get rid of Dabb. I definitely see Berens as the type to leave in a huff so we have a fairly good chance he will leave (good riddance). I don’t think the CW is going to go out of their way to get new talent for a show with one year left. Supernatural doesn’t really fit in with Pedowitzs new vision for the CW. After reading his Hollywood reporter interview, I got the feeling that he was content to let the show wither on the vine with subpar talent and was banking on J2 signing on despite the fall in quality. The thing is Supernatural has a huge female following, exactly what Pedowitz says he wants. If he had nurtured the show when it went off the rails he may have gotten 2 maybe even 4 more years.

[Lastcall]

3 minutes ago, Wateroflife said:

I wish Edlund would come back. I have always liked the direction he has said he would've pushed the show.

What did he say?

[Wateroflife]

Just now, Lastcall said:

What did he say?

Responding in the ending thread

[ILoveReading]

7 minutes ago, Wateroflife said:

If they have Singer to handle the $ issues, why worry about seniority.

From my understanding, in TV contracts are everything and call sheet listings are everything.  So even if Yockey is the only one with talent, Buck/Lemming are probably head writers

[SueB]

While I genuinely believe the writers love the show and put their best effort forward, I think it's a fair read that "MW" on the table was both an acknowledgement that "Mary was here" (consistent with the 'enjoy the time while you have it theme') AND a "Fuck You" to Mary haters. 

I think they know they went too cold with Mary and deliberately tried to correct that in S14.  They showed more than sufficient scenes to acknowledge that she regretted being closed off.  She apologized multiple times for it BEFORE 14.18.  So, all the flashbacks in 14.18 could be just a lovely way of paying homage to the character but I also see why people feel those scenes were designed to show Mary in the best possible light in terms of relationships with each member of TFW 2.0.  Of course when you are doing an homage to a character- character flattering scenes are what you go for.  Like the Charlie scenes over her pyre.  And I do think Mary, MOTHER of the boys, deserved a long sendoff.  

Ultimately, the purpose of the character (Mary) being alive again was to provide more insight into Sam and Dean.  Personally, I think we got that. 

Bottom Line: I DO think the carved 'MW' provided a dual-pupose of reflecting a season's theme and providing a 'Fuck You' to Mary Haters*.  I think the flashbacks are consistent with character homage but are tacit acknowledgement that her cold nature in S12 (worst) & S13 (still not good) needed rectification. 

*and possibly bronlies. 

ETA:  This means, IMO, the writers didn't particulary screw over a character but may have given a middle finger to vocal haters. 

Edited April 12, 2019 by SueB
Added ETA and bolding

[gonzosgirrl]

Oh, I have no doubt this crew would insert a deliberate Fuck You to fans - their arrogance knows no bounds. But regardless of 'hating' Mary (which is entirely on them), or not, she in no way earned those initials - her sons did, with a lifetime of fighting battles in her honor. So, 'fuck me'? No sirs, fuck you.

Bottom line: Fuck you.

Edited April 12, 2019 by gonzosgirrl

[Aeryn13]

Yeah, at first they write her into the ground and in such a way that the character just makes people hate her and then they turn around and go "waaah, she was wonderful, screw you for hating her".

Before she was brought back in Season 12, I haven`t seen anyone hating on her. It was their own writerly incompetence for making that happen. And then blaming the viewers for it. Nice. 

And again, perfectly fitting that they could never write in ONE scene of her validating Dean. Even Sam got THREE scenes now, with the flashbacks. This "she sleeps on him" was supposed to show her great affection to him? Ahahahaha. People doze off on strangers, that happens. It literally just shows Dean being a pillow, like an object.

Where was "you`re a good man" or "you are a natural-born leader/hunter" or "I`m proud of you"? In all the so-called heartwarming scenes she had with Dean, she didn`t compliment anything about his person. EVER. And boy, was she in good spirits when Dean was possessed by Michael. Goofing around with Jack, all smiles and maternal glow. Dean who? 

As for Mary`s return providing insight into Dean, it was maybe one of the most tragic things in the show that someone who used to ba guiding light in the darkness for him when he grew up and as an adult cared less about him than basically anything and anyone that struck her fancy. That this wasn`t the most crushing disappointment of Dean`s entire life and that he actually believed her being back was in any way good for him and enriched his life, showed that he really has no sense of self and is so used to receiving barely scraps.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Aeryn13

[gonzosgirrl]

4 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

And boy, was she in good spirits when Dean was possessed by Michael. Goofing around with Jack, all smiles and maternal glow. Dean who? 

And this in the same show where they are trying so hard to retroactively redeem her cold, distant behavior to her sons. I can't decide if they (the writers and showrunners) are just that obtuse and honestly unaware of the tone - and if so, they really shouldn't, you know, write for a living. Or if it's really a deliberate attempt to pit fans against each other. Or if it's a real fuck you to Dean/Jensen, since they ended that sappy/glowy/motherly training session with Jack with an equally loving interaction with Sam. Dean who, indeed.

[ILoveReading]

If the writers are purposely writing fuck you haters then this just proves to me that they're untalented unprofessional hacks who care more about their egos then tell doing their job.

That being said this entire season feels like a fuck you to the entire audience because their pet project wasn't picked up.   First they gave Jensen the middle finger by dumping the Michael story.  They did the same to Jared in ep 14. 

Cas has been useless all season. 

As of right now, neither Sam nor Dean have a legacy because Jack took care of everything.  So they said FU to the shows history.

As for Mary's initials.  They dont' bother me that much, mostly because I don't think Sam and Dean's bond is really all that great.  I don't think they even like each other very much.  So the initials themselves don't mean much to me.

  But since I despise  Berens for throwing Dean under the bus because he had to know how fans would react to Dean telling Cas he was dead to them, I'm feeling petty (and can admit this) but I love that Mary's initials are there because I see it as an FU to Cas fans who have been begging for years to have his initials there.

But mostly I'm laughing becasue Jensen and Jared got the ultimate FU when they pulled the plug.

Edited April 12, 2019 by ILoveReading

[juppschmitz]

3 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

But mostly I'm laughing becasue Jensen and Jared go the ultimate FU when they pulled the plug.

This so much. 

[Jonesy]

Hardly think the J's are giving an FU to anybody or being petty...15 years is a long time, they just want to move on for positive reasons.

[SueB]

13 minutes ago, Jakes said:

Hardly think the J's are giving an FU to anybody or being petty...15 years is a long time, they just want to move on for positive reasons.

I agree. I've seen zero evidence that they hold resentment against the writers or TPTB. I think they've also made their peace with the fandom having different interpretations of the story than what they are playing.  So I don't see any FU coming from them towards fans.  More importantly, these two are grown-ass men who would not let any petty reason drive them to unemploy 200+ members of the crew in Vancouver. If they were divas, the show wouldn't have lasted 15 years. 

As for the writers, I don't see them having a "Fuck You" attitude towards an entire storyline**.  I DO think letting a little prop item be put in to irritate bronlies and haters is within their skillset. 

I've often seen writers/showrunners, for many shows on many channels, get irritated by the endless tagged hate they receive from entitled fans.  I'm not talking reasoned criticism.  Most seem to handle that well.  But the anonymity of the keyboard seems to encourage hyperbolic vitriol by people who feel the writers 'owe' them something.  There's been more than a few well publicized flappapalouzas in other fandoms.  Most writers are good at ignoring the hate (including ours IMO).  But while it's part of the ills of social media, the haters can be a downer.  Unlike the boys, who generally don't read SM but simply use it in 'broadcast mode', the individual writers are more likely to engage.  At least they used to.  I think more and more they are backing away from that -- which means losing the good and bad comments.  Having said this, they seem more aware of Twitter feedback than anything else.  So, I'm sure they're aware of the Mary hate and feel justified in providing feedback of their own via the prop.  I suspect someone will ask about it at SPNChi - I hope they do.  I also suspect 'MW' didn't get carved into the table without J2 being okay with it.    

**One exception, IMO, is Eugenie and Brad.  I think it's because of their love of all things Mark Pellegrino, plus Eugenie's particular "don't give a shit about fan input" that we still have eighty-two incarnations of Mark playing some character in a prominent fashion.  Less of a "fuck you" and more of a self-righteous "we are the writers and this is what we think is a good story" attitude.  

[FlickChick]

6 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I keep going back to how positive they all were at that point that 300 was just another milestone and there was no (definitive) end in site. I simply don't believe anybody was lying or obfuscating at the time. Something happened - whether it was Jensen finally reading ahead and seeing the NougatNatural writing on the wall, or 'straw that broke the camel's back' situation, or what, but something went down that caused them to pull the plug. If it wasn't a personal situation (ie, Jared's health), then I believe it was the insult of being relegated to supporting characters in their own story, and I won't believe otherwise unless/until I hear something definitive from the horses' mouths.

I firmly believe it was Jensen who initiated the discussion about ending the show next season. Think of some of the things he's said these last two seasons. He never has publicly said anything like that in previous seasons. When he made the announcement, he held it together and Jared looked like a kicked puppy. But then, Jared does wear his heart on his sleeve - and he could just have a hard time facing the ending. This is in no way a criticism of Jared. Even so, Jared would have had to agree or it wouldn't have happened.

IMO Jensen is a professional actor, rising above this shit writing until he couldn't take it anymore. As mentioned many times, they've become second-rate citizens in their own show so that these writers could either promote their pets, or be petty/nasty because their spin-off didn't get picked up. Dabb has successfully killed the golden goose of the CW. I sincerely wish that we get an announcement that someone else is taking over showrunning in the final season. Maybe that way, Nougatnatural would die. Of course, then Lucinatural would probably emerge. Can't win for losing. 😞

Of course both stars will only spout the company line for awhile. But Jensen even inferred that the writing wasn't there. Maybe somewhere down the road, something may leak out.

[AwesomO4000]

7 hours ago, PinkChicken said:

I can see why you might want Sam to be 'shown' right about more (important) things (beyond small researchy-lore crap or the ever changing perspectives by the writers on whether killing people/lying/self sacrifice etc. is acceptable this week and what Dean needs to be told), but I disagree that the 'tell' and textual praise makes up for it in any way.

I actually don't think we do disagree here. My point was that I don't think that the textual praise makes up for Sam most often being shown as wrong ...which is why I am frustrated. For me, it's damning Sam with faint praise. Give Sam the little things that aren't really important or give him moral "question of the day" stuff - which generally just comes across as pedantic, hypocritical, annoying or all of the above - which then is supposed to make up for how wrong Sam ends up being on the big things, even if they have Sam do stupid and/or out of character stuff to get him there in the first place.

What I was trying to say was that for me, it's not worth it, and I'd rather Sam not get any praise at all if it would then mean that narratively on the big things, he could be more than the screw up little brother who always makes the wrong choice, because he didn't listen to big brother Dean.

But sadly almost every plot lately come down to that eventually, and it's amazingly easy to figure out what's going to happen, because generally all I have to do is figure out how Sam is going to be "wrong" next and go with that.

The reason SueB gave me that mention was because I pretty much predicted it was coming a mile away. As was the case with the "I told you so" and the dead AU hunters, though to be fair, that one wasn't that difficult to see coming. Can't have Sam actually succeed there now could we... As long as Sam got lip service and the occasional "you got it chief"-like stuff that didn't actually mean much, they could then be free to actually show Sam as being as crappy a leader as they wanted... But I'm not that easily bought with pretty, shiny trinkets. I don't want lip service. I want Sam actually doing something important where he's not perpetually a screw up or makes the wrong decision.

And considering Sam's character history, in my opinion, it shouldn't be all that difficult. It seems, however, like it's been may seasons since it's happened... I'm trying to remember the last time even, and I'm coming up with little. The last big, heroic thing I remember Sam doing that didn't turn out wrong in some way (and even then it didn't really have much of an impact) was the season 6 finale.

I'm probably missing something though.

[SueB]

For the record, the MW was clearly NOT Sam Smith's idea but it did make her cry:

[trudysmom]

34 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

The last big, heroic thing I remember Sam doing that didn't turn out wrong in some way (and even then it didn't really have much of an impact) was the season 6 finale

You aren't counting his leading the raid against the BMOL?  I thought that was a pretty great heroic thing.  My particular favorite is Regarding Dean, when he went up against the witches to try to get the spell broken to save Dean. Maybe not BIG, world-saving heroic, but heroic, to me. 

[ILoveReading]

From @gonzosgirrl in the Nilishm thread

Quote

I get that, but how can you really speak with certainty about something you haven't seen for yourself. It doesn't happen often, but there are definitely times I dont see things the same as even other Dean fans do.  Hell, when I first got online after bingeing  I thought I must have seen a different series than some did.  

Because after waiting 9 years for this story and being so disappointed in the early episodes I couldn't let myself get my hopes up.   This show is very predictable.

Even in this ep, Dean was still useless against Michael.  Sure it was great that was locked in Dean's head, but it was Sam that was responsible for it.  Opening the door for me is no better than parking the car.

I knew it would just be all tell and no show with vague references and then we had an episode of pure Trash.  I said it was just going to be another point of no return.  That it would just be a way to kick Dean out of his own storyline.  I also know that Michael would get out and I also said it would be Sam that ended up with feeling guilty and would get the story after that.  Even this most recent ep we still have Sam blaming himself and Dean...well he looks pretty. 

So far my predictions are right on track.

Maybe I'll be wrong but I'll be shocked if Sam doesn't end up in the box with Jack.  They love to give Sam, Deans' stories.   I still think they are going to do a reverse s7 with Dean the last man standing.  

So I knew to watch it would just be setting myself up for disappointment. 

I don't fault Jensen, he did what he could and and he was very good in what he did but even he cant' do anything with nothing and they kept cutting the story off at the knees.   For this story I needed to see it on screen.  Acting just isn't enough. 

[tessathereaper]

6 hours ago, SueB said:

Ultimately, the purpose of the character (Mary) being alive again was to provide more insight into Sam and Dean.  Personally, I think we got that. 

I can't think of any insight we got into Dean that we didn't have already.  He accepts less than table scraps from his family because he doesn't think he actually deserves anything else.  He comforts his loved ones even at detriment to himself.  Nope can't think of any new insights into Dean Mary's pretense gave us.  Nor into Sam for that matter, though he did get another character to be his cheerleader about how wonderful amazing he is.  Dean who?

4 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

But mostly I'm laughing because Jensen and Jared got the ultimate FU when they pulled the plug.

I think so too.  Even if they weren't actually thinking that, which I'm sure they probably weren't, it's still there in that these  unimaginative, trite, vindictive writers wrote themselves right out of a job.  Because I don't think the show would be ending in Season 15 if they'd been otherwise than what they are. IMO "the writing was on the wall" was a loaded use of a cliche. 🙂  I also don't think most of them love the show if they did they wouldn't have been constantly trying to destroy all the best things about it or denigrating lead characters to build up their pets.

It's really not up to Jensen and Jared to keep the people on the show employed if they feel they are being ill used by the writers and show runners.  They aren't selfish for that and I don't think it should be suggested it is.  They've been more thoughtful for their crew than pretty much any lead actors I can think of.   

[DeeDee79]

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

I said it was just going to be another point of no return.  That it would just be a way to kick Dean out of his own storyline.  I also know that Michael would get out and I also said it would be Sam that ended up with feeling guilty and would get the story after that.  Even this most recent ep we still have Sam blaming himself and Dean...well he looks pretty. 

Damn. This is pretty accurate which makes it even more depressing that we can predict how Dean is going to get screwed based on Dabb's formula.

1 hour ago, tessathereaper said:

I can't think of any insight we got into Dean that we didn't have already.  He accepts less than table scraps from his family because he doesn't think he actually deserves anything else.  He comforts his loved ones even at detriment to himself.  Nope can't think of any new insights into Dean Mary's pretense gave us.  Nor into Sam for that matter, though he did get another character to be his cheerleader about how wonderful amazing he is.  Dean who?

Which is what he's been doing since the 1st season. Inquiries about his well being are often turned into lectures or condescending advice after he shares how he's feeling or dressing down if he decides to keep his emotions to himself. The only character that I can think of off the top of my head that hasn't done that to him has been Jody.

[AwesomO4000]

3 hours ago, trudysmom said:

You aren't counting his leading the raid against the BMOL?  I thought that was a pretty great heroic thing.  My particular favorite is Regarding Dean, when he went up against the witches to try to get the spell broken to save Dean. Maybe not BIG, world-saving heroic, but heroic, to me. 

I might have counted the BMoL raid except that the way that it was set up, Sam had to do something really stupid first - join the BMoL in the first place - and then explain how wrong he was and beg everyone to go along with him anyway in order for that to happen. For me it was at least as much an "I screwed up so now please help me make it okay" moment as a hero moment... maybe even more of the first, since really it was Jody who got the big kill during the actual raid.

And in "Regarding Dean" Sam went up against the witches, but got taken hostage almost immediately, because he went charging in without a real plan. I can see where you're coming from in that that could be considered somewhat brave, but for me the results there were rather suspect. Dean - despite being in the process of losing his memory and identity - was actually the one who killed the witches and saved Sam and Rowena, so I would more say that Dean was the hero of that one. If the outcome had been left solely up to Sam, Sam would have died, Rowena would have died, and Dean would have lost his identity.

So maybe points for trying, but not what I would consider one of Sam's shining moments for me.

The closest recent one that I can think of was Sam saying "no" to Lucifer. But again in order for that to happen, Sam had to do something fairly stupid or at least reckless - go to the cage alone even though Dean told him to wait - in order for that to happen. It also resulted in Lucifer getting a chance to escape due to Sam's bad judgement, so yeah, not the best example.

Hard to find a recent heroic moment for Sam without some kind of stupid thing that precedes it or happens because of it... which kind of detracts from the heroic part for me much of the time.

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

Even in this ep, Dean was still useless against Michael.  Sure it was great that was locked in Dean's head, but it was Sam that was responsible for it.  Opening the door for me is no better than parking the car.

But Dean didn't just open the door. It was his idea. He told Sam where and why to push (as in he was leading the fight). And it was also Dean's idea to put the screwdriver there and to make the screwdriver important... "My head, my rules." Without that, Michael would've just bashed open the door. And without Dean's plan, it just would've been Sam momentarily shoving Michael down with no payoff - maybe, because Sam pushed the way he did, because Dean directed him to.

In my opinion anyway.

[DeeDee79]

1 minute ago, PinkChicken said:

The only other time they came close to destroying a human-led organisation like that would be the Steins (who also had to go, obviously), but that was used as the biggest reddest flag as to how the MOC was affecting Dean, and (while badass) not heroic at all. 

The Steins weren't exactly human. They weren't much different from Doc Benton in Time Is On My Side since they were cheating death by replacing their organs with new ones. Their killing was bloodthirsty but it could have been seen as somewhat heroic since Dean's motivation was avenging Charlie's death. Also based on previous discussions on this site I have to add that while I know that fandom likes to harp on Dean killing the youngest Stein as being monstrous I don't blame him for it. Considering that the viewing audience knew that he wasn't like his family while Dean had no way of knowing that there was a Stein with a conscience considering all of his interactions with them I give him a pass on killing him. Just IMO.

[trudysmom]

I suppose we all have different interpretations of how their actions have led to bad decisions or heroic outcomes.  A case could be made that if Dean hadn't gone to the bar alone, he wouldn't have been roofied by the witch and lost his memory.  It's not a case I would make, but I can see how if you're looking for fault, or blame, you could find it.  I generally don't look for fault in either brother, unless it slaps me in the face.  I have them in boxes in my head:  Sam  smart, compassionate (sometimes to a fault) empathetic and Dean  badass fighter, passionate, loyal (sometimes to a fault).  While I am staunchly TeamDean, I don't begrudge Sam his attributes any more than Dean's flaws keep me from liking him.  

Different strokes for different folks and all that.

[Lastcall]

I really don’t see the BMOL raid as a heroic moment for Sam either. He basically assembled all the surviving Hunters and immediately got them all killed (except for Walt and Jodi). They also gave the hero moment to Jodi to set up Waywards. To be fair they flipped Deans side too with Mary getting Ketch. Dabb, of course, doubled down with leader Sam and we all know how that worked out.

I stand by my opinion that Sam is Dabb’s favorite and he thinks Dean should be a sidekick. He really seems to want Sam to be Dean but every time he tries, he makes everything worse. 

[DeeDee79]

7 minutes ago, Lastcall said:

I stand by my opinion that Sam is Dabb’s favorite and he thinks Dean should be a sidekick. He really seems to want Sam to be Dean but every time he tries, he makes everything worse. 

I agree with this as well. While I honestly think that Dabb has little interest in the Winchesters as compared to his side characters out of the two it's obvious that he prefers Sam.

[AwesomO4000]

10 minutes ago, PinkChicken said:

and noone wants to hear that from me.

I would have welcomed it, as I often feel/ felt like I am/ was alone on my own little island here in feeling this way.

8 minutes ago, PinkChicken said:

because to most people it doesn't seem to matter when Sam was wrong, what matters is that his heart was in the right place, and whether the other characters acknowledge that, and his feelings after the consequences hit, and whether or not he will get the chance to "make it right" which is why a lot of spec on here is that Sam will have a pretty big part to play at the end of the season (but somehow when they do this it just doubles down on the guilt in an attempt to make it work). 

- and yeah that's exactly what happened in season 12 because Sam had to ditch his giant MOL idiot ball.

It matters to me when Sam is made to be wrong, and generally after being made to do something stupid, out of character, or both. And I don't think that I'm the only one. I remember quite a few fans of Sam feeling this way.

I also don't think season 12 was all that heroic a moment for Sam ( @Lastcall explained it well, I think). For me it was just as much about showing Sam as wrong - in this case having to admit it in front of a whole bunch of people no less -  as it was anything else... oh and having Sam say he was just taking the easy way out, by not being a leader before. That for me was more insulting to Sam's character than anything else.

I also don't think Sam will get any type of hero moment just because he's being set up with guilt and fault. It didn't happen in season 9. It didn't happen in season 10. It didn't happen in season 11*** I already said what I think of season 12. It didn't happen in season 13 either. So why should it happen now, is my opinion?

*** speculation then was all about how Sam would actually be the one to stop Amara, so he could make up for his mistakes, just wait and see. I said nope, and it was a big nope. Dean got to be the hero even though it was Sam's screw up. Sam didn't even have a part in figuring out how to stop Amara. He was the cheerleader.

27 minutes ago, PinkChicken said:

I guess this is what we get when they try their damndest to woobify a character & I am glad that they haven't been able to do it to Dean (yet);

I guess it depends on how you see woobifying - I'm actually not so clear on the term myself. because I saw season 9 as pretty much a Dean woobifying party myself. I know some will argue "The Purge" speech and how could that be woobifying... For me it was, because it was setting Sam up to be wrong (which I guessed fairly soon after it happened). With the exception of that awful Ghostfacers episode where the writer didn't appear to be on the same page as everyone else, things went from Dean doing something questionable and Sam suffering for it to look at poor suffering Dean, Sam is so meeean not to forgive him even Kevin thinks so, and Dean was right, The Gadreel possession wasn't really that bad after all, Kevin dying was partly a good thing, and in case all of that doesn't make you see how dean's not really at fault and not really acting questionably here: Sam would do the exact same thing Dean would do anyway, so, see, Dean was just doing all he could to save his brother and Sam understands that now awwwww. Let's all go with our new "friend" Gadreel to save the world: Yay!!!

Good gravy how I hated season 9.

And I honestly don't get how I'm the only one who seems to have seen that whole situation as one big whitewash and woobifying job.

I guess maybe I don't understand what woobifying is, because if that isn't it, in my opinion, it should be.

(That's my story an I'm sticking to it ; ) )

2 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

While I honestly think that Dabb has little interest in the Winchesters as compared to his side characters out of the two it's obvious that he prefers Sam.

It's not obvious to me, but maybe I'm just clueless. But I also think I'm at peace now with just not getting it or seeing it that way.

[DeeDee79]

8 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

It's not obvious to me, but maybe I'm just clueless. But I also think I'm at peace now with just not getting it or seeing it that way.

Well considering that Dabb blew Jensen off when he asked for guidance while he took Jared out for a working dinner as well as Jared mentioning Dabb calling him to discuss his character it's obvious to me as I was stating my own personal opinion. YMMV!!

[BabySpinach]

This just goes back to Dean's deficiency in Tell and Sam's deficiency in Show.

The show clearly wanted to Tell us that Sam was badass and growing as a leader by leading the raid on the British MoLs. That's likely the impression that casual viewers got. However, it'd be easy to argue that the raid was unusually cold-blooded and brutal, which therefore fails this intended message through the Show. That's what this forum generally does, since we put a lot more thought into subtext and implications than casual viewers (and arguably more than the writers, lol).

Dabb's way of "preferring" Sam is, IMO, worse than his treatment of Dean in the long run. The latter may not ever get verbal credit for his virtues and general awesomeness, but it's still there to find on the screen. Sam gets all the talking-up and none of the substance, and that has a much shorter shelf life in terms of memorability and a lasting legacy for his character. 

Quote

I guess it depends on how you see woobifying - I'm actually not so clear on the term myself.

I define woobifying as artificially infantilizing and framing a character as a passive victim in order to elicit sympathy from the viewers. A woobie exists to be coddled and pitied and has little/no edges or roughness to their personality lest that status be threatened.

I don't believe that Dean was woobified in season 9. He was constantly kicked while he was down, but his suffering was intrinsically tied to the MoC plot and didn't solely exist to make the audience feel sorry for him. More importantly, he was a driven and active agent of the story (as opposed to passive victim) and practically composed of edges and roughness at that point in the show.

[tessathereaper]

1 hour ago, trudysmom said:

I suppose we all have different interpretations of how their actions have led to bad decisions or heroic outcomes.  A case could be made that if Dean hadn't gone to the bar alone, he wouldn't have been roofied by the witch and lost his memory.  It's not a case I would make, but I can see how if you're looking for fault, or blame, you could find it.  I generally don't look for fault in either brother, unless it slaps me in the face.  I have them in boxes in my head:  Sam  smart, compassionate (sometimes to a fault) empathetic and Dean  badass fighter, passionate, loyal (sometimes to a fault).  While I am staunchly TeamDean, I don't begrudge Sam his attributes any more than Dean's flaws keep me from liking him.  

Different strokes for different folks and all that.

And see to me Dean has been shown, pretty much since day one, to be more empathetic than Sam, for all that he's supposed to be Capt Empathy.  I also think, before the show went to town with Dean's an idiot who can't do research, can't do anything with technology and can't remember lore - Dean was shown to be every bit as smart as Sam.  Sam knew his book learning, but he wasn't generally a very creative thinker and he wasn't very good at thinking on his feet - Dean was excellent at taking knowledge and using it in creative ways to solve a problem, often on the spur of the moment but he was also very good at strategizing(heck they used in an episode, the Renaissance Faire one).  I dare say Dean probably showed more evidence of actual genius(which isn't just about what you know but how you are able to use it, he tended to be more creative and original).  

I don't remember Dean being particularly loyal to a fault to anyone, except his Dad, which was pretty understandable given the circumstances.  There was that time he believed in Castiel when Sam and Bobby were suspicious but I wouldn't say loyal to a fault there, he just needed more proof.

[ahrtee]

Not to start (another) fight, but just to toss this out:

I've seen so many complaints (for so long) about Sam acting OOC and doing things that make him look bad, saying that it's pretty much all the time.

So my question is:  if the writers have him do these things that are considered (or turn out to be) bad/stupid every time, maybe they're saying that that *is* his character?  So the times he does something good/is right about something is actually OOC? 

I know his character changed quite a bit after seasons 1-2, when he actually was empathetic and more or less the voice of morality in the family, but that changed pretty drastically by season 4 and seems to have continued since then.  So maybe the person he became after season 4 is just the adult he turned into (based on everything that happened to him over the past 10 years) and we shouldn't be expecting him to be the same person he was at 22?  After all, not everyone gets better with age.

(*going back into hiding now so I can avoid all the bricks and bats thrown my way...*)

[DeeDee79]

55 minutes ago, BabySpinach said:

I define woobifying as artificially infantilizing and framing a character as a passive victim in order to elicit sympathy from the viewers. A woobie exists to be coddled and pitied and has little/no edges or roughness to their personality lest that status be threatened.

This is the perfect way to define it. The recent pattern of Sam flinching ( and Cas at times ) when Dean shows anger is a good example of how they're woobifying the characters.

[DeeDee79]

40 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

So maybe the person he became after season 4 is just the adult he turned into (based on everything that happened to him over the past 10 years) and we shouldn't be expecting him to be the same person he was at 22?  After all, not everyone gets better with age.

Good point. This could be the way that Jared has chosen to portray Sam. After all, he was excited about the storylines for seasons 8 and 9; didn't he call one of them "a wet dream of a storyline"?

[AwesomO4000]

22 minutes ago, BabySpinach said:

I define woobifying as artificially infantilizing and framing a character as a passive victim in order to elicit sympathy from the viewers. A woobie exists to be coddled and pitied and has little/no edges or roughness to their personality lest that status be threatened.

I guess I don't see how Sam qualifies then either, since things generally end up being framed as his fault rather than being out of his control. Even in season 9 - when things were happening where Sam arguably could have been seen as a passive victim, the writers rewrote canon to say that Sam wasn't really a passive victim.

I also felt that - Dean getting violent due to the MoC aside - when it came to the Gadreel situation, it was generally framed in terms of sympathy for Dean. It was Dean's face we saw, Dean's POV we got. More writer sympathy and excuses were given to Gadreel than Sam by the end of season 9.

4 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

I've seen so many complaints (for so long) about Sam acting OOC and doing things that make him look bad, saying that it's pretty much all the time.

So my question is:  if the writers have him do these things that are considered (or turn out to be) bad/stupid every time, maybe they're saying that that *is* his character?  So the times he does something good/is right about something is actually OOC? 

I know his character changed quite a bit after seasons 1-2, when he actually was empathetic and more or less the voice of morality in the family, but that changed pretty drastically by season 4 and seems to have continued since then.  So maybe the person he became after season 4 is just the adult he turned into (based on everything that happened to him over the past 10 years) and we shouldn't be expecting him to be the same person he was at 22?  After all, not everyone gets better with age.

(*going back into hiding now so I can avoid all the bricks and bats thrown my way...*) 

It's a legitimate question, and one I can try to answer, but my answer may not make any sense to you, because we disagree on when Sam "changed."

For me out of character means something that seems out of the blue and against what a character has almost always done before. For me, it started happening in season 8. I had few problems with Sam's characterization until then.

The first example of course being Sam not looking for Dean. Not only did this seem to go against every other time Dean disappeared and/or died or was dying before:*** the writers didn't even bother to explain why Sam was behaving differently from almost every other time Dean disappeared or had died/was dying. They had Sam shrug and say that he didn't think it was his problem. That he deserved to just kick back. Except that not a half a season earlier, Sam had just rejected "normal" because they "didn't mean the same thing there."

They had Sam being a handyman - really since when? Yup, that's Sam always fixing mechanical things - except not ever, unless Dean was teaching him to do something. They didn't even bother to have Sam do something like working at a law firm or in law enforcement or something. They rewrote his past with Jessica - ironically while having Sam mention Jessica - to say that he'd never had normal before. Or someone he loved.

That's what I mean by out of character. When I as a viewer have to do mental calisthenics to try to explain Sam's behavior and was at one point even thinking that Sam had had a mental breakdown or was in a coma from having a car accident trying to avoid the dog he hit or something and/or that Sam was imagining everything concerning Amelia, because that made more sense than what was happening ...in my opinion, that's a pretty good argument that we have out of character behavior.

And for me that's just where the out of character behavior started. There was Sam's wanting to kill Benny for no apparent reason when there was never any precedence for that either, his implying that hunting wasn't worthwhile, also no precedence. It was to serve plot purposes, in my opinion. But once all of that stuff was introduced, I think it then became difficult to say who Sam's character was anymore. There were now all of these conflicting things.

It then became fair game to have Sam do whatever just to serve a plot point, because apparently Sam's personality and behavior could be whatever the hell they wanted it to be. Just keep the superficial "Samisms" - nerdy, prissy, pedantic, the occasional quirky piece  of knowledge - and everything else is fair game as plot fuel.

It's still happening now - most recently Sam's beat down by Nick.

*** Faith, Mystery Spot, No Rest for the Wicked, I Know What You Did... (flashbacks), Point of No Return, Time After Time... even The Curious Case... Though Dean wasn't dying per se, in my opinion I'd even include The Man Who Knew Too Much, since Sam took on hell memories so Dean wouldn't have to fight without his back up.

3 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

After all, he was excited about the storylines for seasons 8 and 9; didn't he call one of them "a wet dream of a storyline"?

They likely did sound good at first - especially season 9 - but much like the Michael storyline likely started out sounding good at first, that's not how it ended up. They're not gonna tell Jared "oh by the way, Sam's storyline is gonna be dropped and your character is not gonna end up looking so good in the end so that these new characters can look awesome in comparison and be heroic in Sam's place, okay?"

Season 9 especially was bad. Sam's story and POV went out the window after "First Born." It had all mainly been there as backstory to fuel Dean's arc and set up Gadreel's story. Those being done, Sam's POV and what he had been going through didn't matter any more. We could follow Dean's and Gadreel's story and Sam could just be bitchy background material until the end of the season when he'd learn a valuable lesson about how Gadreel wasn't so bad after all and how Dean was right and that he (Sam) should have appreciated his brother sooner.

[juppschmitz]

4 hours ago, PinkChicken said:

They went in there and slaughtered dozens of humans and the show decided it was okay, only for them to shy away from killing Nick 2 seasons later? no. 

This x 1000.

[juppschmitz]

2 hours ago, ahrtee said:

So my question is:  if the writers have him do these things that are considered (or turn out to be) bad/stupid every time, maybe they're saying that that *is* his character?  So the times he does something good/is right about something is actually OOC?

MTE whenever I see people complaining that a certain character has been OOC since forever.

Just admit it, you like your head canon, fan fiction character better than the character that's actually on the show.

I'm not exempting myself from this. If show!Dean, in season 14, still wants to bring a dead person back to life, even if that person is his mother, and even knowing all that he knows about disrupting the natural order, I know I'll have to stick to fanfic.

🤷

Edited April 13, 2019 by juppschmitz

[gonzosgirrl]

6 hours ago, ahrtee said:

Not to start (another) fight, but just to toss this out:

I've seen so many complaints (for so long) about Sam acting OOC and doing things that make him look bad, saying that it's pretty much all the time.

So my question is:  if the writers have him do these things that are considered (or turn out to be) bad/stupid every time, maybe they're saying that that *is* his character?  So the times he does something good/is right about something is actually OOC? 

I know his character changed quite a bit after seasons 1-2, when he actually was empathetic and more or less the voice of morality in the family, but that changed pretty drastically by season 4 and seems to have continued since then.  So maybe the person he became after season 4 is just the adult he turned into (based on everything that happened to him over the past 10 years) and we shouldn't be expecting him to be the same person he was at 22?  After all, not everyone gets better with age.

(*going back into hiding now so I can avoid all the bricks and bats thrown my way...*)

I have long said this. No bats from me.

[gonzosgirrl]

8 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

The Steins weren't exactly human. They weren't much different from Doc Benton in Time Is On My Side since they were cheating death by replacing their organs with new ones. Their killing was bloodthirsty but it could have been seen as somewhat heroic since Dean's motivation was avenging Charlie's death. Also based on previous discussions on this site I have to add that while I know that fandom likes to harp on Dean killing the youngest Stein as being monstrous I don't blame him for it. Considering that the viewing audience knew that he wasn't like his family while Dean had no way of knowing that there was a Stein with a conscience considering all of his interactions with them I give him a pass on killing him. Just IMO.

It was a turning point for Dean on the whole, but I had no agita over Dean killing the youngest Stein. He found them in his home, actively trying to destroy it, and he knew their mission. Of course the kid is going to try pleading- and Dean had no reason to believe him. Seems like the Steins had been doing bad/evil things for generations and if they had gotten the BOTD as they wanted, would've been unstoppable. Dean took them all out. I call that heroic. 

[ILoveReading]

10 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

But Dean didn't just open the door. It was his idea. He told Sam where and why to push (as in he was leading the fight). And it was also Dean's idea to put the screwdriver there and to make the screwdriver important... "My head, my rules." Without that, Michael would've just bashed open the door. And without Dean's plan, it just would've been Sam momentarily shoving Michael down with no payoff - maybe, because Sam pushed the way he did, because Dean directed him to.

In my opinion anyway. 

Ultimately, Dean wasn't strong enough to hold Michael.  Ideas need execution.  In the all the times that we saw Dean and Michael Dean was never able to beat him.  Michael chose to leave because Dean was annoying, not because Dean was strong enough to cast him out.  Sam was the one that actually got to lock him up.  Dean got taken out rather easily by he snake guy and then he threw Dean aside like trash and was stopped easily by Jack and earilier by the teenage mutant ninja sue. 

Now its just another event in Dean's past that he will never get closer for.  Michael will always have gotten the upper hand.   They even gave the aftermath of the possession to Sam.  Apparently with Dean his own trauma was literally not worth mentioning.

I'm expecting the same thing with Mary.  Sam will get all the guilt, focus and attention post Mary.  Dean will get to thrive on those trauma antibodies.  The ep is written by B/RL who made that statement.

Contrast that with how Sam got to confront and beat Lucifer several times.  The show even allowed him to confront and show compassion towards Nick.  Sam might not have gotten the killing blow but he got to let Lucifer know several times that he woudl't get the best of him.

I know after ep 12 that Dean would never be the one to actually deal with Michael when he got out.

Dean will never have that.  So it may seem like a minor thing that Sam was the one that shove him, but for me it was huge deal for that reason alone.  Being the one to shove michael would have at least given this viewer a small cathartic moment.

6 hours ago, juppschmitz said:

'm not exempting myself from this. If show!Dean, in season 14, still wants to bring a dead person back to life, even if that person is his mother, and even knowing all that he knows about disrupting the natural order, I know I'll have to stick to fanfic.

I could be mis remembering but until NougatSue came alone, I don't recall Sam or Dean making a deal to bring back anyone but each other.   They asked for people to be brought back, like Charlie or Cas, but the Winchester never attempted to manipulate events to actually make that happen.*

Yet another way Nougat boy ruined the show and the Winchester legacy.

I never felt that Dean brought Sam back because he couldn't live without him, but that he couldn't deal with the fact that he failed Sam.  IMO, "I couldn't live with you dead is not the same as "I can't live without you."  Dean also referred to Sam a his job. 

He also believed Sam was better than him. 

It was never just black and White "I need Sam in my life."  He wants Sam.  There is a difference.

  Its' why I never felt not bringing Cas back or making a deal was proof he loved Cas less.  I know that Dean would take a bullet for Cas (or any other member of his family).  I never needed him to eat one for Cas or anyone else.  I felt Sam was the special case because of Dean's twisted and warped "look out for Sammy" prime directive. 

It was complicated and messy and I loved watching it in the early seasons.  Now its just become a joke.  Thanks Dabb for nothing. 

*Like I said I could be forgetting something but I really don't remember the Winchester making a deal for anyone but each other. 

[juppschmitz]

6 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I never felt that Dean brought Sam back because he couldn't live without him

This always struck me as the most ridiculous and illogical argument. Dean made a deal that meant Sam lives and Dean dies (within one year). If he's dead he's not actually "living with Sam" now is he 🙄

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, juppschmitz said:

This always struck me as the most ridiculous and illogical argument. Dean made a deal that meant Sam lives and Dean dies (within one year). If he's dead he's not actually "living with Sam" now is he 🙄

But, he wouldn't have died if he made the deal. Honestly, he should have just killed himself.  It would have made more sense.  They're both going to die eventually anyway (theoretically).  Why consign one of them to Hell for eternity.

[catrox14]

20 minutes ago, Katy M said:

But, he wouldn't have died if he made the deal. Honestly, he should have just killed himself.  It would have made more sense.  They're both going to die eventually anyway (theoretically).  Why consign one of them to Hell for eternity.

Dean killing himself in s2 wouldn't have brought Sam back to life, which was the entire point of Dean making the deal. Deans angst both textually and subtextually was that Dean believed  he failed at protecting Sam. Not because Dean couldn't live without Sam. He couldn't live with Sam being dead. That is Canon dialogue from Dean and , back then the show and tell storytelling matched. Might be the last time that happened.

As an aside, I don't think anyone in the show itself back then, was saying Dean and Sam were erotically co dependent. And it always seemed to me that Carver had Zachariah take that swipe at them to get Adam to say yes. It was Zachariah being a dick and talking shit about the boys. Yet it  somehow became interpreted that Zachariah was bring truthful. Of course I think it was never meant to be accepted as a fact of what the show wanted the audience to believe. I don't even think codependency was on the table at all. Enmeshed relationship, yes 100%, but not codependency.  So whatever shit he said about the boys was not what Dean's deal  in s2 was about. To me, that was always a joke that was co-opted by fandom to support the agendas for Wincest and bronlies. The show itself was mocking that notion, not confirming it via a dick angel who was on a mission.

What I have always wondered is did Dean's deal save Sam from Hell. There is an argument to be made that Sam being tainted by demon blood ensured he would already have been in Hell upon death but canonically it was never mentioned one way or the other where Sam's soul landed.

[juppschmitz]

56 minutes ago, Katy M said:

But, he wouldn't have died if he made the deal.

How wouldn't he have died? 

He got one year, and one year only, to live with Sam, and THEN he died. Because of the deal.

Besides, he had lived without Sam fir the entirety of Sam's time in Stanford and accepted that they were apart.

Edited April 13, 2019 by juppschmitz

[Pondlass1]

The Winchesters are rarely logical.  They are flawed and damaged.  It’s what hooked me in at the beginning.  Almost all American tv is usually rose coloured and  wary of presenting main characters as broken. But Dean and Sam definitely have issues and we can relate, because none of us are perfect either.  

Their codependence is the stuff of crazy. It’s sick. It’s mental.  But it’s them.  It’s how they roll.  Especially Dean.  Remember... John did a number on Dean and it stuck.   Sam is his number one priority.  Sam doesn’t die ... Dean dies.

So that kind of writing is ok with me. Dean will do a deal every time. I’m cool with that 

The killing of the Stein kid parallels (for me anyway) the killing of Amy the kitsune.  Both Dean and the writing got major flack at the time. But not from me.

It’s the reason babies and puppies are impossible to kill. It’s built into our nature and survival that we cannot easily  kill the ‘pretty’.  Whereas ugly mofo monsters are a breeze to wipe out. Had Amy’s pretty face mutated into the kitsune brain drinking thingy most viewers would’ve had no problem with Dean stabbing her.  But she was pretty and vulnerable and her pretty eyes widened in surprise and so Dean got flack.

*It’s interesting that just as Sam killed Dean’s daughter her face warped into the amazon ugly face.. so no flack for Sammy.

Similarly had the teen Stein kid already sported a Frankenstein hand Dean shooting him point blank would’ve  hardly made a ripple.

In both instances Dean did the right thing imo

The writing isn’t like this anymore.  We’re rarely challenged or made unsettled under Dabb. Nothing goes deeper than a puddle. 

The Js know their characters.  I think Dabb will listen to them. It’s in his best interest surely?   I think BTS stuff will eventually come out.  Not finger pointing, but it’s obvious to us so it must be obvious to the guys that Dabb’s eyes were on his spin off prize not the story of the Winchesters.

The Js will give us a blast of a season and Dabb will just have to go along.

Edited April 15, 2019 by Pondlass1

[DeeDee79]

8 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I have long said this. No bats from me.

None from me either. I've always preferred Dean but I really liked Sam in seasons 2-3. The seasons that followed is when I shifted from bibro to a staunch Dean girl. Season 8 was the point of no return for me.

[Jeddah]

17 hours ago, ahrtee said:

I've seen so many complaints (for so long) about Sam acting OOC and doing things that make him look bad, saying that it's pretty much all the time.

 So my question is:  if the writers have him do these things that are considered (or turn out to be) bad/stupid every time, maybe they're saying that that *is* his character?  So the times he does something good/is right about something is actually OOC? 

There are many complaints that the writers make Dean look stupid, uncultured, and unimportant. Does that mean Dean actually is stupid, uncultured, and unimportant? I certainly don’t think so, but the argument you’re making goes both ways.

[Myrelle]

1 minute ago, Jeddah said:

There are many complaints that the writers make Dean look stupid, uncultured, and unimportant. Does that mean Dean actually is stupid, uncultured, and unimportant? I certainly don’t think so, but the argument you’re making goes both ways.

No.

It means that that's how the writers might see each character.

[ahrtee]

24 minutes ago, Jeddah said:

There are many complaints that the writers make Dean look stupid, uncultured, and unimportant. Does that mean Dean actually is stupid, uncultured, and unimportant? I certainly don’t think so, but the argument you’re making goes both ways.

Actually, most of the complaints I've seen about Dean is that he isn't being given anything to do, not that anyone objects to what he's doing.  Not exactly the same thing.  

I also think it's interesting that the new writers seem to get their characterizations from the early years, and make Sam emo (and not very good at fighting) and Dean gross and horndoggy.  Neither one is true any more, and definitely not the caricatures they've made them into.  

[DeeDee79]

35 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

I also think it's interesting that the new writers seem to get their characterizations from the early years, and make Sam emo (and not very good at fighting) and Dean gross and horndoggy.  Neither one is true any more, and definitely not the caricatures they've made them into.  

I agree. Dean and Sam have definitely regressed under the new writers.