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

[gonzosgirrl]

43 minutes ago, tessathereaper said:

That's because we Jensen fans are not asking it.  We are their equivalent but most aren't quite that petty. :D 

If I wasn't at work, I'd be petty enough to do it, just because of the way they do it to Jensen all the time. 🙂

Perhaps when the actual interview/article comes out...

Thing is, this is actually about the show and the season, not some stupid, throwaway, fifteen second 'happy anniversary' wish to something completely unrelated to the show or its story. The hypocrisy abounds.

Of course Dabb and Jared would do it together though - maybe they discussed it over dinner while Jensen was twisting in the wind over how to approach Michael/Dean.

Have I mentioned lately how much I despise Dabb? Because I do.

[Myrelle]

7 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Perhaps when the actual interview/article comes out...

Thing is, this is actually about the show and the season, not some stupid, throwaway, fifteen second 'happy anniversary' wish to something completely unrelated to the show or its story. The hypocrisy abounds.

Of course Dabb and Jared would do it together though - maybe they discussed it over dinner while Jensen was twisting in the wind over how to approach Michael/Dean.

Have I mentioned lately how much I despise Dabb? Because I do.

Me too.

And I seriously wish that, at this point, I could mute any interviews other than those given by Jensen from my phone entirely-including and especially JP's.

[ILoveReading]

This interview is on a Sunday.  (SPN's TCA day).  So its not like they have the excuse of Jensen's filming.

[Myrelle]

It just occurred to me that when any showrunner for this show states that you can't make everyone happy that's code for the Dean fandom.

[starfishka]

There is still hope Jensen will be interviewed by somebody else. Or that he has something better to do on that particular Sunday.

[gonzosgirrl]

16 minutes ago, starfishka said:

There is still hope Jensen will be interviewed by somebody else. Or that he has something better to do on that particular Sunday.

I'm certain he will and/or does, but I doubt it will be with the Showrunner and #1 On The Call Sheet.

ETA: At this point, I really don't much care any more. I hope that Jensen has other irons in the fire and that we'll be getting lots of 'what's next' interviews as the season wears on. I'm only commenting on this because of the hypocrisy of dragging Jensen and/or whoever asked him to do that non-show-related SDCC blip because Jared wasn't involved (regardless of the possible reasons for it), meanwhile the insults to Jensen and his character just go on and on, and the crickets chirp.

Edited July 31, 2019 by gonzosgirrl

[starfishka]

 

 

2

 Advanced issues found

▲

 

 

1

4 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I'm certain he will and/or does, but I doubt it will be with the Showrunner and #1 On The Call Sheet.

Tbh  I don´t care. At this point, I don't want him to do it with the Showrunner or even with Jared. 

[Myrelle]

16 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I'm certain he will and/or does, but I doubt it will be with the Showrunner and #1 On The Call Sheet.

ETA: At this point, I really don't much care any more. I hope that Jensen has other irons in the fire and that we'll be getting lots of 'what's next' interviews as the season wears on. I'm only commenting on this because of the hypocrisy of dragging Jensen and/or whoever asked him to do that non-show-related SDCC blip because Jared wasn't involved (regardless of the possible reasons for it), meanwhile the insults to Jensen and his character just go on and on, and the crickets chirp.

It is becoming ludicrous.

The CC thing was just a general blurb about the convention. 

Dean Who? Jensen Who?

This is a final season show-related interview with showrunner inclusion FCOL.

[DeeDee79]

7 hours ago, starfishka said:

Tbh  I don´t care. At this point, I don't want him to do it with the Showrunner or even with Jared. 

I agree. I can't wait until he's done with this bulls!@t and can move onto greater things.

[starfishka]

7 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

I agree. I can't wait until he's done with this bulls!@t and can move onto greater things.

Me too. I just hope he doesn't plan to take a role in another CW show.

[Aeryn13]

2 hours ago, starfishka said:

Me too. I just hope he doesn't plan to take a role in another CW show.

He already said he'd only be interested in 13 ep or so shows, something like Netflix content. No more 20+ ep network shows.

And CW is no longer the network for him age-wise to be honest. 

[Aeryn13]

So the TCA press thing is this Sunday. Where apparently this interview will take place. Jensen is going to it as well - he is doing the panel - so maybe he will be interviewed by another media person? Maybe with Singer if they split them up in "teams"?

[gonzosgirrl]

3 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

So the TCA press thing is this Sunday. Where apparently this interview will take place. Jensen is going to it as well - he is doing the panel - so maybe he will be interviewed by another media person? Maybe with Singer if they split them up in "teams"?

I'm just gonna tell myself that Jensen chooses not to interview with Dabb. 

[ILoveReading]

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I'm just gonna tell myself that Jensen chooses not to interview with Dabb. 

Misha and Alex will apparently be there too.  We can't get a break from this damn character even in promo stuff.

Edited August 3, 2019 by ILoveReading

[gonzosgirrl]

7 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

From the TCA's

http://www.givememyremote.com/remote/2019/08/04/the-cw-at-tca-executive-session-live-blog-4/

Will there be another take on SUPERNATURAL’s spinoff? “I’ve been involved in two spinoffs that didn’t connect,” Pedowitz says. He says there has been no conversations and the show’s “essence and blood is Jared and Jensen.”

Too bad he didn't/couldn't/wouldn't make his showrunner write the show with this is mind. Maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

[Aeryn13]

7 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Too bad he didn't/couldn't/wouldn't make his showrunner write the show with this is mind. Maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

Well, hindsight is 20/20. I can get it from the perspective of Pedowitz and Roth, though. For some very weird, probably supernatural, reason the show still was a valid ratings contender for CW standards, even when the bottom fell out creatively.

[gonzosgirrl]

4 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Well, hindsight is 20/20. I can get it from the perspective of Pedowitz and Roth, though. For some very weird, probably supernatural, reason the show still was a valid ratings contender for CW standards, even when the bottom fell out creatively.

Yep. But (IMO of course) Jensen (at least) was among those of us unhappy with the story to pull the plug. Either he didn't complain, or they didn't listen. Either way, they killed their golden goose - and no one will convince me it was about spending more time in Texas. I truly hope Jensen already has something in the pipeline - something that was too good to pass up for another season or three of something that was no longer satisfying.

[gonzosgirrl]

This thread of comments from the TCAs - I don't think there is any spoilers in there, and I don't know where else to express my frustration but this thread.

This stuff... 

Alex: Ultimately we are in service of the Winchester's story.

That's a nice idea, and it should be the truth, but it's most certainly not what ended up on the screen, and it frustrates me beyond reason that they could possibly believe it did.

[SueB]

I’ve always seen Alex’s story as a means to insight for the boys: His personality is essentially Sam, Dean, and Cas combined.  More importantly, we got to see them essentially raise a child.  

[Aeryn13]

26 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

This thread of comments from the TCAs - I don't think there is any spoilers in there, and I don't know where else to express my frustration but this thread.

This stuff... 

Alex: Ultimately we are in service of the Winchester's story.

That's a nice idea, and it should be the truth, but it's most certainly not what ended up on the screen, and it frustrates me beyond reason that they could possibly believe it did.

Hahaha, yeah, sure like last Season when Dean was thrown out at his storyline without even a single moment of aftermath and with a little filler moment and all got handed to 5 or so episodes of full-time Jack storyline. Like that?

[catrox14]

We

4 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

This thread of comments from the TCAs - I don't think there is any spoilers in there, and I don't know where else to express my frustration but this thread.

This stuff... 

Alex: Ultimately we are in service of the Winchester's story.

That's a nice idea, and it should be the truth, but it's most certainly not what ended up on the screen, and it frustrates me beyond reason that they could possibly believe it did.

Lol.  sure Jared... Misha wont get the spinoff with Alex...,Alex will get the spinoffband Cas will be excised from the story just like he was already... which is shitty for Misha (and also exactly what ive been saying since Alex came aboard).  WS was never the spinoff they wanted other than Berens. It was always a red herring IMO.

[PAForrest]

6 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

This thread of comments from the TCAs - I don't think there is any spoilers in there, and I don't know where else to express my frustration but this thread.

This stuff... 

Alex: Ultimately we are in service of the Winchester's story.

That's a nice idea, and it should be the truth, but it's most certainly not what ended up on the screen, and it frustrates me beyond reason that they could possibly believe it did.

Yeah, that's a nice tap dance. Not all all what's been happening the last three years, especially in season 14 of "Winchesters Who?" And taking a storyline away entirely from a lead actor/character to give to a showrunner's young Mary Sue is not even a little "in service of the Winchester's story".

But, sure, it's the thing you're supposed to say in front of the bloggers, I guess.

And Jensen, I'm going to kick your pretty ass if you don't stay away a really really really long time.

[catrox14]

4 hours ago, PAForrest said:

Yeah, that's a nice tap dance. Not all all what's been happening the last three years, especially in season 14 of "Winchesters Who?" And taking a storyline away entirely from a lead actor/character to give to a showrunner's young Mary Sue is not even a little "in service of the Winchester's story".

But, sure, it's the thing you're supposed to say in front of the bloggers, I guess.

And Jensen, I'm going to kick your pretty ass if you don't stay away a really really really long time.

I guess that is why Dabb et al, had Jack declare himself a Winchester and it wasnt disputed on screen...so now the Winchester Bros story includes Jack and is really only ever going to be about Jack, since now its being spun that is 'evolved' to being about TFW being Jack's Dads which never flew at all. Didnt Jared say in a different interview that he was not Jack's Dad?

[gonzosgirrl]

Spoiler

24 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

Oh God!  You don't think that Dean is going to become Chuck (the Light) and Sam is going to become the Amara (the Darkness) in order to keep the balance in the universes?

22 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Kind of, yes. It will be utterly weird and random but sonething in the ballpark.

Dunno how else to do this.

Spoiler

And since this would, in theory, make Dean the 'bad guy' (Chuck, the light-turned-villain) and Sam the 'good guy' (Amara the darkness-turned-hero), it sounds precisely like Dabbernatural.  And Jensen had to be sold on the ending, while Jared is in love with it, so yeah, I'm afraid that's far too likely a possibility.

Edited August 8, 2019 by gonzosgirrl

[Aeryn13]

33 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

  Reveal spoiler

Dunno how else to do this.

  Reveal spoiler

And since this would, in theory, make Dean the 'bad guy' (Chuck, the light-turned-villain) and Sam the 'good guy' (Amara the darkness-turned-hero), it sounds precisely like Dabbernatural.  And Jensen had to be sold on the ending, while Jared is in love with it, so yeah, I'm afraid that's far too likely a possibility.

In a way, yes, but I think it`s gonna be so weird 

Spoiler

because a) they never even set up those entities and possession, b) the parallels aren`t there, at least for Michael and Lucifer they had "older brother, dutiful son" vs. "younger brother, rebellious son" which nominally fit with the brothers in their Season 1 introduction and c) God is still God and you`t ever truly shake the perception of him as a "good" guy whereas the Darkness is even called the Darkness.

I think if they go there, they will go with some version of "okay, you two (Chuck and Amara) screwed it up so we have to step in".

I do not believe Jensen disliked it or would dislike it on account of who Dean got "possessed" by (if that happens) but more THAT it happens.   

[gonzosgirrl]

11 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

In a way, yes, but I think it`s gonna be so weird 

  Hide contents

because a) they never even set up those entities and possession, b) the parallels aren`t there, at least for Michael and Lucifer they had "older brother, dutiful son" vs. "younger brother, rebellious son" which nominally fit with the brothers in their Season 1 introduction and c) God is still God and you`t ever truly shake the perception of him as a "good" guy whereas the Darkness is even called the Darkness.

I think if they go there, they will go with some version of "okay, you two (Chuck and Amara) screwed it up so we have to step in".

I do not believe Jensen disliked it or would dislike it on account of who Dean got "possessed" by (if that happens) but more THAT it happens.   

Spoiler

I disagree. Dean has never had much use for Chuck/God, and 'becoming' him would not be something he's on board with. Dean is all about free will and doing the right thing. Would he 'sacrifice' himself if it meant saving the world? Absolutely. But I can absolutely see Jensen having a problem with Dean becoming "God", regardless of good or bad.

[Aeryn13]

9 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

  Hide contents

I disagree. Dean has never had much use for Chuck/God, and 'becoming' him would not be something he's on board with. Dean is all about free will and doing the right thing. Would he 'sacrifice' himself if it meant saving the world? Absolutely. But I can absolutely see Jensen having a problem with Dean becoming "God", regardless of good or bad.

Spoiler

I think we got our wires crossed 🙂 because that`s exactly what I wanted to say. That Jensen wouldn`t dislike it on account of being possessed by either a good or bad guy but that it happened at all. I don`t think he would wanna be "God" or the Darkness or anything like it.

[Casseiopeia]

This should probably be in bitter spoilers but maybe

Spoiler

The scenario is something like these brothers are forever bound to each other anyway so they end up kind of becoming corporeal entities/whatever in order to protect the universe? Which is even more weird...or worse and I can see why Jensen would have a problem with it.

Edited August 8, 2019 by Casseiopeia

[Myrelle]

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

  Reveal spoiler

I think we got our wires crossed 🙂 because that`s exactly what I wanted to say. That Jensen wouldn`t dislike it on account of being possessed by either a good or bad guy but that it happened at all. I don`t think he would wanna be "God" or the Darkness or anything like it.

Spoiler

IA.

And the biggest problem for me would be as Gonzosgirl fears-that Dabb just couldn't resist the urge to turn Dean into the bad guy and Sam into the sole good guy and sole savior of the world once again.

I think they even told Jensen that the ending would depend a lot on how the two actors sold it, so still more reason, AFAIC, to be extremely leery of  it and especially of the actual writing involved.

Edited August 8, 2019 by Myrelle
revision

[SueB]

22 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

  Reveal spoiler

I think we got our wires crossed 🙂 because that`s exactly what I wanted to say. That Jensen wouldn`t dislike it on account of being possessed by either a good or bad guy but that it happened at all. I don`t think he would wanna be "God" or the Darkness or anything like it.

Spoiler

I've long thought that the series ending is to get back to a pseudo pre-interfence position. Demons mostly in Hell, Heaven functioning but not being dicks, Purgatory just motoring on.  If that means the boys have to do it themselves by being "Light" and "Dark", that seems pretty OTT.  They're not cosmic beings.  Having said all this, if it goes in that direction, I have to believe that "Free Will" still applies.  Which means Dean doesn't have to be 'evil'.  Dean will be Dean.  Sam will be Sam. No matter what powers.

But I think it far more likely that while there may be some temporary power-up to clean up messes, they end up human, with their Free Will intact, and in the same boat (living/dying/at the beach.....).  

[Myrelle]

Spoiler

I'm still thinking that Dean might not even be possessed by Chuck  and that it will just once again only be Sam who has to power up via Amara to save the world and Dean will just be saddled with the support role AKA the wind beneath Sam's wings.

And maybe at the end, Dean will wind up going with Amara because she promises him that he will be with Sam.

And I know it sounds barf-worthy with nothing in it for Dean but once again to become simply the support system for HeroSam, but that's been Dabb's MO since he took over and I can't allow myself to hope or think there will be more.

And JP cut Jensen off at the knees by joining in on the Yay! train for it in public and to the fandom, so for him to veto or even object to it leaves him as the odd man out and the only one who won't give it a thumbs up which would likely make him uncomfortable, so instead we're getting this reluctant embracing, even while he knows that his own fandom is getting screwed over once again.

Sorry for the negativity, but JP's Unadulterated Love for it spells bad news to me and smells like nothing but more of the same from Dabb and co. to me. 

[gonzosgirrl]

1 hour ago, Myrelle said:

  Hide contents

I'm still thinking that Dean might not even be possessed by Chuck  and that it will just once again only be Sam who has to power up via Amara to save the world and Dean will just be saddled with the support role AKA the wind beneath Sam's wings.

And maybe at the end, Dean will wind up going with Amara because she promises him that he will be with Sam.

And I know it sounds barf-worthy with nothing in it for Dean but once again to become simply the support system for HeroSam, but that's been Dabb's MO since he took over and I can't allow myself to hope or think there will be more.

And JP cut Jensen off at the knees by joining in on the Yay! train for it in public and to the fandom, so for him to veto or even object to it leaves him as the odd man out and the only one who won't give it a thumbs up which would likely make him uncomfortable, so instead we're getting this reluctant embracing, even while he knows that his own fandom is getting screwed over once again.

Sorry for the negativity, but JP's Unadulterated Love for it spells bad news to me and smells like nothing but more of the same from Dabb and co. to me. 

Spoiler

The only worse scenario that this (for me) is Dean being the support/flunky for Jack instead of Sam. But yeah, given Jared's UL for it, I doubt that's the case. I, too, wish I had even a modicum of faith in Dabb not to fuck us over. Even Jensen 'coming around' to it gives me little hope, as he's a loyal employee, even to his own detriment at times. I'm guessing Dabb & Co got wind of his more candid thoughts in the initial interviews and got him to walk it back. My opinion, as always.

[Aeryn13]

I got burned last Season when I stupidly predicted they would be keeping Michael in Dean`s head till the Finale and actually pay off that storyline after he became "the cage". I figured this would be the way for their lazy asses to keep the story going even while ignoring it for episodes on end. 

Then Dean got knocked out and bam, Rowena!Michael and Jack battled it out while not a peep was spent on Dean`s so-called story anymore. Sam got aftermath episodes and the story itself revolved around Jack and nothing but Jack. 

That taught me never once making a Dean-positive prediction anymore. So I won`t. Expecting the very worst from Dabb and his ilk is certainly the most realistic option.  

[AwesomO4000]

3 hours ago, Myrelle said:

  Reveal spoiler

I'm still thinking that Dean might not even be possessed by Chuck  and that it will just once again only be Sam who has to power up via Amara to save the world and Dean will just be saddled with the support role AKA the wind beneath Sam's wings.

And maybe at the end, Dean will wind up going with Amara because she promises him that he will be with Sam.

And I know it sounds barf-worthy with nothing in it for Dean but once again to become simply the support system for HeroSam, but that's been Dabb's MO since he took over and I can't allow myself to hope or think there will be more.

And JP cut Jensen off at the knees by joining in on the Yay! train for it in public and to the fandom, so for him to veto or even object to it leaves him as the odd man out and the only one who won't give it a thumbs up which would likely make him uncomfortable, so instead we're getting this reluctant embracing, even while he knows that his own fandom is getting screwed over once again.

Sorry for the negativity, but JP's Unadulterated Love for it spells bad news to me and smells like nothing but more of the same from Dabb and co. to me. 

And I'm still trying to figure out how in any of this Dabb made Sam a "hero" of anything. He made sure that Sam was a failure at leading. He made sure that Sam was wrong about Jack - as interviews @SueB quoted somewhere stated, that was the point of that story arc: that Sam was wrong about Jack. And in the end, Dabb showed that Sam was even a failure as a hunter, considering he got killed by human Nick. As a final insult, Dabb made sure that it was Sam's fault the Chuck got pissed off and started yet another apocalypse.

If this is Dabb making Sam a hero, then please make it stop.

As for Sam being the soul hero of "Swan Song" - which I don't buy, but pretend I did - Carver made sure to set things "straight" in season 8 and 9 - with interest - by not only making Sam a failure (season 8), but by not even giving him the wind beneath Dean's wings role in season 9, instead making Sam the bad guy who had to learn a lesson about how Dean was right and the being who took over his body, violated his most personal thoughts, and did horrible things with his body was really just "misunderstood" and maybe wasn't such a bad guy after all.

I don't think anyone is going to be able to convince me that that wasn't much worse than Dean being given a supporting role in season 5... and then Carver capped off his "making things even" by having Sam start yet another apocalypse... A "making things even" that's still happening now - shortened arc aside, the only brother who's had powers or been possessed by anyone in the last 5 1/2 seasons has been Dean.

I don't see how that's so much better then what happened to Dean in season 5 where at least Dean didn't have a negative role... unlike Sam for the last how many seasons now? 7?

[Aeryn13]

15 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

And I'm still trying to figure out how in any of this Dabb made Sam a "hero" of anything. He made sure that Sam was a failure at leading. He made sure that Sam was wrong about Jack - as interviews @SueB quoted somewhere stated, that was the point of that story arc: that Sam was wrong about Jack. And in the end, Dabb showed that Sam was even a failure as a hunter, considering he got killed by human Nick. As a final insult, Dabb made sure that it was Sam's fault the Chuck got pissed off and started yet another apocalypse.

If this is Dabb making Sam a hero, then please make it stop.

As for Sam being the soul hero of "Swan Song" - which I don't buy, but pretend I did - Carver made sure to set things "straight" in season 8 and 9 - with interest - by not only making Sam a failure (season 8), but by not even giving him the wind beneath Dean's wings role in season 9, instead making Sam the bad guy who had to learn a lesson about how Dean was right and the being who took over his body, violated his most personal thoughts, and did horrible things with his body was really just "misunderstood" and maybe wasn't such a bad guy after all.

I don't think anyone is going to be able to convince me that that wasn't much worse than Dean being given a supporting role in season 5... and then Carver capped off his "making things even" by having Sam start yet another apocalypse... A "making things even" that's still happening now - shortened arc aside, the only brother who's had powers or been possessed by anyone in the last 5 1/2 seasons has been Dean.

I don't see how that's so much better then what happened to Dean in season 5 where at least Dean didn't have a negative role... unlike Sam for the last how many seasons now? 7?

The Series Finale will be different, though. Whatever goes down in it will be the lasting impression. People will hardly remember entire Seasons prior but how the Series ended? They probably will. 

Also, I don`t think they made sure Sam was a failure at leading. The "tell" of it - which overpowered anything shown -  was that he was great and a natural. Even Mary complimented him on it. In three Seasons on the show, she never paid a compliment to Dean, not once, least of all how amazing he was. She said something like that to Sam twice. In her final retcon episode with the rainbow glitter, even there, Dean got nothing.

Since Dean never got a leadership arc or shown as a leader explicitely, I fully believe the current producers don`t see him as leadership material in the first place. I honestly don`t think they see anything good in the character beyond maybe revolving around others. That is when it doesn`t bug them that he sucks the air out of the scenes. But really, he is a sidekick to them. Jack is more lead material for Dabb and co.

Edited August 9, 2019 by Aeryn13

[AwesomO4000]

8 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

The "tell" of it - which overpowered anything shown -  was that he was great and a natural.

I'm not generally swayed by simple "tell." People can tell me they only want what's best for me, but I'm not going to believe them if at the same time they are figuratively stabbing me in the back. In the same vein, it's hard for me to believe that the message was "Sam is a great leader" when what they showed me was that it was actually Maggie who lead the troupes at the critical times, and then oh, yeah, she and everyone else got killed under Sam's watch. Few things say failure to me like getting all the people you are leading killed for no important reason (as in they didn't die heroically while accomplishing something in battle, they were just unceremoniously killed.)

It's like in those comedies where the police say "Nothing to see here, folks! Everything's under control!" while chaos is happening all around them. Sorry, but just like that kind of scenario, the words aren't going to "overpower" what I'm being shown. In my opinion, few things show me that the writers don't think a character is a good leader than someone else (Maggie) getting the leader role when it counted and then the supposed "leader" watching helplessly as all his men are killed. That pretty much = big fat failure, in my opinion, and no amount of "nothing to see here folks" is going to make me unsee it.

And maybe that might have been an aberration, but it was the same exact thing Dabb showed me at the end of season 12 - Sam getting the person he was "in charge" of killed (vs Dean who saved his civilian - twice) oh, and himself (Sam) killed to boot and the some more people in his second plan. The message seemed to me to be that Sam wasn't a good leader, how dare he try to take Dean's role, and these people following him were equally stupid, so that's why they are now dead.

Send me a mixed message once and I might overlook it as an accident. Show me the exact same thing again next season, and it's not an accident anymore, it's an on purpose, no matter what the pretty words say.

Besides this show loves to "tell" us stuff and then show us how that's not true. They've done that form the beginning with demons telling Dean how "weak" he is and then showing us how Dean gets the better of them or telling us how Sam is "evil" and then showing us how Sam doesn't entirely give in and instead fights his "destiny".

32 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Even Mary complimented him on it.

Oh yeah, there's a good judge of a "leader" - she who slept with Ketch and thought following the BMoL was a great idea. If that was supposed to be the overpowering words to convince me they were trying to say Sam was a great leader... well then, yeah: no.

35 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Since Dean never got a leadership arc or shown as a leader explicitely, I fully believe the current producers don`t see him as leadership material in the first place. I honestly don`t think they see anything good in the character beyond maybe revolving around others. That is when it doesn`t bug them that he sucks the air out of the scenes. But really, he is a sidekick to them. Jack is more lead material for Dabb and co.

Why should Dean need a leadership arc? The writers show him as a leader all of the time. And if the only reason the writers give a character a "leadership arc" is to show that character sucks at it - that's not a leadership arc. That's the opposite of a leadership arc, and why would anyone want that for Dean?

I see complaints that Sam is getting more attention from the writers, but in my opinion it's negative attention and has been for many seasons now.

So maybe the writers don't want to pay too much attention to Dean, I don't know. But for me, considering the main attention they want to pay to Sam is to have him fail, have him be wrong, have him screw up royally, or have him learn some lesson about how he misjudged or mistreated some new pet character of the writers (Carver especially did this)*** then I'd rather they NOT pay attention to Sam. I'd rather they leave him alone.

Paying attention to a character doesn't necessarily mean that attention is good - far from it - and considering what the writers have done to Sam's character in the last 6 season, I personally would rather they didn't pay attention to him, thank you very much.

*** I personally can't think of one major "win" Sam has had since season 7 - not one. The only thing I can think of is that he de-demoned Dean, but even that was painted as a negative with "ooh see how Sam acted more like a demon than Dean did" and then of course that only being a temporary fix that Sam later - of course - screwed up. I could of course be forgetting something and will admit if I did, but truthfully, I can't think of anything positive they've let Sam do in years... not without immediately snatching it away and having Sam do something worse to make sure that he's wrong and plays his role as the "screw up" brother.

I suppose telling the demons to go back to hell could be considered a "win," but I more considered it a plot point. "Whew okay, now we have an excuse to ignore the demons for the rest of the season. That's a relief." Especially since the rest of the season made sure to pretty much undo anything positive they might have been showing from that. Big Bad Sam who is so intimidating he scares demons later gets easily murdered by a human Nick... yeah you think Sam is really scary and intimidating. Sure thing there writers. Tell me another one.

[Aeryn13]

18 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I'm not generally swayed by simple "tell." People can tell me they only want what's best for me, but I'm not going to believe them if at the same time they are figuratively stabbing me in the back. In the same vein, it's hard for me to believe that the message was "Sam is a great leader" when what they showed me was that it was actually Maggie who lead the troupes at the critical times, and then oh, yeah, she and everyone else got killed under Sam's watch. Few things say failure to me like getting all the people you are leading killed for no important reason (as in they didn't die heroically while accomplishing something in battle, they were just unceremoniously killed.)

It's like in those comedies where the police say "Nothing to see here, folks! Everything's under control!" while chaos is happening all around them. Sorry, but just like that kind of scenario, the words aren't going to "overpower" what I'm being shown. In my opinion, few things show me that the writers don't think a character is a good leader than someone else (Maggie) getting the leader role when it counted and then the supposed "leader" watching helplessly as all his men are killed. That pretty much = big fat failure, in my opinion, and no amount of "nothing to see here folks" is going to make me unsee it.

And maybe that might have been an aberration, but it was the same exact thing Dabb showed me at the end of season 12 - Sam getting the person he was "in charge" of killed (vs Dean who saved his civilian - twice) oh, and himself (Sam) killed to boot and the some more people in his second plan. The message seemed to me to be that Sam wasn't a good leader, how dare he try to take Dean's role, and these people following him were equally stupid, so that's why they are now dead.

Send me a mixed message once and I might overlook it as an accident. Show me the exact same thing again next season, and it's not an accident anymore, it's an on purpose, no matter what the pretty words say.

Besides this show loves to "tell" us stuff and then show us how that's not true. They've done that form the beginning with demons telling Dean how "weak" he is and then showing us how Dean gets the better of them or telling us how Sam is "evil" and then showing us how Sam doesn't entirely give in and instead fights his "destiny".

Oh yeah, there's a good judge of a "leader" - she who slept with Ketch and thought following the BMoL was a great idea. If that was supposed to be the overpowering words to convince me they were trying to say Sam was a great leader... well then, yeah: no.

Why should Dean need a leadership arc? The writers show him as a leader all of the time. And if the only reason the writers give a character a "leadership arc" is to show that character sucks at it - that's not a leadership arc. That's the opposite of a leadership arc, and why would anyone want that for Dean?

I see complaints that Sam is getting more attention from the writers, but in my opinion it's negative attention and has been for many seasons now.

So maybe the writers don't want to pay too much attention to Dean, I don't know. But for me, considering the main attention they want to pay to Sam is to have him fail, have him be wrong, have him screw up royally, or have him learn some lesson about how he misjudged or mistreated some new pet character of the writers (Carver especially did this)*** then I'd rather they NOT pay attention to Sam. I'd rather they leave him alone.

Paying attention to a character doesn't necessarily mean that attention is good - far from it - and considering what the writers have done to Sam's character in the last 6 season, I personally would rather they didn't pay attention to him, thank you very much.

*** I personally can't think of one major "win" Sam has had since season 7 - not one. The only thing I can think of is that he de-demoned Dean, but even that was painted as a negative with "ooh see how Sam acted more like a demon than Dean did" and then of course that only being a temporary fix that Sam later - of course - screwed up. I could of course be forgetting something and will admit if I did, but truthfully, I can't think of anything positive they've let Sam do in years... not without immediately snatching it away and having Sam do something worse to make sure that he's wrong and plays his role as the "screw up" brother.

I suppose telling the demons to go back to hell could be considered a "win," but I more considered it a plot point. "Whew okay, now we have an excuse to ignore the demons for the rest of the season. That's a relief." Especially since the rest of the season made sure to pretty much undo anything positive they might have been showing from that. Big Bad Sam who is so intimidating he scares demons later gets easily murdered by a human Nick... yeah you think Sam is really scary and intimidating. Sure thing there writers. Tell me another one.

Under Dabb Dean has lost his instincts, smarts and skills for the most part. When they don't ignore him, they either portray him as weak or "mean". The character got it from both barrels whenever he wasn"t nice enough to wounded baby bird Jack. And that was completely intentional.

[AwesomO4000]

Just now, Aeryn13 said:

Under Dabb Dean has lost his instincts, smarts and skills for the most part. When they don't ignore him, they either portray him as weak or "mean". The character got it from both barrels whenever he wasn"t nice enough to wounded baby bird Jack. And that was completely intentional.

And yet Dean ended up being right about Jack all along (so his instincts weren't all that off.) The writers made sure to double down on this message by including Sam - in my opinion somewhat non-sensically - giving Nick a chance too, and showing what a monumentally bad idea that was (as if any idiot shouldn't have know that).

If Dean was being shown as "mean" (I think it's more that he makes the tough decisions / assessments that no one else will make) then Sam was being shown as entirely gullible, overly naive, and too run by his emotions. Considering that Sam is supposed to be a seasoned hunter, in my opinion, that's worse.

For me it's a bit of a moot point that Dean was supposedly not being nice enough to Jack, when in the end, the intention was for Jack to go bad anyway, making the "Dean is being mean" angle mostly misdirection since Dean turned out to be right and Jack was a huge danger and caused a huge mess.

I guess maybe it's up to opinion on whether being portrayed as "mean" but ultimately right or being portrayed as nice, but also naive, and too stupid to live (literally in this case) is worse, but considering what this show is supposed to be about, I'm going to think that B is probably worse. Guess who was made to play the B role? It sure wasn't Dean.

Dean may not be shown as knowing a bunch of facts,*** but he also isn't being shown as naive enough to let his emotions overrule his brain and screw up royally because of it. Dean is shown as making the hard decisions, even if it hurts or means he has to be "mean." Which in my opinion is showing Dean as the hero and ultimately the smart one while Sam is shown as the screw up who is "nice" which leads him to making bad / wrong decisions and oh, yeah, being dead because of it.

This isn't a new concept on this show - it's been done a few times before (a good example being "Croatoan"). Unfortunately under the last two showrunners, Sam is never able to learn from it and is still being thrown into that same too naive, screw up role even though he actually learned his lesson on that a long time ago (season 6 and 7).

*** As for "smarts," in my opinion this show has - from the beginning - never really put a lot of stock in "book smarts." Most of the learned characters end up being evil in some way. (The one main exception actually turned out to be a monster rather than a smart human.)

[Aeryn13]

4 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

And yet Dean ended up being right about Jack all along (so his instincts weren't all that off.) The writers made sure to double down on this message by including Sam - in my opinion somewhat non-sensically - giving Nick a chance too, and showing what a monumentally bad idea that was (as if any idiot shouldn't have know that).

If Dean was being shown as "mean" (I think it's more that he makes the tough decisions / assessments that no one else will make) then Sam was being shown as entirely gullible, overly naive, and too run by his emotions. Considering that Sam is supposed to be a seasoned hunter, in my opinion, that's worse.

For me it's a bit of a moot point that Dean was supposedly not being nice enough to Jack, when in the end, the intention was for Jack to go bad anyway, making the "Dean is being mean" angle mostly misdirection since Dean turned out to be right and Jack was a huge danger and caused a huge mess.

I guess maybe it's up to opinion on whether being portrayed as "mean" but ultimately right or being portrayed as nice, but also naive, and too stupid to live (literally in this case) is worse, but considering what this show is supposed to be about, I'm going to think that B is probably worse. Guess who was made to play the B role? It sure wasn't Dean.

Dean may not be shown as knowing a bunch of facts,*** but he also isn't being shown as naive enough to let his emotions overrule his brain and screw up royally because of it. Dean is shown as making the hard decisions, even if it hurts or means he has to be "mean." Which in my opinion is showing Dean as the hero and ultimately the smart one while Sam is shown as the screw up who is "nice" which leads him to making bad / wrong decisions and oh, yeah, being dead because of it.

This isn't a new concept on this show - it's been done a few times before (a good example being "Croatoan"). Unfortunately under the last two showrunners, Sam is never able to learn from it and is still being thrown into that same too naive, screw up role even though he actually learned his lesson on that a long time ago (season 6 and 7).

*** As for "smarts," in my opinion this show has - from the beginning - never really put a lot of stock in "book smarts." Most of the learned characters end up being evil in some way. (The one main exception actually turned out to be a monster rather than a smart human.)

Jack never went bad. They kept him as the poor woobie at all times. His "darkness" is ludicrous at this point since the diaper never comes off the character.

[AwesomO4000]

1 minute ago, Aeryn13 said:

Jack never went bad. They kept him as the poor woobie at all times. His "darkness" is ludicrous at this point since the diaper never comes off the character.

Considering the fact that if they had gotten rid of Jack in the beginning, they wouldn't be in this position, I think that's debatable.

Jack went bad enough to kill people and messed up enough to have had Lucifer on the rampage leading to a bunch of consequences, ultimately ending up with again, another potential apocalypse... none of which would have happened if not for Sam and Castiel wanting to give Jack a chance.

In retrospect, in my opinion anyway, Dean looks less "mean" and more "I told you so" right.

[FlickChick]

My personal opinion is that at this juncture it doesn't matter which of the two brothers you think got the better/worse deal, because going forward the only character that will matter under Dabb is his personal pet - woobie, evil, soulless, "family", no wait-archangel nephil who's evil again, no wait-blind and currently dead, only to be resurrected by Death, Jack. It's enough to make me barf! Can hardly wait for the final season. 😞

[Myrelle]

3 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

I got burned last Season when I stupidly predicted they would be keeping Michael in Dean`s head till the Finale and actually pay off that storyline after he became "the cage". I figured this would be the way for their lazy asses to keep the story going even while ignoring it for episodes on end. 

Then Dean got knocked out and bam, Rowena!Michael and Jack battled it out while not a peep was spent on Dean`s so-called story anymore. Sam got aftermath episodes and the story itself revolved around Jack and nothing but Jack. 

That taught me never once making a Dean-positive prediction anymore. So I won`t. Expecting the very worst from Dabb and his ilk is certainly the most realistic option.  

2 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

The Series Finale will be different, though. Whatever goes down in it will be the lasting impression. People will hardly remember entire Seasons prior but how the Series ended? They probably will. 

Also, I don`t think they made sure Sam was a failure at leading. The "tell" of it - which overpowered anything shown -  was that he was great and a natural. Even Mary complimented him on it. In three Seasons on the show, she never paid a compliment to Dean, not once, least of all how amazing he was. She said something like that to Sam twice. In her final retcon episode with the rainbow glitter, even there, Dean got nothing.

Since Dean never got a leadership arc or shown as a leader explicitely, I fully believe the current producers don`t see him as leadership material in the first place. I honestly don`t think they see anything good in the character beyond maybe revolving around others. That is when it doesn`t bug them that he sucks the air out of the scenes. But really, he is a sidekick to them. Jack is more lead material for Dabb and co.

Both of these posts say it all for me.

And I will be absolutely thrilled if Dean is treated as "poorly" in this season as Sam has been treated by Dabb and co. for the last three seasons.

Oh, and I'll take the same kind of "tell" for Dean that Sam has been given over that same period of time because it sure beats anything that they gave Dean in my mind and because for me these last three seasons have been such a complete waste of my time(and Jensen's, too, for that matter and again IMO) that I just want to pretend S12-14 never even really happened.

We'll see about 15, but frankly, I'm out of hope at this point.

It would come as a complete surprise in every way to me if Dabb allows Dean an equal share with Sam of the heroics in the series finale.

That's just not how he or Kripke or Gamble have ever rolled-not with the big stuff anyway.

Edited August 9, 2019 by Myrelle
Revision

[Myrelle]

3 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

But really, he is a sidekick to them

And this is the biggest reason that I'm just SO! glad it's ending. 

[ahrtee]

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Considering the fact that if they had gotten rid of Jack in the beginning, they wouldn't be in this position, I think that's debatable.

Jack went bad enough to kill people and messed up enough to have had Lucifer on the rampage leading to a bunch of consequences, ultimately ending up with again, another potential apocalypse... none of which would have happened if not for Sam and Castiel wanting to give Jack a chance.

In retrospect, in my opinion anyway, Dean looks less "mean" and more "I told you so" right.

By those standards, if they'd never brought Cas back (any of the times he'd been killed or banished) he wouldn't have killed all those people/angels and decimated heaven.  In fact, if it wasn't for Cas's desire for redemption, Lucifer would still be locked up in his cage.

If Sam hadn't been brought back/given many other chances in season 2,  he wouldn't have had to be "wrong" (in your words) so many times.  

If Dean hadn't broken the first seal in Hell, Apocalypse I wouldn't have happened.  And if John hadn't brought him back in 2.1, *none* of this would have happened, (And that's not even counting John in In the Beginning...)  

But we do know that if Dean had killed Jack back in the beginning before he'd proved to be evil, Dean would never have been forgiven, by fans or the other characters (or probably even himself).  There would be no "I told you so" because it wouldn't have happened.  

The point is that the show has always been about intentions, redemption and how things end up, not about who did what to destroy the world.  They've all been there, done that.  

So based on that,  Dean's intentions for his "bad" actions over the years may have been good (albeit "selfish" according to Sam) and things may have eventually ended up all right, but he's never truly had redemption for any of it (not even "I told you so's;" at best, a few grudging "you were right"s.)  

But in fact, actual redemption been taken from him any number of times, when he's been prepared for it, like Sam in Swan Song--ready to be killed or shipped off into space with the MoC, prepared to go into the Box with Michael, even prepared to explode himself to take Amara off the field.  None of that was suicidal, even though he was accused of that by Sam and the others--it was *the same* act of desperation to save the world and need for redemption that Sam had in Swan Song--and yet they never let Dean actually do it.  In fact, they belittled or tried to "guilt" him out of it every time (well, except Amara, which was Chuck's decision.)  

So Sam's dive into the Box supposedly bought him redemption; his time in hell (and the Trialburculosis, and even the rabid disease in 11.1) he himself declared "cleansed" him; while Dean's time in Hell?  Made him even more guilt-ridden.  And everything he tried to do later to fix things was dismissed as being selfish/because he was afraid to be on his own.   

The fact that Sam keeps feeling like he *needs* to be redeemed every few years has nothing to do with what the show has actually said (or shown); but they seem to think that Dean either doesn't need, doesn't want or isn't worthy of redemption.  *sigh*

[DeeDee79]

26 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

By those standards, if they'd never brought Cas back (any of the times he'd been killed or banished) he wouldn't have killed all those people/angels and decimated heaven.  In fact, if it wasn't for Cas's desire for redemption, Lucifer would still be locked up in his cage.

If Sam hadn't been brought back/given many other chances in season 2,  he wouldn't have had to be "wrong" (in your words) so many times.  

If Dean hadn't broken the first seal in Hell, Apocalypse I wouldn't have happened.  And if John hadn't brought him back in 2.1, *none* of this would have happened, (And that's not even counting John in In the Beginning...)  

But we do know that if Dean had killed Jack back in the beginning before he'd proved to be evil, Dean would never have been forgiven, by fans or the other characters (or probably even himself).  There would be no "I told you so" because it wouldn't have happened.  

The point is that the show has always been about intentions, redemption and how things end up, not about who did what to destroy the world.  They've all been there, done that.  

So based on that,  Dean's intentions for his "bad" actions over the years may have been good (albeit "selfish" according to Sam) and things may have eventually ended up all right, but he's never truly had redemption for any of it (not even "I told you so's;" at best, a few grudging "you were right"s.)  

But in fact, actual redemption been taken from him any number of times, when he's been prepared for it, like Sam in Swan Song--ready to be killed or shipped off into space with the MoC, prepared to go into the Box with Michael, even prepared to explode himself to take Amara off the field.  None of that was suicidal, even though he was accused of that by Sam and the others--it was *the same* act of desperation to save the world and need for redemption that Sam had in Swan Song--and yet they never let Dean actually do it.  In fact, they belittled or tried to "guilt" him out of it every time (well, except Amara, which was Chuck's decision.)  

So Sam's dive into the Box supposedly bought him redemption; his time in hell (and the Trialburculosis, and even the rabid disease in 11.1) he himself declared "cleansed" him; while Dean's time in Hell?  Made him even more guilt-ridden.  And everything he tried to do later to fix things was dismissed as being selfish/because he was afraid to be on his own.   

The fact that Sam keeps feeling like he *needs* to be redeemed every few years has nothing to do with what the show has actually said (or shown); but they seem to think that Dean either doesn't need, doesn't want or isn't worthy of redemption.  *sigh*

Wow. Great post! I can't even pinpoint my favorite parts because every word is spot on. 

[gonzosgirrl]

I would pay good money for someone to ask, on camera, whether Dabb thinks he's treated Dean and Sam with equal respect during his tenure. I'd wager he would not even understand the question, let alone answer it. The 'breathing room' comment told me everything I need to know about him. And Singer directing and allowing the marionette fight to air told me all I need to know on that front. Together, they screwed Dean fans and Jensen out of the Michael story. And IDGAF what came before, if/when they screw us in the final chapters,  that's what will be remembered. I'll be surprised if, in the end,  he doesn't screw over both brothers in favour of his pet woobie. I have zero doubt he'll screw Dean.

*of course I mean like-minded Dean fans, not *all* Dean fans.

[ahrtee]

2 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I'll be surprised if, in the end,  he doesn't screw over both brothers in favour of his pet woobie. I have zero doubt he'll screw Dean.

I was reading over some of the transcripts for the past few seasons, and it seems to me that the Sam/Dean dialog is pretty much interchangeable (Sam is getting a lot of the snarky/pop culture lines, Dean is getting some of the emo lines) and the only thing that changes is which one is saying someone/something should be killed/saved.  They alternate on that.  

So I think Dabb has no concept of how to write *any* characters.  His only idea is to put out stories and drop the characters in wherever he feels they fit, as long as they work into his idea of Jack being the important one.  It's too bad he can't write Jack as actually being a real (much less important) character; so we wind up with a complicated (and boring) mess of half-assed and contradictory plots.  

[Myrelle]

1 hour ago, ahrtee said:

By those standards, if they'd never brought Cas back (any of the times he'd been killed or banished) he wouldn't have killed all those people/angels and decimated heaven.  In fact, if it wasn't for Cas's desire for redemption, Lucifer would still be locked up in his cage.

If Sam hadn't been brought back/given many other chances in season 2,  he wouldn't have had to be "wrong" (in your words) so many times.  

If Dean hadn't broken the first seal in Hell, Apocalypse I wouldn't have happened.  And if John hadn't brought him back in 2.1, *none* of this would have happened, (And that's not even counting John in In the Beginning...)  

But we do know that if Dean had killed Jack back in the beginning before he'd proved to be evil, Dean would never have been forgiven, by fans or the other characters (or probably even himself).  There would be no "I told you so" because it wouldn't have happened.  

The point is that the show has always been about intentions, redemption and how things end up, not about who did what to destroy the world.  They've all been there, done that.  

So based on that,  Dean's intentions for his "bad" actions over the years may have been good (albeit "selfish" according to Sam) and things may have eventually ended up all right, but he's never truly had redemption for any of it (not even "I told you so's;" at best, a few grudging "you were right"s.)  

But in fact, actual redemption been taken from him any number of times, when he's been prepared for it, like Sam in Swan Song--ready to be killed or shipped off into space with the MoC, prepared to go into the Box with Michael, even prepared to explode himself to take Amara off the field.  None of that was suicidal, even though he was accused of that by Sam and the others--it was *the same* act of desperation to save the world and need for redemption that Sam had in Swan Song--and yet they never let Dean actually do it.  In fact, they belittled or tried to "guilt" him out of it every time (well, except Amara, which was Chuck's decision.)  

So Sam's dive into the Box supposedly bought him redemption; his time in hell (and the Trialburculosis, and even the rabid disease in 11.1) he himself declared "cleansed" him; while Dean's time in Hell?  Made him even more guilt-ridden.  And everything he tried to do later to fix things was dismissed as being selfish/because he was afraid to be on his own.   

The fact that Sam keeps feeling like he *needs* to be redeemed every few years has nothing to do with what the show has actually said (or shown); but they seem to think that Dean either doesn't need, doesn't want or isn't worthy of redemption.  *sigh*

This is Perfect. 

I couldn't have said it better.

Edited August 10, 2019 by Myrelle
Additions

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, ahrtee said:

By those standards, if they'd never brought Cas back (any of the times he'd been killed or banished) he wouldn't have killed all those people/angels and decimated heaven.  In fact, if it wasn't for Cas's desire for redemption, Lucifer would still be locked up in his cage.

If Sam hadn't been brought back/given many other chances in season 2,  he wouldn't have had to be "wrong" (in your words) so many times.  

If Dean hadn't broken the first seal in Hell, Apocalypse I wouldn't have happened.  And if John hadn't brought him back in 2.1, *none* of this would have happened, (And that's not even counting John in In the Beginning...) 

The difference here for me is that much of this wasn't the decision of either Sam or Dean - except for maybe bringing Sam back - but protecting Jack was a conscious decision by Sam and Castiel. They knew the potential risks. They knew Jack was the son of Lucifer, but they insisted on giving him a chance anyway.

In the rest of the examples you give here, neither Sam nor Dean had a choice in the decision (like Castiel) or there was no way they could know that there would be the consequences that there were.

1 hour ago, ahrtee said:

But we do know that if Dean had killed Jack back in the beginning before he'd proved to be evil, Dean would never have been forgiven, by fans or the other characters (or probably even himself).  There would be no "I told you so" because it wouldn't have happened. 

That doesn't make Dean any less right, though.

1 hour ago, ahrtee said:

The point is that the show has always been about intentions, redemption and how things end up, not about who did what to destroy the world.  They've all been there, done that. 

And this is where we disagree, since in my opinion, they haven't all "been there, done that." Dean never has. When Dean broke the first seal, he was explicitly absolved of responsibility by Castiel. Sam, on the other hand was blamed by Castiel (and just about everyone else). When Dean was a demon and affected by the mark of Cain, once again he was explicitly absolved, this time by Chuck, while Sam was specifically blamed by Chuck. Dean similarly had no part in either catastrophic apocalypse Castiel caused.

And for me that's an important difference. Dean doesn't need redemption, not because he's unworthy of it, but because he didn't cause any of the problems and according to the actual text of the story doesn't have any blame for any of it.

None the less, Dean still got to sacrifice to stop more than one apocalypse and get redemption. At the end of season 7, Dean sacrificed himself - complete with heroic death and being sent to purgatory - even though he had no cause in that mess. With Amara, Dean was ready to sacrifice again even when he had no part in making that mess. When Dean said "yes" to Michael, he again was sacrificing to fix a mess not of his own making. Three times Dean got to save the world while never once having caused the problem to begin with.

Quote

So based on that,  Dean's intentions for his "bad" actions over the years may have been good (albeit "selfish" according to Sam) and things may have eventually ended up all right, but he's never truly had redemption for any of it (not even "I told you so's;" at best, a few grudging "you were right"s.)

In my opinion, Dean's actually gotten redemption for stuff he never even did and wasn't blamed for. Multiple times.

And just because Dean blames himself for stuff and seems to think he needs redemption all the time doesn't mean that he actually does.

Edited August 10, 2019 by AwesomO4000

[Myrelle]

13 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

And for me that's an important difference. Dean doesn't need redemption, not because he's unworthy of it, but because he didn't cause any of the problems.

None the less, Dean still got to sacrifice to stop an apocalypse and get redemption. At the end of season 7, Dean sacrificed himself - complete with heroic death and being sent to purgatory even though he had no cause in that mess. With Amara, Dean was ready to sacrifice again even when he had no part in making that mess. When Dean said "yes" to Michael, he again was sacrificing to fix a mess not of his own making

So then why doesn't someone on the show say this, then-that Dean friggin' cleans up everyone's messes?!

That's the kind of "tell" that I could at least live with.