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

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, Castiels Cat said:

Dean took on the MoC in a moment of self loathing without reading the fine print in order to kill Abaddon and he stupidly assumed that any collateral damage would be on him.

And how is this unlike his taking the deal in season 2, and why is his not learning from that not a bad thing? Dean does reckless things like that, but in my opinion, that's not necessarily a good thing or something that should be excused - even if this show seems to think it is. I just disagree with them on that point.

2 hours ago, Castiels Cat said:

He was doing pretty well at controlling it if only he had a support system that believed in him. It was not really at all like Sam and Ruby because dean is nothing like Sam AT ALL and unlike Ruby Crowley did not dangle  sex or hubris in front of him to lure him in.

Why is it all on Sam to support Dean in a reckless decision? Nonetheless Sam did: often. Even when Sam had every right to be angry in season 9, Sam supported Dean. Told Dean that he was right to do what was needed to go after Abaddon, because she needed to be stopped (Mother's Little Helper). Told Dean that he was the best chance they had against Metatron and supported him, telling him there wasn't anyone else he'd rather have in that fight (then got knocked unconscious for his trouble.) Sam then also supported Dean through most of season 10. He has a few moments of doubt and somehow now Sam's the bad guy? Even Castiel thought that eventually Dean would go wrong.

I mean it's not like Dean was entirely supportive of Sam throughout season 5, but Sam picked himself up and soldiered on and tried to change and show Dean that he could do better.

As for Ruby vs Crowley, I address that below.

2 hours ago, Castiels Cat said:

Dean wanted to sacrifice himself because he believed he had lost Sam and he might as well go out big and do some good while he was at it. That is Dean in a nutshell. If you cannot see that you do not understand Dean at all.

No, I do get this. I just don't see how this is a good thing. What about apologizing to Sam? And also, remember the last time you did something noble and sacrificed yourself, because you lost Sam, Dean? How did that work out for everyone, including Sam?

It's not that I don't understand that Dean does this. I just don't agree that it is something that the show should be touting as something good or supporting.

Quote

Crowley gets Dean and for me their dance in s 9 was dynamite. Crowley was the one witness to what was happening with Dean in the back half of the season. MS's performance is masterful and pivotal.

Right, and Crowley gives Dean what he wants, needs, etc. to manipulate Dean and help guide him into taking the mark of Cain and using it against Crowley's enemy Abbadon. How is this that much different than what Ruby did with Sam? The means of manipulation are slightly different, but otherwise the methods are pretty similar. Even the appearance of Crowley letting Dean be the leader and make his own decisions even though behind the scenes Crowley is manipulating and planning everything is similar. In my opinion anyway.

Quote

The fact is Dean as a demon reigned himself in and human Sam didn't. MoC Dean reigned himself in and felt such remorse even though it wasn't even his actions that lead to a man's death that he decided to end his own life or exile himself rather than see it happen again. Sam he just keeps on making bad choices, lying, getting people killed. Crowley reigned himself in!!! He chose not to kill Sam out of respect for Dean which was more than Sam deserved. Sam was by far the worst in comparison to all three.

Crowley is a demon who killed someone Sam cared deeply about, Sarah, right in front of Sam's face, almost killed Jody, helped turn his brother into a demon - the thing Dean feared most - and was a huge part of the reason Dean had the mark in the first place, but Sam is the worst one for wanting to finally kill Crowley in order to cure his brother?

Okay, if you say so...

Quote

In fact in The Prisoner they did a neat bit of editing in the action sequences towards the ends. They juxtapose the sequences in which Papa Stein attempts to kill Dean with that of Sam attempting to kill Crowley in such a way that Papa Stein and Sam are mirrored and Dean and Crowley are mirrored. Initially both appear to be overpowered before they triumph over their adversary. This makes Dean and Crowley the heroes and Papa Stein and Sam the villains who are defeated. Dean dispatches his enemy. Crowley shows mercy. It's not a good look for Sam. Neither was the Earth opening up like clockwork and people dying because he used the BotD exactly like Dean predicted it would which is why he begged him not to do it.

If this is all true and that's the intent of all of this, how is this not Carver purposely assassinating Sam's character?

It also makes much less of an impact when Sam agrees to have himself sacrificed so that Dean can banish himself... but Dean - once again - does something completely reckless without considering the consequences and kills Death. Sure it's Sam's plan to get rid of the mark and save his brother that causes an apocalypse, but Dean kills an ancient, extremely powerful being on the level of God - who has told Dean multiple times to stop messing with the natural order and Dean never listens - to save his brother and... nothing happens.

... And for me, at that point, Carver's message entirely loses its impact, because Sam is warned, makes a bad decision and an apocalypse happens - again - while Dean is warned, makes a reckless decision, and nothing happens - again.

What exactly am I supposed to get from that?

Quote

Read the transcript for Brother's Keeper. Sam knew. No question. I have read it recently and it is clear he knew. You can google it as easily as I can. It is a black grimoire that required a blood sacrifice. And there are means to time travel. Make it happen means just that. Get Oskar and make it happen.

I have read it, and for me it doesn't mean that. A sacrifice - even a blood one (which wasn't stated in the text) - doesn't necessarily mean a person, especially one likely 225+ years dead.

I also stated that I wasn't saying that Sam wouldn't have been willing to sacrifice someone, but that if he had actually been there, he may have changed his mind.

I also don't know why Castiel didn't just bring Oskar back to life once the spell was satisfied, because he could theoretically do that. So why not?

Edited December 12, 2019 by AwesomO4000

[Aeryn13]

43 minutes ago, Shannonsspirit said:

I remember when Dean broke down and told his story. It was heartwrenching. One of the times I remember I cried for him. It was that he succumbed after 30 years. Then he was taunted by Alistair, as John after 100 years, did not.

I can't even conceive of the torment or even write more of what Dean said and went through.  Maybe subsequent writers couldn't go there. Or maybe were hesitant to because Dean said he succumbed. Maybe that should never ever have happened, been written. How does a good man and a  great man talk about when he tortured. We remember, but maybe they want us to forget. Dean is no less a good and great man because of it. The writers should trust the audience to understand he is no less for it. And Sam, 100+ years with Lucifer. So horrible. I wish those stories never happened.

I love both brothers.  Their time in Hell should never ever be compared, only pitied and respected for their extraordinary sacrifices.

If the show goes there and puts it in the text how Dean's hell is basically lollipopworld compared to Sam's and that of course Dean is a weakling who broke, they can't expect the audience not to go there. The writers are playing the hero and zero game first.

Of course these days, IF Dean gets a hell mention it is solely about torturing and not once about him having suffered. 

[juppschmitz]

10 hours ago, passatoepresente said:

Can you tell me what really happened to Sam while he was in the cage and when this is said? I really don't remember but I remember what happened to Dean because he told it to Sam: for the first 30 years every day he was  ripped apart and then healed so that Alastair could start again the day after. The last 10 years Dean became the torturer. I don't know anything so specific about Sam. The qualities of Dean as torturer are then recalled several times over the seasons

With Dean we got that scene of "telling" and a few sparse other infos that were needed to bring the story along.

With Sam it was "showing" the effects of his time in the cage (which we weren't "told" about a lot, true) for practically all of Gamble's run. If Jared didn't put more effort into the "showing" whenever he was around Lucifer in later seasons, that's on Jared. 

Jensen did the best he could with the nothing he was given.

Feel free to disagree.

[passatoepresente]

10 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

There is a difference between a few details told in one or two scenes of a couple episodes, and a story with a through-line told over seasons and still being recognized today. We had multiple images of Sam burning and cut/bleeding in his hellucinations, we had Lucifer taunting him in episode after episode. We had Death and Castiel telling us how shredded and damaged his soul was, so much so that the memories of it would kill him. Just because Sam never said the words in specific detail, doesn't mean we weren't told the story, time and again. Then when Sam had to return to the cage in S11, we were both shown and told how hard it was for him. Even then they didn't acknowledge that Dean had ever been there. And generally when it has been mentioned,  it was only to tell us how Sam had it so much worse. And they freaking made Dean say it. Contrast that with Sam basically saying Dean was weak and whiny and should get the fuck over it. 

So we saw 2 images of Sam burning and cut/bleeding (they've been using Always the same images), we know he was tortured but not details of it, we know that his saul was wrecked and that's more of what we know about Dean? I think I miss some details, I've Always heard the same words and seen the same images. Sam had it worse but this doesn't belittle Dean's pain, I don't understand why you all are so worried about this.

[gonzosgirrl]

1 hour ago, passatoepresente said:

So we saw 2 images of Sam burning and cut/bleeding (they've been using Always the same images), we know he was tortured but not details of it, we know that his saul was wrecked and that's more of what we know about Dean? I think I miss some details, I've Always heard the same words and seen the same images.

If that is all you feel you've been told about Sam's experience, then I don't think I can add anything to the story for you. Maybe some of the other replies can help.

Quote

Sam had it worse but this doesn't belittle Dean's pain,

And yet you still feel Sam had it worse. Was that impression only from those same couple images then?

Quote

I don't understand why you all are so worried about this.

Because I care about Dean, because I care about good storytelling, and because this is the place to talk about it (see the thread title). If you're not worried about it (lucky you!), maybe this isn't the thread for you.

[Aeryn13]

2 hours ago, passatoepresente said:

So we saw 2 images of Sam burning and cut/bleeding (they've been using Always the same images), we know he was tortured but not details of it, we know that his saul was wrecked and that's more of what we know about Dean? I think I miss some details, I've Always heard the same words and seen the same images. Sam had it worse but this doesn't belittle Dean's pain, I don't understand why you all are so worried about this.

It plays the "Sam is stronger, smarter, better and the more suffering saint in every way who always had it worse" game. Because of course clown sidekick Dean's suffering is lesser.

[Myrelle]

Ignore. 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Myrelle
Quoted wrong poster

[Myrelle]

2 hours ago, passatoepresente said:

Sam had it worse but this doesn't belittle Dean's pain, I don't understand why you all are so worried about this

Because it absolutely DOES belittle Dean's pain.

That is the whole point of the "hero and zero" writing that these writers have often employed after Sam went to Hell, too.

[ILoveReading]

Its belittling because the show makes it sound like what Dean went through was no big deal.  It was to Dean, and it should never be compared to someone else.  Because Dean experienced all that pain and fear, and self-loathing.   Those 10 years were also a form of torture.

If you have person A who is tortured for a week, and person B who is forced to watch his family be tortured and killed, each is equally devastating for different reasons and no one should ever say that A or B suffered worse. 

Alastair was sadistic.  I have no doubt he packed as much into those daily sessions as he could.  Plus they had a specific purpose in mind and wanted to break Dean.   He went through a horrific order and he should never have been forced to refer to it as Disneyland.  They could have Dean say something like, "I know what your in for."  just as effective without mocking Dean.   

[Ria]

Apparently a lot of good people go to hell: Bobby, Kevin, Eileen to name a few, and for longer than either brother was there. So nothing special about that  anymore. 

[ILoveReading]

1 minute ago, Ria said:

Apparently a lot of good people go to hell: Bobby, Kevin, Eileen to name a few, and for longer than either brother was there. So nothing special about that  anymore. 

Sadly everything that made this show special no longer exists.

[Bergamot]

Quote

I don't understand why you all are so worried about this.

I don't think I would say so much that I am "worried". (Bitter, yes. But I am hardly the only one who is unhappy with choices that the show has made. Like people who felt that we did not get enough about Sam's time in Hell.)

I thought that the story of Dean in Hell was very powerful and well-acted. The scenes where Dean tried to deal with it afterward were very moving and some of my favorites of the series. But what happened to him should have continued to matter. There were so many interesting ways that this story could have been revisited in the years since then. I would have loved to have seen an episode, or even a storyline, where Alistair came back and Dean had to deal with him. Sure, Alistair was dead and gone, but so was everybody else who kept coming back.

Not only was the story of Dean in Hell not revisited, it was apparently mysteriously forgotten. There was one stretch of years, from the beginning of Season 7 to partway through Season 13, where the mere fact that Dean had been in Hell was not even mentioned. This did not happen with Sam. I have not gotten a good answer to the question as to why this happened.

And sorry, but I am not buying the idea that the writers just thought it was too awful. Sam's experience was supposedly even worse, and that wasn't a problem for them, and didn't keep them from bringing it up. I buy even less the idea that they thought it made Dean look bad because he broke under torture. First, because it doesn't -- no one should be judged for what they did under torture. And second, because if the writers were so concerned about making Dean look bad, they would never have brought up, several times, the fact that he became a torturer down there.

My feeling is that there was not a problem with the Dean in Hell story. So I still don't know the answer to my question.  Perhaps someone, maybe the writers, was concerned that the subsequent story of Sam in Hell not suffer from any comparison. They have certainly focused enough attention and effort on it over the years, and worked to ensure that it not be forgotten. If someone feels that his story fell short in spite of all this, I guess you have to decide for yourself what was lacking.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Bergamot

[Lemuria]

I also think that both the show and a certain percentage of fans have taken the position that Sam’s time in Hell was worse than Dean’s. I concede that it was longer and I’m sure it wasn’t fun  

 However, season seven made me doubt that it was worse. Sam’s hallucinations of Lucifer basically came down to portraying Lucifer as an annoying prat.  Nothing particularly terrifying or horrific. (Sort of the way Lucifer was, to me, in season five: with the exception of “Hammer of the gods” I did not find Lucifer particular in menacing or scary at all.

 I seriously doubt that if Dean had been having hallucinations of his time in hell, he would be visualizing Alastair in anything like the same way.  That’s one of the reasons why I always thought that Dean’s time in hell had been more horrific then Sam’s.   IN my opinion, Alastair was way more terrifying and menacing Lucifer; fortunately for earth, he was without conquest ambitions and was content to be Hell’s grand inquisitor. 

[Casseiopeia]

15 minutes ago, Lemuria said:

I seriously doubt that if Dean had been having hallucinations of his time in hell, he would be visualizing Alastair in anything like the same way.  That’s one of the reasons why I always thought that Dean’s time in hell had been more horrific then Sam’s.   IN my opinion, Alastair was way more terrifying and menacing Lucifer; fortunately for earth, he was without conquest ambitions and was content to be Hell’s grand inquisitor. 

Alistair had a different agenda for Dean than Lucifer had for Sam. Lucifer (and supposedly Michael) were just pissed. All they wanted to do was torture Sam. Alistair wanted to break Dean. He wanted to turn Dean into the worst imaginable thing in Dean's (then) world. A demon who tortured souls for no apparent reason other than to make  them suffer in hell. For Dean Winchester there wasn't anything worse than that.  I think it was portrayed well but for whatever reason showrunners (and the Duo) were in love with Mark Pellegrino and Lucifer. They beat that dead horse into the  ground, got it back up and killed it again.

[Castiels Cat]

19 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

And how is this unlike his taking the deal in season 2, and why is his not learning from that not a bad thing? Dean does reckless things like that, but in my opinion, that's not necessarily a good thing or something that should be excused - even if this show seems to think it is. I just disagree with them on that point.

Why is it all on Sam to support Dean in a reckless decision? Nonetheless Sam did: often. Even when Sam had every right to be angry in season 9, Sam supported Dean. Told Dean that he was right to do what was needed to go after Abaddon, because she needed to be stopped (Mother's Little Helper). Told Dean that he was the best chance they had against Metatron and supported him, telling him there wasn't anyone else he'd rather have in that fight (then got knocked unconscious for his trouble.) Sam then also supported Dean through most of season 10. He has a few moments of doubt and somehow now Sam's the bad guy? Even Castiel thought that eventually Dean would go wrong.

I mean it's not like Dean was entirely supportive of Sam throughout season 5, but Sam picked himself up and soldiered on and tried to change and show Dean that he could do better.

As for Ruby vs Crowley, I address that below.

No, I do get this. I just don't see how this is a good thing. What about apologizing to Sam? And also, remember the last time you did something noble and sacrificed yourself, because you lost Sam, Dean? How did that work out for everyone, including Sam?

It's not that I don't understand that Dean does this. I just don't agree that it is something that the show should be touting as something good or supporting.

Right, and Crowley gives Dean what he wants, needs, etc. to manipulate Dean and help guide him into taking the mark of Cain and using it against Crowley's enemy Abbadon. How is this that much different than what Ruby did with Sam? The means of manipulation are slightly different, but otherwise the methods are pretty similar. Even the appearance of Crowley letting Dean be the leader and make his own decisions even though behind the scenes Crowley is manipulating and planning everything is similar. In my opinion anyway.

Crowley is a demon who killed someone Sam cared deeply about, Sarah, right in front of Sam's face, almost killed Jody, helped turn his brother into a demon - the thing Dean feared most - and was a huge part of the reason Dean had the mark in the first place, but Sam is the worst one for wanting to finally kill Crowley in order to cure his brother?

Okay, if you say so...

If this is all true and that's the intent of all of this, how is this not Carver purposely assassinating Sam's character?

It also makes much less of an impact when Sam agrees to have himself sacrificed so that Dean can banish himself... but Dean - once again - does something completely reckless without considering the consequences and kills Death. Sure it's Sam's plan to get rid of the mark and save his brother that causes an apocalypse, but Dean kills an ancient, extremely powerful being on the level of God - who has told Dean multiple times to stop messing with the natural order and Dean never listens - to save his brother and... nothing happens.

... And for me, at that point, Carver's message entirely loses its impact, because Sam is warned, makes a bad decision and an apocalypse happens - again - while Dean is warned, makes a reckless decision, and nothing happens - again.

What exactly am I supposed to get from that?

I have read it, and for me it doesn't mean that. A sacrifice - even a blood one (which wasn't stated in the text) - doesn't necessarily mean a person, especially one likely 225+ years dead.

I also stated that I wasn't saying that Sam wouldn't have been willing to sacrifice someone, but that if he had actually been there, he may have changed his mind.

I also don't know why Castiel didn't just bring Oskar back to life once the spell was satisfied, because he could theoretically do that. So why not?

It was a black grimoire... black magic. It required a life just like the spell Rowena did this season and just like the spell Crowley did to close the initial RIP between worlds when he sacrificed himself.  You cannot turn around and undo the sacrifice later.

Sam was not killing Crowley to get Vengeance for Sarah. He was doing an assassination to pay off Rowena and it doesn't matter who he was assassinating. It shows how off his moral compass was. Everything he was doing was wrong. And one can hem and haw however he was on a wrong path. He lied repeatedly, Charlie died, and He kept doing something despite being told there would be dire cosmic consequences. It required a blood sacrifice a black grimoire and yep the world opened up and many people died. THEN AND ONLY THEN AFTER SEEING THE BODIES AND  LOOKING DEATH IN THE FACE DOES SAM ADMIT HE DID WRONG AND VOW TO CHANGE AND DO BETTER. He then spends the season in a redemption arc in which he apologizes to his brother, his imaginary friend and address his inner Darkness which was the demonhe really needed to defeat.

The writing in season 11 really does everything to support my thesis. 

Sam and Dean are very different characters. Comparing their storylines isn't useful because they will not be identical. Their tragic flaws are not identical. The wiles Ruby used on Sam would never work on Dean.

Season 13 finale was Dean's tragic fall... the one time he really did make a major bad call and it was all to save his family. Unfortunately the writers didn't let the Michael story play out. The damage was contained and they let Jack do the heavy lifting.

[Castiels Cat]

Re: Achilles Heel comment... in 15:8

Did you say It was Nepotism duo episode... they get their character intel from Singer's notes from the original pitch meeting which means Dean = brawn. They don't know real canon which is why every episode of theirs is new canon or water pistol or LOL!canon.

[AwesomO4000]

Brought over from the "Our Father..." episode thread:

And apparently I had a lot to say on this subject. Sorry in advance and please feel fee to disagree or give other opinions as I find that interesting...

8 hours ago, trudysmom said:

From the Speculation thread:

(the reviewer sees) "only awkwardness between Sam and Eileen, and zero romantic chemistry." 

There was more chemistry between Dean and the random waitress last week in the roadhouse than between Sam and Eileen.  It's so forced, it's cringeworthy.  But it's not fair of me to compare that to any kind of chemistry someone might have with Dean because, well, he's Dean and you know. 

8 hours ago, Bobcatkitten said:

Dean has chemistry with literally everyone. I have seen Sam have chemistry - with Sarah, Ruby, that doctor woman. Maybe with those people it was all heat and lust but with Eileen it's more so he is being slow and tentative? Yeah - I'm going with that. 

It's weird. I am not so good at predicting who Sam and Dean are going to have chemistry with.

It seems to me like Sam and Eileen should have more chemistry, but *shrug.* It's not a must for me, though anyway. I'm sure hubby and I seem more "cute" together than chemistry filled - always were, even in the beginning - and we've been happily married 25 years, together more than 30, so I don't need that honestly, especially in this type of show.

As for Dean versus Sam, I think I commented elsewhere a long time ago that though rare as it may be, there were a few characters where I didn't see much chemistry with Dean, and again, I wouldn't have really predicted it at first glance, nor is this a knock against Dean or Jensen's abilities... it just is.

Anna was one of those, and I would have thought it was the actress playing Anna, but she did seem to have some chemistry for me. Weirdly, it just happened to be with Ruby - go figure. Original flavor Meg was another of those characters. She had - somewhat creepily and guilt-inducingly - much more chemistry with Sam in my opinion. That scene in "Shadow" the two of them have in the warehouse always makes me feel a bit guilty and like a creep, because I think to myself "I know I'm not supposed to find this electrically-charged, but yet I do." Part of it might be because smart Sam gets himself out of that mess, but still...

The second flavor Meg, I don't know. Tough call, and I don't like the forced "comradery" they had with her and Sam in season 8. Ugh, no, and that clouds my judgement.

Then there's Jo. Part of that might be because there wasn't really supposed to be attraction from Dean's side, but part might be the actress. Even in that definitely very disturbing Meg Sam/Jo scene, most of the chemistry - entirely creepy and wrong chemistry, but there nonetheless - I think was coming from Meg Sam / Jared. Nonetheless, I didn't really see any real chemistry between Dean and Jo even later on.

Various Crossroads demons - definitely Dean wins that one in the chemistry department.

Now Bella I don't know about. If I had to pick, I'd say more with Sam than Dean - maybe some because of how she says Sam's name with her accent - but Bella was mostly too about Bella to have much real chemistry with anyone else, in my opinion. She had chemistry with herself maybe? I don't know how to describe it. It was like when she talked to Dean on the phone - chemistry. With Dean in person, ehn not as much. *shrug*

And Rowena. Rowena seems to have more chemistry with Sam - dismayingly for me, because as awesome as Rowena is, she's also awful, and I wouldn't want Sam to go there again (Ruby was enough).

Sam may be attracted to the bad girls sometimes, but he really, really shouldn't go there. With any bad girl. At all. Potentially voooop, right over the edge.

Now so as to not make it seem like I have some female character obsession, the men...

Now with Crowley, I would have at first said Sam due to the antagonistic back and forth thing they had going - that scene in the church between them in the season 8 finale was all sorts of chemistry for me, but Dean - at least MOC and Demon Dean - edges that out. Regular flavor though - I'd still now say Sam, but not by much. But Sam does put the S-A-M in S&M, so...

I loved Frank and Dean's interactions. Sam's brief interaction with Frank was amusing, but I liked the Dean back and forth.

I loved the Dean and Benny chemistry, too. I just hated what they ultimately did with Benny in terms of shoving him at me. I liked Benny just fine without all the sentimental family drama, soap opera stuff. Just no. Take you violins and stuff them, in my opinion. I liked Benny, and then you ruined it... too late to get that back now.

With Death - obviously Dean.

With Lucifer - tough choice, but Sam... not that I want Lucifer interaction any more, mind you.

Chuck - also Dean, though for me the Metatron / Chuck interaction was best. With Sam, even when Chuck was Chuck, he always seemed to be, I don't know... manipulating Sam? Leading him astray, not really being careful what his words were doing to Sam? And it showed.

Gabriel - definitely Sam... though not in a romantic way. I just don't get the attraction for some there (as in the fanfic spent on it). Like not at all.

Okay shutting up now... I'm sure I forgot someone important somewhere. Please feel free to remind me.

[Castiels Cat]

Stalker. To Gonzogrl... Amara, Darkness discussion. 

Yes. LOL!canon is totally a thing especially with the nepotism duo.

However the Darkness lore was also full of lies because Chuck wrote it that way. He made her the big bad in the story when really it's him. He treated her badly and hid while she threw her righteous cosmic temper tantrum and then let a b team of cannon fodder take her on while he twiddled his thumbs. Then he's like Dean yo .. everything is your responsibility in order for Dean to to become the human bomb. Dean does yet instead of exploding he heals the wound Chuck ripped in Amara's heart because  he has been her anchor to humanity.

[trudysmom]

3 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

t seems to me like Sam and Eileen should have more chemistry, but

Agreed.  I didn't mean to head into BvJ territory with my comments about chemistry, it's just that last weeks episode was fresh in my mind and I enjoyed the way the waitress enjoyed teasing Dean.  

As to chemistry, I agree with most of your opinions, and add to that Lisa, in my opinion had little to no chemistry with Dean.  I just didn't feel anything there, although I think I should have.  I think Sam and Eileen did have some chemistry the first time she was on the show, a sweet moment here and there.  But this time around it just feels forced.  

[Katy M]

33 minutes ago, trudysmom said:

s to chemistry, I agree with most of your opinions, and add to that Lisa, in my opinion had little to no chemistry with Dean.  I just didn't feel anything there, although I think I should have.  I think Sam and Eileen did have some chemistry the first time she was on the show, a sweet moment here and there.  But this time around it just feels forced.  

I think it's just because this show is not meant to have long-term couples.  I think that there have been times with one-shot characters and the chemistry has been fine.  But, when they try to write a conscious on-purpose relationship it doesn't work.

[ahrtee]

3 hours ago, Katy M said:

I think it's just because this show is not meant to have long-term couples.  I think that there have been times with one-shot characters and the chemistry has been fine.  But, when they try to write a conscious on-purpose relationship it doesn't work.

I think the problem isn't the actors but (surprise!) the writing.  The reason why Eileen comes across (to me at least) as boring/flat, is because she isn't actually a person--she's a construct they made specifically to give Sam a love interest (or at least a "will they/won't they" type of thing.)  She's made up of cliches:  spunky (necessary to overcome her handicap), understanding to Sam, strong (sort of--not wanting Sam to hover/protect but willing to ask him for help); plus this last episode was trying to make her into a Superhunter.  But we have no sense of who she actually is, other than the stereotypical background: parents killed by banshees, connection with MoL, raised by a hunter.  

But why does she hunt alone?  I would think not being able to hear would be a major problem on most hunts (other than banshees).  How long has she been hunting (and how does she find her hunts?)  Had she spent her whole life hunting the banshee from Into the Mystic (remember Sam talking to her about revenge) and now she's hunting other things?  And how does she know how to do that?  

Or even the basics:  what does she like/dislike?  What does she do in her spare time?  Was she raised in Ireland or America?  What's her character, other than a kickass hunter who came out of nowhere and likes Sam?  Compare her with Bobby, Rufus, Ellen (and even Jo), Bela, Rowena, Crowley or any number of more interesting characters.

Bobby was grumpy and fiercely protective.  Rufus was cranky but loyal.  Ellen was no-nonsense and good-hearted.  Bela was sneaky, out for herself and intelligent.  Lisa would stand up for herself and Ben and was patient with Dean (up to a point) even though she tended to head into sainthood now and then. 

Eileen is deaf.  What else can you say about her?  

Edited December 14, 2019 by ahrtee

[Katy M]

8 hours ago, ahrtee said:

But why does she hunt alone?  I would think not being able to hear would be a major problem on most hunts (other than banshees). 

I said that elsewhere and was basically accused of being anti-disabled people.  But, honestly, there aren't real-life Deaf cops for precisely this reason.

8 hours ago, ahrtee said:

How long has she been hunting (and how does she find her hunts?)

She said the woman who raised her trained her, so I assume basically her whole life like Sam and Dean.

[gonzosgirrl]

5 hours ago, Katy M said:

I said that elsewhere and was basically accused of being anti-disabled people.  But, honestly, there aren't real-life Deaf cops for precisely this reason.

I think the whole reason they brought her back was the (deserved) firestorm they got for killing her  off in such a shitty way. Using an invisible creature to chase down a deaf person. Not cool. But neither is bringing her back and making her some kind of superwoman who can intimidate and overpower men literally twice her size (without any prior context). It just makes me roll my eyes. 

[Aeryn13]

I I guess it could work if she specialized in monsters where her disability was an advantage like with the Banshee. That limits the target pool significantly but could still work. The way more difficult problem is lots and lots of cases happen where hunters either don't know the MOTW beforehand or guess wrong because some early signs point to a different thing. So Eileen could search out cases where people's eardrums are blown out because possibly Banshee but still end up with a nasty surprise.

[Katy M]

44 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Using an invisible creature to chase down a deaf person. Not cool.

I disagree.  I mean obviously it was uncool of Ketch and the BMOLs to be killing hunters in the first place.  But, if Eileen is going to hunt, she has to be able to face all the same creatures as other hunters and that includes Hell Hounds.  

[catrox14]

There is so much wrong with Eileen's death, which IMO was never about Eileen.  It was about Sam losing another potential lover and reducing Crowley to nothing.

Suddenly Crowley let hellhounds be controlled by dog whistle by fucking Ketch.  That broke canon right there because everything I recollect, hellhounds are attached to their masters  who did not control them by fucking dog whistle.

Not only did those dipstick writers destroy the power of hellhounds by making them basically random guard dogs, they did so just to make deaf Eileen die by invisible hellhounds. Eileen was only set upon because the writers wanted to kill her in the most cruel and inhumane way so Sam would be hurt by her death.

In addition, they minimized Crowley by showing him in cahoots with the lousy BMOL, and then with Lucifer somehow reversing the polarity of the trap Crowley made just to make Crowley weak. 

And to top all that off, Eileen writes a letter that Sam reads after her death, in which she writes  "I hate to be all girly" because she wants protection at the bunker.

BLemming are the fucking worst. 

[Aeryn13]

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

There is so much wrong with Eileen's death, which IMO was never about Eileen.  It was about Sam losing another potential lover and reducing Crowley to nothing.

Suddenly Crowley let hellhounds be controlled by dog whistle by fucking Ketch.  That broke canon right there because everything I recollect, hellhounds are attached to their masters  who did not control them by fucking dog whistle.

Not only did those dipstick writers destroy the power of hellhounds by making them basically random guard dogs, they did so just to make deaf Eileen die by invisible hellhounds. Eileen was only set upon because the writers wanted to kill her in the most cruel and inhumane way so Sam would be hurt by her death.

In addition, they minimized Crowley by showing him in cahoots with the lousy BMOL, and then with Lucifer somehow reversing the polarity of the trap Crowley made just to make Crowley weak. 

And to top all that off, Eileen writes a letter that Sam reads after her death, in which she writes  "I hate to be all girly" because she wants protection at the bunker.

BLemming are the fucking worst. 

I've severely upgraded BLemming on my writer ranking because they are far from the most hateful towards Dean these days. They even give him okay stuff here and there.

I consider Berens the worst, by FAR. Even above Dabb. Glynn and Perez are somewhere in thr meh range. And Dabb's little flunky is as bad as him.

[DeeDee79]

1 hour ago, Katy M said:

I disagree.  I mean obviously it was uncool of Ketch and the BMOLs to be killing hunters in the first place.  But, if Eileen is going to hunt, she has to be able to face all the same creatures as other hunters and that includes Hell Hounds.  

But wasn't she only a BMOL target because she killed one of their own? They probably used a Hellhound because she wouldn't be able to hear it coming so Ketch ( and the writers ) were specifically using her handicap against her and it wasn't a regular hunting scenario. Then again as per "canon" Hellhounds are usually only used for dragging people to hell or by the demons that control them instead of a human with a dog whistle so maybe the point is moot.

[Katy M]

31 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

They probably used a Hellhound because she wouldn't be able to hear it coming so Ketch ( and the writers ) were specifically using her handicap against her and it wasn't a regular hunting scenario.

Yes, but that's exactly what a psychopath would do.  Nobody like Ketch is going to say, "oh, but that wouldn't be fair.  I really should give her a more sporting chance."  

32 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

Then again as per "canon" Hellhounds are usually only used for dragging people to hell or by the demons that control them instead of a human with a dog whistle so maybe the point is moot.

I've been not happy since Abandon All Hope and a hell hound has been used for anything but collecting deals.  Honestly, if they can just be used by demons at will why aren't they using them all the time.  Almost nobody survives them.

34 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

But wasn't she only a BMOL target because she killed one of their own?

Actually by that time they were hunting down all the American hunters.  Because they had world domination hunting plans, I guess.

[DeeDee79]

6 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Actually by that time they were hunting down all the American hunters.  Because they had world domination hunting plans, I guess.

Since Dr. Hess specifically mentioned Mick letting her live after killing one of their own shortly before she had him killed by Ketch I'm thinking that she was a specific target despite the fact that they were killing hunters.

8 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Yes, but that's exactly what a psychopath would do.  Nobody like Ketch is going to say, "oh, but that wouldn't be fair.  I really should give her a more sporting chance."  

So if it was a killing designed by a psychopath ( Ketch ) because she wouldn't be able to hear it coming then it isn't necessarily a normal hunting scenario which was my point. 

[gonzosgirrl]

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

I disagree.  I mean obviously it was uncool of Ketch and the BMOLs to be killing hunters in the first place.  But, if Eileen is going to hunt, she has to be able to face all the same creatures as other hunters and that includes Hell Hounds.  

I wasn't talking about the character. At the time, there was a lot of blowback about having a deaf actress, a community not all that well represented on tv, killed by using her disability against her. There are a thousand ways they could have had her die heroically,  or tragically, without doing it the one way that highlighted her deafness.

[Aeryn13]

11 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I wasn't talking about the character. At the time, there was a lot of blowback about having a deaf actress, a community not all that well represented on tv, killed by using her disability against her. There are a thousand ways they could have had her die heroically,  or tragically, without doing it the one way that highlighted her deafness.

I think if the quality of the writing in general had been a lot better, they could have pulled that off, highlighting how cruel and cowardly the BMOL were. Which I do think was supposed to be the point but there is a difference between the writings of Chuck and Shakespeare.

[Castiels Cat]

Regarding the cage ... Lucifer in a 11 

Rowena's original spell transferred Lucifer a temporary holding cell I thought which was why it was all so dicey and he was able to break free. It all was very dramatic in a Hammer film way and made very little sense especially Sam doing it at all. It was very probably more stupid than shooting Chuck in the shoulder and that was stupid.

[gonzosgirrl]

SPN in TV Line's Best Quotes of the Year. Sam forgiving John in episode 300.

https://tvline.com/gallery/best-tv-quotes-2019/supernatural-episode-300-thats-enough-quote-2/

The lack of Dean/John closure in this episode aside, it still burns my ass that Sam spoke for both of them. Dean spent the early part of the series echoing the 'did the best he could' mantra, but that certainly changed as he came to realize just how not-true that really was.

I know there's no way they could have crammed all that needed to be said between Dean and John into one scene, but damnit, they could at least have let him have something. And IMO, it wasn't Sam who needed to forgive John for their childhood. He had Dean (and his Zanna). Dean had no one. I would have been much happier, or at least much less annoyed, with that scene if he'd just said "me" instead of us. He had no right to speak for Dean.

Edited December 16, 2019 by gonzosgirrl

[Aeryn13]

48 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

SPN in TV Line's Best Quotes of the Year. Sam forgiving John in episode 300.

https://tvline.com/gallery/best-tv-quotes-2019/supernatural-episode-300-thats-enough-quote-2/

The lack of Dean/John closure in this episode aside, it still burns my ass that Sam spoke for both of them. Dean spent the early part of the series echoing the 'did the best he could' mantra, but that certainly changed as he came to realize just how not-true that really was.

I know there's no way they could have crammed all that needed to be said between Dean and John into one scene, but damnit, they could at least have let him have something. And IMO, it wasn't Sam who needed to forgive John for their childhood. He had Dean (and his Zanna). Dean had no one. I would have been much happier, or at least much less annoyed, with that scene if he'd just said "me" instead of us. He had no right to speak for Dean.

That episode overall makes me bitter because Jensen is the one who made the guest appearance happen. Them asking JDM's management got them zilch. And yet the actor who brings you your stunt casting gets zero for his character in that episode. 

He should have let them rot and then Lebanon would just be the lame episode about the townie perspective, minus big guest star.

[Castiels Cat]

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

That episode overall makes me bitter because Jensen is the one who made the guest appearance happen. Them asking JDM's management got them zilch. And yet the actor who brings you your stunt casting gets zero for his character in that episode. 

He should have let them rot and then Lebanon would just be the lame episode about the townie perspective, minus big guest star.

Those townies were just thrown in to give Jack appropriate "Riverdale " teen angst later in the season. They shoehorned that into the 300th episode which should have been about the Winchesters and their history.

[Aeryn13]

28 minutes ago, Castiels Cat said:

Those townies were just thrown in to give Jack appropriate "Riverdale " teen angst later in the season. They shoehorned that into the 300th episode which should have been about the Winchesters and their history.

Before they got JDM back, that WAS gonna be the 300th episode. How the town of Lebanon views them. Dabb announced that at the Comic Con before Season 14 aired.

Then they got JDM back and the episode shifted but chronologically it wasn't the town that was thrown into the John ep but the other way around. That is pretty well documented.

[Castiels Cat]

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

Before they got JDM back, that WAS gonna be the 300th episode. How the town of Lebanon views them. Dabb announced that at the Comic Con before Season 14 aired.

Then they got JDM back and the episode shifted but chronologically it wasn't the town that was thrown into the John ep but the other way around. That is pretty well documented.

I stand corrected. That is a strange premise for a benchmark episode especially since the townies of which he spoke were high school kids who served later to fit into their Riverdale fanfic for Jack and we know Singer's wife believes that this type of plotline serves their core audience.

So basically Jensen securing JDM and forcing them to dramatically alter the storyline of the 300th episode is another example of him clashing with the writers in regards to writing. The 300th episode was the final benchmark episode and Jensen was absolutely correct to make it about family especially considering the fact that Mary had been resurrected. Having John there "resurrected" the tripe they served. In my opinion the acting of the Winchesters alone was what saved that episode. The story was another paint by numbers special.

[Aeryn13]

23 minutes ago, Castiels Cat said:

I stand corrected. That is a strange premise for a benchmark episode especially since the townies of which he spoke were high school kids who served later to fit into their Riverdale fanfic for Jack and we know Singer's wife believes that this type of plotline serves their core audience.

So basically Jensen securing JDM and forcing them to dramatically alter the storyline of the 300th episode is another example of him clashing with the writers in regards to writing. The 300th episode was the final benchmark episode and Jensen was absolutely correct to make it about family especially considering the fact that Mary had been resurrected. Having John there "resurrected" the tripe they served. In my opinion the acting of the Winchesters alone was what saved that episode. The story was another paint by numbers special.

They wanted JDM (but his management told them to take a hike) so Jensen did them a favour by using his personal connections, they just had to scramble to make the episode work now. Couldn't have been completely about John since JDM only came in for two days.

If he hadn't been, I'm sure the town concept would have been a lot more than just the teens. In the hands of better writers, it could have been a worthy 300th episode, celebrating the legacy. You could have started with the brothers interacting with various townspeople and listen to some crazy tales the people tell about them. Then some kind of case in Lebanon comes up, they save the day and it ends more or less like the Buffy episode "The Prom" where the entire Senior class gives Buffy an honorary award as "class protector", showing that people not only weren't completely oblivious to her efforts but they appreciated them properly as well and acknowledged her as a hero.

SPN could never pull off something so simple yet poignant and emotional at the same time.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Aeryn13

[AwesomO4000]

4 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I would have been much happier, or at least much less annoyed, with that scene if he'd just said "me" instead of us. He had no right to speak for Dean.

I'm thinking that Sam might have gotten criticism if he had just said "me" as well, because then he'd be forgetting about Dean or something like that.

Sam and Dean have likely had the conversation enough for Sam to be at least somewhat aware that Dean felt similarly. It's pretty much part of the reason Sam came to the conclusion that John did do the best he could after all: hearing it from Dean so often.

Besides it would've been somewhat odd if Sam had said "you fought for me, and loved me. That's enough." There would be "How can that be enough? What about Dean?" or  "See, Sam only cared that John loved him. Screw Dean." remarks / questions. etc etc.

Show about family, generally = the whole family. That's pretty much been this show's thing since the beginning, and characters that don't tow that line generally end up learning a lesson of some sort that they should tow that line. So when they talk about something concerning family, it's usually the whole family they talk about.

But I also get your point of view.

Edited December 16, 2019 by AwesomO4000
Had to get an extraneous "get" out of there.

[gonzosgirrl]

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Besides it would've been somewhat odd if Sam had said "you fought for me, and loved me. That's enough." There would be "How can that be enough? What about Dean?" or  "See, Sam only cared that John loved him. Screw Dean." remarks / questions. etc etc.

Except John wasn't talking about their family. He never even mentioned Dean. He was talking to Sam, about Sam.

Quote

JOHN
I, um… I remember. I screwed up with you a lot, didn’t I?

SAM
No, that’s okay.

JOHN
No, it’s not. Sammy, tell me the truth.

SAM
I don’t want to talk about that.

JOHN
You didn’t have a problem talking about it before you left.

SAM
Dad… for me? That fight… that was a lifetime ago. I don’t even remember what I said, and – I mean… yeah. You know what? You did some messed-up things. But I don’t… I mean, when I think about you… [voice breaks] and I think about you a lot… I don’t think about our – our fights. I think about you… I think about you on the floor of that hospital. And I think about how I never got to say goodbye.

[JOHN puts his hand on SAM’s shoulder.]
JOHN
Sam. Son. I am so sorry.

SAM
I’m sorry, too. But you did your best, dad. You – you fought for us, and you loved us, and… that’s enough.

So it would actually have been less weird for Sam to say 'me' rather than 'us'. Maybe he was trying to include him where John didn't, but either way, he didn't have the right to forgive John on his behalf, especially when John wasn't even looking for forgiveness from his other son.

ETA: The more I think about, the more it bugs me, because this was pre-Devil's Trap/IMTOD John, so his Dean never even got the benefit of his pre-death confession of how hard he'd screwed Dean over. Ugh.

Edited again to add: I went back and watched the scene again. It starts with Sam saying that he and Dean had tried to make Winchester surprise casserole (which, ummm, no*) so I suppose John's 'you' could have meant both Dean and Sam, but the rest of the scene belies that (for me). And my original objection stands, regardless.

*When Dean and Mary talked about the casserole in 14.11 Dean said:

So, me being the big brother, I’m the cook. I take all that baloney, all that sliced cheese, and I put it onto a hot plate.

Edited December 16, 2019 by gonzosgirrl

[Castiels Cat]

3 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

They wanted JDM (but his management told them to take a hike) so Jensen did them a favour by using his personal connections, they just had to scramble to make the episode work now. Couldn't have been completely about John since JDM only came in for two days.

If he hadn't been, I'm sure the town concept would have been a lot more than just the teens. In the hands of better writers, it could have been a worthy 300th episode, celebrating the legacy. You could have started with the brothers interacting with various townspeople and listen to some crazy tales the people tell about them. Then some kind of case in Lebanon comes up, they save the day and it ends more or less like the Buffy episode "The Prom" where the entire Senior class gives Buffy an honorary award as "class protector", showing that people not only weren't completely oblivious to her efforts but they appreciated them properly as well and acknowledged her as a hero.

SPN could never pull off something so simple yet poignant and emotional at the same time.

Buffy still gets recognized for its writing. Supernatural was recognized critically in season 4 which ironically was the season that brought Dean into the mytharc fully the one time. Bless Kim Manners. It was the series high water mark for critical acclaim and the writing is excellent. I had high Hope's that they might reach it again.

Thanks for all of this information. The talent and vision isn't there and they don't care about the Winchesters. They wanted to set up friends for Jack and they did. They didn't even use Zachariah or Cas very well. It was all a mess imo.

Edited December 17, 2019 by Castiels Cat

[AwesomO4000]

7 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

So it would actually have been less weird for Sam to say 'me' rather than 'us'. Maybe he was trying to include him where John didn't, but either way, he didn't have the right to forgive John on his behalf, especially when John wasn't even looking for forgiveness from his other son.

ETA: The more I think about, the more it bugs me, because this was pre-Devil's Trap/IMTOD John, so his Dean never even got the benefit of his pre-death confession of how hard he'd screwed Dean over. Ugh.

Edited again to add: I went back and watched the scene again. It starts with Sam saying that he and Dean had tried to make Winchester surprise casserole (which, ummm, no*) so I suppose John's 'you' could have meant both Dean and Sam, but the rest of the scene belies that (for me). And my original objection stands, regardless.

Thank you for including the rest of the conversation... For me though, it just furthers my original opinion. John's "you" could just as easily have meant both of them, especially if it stemmed from talking about the casserole incident - the memory of which would have included Dean. So for me it could have been the both kind of "you." But it's hard to tell exactly.

As for Sam forgiving John on Dean's behalf, I didn't see it that way. Sam said "I'm sorry, too," not "we're sorry, too." And then he said that John had done his best by protecting them and loving them. For me Sam was stating his own opinion of that, not Dean's. Sam didn't say "we know you did your best..." And what Sam was saying was true from what he saw (or I should say what he "learned" in seasons 2-4 in his very special lessons of how he was wrong to leave the family, culminating in the huge anvil that was "Afterschool Special.")

But basically for me it would be weird for Sam to say that John did his best if he was only including protecting and loving him (Sam), because in the show currently, it's very much a them thing for Sam. It's been that way especially since Carver's Sam character deconstruction and then the very special lessons learned reconstruction in seasons 8-10. So , for  me, Sam wouldn't be saying that John "did his best" unless he thought that John protected both of them and loved both of them.

And in a way, Sam isn't wrong. According to the show, John did love and protect them in his own messed up way. I have my doubts about that sometimes as I have said before - not that John loved them in whatever capacity he was capable of, but that he loved them enough to do what was best for them. (I don't think he did.)

Unfortunately the show, and sometimes early Dean, isn't exactly a reliable narrator. We don't always know what was real and what was Dean trying to make things sound better than what they were.*** Like John dropping by to "check on Sam" while he was in college. Going to see whether Sam was okay? Or going to check up on Sam to make sure he wasn't going to the dark side? Can we really ever know? We only have Dean's assessment of that, but it's not like John called or tried to actually, you know, ask Sam if he was okay or tell him that he missed him, so for me it very well could have been a "wellness check" of a different, less loving kind.

That the show had Sam drink the Kool Aide on John is one of the nitpicks I have about the show, and season 4 especially, since that's where they really dropped those anvils hard. Things got better in that regard under Gamble, but then Carver came along and drowned Sam in the Kool Aide and made sure that he would never ever be able to say anything except that family is everything ever again no matter what. (One of the reasons I really disliked seasons 8 and 9.)

*** Which wasn't Dean's fault. He had to have some coping mechanisms, and I don't begrudge him those... It just makes it hard to tell exactly what was true and what wasn't sometimes when it came to their childhood and adolescence.

[PAForrest]

18 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

That episode overall makes me bitter because Jensen is the one who made the guest appearance happen. Them asking JDM's management got them zilch. And yet the actor who brings you your stunt casting gets zero for his character in that episode. 

He should have let them rot and then Lebanon would just be the lame episode about the townie perspective, minus big guest star.

I am absolutely convinced after Jensen put out all the effort and work to get JDM for Singer and Dabb, only to be screwed out of all meaningful interaction as a petty thank you, that he wasn't going to stand for getting f'd over a second time.

When the opportunity presented itself to get Christian Kane on the show, I feel like the stipulation was that this time Dean was the one who got to interact with the guest star or CK wasn't going to happen. Thus giving the episode to Jeremy, the new staff writer, and having Lee act ONLY with Dean - which after the 300th crap was only fair.

I also agree now, given how Dabb has pushed Jack roughshod over the original leads, that Dabb's original vision for Lebanon probably didn't include the Winchesters at all, or so minimally that the Js would have probably only shot a day on that script. So having JDM on set, thanks to Jensen, forced them to be more involved - or in Dean's case, minimally more involved, but more than he would have been. Otherwise, I think it's obvious Dabb's original script was likely all about the Riverdale teens and Jack as a last ditch backdoor pilot effort for a spin-off.

Edited December 17, 2019 by PAForrest

[FlickChick]

10 hours ago, PAForrest said:

I also agree now, given how Dabb has pushed Jack roughshod over the original leads, that Dabb's original vision for Lebanon probably didn't include the Winchesters at all, or so minimally that the Js would have probably only shot a day on that script. So having JDM on set, thanks to Jensen, forced them to be more involved - or in Dean's case, minimally more involved, but more than he would have been. Otherwise, I think it's obvious Dabb's original script was likely all about the Riverdale teens and Jack as a last ditch backdoor pilot effort for a spin-off.

Of course it was, otherwise the title wouldn't be "Lebanon". In fact, I bet Dabb was pissed to no end that he couldn't have the whole episode to focus on his new teen "stars". But then he wrote (or instructed one of his lackeys to write) the new "stars" into another episode that season in which our Nougat Jack killed one of them while fooling around with his new-found powers. Frankly, soap-opera writers come up with better stories than Dabb. What a loser...

[Bergamot]

gonzosgirrl wrote in the "Citizen Fang" thread:

Quote

Dean's instinct about monsters is one of the few great attributes they (mostly) let him keep. Since they won't let him be book smart or even socially adept most most of the time (unlike his polite, scholarly little brother), I can't begrudge him that, too. 

Unfortunately, g-girrl, it seems to me that even though Dean is sometimes (not always) right about things, the show contrives to find a way to put him in the wrong. Sam was wrong about Benny. He was wrong to conduct this vendetta against him. He was wrong to entrust Martin, a man he knew was unstable, with the job he gave him. It led to Martin being killed, Elizabeth being endangered and traumatized, and Benny's chance of making a new life for himself being brought to an end.

Yet everything that Sam did that was wrong and harmful to others, as a result of his blind hatred of Benny, is never mentioned again by the show. Not once. Meanwhile they make a point of having Charlie berate Dean for what he did in this episode and inaccurately accuse him of destroying Sam's chance at a normal life.  So somehow everything is all Dean's fault.  Talk about predictable outcomes.

[DeeDee79]

31 minutes ago, Bergamot said:

gonzosgirrl wrote in the "Citizen Fang" thread:

Unfortunately, g-girrl, it seems to me that even though Dean is sometimes (not always) right about things, the show contrives to find a way to put him in the wrong. Sam was wrong about Benny. He was wrong to conduct this vendetta against him. He was wrong to entrust Martin, a man he knew was unstable, with the job he gave him. It led to Martin being killed, Elizabeth being endangered and traumatized, and Benny's chance of making a new life for himself being brought to an end.

Yet everything that Sam did that was wrong and harmful to others, as a result of his blind hatred of Benny, is never mentioned again by the show. Not once. Meanwhile they make a point of having Charlie berate Dean for what he did in this episode and inaccurately accuse him of destroying Sam's chance at a normal life.  So somehow everything is all Dean's fault.  Talk about predictable outcomes.

More reasons why season 8 was almost as painful to get through as season 4. The only bright spot besides Benny and Dean's friendship was Dean's giddiness over his memory foam.

[Myrelle]

1 hour ago, Bergamot said:

gonzosgirrl wrote in the "Citizen Fang" thread:

Unfortunately, g-girrl, it seems to me that even though Dean is sometimes (not always) right about things, the show contrives to find a way to put him in the wrong. Sam was wrong about Benny. He was wrong to conduct this vendetta against him. He was wrong to entrust Martin, a man he knew was unstable, with the job he gave him. It led to Martin being killed, Elizabeth being endangered and traumatized, and Benny's chance of making a new life for himself being brought to an end.

Yet everything that Sam did that was wrong and harmful to others, as a result of his blind hatred of Benny, is never mentioned again by the show. Not once. Meanwhile they make a point of having Charlie berate Dean for what he did in this episode and inaccurately accuse him of destroying Sam's chance at a normal life.  So somehow everything is all Dean's fault.  Talk about predictable outcomes.

Yup.

 Same as in S4-5.

Sam did nothing wrong within the brothers' relationship.

THAT was all on Dean.

And yes, talk about predictable writing as the seasons went on.

[ILoveReading]

1 hour ago, Myrelle said:

Yup.

 Same as in S4-5.

Sam did nothing wrong within the brothers' relationship.

THAT was all on Dean.

And yes, talk about predictable writing as the seasons went on.

Yup.  Then again this season with Cas.

Since s12, when Jack first brainwashed him he's been working against the Winchesters, lying and keeping secrets that resulted in him being indirectly responsbile for Mary's death. 

But Dean is the bad guy and public enemy number one in the fandom because he got angry at him.   Cas is the innocent woobie.

[AwesomO4000]

31 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

Sam did nothing wrong within the brothers' relationship.

I didn't see this at all. The writers spent a large portion of both seasons both showing and telling how bad and wrong Sam was to "betray" Dean. How many times did we have to hear about how Sam chose Ruby over Dean (even though it was much more complicated than that)? And how often did we have to hear about Sam's bad choices - obviously referring to the previous "betrayal" and including within the brothers' relationship.

So much so that the apocalypse was blamed almost entirely on Sam - sometimes ironically by characters who actually contributed to it themselves (like Castiel) - and almost everyone else's contributions were forgotten. The only episode that contained dialogue that could have been interpreted - and not everyone, including me, even interprets it that way, since the words say something else - was "Fallen Idols."And even then, it's Sam saying it, so it could just as easily be interpreted as an "unreliable narrator" situation. Every other episode in the season has Sam as the one at fault.

2 hours ago, Bergamot said:

Yet everything that Sam did that was wrong and harmful to others, as a result of his blind hatred of Benny, is never mentioned again by the show. Not once.

If that is the criteria, there are plenty of examples that would apply to Dean that fit this category. In some cases the potentially wrong stuff Dean does isn't even acknowledged as wrong. (Taking on the mark of Cain, killing Death, making the deal to bring Sam back to begin with, wiping Lisa and Ben's memories, the lying to Sam for weeks about Gadreel).

Even though I hated the storyline concerning Sam being jealous of Benny and the character assassination that it was - which of course he was jealous because Benny had to be hyped as awesome *eye roll* - that something Sam did wrong didn't turn into a catastrophe and get mentioned for seasons to come (like going to college and "abandoning the family," raising Lucifer,  "choosing Ruby," and not looking for Dean) was actually a nice change for once.