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

[gonzosgirrl]

My counter-argument regarding Dabb & Sam consists of two words: Red Meat. I rest my case.

[Aeryn13]

6 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

A whole host of things in my opinion. Sam's fighting skills and hunting instincts are being shown as non-existent. He's generally either getting beat up (he got killed by Nick - human Nick! - in a fight for goodness sake), or not recognizing an obvious trap. Instead of saving civilians, he's usually getting them killed - often. He hardly ever makes the right strategic choice anymore, usually to disastrous results.

You complain about Dean being the "comic relief?" Well at least he's amusing. Sam is generally relegated to doing the stupid thing while only looking sad and pathetic while doing it. If he's not getting himself or a whole bunch of people killed, he's making idiotic or emotional decisions that turn out to have bad consequences that Dean has to sacrifice to fix (Jack / Lucifer) or he's making hot-headed decisions (let's forget that Sam had at one time actually made progress in that area) that start an apocalypse (shooting Chuck.) If someone needs to do something stupid to forward the plot, it's generally now Sam that the writers make do it. Pretty much Every. Single. Time. Castiel used to share this role with Sam before the Dabb era, but pretty much now, it's mainly Sam's role. (With the one exception being Castiel  protecting unborn Jack.)

And for all of the supposed "tell" that Dabb may have said concerning showing Sam as a "leader," the writers sure spent an awful lot of time showing exactly how Sam was not very good at leading - there are a whole bunch of posts above in the introvert vs extrovert discussion outlining exactly this - and in case we didn't get that message from what they showed us, the best outing done by the AU hunters was conducted with Maggie doing the leading, not Sam... and then Sam got everyone including Maggie killed.

In my opinion, the sad thing is that Dabb showed Sam being a worse leader than he ever was in the early seasons. Sam can take the lead - "All Hell Breaks Loose, Pt 1" is the best example, but there were signs of it in "The Usual Suspects," "Afterschool Special," "Adventures in Babysitting," "The Born-Again Identity" and others - he generally just doesn't seem to prefer that role if someone else he trusts - usually Dean - is around to take the lead. Instead of showing that though, what Dabb managed to do was show that Sam doesn't mind being the leader and maybe even wants to be the leader... he just completely sucks at it.

And having Mommy say you are a super good leader doesn't count, especially when said Mommy has absolutely terrible instincts. If anything, in my opinion, that's just more evidence of the contrary actually.

I fail to see how that is showing Sam being an "utter supreme specialist" in everything. Sam gets a token oh, he's good at spells (and generally on this show who isn't?) and he can look things up in books. Somehow, in my opinion, that doesn't counteract all of the above stuff that they've made Sam entirely terrible at. Not by a long shot.

Dean is still shown as a good fighter and hunter. He's still being shown as the one who has the best instincts. The one who people look to as the natural leader. The one who steps up and makes the hard decisions that save the day. On this show those are the important things, the fundamental things... and that Dean is generally the one who does them - to me - is the most important thing and greatly outweighs any small "oh Dean forgot what an Achilles' heel is" moments.

Who cares if a character knows what an Achilles' heel is if that charcater then turns around and hotheadedly shoots in a situation he shouldn't and basically causes an apocalypse, or makes an idiotic plan that takes everyone into a dangerous situation (where a civilian gets killed - along with himself!), or lets everyone under his charge get killed? For me, that character is being shown as way more of a dumbass than the one who didn't know what an Achilles' heel is, and the small crumbs like knowing that thrown his way are actually somewhat condescending,*** but obviously miles vary.

*** As in "well Sam stupidly joined the BMoL, didn't consider that the son of Lucifer might be dangerous (never mind his host might be dangerous after being possessed for so many years and ends up killing him), and started an apocalypse - again - but that's okay we'll have him know a fact that Dean doesn't. That'll even things out!" Me: screw you, writers.

You may find that comic relief stuff of laughing at Dean and humiliating him constantly amusing, I find it disgusting and hurtful. So very much disagree how that is a "good" thing.

I would ten times rather have the "tell" and verbal propping that Sam gets that you consider to be worthless. Because I guarantee you the majority of the audience completely buys it. The tell how wonderfully great Sam is as well as the one how stupid, mean and sloppy Dean is. How he does feelings wrong and basically never anything right anymore.

[AwesomO4000]

6 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

My counter-argument regarding Dabb & Sam consists of two words: Red Meat. I rest my case.

That episode might have been written by Dabb, but that was 4 seasons ago.

I counter with the much more recent - and in my opinion more illustrative of the current state of things - "Game Night."

2 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

So very much disagree how that is a "good" thing.

I never said that it was a good thing, but in my opinion it's at least marginally preferable to being made to look incompetent and pathetic.

2 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

I would ten times rather have the "tell" and verbal propping that Sam gets that you consider to be worthless. Because I guarantee you the majority of the audience completely buys it. The tell how wonderfully great Sam is as well as the one how stupid, mean and sloppy Dean is. How he does feelings wrong and basically never anything right anymore.

I completely disagree.

Not only do I not see Dean as constantly being portrayed as you suggest or that Sam is getting all of this "verbal propping," for me seeing is believing, especially in a show where we are outright told that writers lie (via Chuck). For me who cares if Mary - the woman who thought joining the BMoL was a good idea - says Sam is a great leader one time if we then see 25 instances of Sam not being a great leader? And if someone happened to miss that one episode or moment... not that I let what other's see in the show influence how I enjoy it or not anyway, especially those who only watch casually enough not to pay attention to what's going on. Everyone is going to believe what they are going to believe anyway. I more care what I get from the show, and I only view it from that perspective. I may come here to discuss it and share viewpoints, but what others see or get from the show has no bearing on my enjoyment or lack thereof. For me, if I like it, I like it, and someone else telling me they see it differently might be interesting, but it's not going to keep me up at night.  

From my perspective, have we seen Dean foolishly cause an apocalypse in the past few years? Get any innocent civilians killed... more than once? Get killed himself through incompetence... more than once? Fall for any obvious traps? Yet we've seen Sam do all of these things. Would you seriously want Dean's character to be subjected to that just to have some platitudes thrown his way? (And if the answer is yes, I'm not sure what to say to that, because our ways of seeing the world are maybe too different.)

For me, I'm going to choose reality over perception a great majority of the time.

We've seen Dean fight and hunt competently, take on Michael in order to save the world, and kill Lucifer. In my opinion, that's the important thing. Considering how incompetent the writers make Sam look in comparison, having all of that further spelled out would be overkill.

And again I point to House as an example. I found that show insufferable exactly because not only was the character of House always right, the show made sure to tell us so as well ...as if we didn't just see it happen. I only watched a few episodes, only watching more than once to give it a chance to surprise me. It never did.

I suppose f I loved House as a character and needed to have my love of him validated all of the time maybe I might've enjoyed it, but I didn't, and I don't need my opinions validated anyway, so I pretty much hated it.

Edited January 12, 2020 by AwesomO4000

[Aeryn13]

7 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

That episode might have been written by Dabb, but that was 4 seasons ago.

I counter with the much more recent - and in my opinion more illustrative of the current state of things - "Game Night."

I never said that it was a good thing, but in my opinion it's at least marginally preferable to being made to look incompetent and pathetic.

I completely disagree.

Not only do I not see Dean as constantly being portrayed as you suggest or that Sam is getting all of this "verbal propping," for me seeing is believing, especially in a show where we are outright told that writers lie (via Chuck). For me who cares if Mary - the woman who thought joining the BMoL was a good idea - says Sam is a great leader one time if we then see 25 instances of Sam not being a great leader? And if someone happened to miss that one episode or moment... not that I let what other's see in the show influence how I enjoy it or not anyway, especially those who only watch casually enough not to pay attention to what's going on. Everyone is going to believe what they are going to believe anyway. I more care what I get from the show, and I only view it from that perspective. I may come here to discuss it and share viewpoints, but what others see or get from the show has no bearing on my enjoyment or lack thereof. For me, if I like it, I like it, and someone else telling me they see it differently might be interesting, but it's not going to keep me up at night.  

From my perspective, have we seen Dean foolishly cause an apocalypse in the past few years? Get any innocent civilians killed... more than once? Get killed himself through incompetence... more than once? Fall for any obvious traps? Yet we've seen Sam do all of these things. Would you seriously want Dean's character to be subjected to that just to have some platitudes thrown his way? (And if the answer is yes, I'm not sure what to say to that, because our ways of seeing the world are too different.)

We've seen Dean fight and hunt competently, take on Michael in order to save the world, and kill Lucifer. In my opinion, that's the important thing. Considering how incompetent the writers make Sam look in comparison, having all of that further spelled out would be overkill.

And again I point to House as an example. I found that show insufferable exactly because not only was the character of House always right, the show made sure to tell us so as well ...as if we didn't just see it happen. I only watched a few episodes, only watching more than once to give it a chance to surprise me. It never did.

I suppose f I loved House as a character and needed to have my love of him validated all of the time maybe I might've enjoyed it, but I didn't, and I don't need my opinions validated anyway, so I pretty much hated it.

For me the so-called "humor" is worse. I cringe at humiliation and that is it. 

And it wasn`t just Mary who propped Sam as a leader. Bobby did. Dean did. Meanwhile not once in the entire show was it even brought up in dialogue that Dean might have leadership skills in the first place, let alone any verbal acknowledgment of such. Not a single one time.

When Sam bemoaned how him falling in with the BMOL was because of leadership woes and that leading is hard, Dean was there in the scene - do you know what he said? Nothing. Sam didn`t in any way acknowledge him either. And then came the "Sam is now George Washington" scene and Dean was relegated to a flunky during his speech. Good times. 

As for Dean fighting and hunting competently. Sam finds and solves 98 % of the cases nowadays. Dean tags along. Even during Season 1 when Sam came in after a four year non-hunting period, things were never as lopsided. Sam was shown to contribute. 

Oh, and the Michael/Lucifer fight, yeah, you do know what that one gets remembered for, right? The stupid wire fight. Not in any way a positive or badass thing for Dean. And Sam got more of an actual contribution in this then Dean got in 5.22 when Sam got the "glorious hero" moment. He wasn`t besmirched with a silly-looking wire fight there.  

Since Dabb took over fully, every Season was horrible for Dean. Season 12? He did "feelings wrong" with Mary and got to be saved like 15 times in a row whereas Sam got his string of super-kills.

Season 13? He was mean and wrong about poor, bouncy baby Jackie-poo. 

Season 14? They turned the Michael storyline into a joke for him before they handed everything off to poor baby Jackie-poo.

Season 15? He only featured positively in one episode so far and that was the throwaway B-storyline of the episode. He is mean to poor Cas. Saint Sam needs to forever give little quitter Dean pep talks, in between his God connection and being a super witch.

The last good Dean episode was in Season 11. 

   

[Harleycat]

11 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

For me the so-called "humor" is worse. I cringe at humiliation and that is it. 

And it wasn`t just Mary who propped Sam as a leader. Bobby did. Dean did. Meanwhile not once in the entire show was it even brought up in dialogue that Dean might have leadership skills in the first place, let alone any verbal acknowledgment of such. Not a single one time.

When Sam bemoaned how him falling in with the BMOL was because of leadership woes and that leading is hard, Dean was there in the scene - do you know what he said? Nothing. Sam didn`t in any way acknowledge him either. And then came the "Sam is now George Washington" scene and Dean was relegated to a flunky during his speech. Good times. 

As for Dean fighting and hunting competently. Sam finds and solves 98 % of the cases nowadays. Dean tags along. Even during Season 1 when Sam came in after a four year non-hunting period, things were never as lopsided. Sam was shown to contribute. 

No one brings up Dean's leadership skills because he has been the leader for over a decade. They are just assuming that the audience isn't stupid. The other characters do say often how where Dean goes other hunters will follow and Sam and Cas are constantly whining about how they feel like they are letting Dean down. Why would they care unless Dean was their leader and authority figure? If anything the problem with the later seasons is that the writers don't let Dean make mistakes anymore. He is too perfect. Unless you consider wanting to kill Jack a mistake, which I don't because I knew he wouldn't and therefore there would be no actual consequences besides wasted time.

As for Dean supporting Sam's attempts at leadership, that is what Dean does when Sam attempts to do something good, he supports him. They say directly often in the later seasons that Dean raised Sam, taking the role of mother and father and trying to keep him safe. I took the speech scene as a proud papa moment for Dean. His boy was finally growing up. And meanwhile while Sam was killing people, many of whom were just doing their jobs, Dean was saving his mother.

Even Jack, who is the brains child of the current writers, gravitated towards Dean, not Sam. Dean was saying that he wanted to kill the kid and Jack thought that Dean wanted to kill him, but he still wanted Dean to care about him, not Sam. That speaks volumes about the current writers opinion of Sam's people skills.

Yes seeing Dean mostly as support isn't as much fun as seeing Dean dragging Sam around the country, but characters grow up. Dean does have some child like tendencies and an immature sense of humor, but he is no child. He is middle aged, which is old aged as far as hunters go. He would be trying to get everyone to the point of being able to take care of themselves at this point. I take it as that is why he goes along with cases that Sam finds and let's Sam research on his own. He is trying to ever so slowly get Sam to not be completely reliant on him. It is boring but a natural progression for the character.

Dean does not yell at Sam for being an idiot as much as he used to, but I think they just had the character realize that it is pointless. All that happens when Dean makes a comment about Sam being dumb is there is a bunch of backlash from fans about Dean daring to be mean to their precious Sam. So they stopped and now have Sam and Cas point out their own mistakes to the audience instead. 

I don't think the use of Dean as comic relief is to humiliate him. I think that it shows some self awareness on the writers part and especially in Jensen's part that Dean is a scary character. He is a heavy drinking killing machine that can take down entire teams of trained assassins with nothing but a little assistance from Sam and is prone to bouts of depression. The humor softens the character and Jensen does it well and consistently. Anyway, who else is a strong enough actor to do comedy besides Jensen?

Edited January 13, 2020 by Harleycat

[PAForrest]

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

Since Dabb took over fully, every Season was horrible for Dean. Season 12? He did "feelings wrong" with Mary and got to be saved like 15 times in a row whereas Sam got his string of super-kills.

Season 13? He was mean and wrong about poor, bouncy baby Jackie-poo. 

Season 14? They turned the Michael storyline into a joke for him before they handed everything off to poor baby Jackie-poo.

Season 15? He only featured positively in one episode so far and that was the throwaway B-storyline of the episode. He is mean to poor Cas. Saint Sam needs to forever give little quitter Dean pep talks, in between his God connection and being a super witch.

The last good Dean episode was in Season 11.

This all makes me sad. And it's all so in your face that Dabb fans really have to tap dance fast and furiously to try and explain away the blatant bias against this one character. It was pretty clear that Dabb's #1 goal as showrunner was to attempt to wipe out Dean's place in the universe, if not his popularity. And that's a really stupid counterintuitive position for a showrunner to take WRT a massively popular character without whom you wouldn't have the job of showrunner in the first place.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Casseiopeia]

2 minutes ago, PAForrest said:

This all makes me sad. And it's all so in your face that Dabb fans really have to tap dance fast and furiously to try and explain away the blatant bias against this one character. It was pretty clear that Dabb's #1 goal as showrunner was to attempt to wipe out Dean's place in the universe, if not his popularity. And that's a really stupid counterintuitive position for a showrunner to take WRT a massively popular character without whom you wouldn't have the job of showrunner in the first place.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Which is why Jensen finally pulled the plug. In a recent interview Mark Pedowitz said he would love to keep Jared and Jensen on the CW. I'm going to guess he doesn't feel the same way about Dabb.

[PAForrest]

5 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

Which is why Jensen finally pulled the plug. In a recent interview Mark Pedowitz said he would love to keep Jared and Jensen on the CW. I'm going to guess he doesn't feel the same way about Dabb.

We already know Pedowitz doesn't care about Dabb or Berens or probably even Singer. If he did, he would have been a tad bit more interested in taking a chance on one of their piss poor spin-off attempts. But IMO I think Pedowitz had made it clear he was never genuinely interested in anything SPN-adjacent without the Js involved.

Given that Pedowitz admitted there was more than one meeting with the guys trying to get them to change their minds, and with at least two more seasons on the table, you know someone had to have really reached his limit to say "no more".

[gonzosgirrl]

2 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

That episode might have been written by Dabb, but that was 4 seasons ago.

Four seasons ago, but, IMO, this is where Dabb (and Berens) threw down the gauntlet and showed us how things were going yo be under his tenure. Super!Sam, and poor, desperate Dean, the guy with lots of heart, but not so much in the brains  or skills departments.

45 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

Which is why Jensen finally pulled the plug. In a recent interview Mark Pedowitz said he would love to keep Jared and Jensen on the CW. I'm going to guess he doesn't feel the same way about Dabb.

As much as I want Jensen on a prime network or A-list movie set, realistically,  Hollywood is a supremely fickle and competitive place. There are a lot of talented actors not working, and I want Jensen on my screen (big or small). If he does land back on CW, having Pedowitz on his side will be a good thing. It will almost certainly be a starring vehicle.Just please,  please let Jensen have learned his lesson about getting some creative control, and have some writers who appreciate and play to his talents. 

 

[Aeryn13]

13 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Four seasons ago, but, IMO, this is where Dabb (and Berens) threw down the gauntlet and showed us how things were going yo be under his tenure. Super!Sam, and poor, desperate Dean, the guy with lots of heart, but not so much in the brains  or skills departments.

As much as I want Jensen on a prime network or A-list movie set, realistically,  Hollywood is a supremely fickle and competitive place. There are a lot of talented actors not working, and I want Jensen on my screen (big or small). If he does land back on CW, having Pedowitz on his side will be a good thing. It will almost certainly be a starring vehicle.Just please,  please let Jensen have learned his lesson about getting some creative control, and have some writers who appreciate and play to his talents. 

 

I have nothing against the CW - I watch a lot of their shows and they are very good at getting shows to at least 5 Seasons, compared to the cancel-friendly other networks - but they do still target a bit younger. To be honest, the Walker Texas Ranger reboot doesn`t seem a good fit for the network in terms of content, though I can see why they just want the JP fans to keep on.

I agree, it would be a starring role and he would have likely more clout and control from the start. But right now the CW seems to mainly do two things:  superhero shows or supernatural mystery. Both genres I like but only Black Lightning has a more mature character as a lead.  

[AwesomO4000]

7 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Super!Sam, and poor, desperate Dean, the guy with lots of heart, but not so much in the brains  or skills departments.

Except that somehow in situations when they are both protecting civilians - like at the end of season 13 - it is Dean who manages to save his civilian - twice - while Sam not only gets his killed, he gets killed himself. If I remember correctly Sam makes a bunch of other dumb decisions too that get others killed also in the next episode. If that is an example of Super!Sam, I'd hate to see what regular Sam looks like.

And if Sam is such a Super!Sam, how did he get killed by a regular, old, human Nick who shouldn't have even been in Sam's fighting ability category if Sam is supposed to be just a hunter never mind a supposed super hunter?

If Dean is so supposedly so deficient in the brains and skills department, then how come he seems to be able to save the civilians and stop the bad guy (wire fight aside, he did kill Lucifer and save the day) while Sam can't even manage not to get killed multiple times?

I agree that Jack got the good stuff, but I fail to see how that translated into Sam getting the good stuff any more than Dean did. I also don't see the Super!Sam influence. I don't remember one important development where Sam actually did anything of consequence, probably since season 7. The writers don't see him as important... unless they need someone to screw up or start an apocalypse... then Sam is their man.

10 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

And Sam got more of an actual contribution in this then Dean got in 5.22 when Sam got the "glorious hero" moment. He wasn`t besmirched with a silly-looking wire fight there.  

I remember plenty of fun being poked at Sam's stretching out his arms and falling in the hole moment. And the reason you likely had to go back to season 5's finale is that is probably Sam's one main moment. It's been ten seasons since, and Sam hasn't had another moment anywhere near that. I personally thought 6.22 was great, but it didn't amount to much of anything in terms of a Sam contribution.

And as for Dean's contribution in 5.22, at least he was there and it can be argued that he did make a difference in several actions: bringing the car, influencing Bobby and Castiel - who was critical in giving them those 5 important minutes - to go to the cemetery, and in pissing off Lucifer. If Lucifer hadn't been pissed off and distracted, and Michael hadn't been banished, it can be argued Sam wouldn't have had a chance. Dean did that. Someone else driving the car would not have pissed Lucifer off so effectively. Without Dean to shame them into it, Bobby and Castiel would've been in a bar drinking when things went down. In my opinion, that's a contribution.

Compare that to 9.23. Sam's non-role in defeating Metatron and then having to be turned into a lying hypocrite... now that is the definition of no contribution. How about 11.23? What was Sam's big contribution there? He was cheerleader for a moment and then he metaphorically held Chuck's hand while Dean went off to do the actual world-saving. Sam wasn't even there. Again. (Nonetheless I loved season 11.) I might mention 10.23 as having an important Sam role, except that was a negative role not a positive one... an apocalyptic mess up that Dean got to fix and Sam had almost no contribution to.

I don't think Dean is going to win in a lack of positive contribution comparison contest. Sam - especially during the Carver and Dabb eras - is going to win that contest.

For me, even the "positive" Sam moments are suspect. Some here think season 12's Sam speech to go get the BMoL was some huge glory moment, but I found it insulting. The only thing that speech was saying to me was that 1) Sam screwed up and had to beg for forgiveness in front of a crowd of people and 2) that apparently Sam wasn't making a real contribution to "saving people, hunting things" by helping Dean all these years, but was apparently just not trying hard enough and needed some huge epiphany that he had been a loser before, but now he'd step up and try harder.

I fail to see how that speech was in any way complimentary to Sam as a character. It pretty much put down almost everything that Sam had previously been and suggested that he could only be a "real" hero if he tried harder and fundamentally changed who he was as a person. Some may find that (somehow) to be a "hero moment." I found it utterly insulting.

In my opinion, the writers have been screwing Sam's character over since season 8. And Sam's last good season was season 11, but 8 and 9 were awful for his character, so they don't even count.

[AwesomO4000]

9 hours ago, Harleycat said:

No one brings up Dean's leadership skills because he has been the leader for over a decade. They are just assuming that the audience isn't stupid. The other characters do say often how where Dean goes other hunters will follow and Sam and Cas are constantly whining about how they feel like they are letting Dean down. Why would they care unless Dean was their leader and authority figure? If anything the problem with the later seasons is that the writers don't let Dean make mistakes anymore. He is too perfect. Unless you consider wanting to kill Jack a mistake, which I don't because I knew he wouldn't and therefore there would be no actual consequences besides wasted time.

I agree.

Dean was also right that Jack would go bad, and the other characters even told him that he was right.

I would have liked your post, but I disagree with the second to last paragraph.

[ILoveReading]

9 hours ago, Harleycat said:

No one brings up Dean's leadership skills because he has been the leader for over a decade.

Somebody should tell this to Andrew Dabb.  He specifically said that Sam was only stepping into his rightful place and that Dean was holding him back.  They had Mary say, 'you were born for this' for a reason.

The writers don't see Dean as a leader, they just saw him as being bossy and holding Sam back and no small few in the fandom agreed with this assement.  So I need it acknowledged because the people writing the scripts don't see this as a strength of Dean's character. 

Dabb even took Jared out to dinner, supposedly for discussion on this storyline.  (Jensen he totally blew off when he asked for help with the driection of Michael).  Given that Dabb all said he had to get Dean off screen to give other characters breathing room, its seems to me the main purpose of the Michael storyline was to get Dean off screen to push his Sam is the bestest most special leader ever.  He's so awesome his army just wants to call him chief even though he told  them to stop.   They even made Dean one of Sam's flunklies by saying he would ask Sam if he could take Jack on more hunts. 

14 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Dean was also right that Jack would go bad, and the other characters even told him that he was right.

I fail to see how Dean is right about Jack since the show is completely ignoring that Jack killed Mary and made Dean public enemy number one in the fandom with Dean wanting to lock Jack away.  That was very much portrayed as mean bossy Dean making Sam do that.  Plus they made Dean be the one to say that Jack didn't deserve what he got. 

We know that as of 14.20 that that they have very special plans for Jack.  So what does it matter if someone says Dean was right if they continue writing Jack like a woobie.

[Myrelle]

14 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Somebody should tell this to Andrew Dabb.  He specifically said that Sam was only stepping into his rightful place and that Dean was holding him back.  They had Mary say, 'you were born for this' for a reason.

The writers don't see Dean as a leader, they just saw him as being bossy and holding Sam back and no small few in the fandom agreed with this assement.  So I need it acknowledged because the people writing the scripts don't see this as a strength of Dean's character. 

Dabb even took Jared out to dinner, supposedly for discussion on this storyline.  (Jensen he totally blew off when he asked for help with the driection of Michael).  Given that Dabb all said he had to get Dean off screen to give other characters breathing room, its seems to me the main purpose of the Michael storyline was to get Dean off screen to push his Sam is the bestest most special leader ever.  He's so awesome his army just wants to call him chief even though he told  them to stop.   They even made Dean one of Sam's flunklies by saying he would ask Sam if he could take Jack on more hunts. 

I fail to see how Dean is right about Jack since the show is completely ignoring that Jack killed Mary and made Dean public enemy number one in the fandom with Dean wanting to lock Jack away.  That was very much portrayed as mean bossy Dean making Sam do that.  Plus they made Dean be the one to say that Jack didn't deserve what he got. 

We know that as of 14.20 that that they have very special plans for Jack.  So what does it matter if someone says Dean was right if they continue writing Jack like a woobie.

MTE.

And yes, Jack had hardly "gone bad".

He's just "made mistakes" that resulted in the death of the brothers' mother.

Oh well. Too bad. So sad.

And Dean should just get over it already<insert sarcasm here>.

Because Dean was wrong, wrong, wrong and the NougatBaby was not in any way, shape, or form "going bad", dontchaknow.  🙄

Ugh.

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Myrelle
Additions

[AwesomO4000]

25 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Dabb even took Jared out to dinner, supposedly for discussion on this storyline. 

Was that ever confirmed? I thought that it was mainly a rumor and not necessarily substantiated.

28 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Given that Dabb all said he had to get Dean off screen to give other characters breathing room, its seems to me the main purpose of the Michael storyline was to get Dean off screen to push his Sam is the bestest most special leader ever.  He's so awesome his army just wants to call him chief even though he told  them to stop. 

Well, if that was the case, then why didn't they actually show this? It's hard for me to believe that this was the intent if the writers never actually did it. What they actually showed was that Maggie was the bestest leader ever. She apparently could lead without running herself ragged, so why couldn't Sam?

Who knows maybe they were calling Sam "Chief" in an attempt to boost his confidence. According to the writers, it didn't work. My hunch is that the arc was more to teach Sam a lesson that leading is difficult than to show that this was Sam's rightful place. Unfortunately, it wasn't really a lesson Sam needed to learn, since he'd already learned it years ago, way back in season 2.

What the writers seem to do - at least to me - is get Jared to believe that his character is going to have this awesome story... then they sabotage it much of the time. Season 8, season 9, season 12, season 13. The story in those seasons never seemed to show what the writers said that it was supposed to show. And I might've believed it was unintentional once, maybe twice, but after a while it starts pushing credulity.

45 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

So what does it matter if someone says Dean was right if they continue writing Jack like a woobie.

Either the words (or "tell") matters or it doesn't.

I just said pretty much the same thing above about it not mattering if Mary said Sam was a good leader if the writing showed otherwise, and the consensus seemed to be that the other characters saying it was the important thing.

I personally think what the writers actually show happening is the important thing, but if it's the other characters acknowledging it that's the supposed important thing, then this is an example of the other characters saying it.

If it is what the writing shows that's important, well then you have a point and I'd agree, but in that case, this doesn't only apply to Dean.

[Harleycat]

8 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Who knows maybe they were calling Sam "Chief" in an attempt to boost his confidence. According to the writers, it didn't work. My hunch is that the arc was more to teach Sam a lesson that leading is difficult than to show that this was Sam's rightful place. Unfortunately, it wasn't really a lesson Sam needed to learn, since he'd already learned it years ago, way back in season 2.

Maybe it was to show that Sam will always need Dean to lead him? Although that is kind of depressing if that is what they were going for. Sam will always be Dean's giant baby who is in trouble again.

[DeeDee79]

12 minutes ago, Harleycat said:

Sam will always be Dean's giant baby who is in trouble again.

*sigh* Man I miss Crowley! 😭😭😭

[ILoveReading]

27 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Was that ever confirmed? I thought that it was mainly a rumor and not necessarily substantiated.

IIRC, it was Jared himself at a comic con interview.

 

27 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

then why didn't they actually show this?

IMO they attempted to in episode 14.05.  They had all the AU people listening to Sam's every word, they called him chief, and it didn't seem to be a confidence thing.  Everyone in that ep told Sam how great he was.  The bunker was supposedly running like a well oiled machine.  The one person who dared question Sam, was AU Bobby but even he was made to learn a lesson that he was wrong wrong wrong to call Sam out.  Dean even gave Sam all the credit. 

I feel like we were supposed to see Sam as great and powerful leader that mean bossy Dean just wouldn't let Sam be. 

Its just that Dabb and co. constantly underestimate Jensen and his screen presence (or this was exactly what he was talking about with his breathing room comment. ) Jensen is dominate when on screen.   This is why Dean appears in charge even when they are pimping Sam.

I don't think they see Sam as a failure..  They still treat Sam as the leader.  He tends to question the witnesses on hunts, find the connections, solve the case and get the a majority of the kills.  When another hunter calls the bunker its usually Sam they call or are looking for. 

So I believe they are attempting to both show and tell with regards to Sam being being the leader.  They have never once even hinted that Dean possesses this skill.

29 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Either the words (or "tell") matters or it doesn't.

As I said, above, I believe they are attempting to both show and tell, but IMO, Jared just isn't executing.   But I believe the writers intentions are clear. 

[Harleycat]

53 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Its just that Dabb and co. constantly underestimate Jensen and his screen presence (or this was exactly what he was talking about with his breathing room comment. ) Jensen is dominate when on screen.   This is why Dean appears in charge even when they are pimping Sam.

I don't think they see Sam as a failure..  They still treat Sam as the leader.  He tends to question the witnesses on hunts, find the connections, solve the case and get the a majority of the kills.  When another hunter calls the bunker its usually Sam they call or are looking for. 

So I believe they are attempting to both show and tell with regards to Sam being being the leader.  They have never once even hinted that Dean possesses this skill.

As I said, above, I believe they are attempting to both show and tell, but IMO, Jared just isn't executing.   But I believe the writers intentions are clear. 

They probably believe that it is what the viewers want. Anyway, Dean has never wanted to lead a big group of people. It would be a major character rewrite for him to be anything but wary of that. Dean is always the team leader of team free will. He decides what they are going to go do and who is going to do what based on their strengths, weaknesses, and group dynamics. What would you call that if not being a leader? Team free will is always four or at most five people. Dean is responsible and a worrier, there is no way he would take on being responsible for so many people. 

Jensen is the strongest actor of the bunch though and does steal whatever the scene is. He made eating a hamburger interesting enough that the way he eats became a character trait. I don't respect it, but I see why they would need him to be out of the mix for the other characters to stand out.

[ahrtee]

5 minutes ago, Harleycat said:

Anyway, Dean has never wanted to lead a big group of people. It would be a major character rewrite for him to be anything but wary of that.

Which is exactly what it was for Sam, with no explanation of why he wanted to lead all of a sudden.

6 minutes ago, Harleycat said:

Dean is always the team leader of team free will. He decides what they are going to go do and who is going to do what based on their strengths, weaknesses, and group dynamics. What would you call that if not being a leader?

I dunno.  Sam always called it bullying. 😊  Or at least, unwanted. 

7 minutes ago, Harleycat said:

Jensen is the strongest actor of the bunch though and does steal whatever the scene is. He made eating a hamburger interesting enough that the way he eats became a character trait. I don't respect it, but I see why they would need him to be out of the mix for the other characters to stand out.

The problem I have with this is there's no reason to have other characters stand out *in that particular way.*  Others have their own strengths and shine in their own ways.  As people have been discussing above, there's no need to make Dean stand back to give something that's his strength to others when they can just make the others show strength in what they're good at.  They're making it a zero-sum game--where if one is good at something, the other has to be bad (or at least out of the picture).  That's bad writing, especially for these characters.  

[DeeDee79]

23 minutes ago, Harleycat said:

Jensen is the strongest actor of the bunch though and does steal whatever the scene is. He made eating a hamburger interesting enough that the way he eats became a character trait. I don't respect it, but I see why they would need him to be out of the mix for the other characters to stand out.

In that case maybe the other actors need to step up their game and get on Jensen's level or the writers need to do better instead of making it seem like Dean is smothering the other characters with his presence. Jensen shouldn't be given a time out for being good at his job.

Edit: or what @ahrtee said. 

Edited January 13, 2020 by DeeDee79

[Harleycat]

10 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Which is exactly what it was for Sam, with no explanation of why he wanted to lead all of a sudden.

I dunno.  Sam always called it bullying. 😊  Or at least, unwanted. 

The problem I have with this is there's no reason to have other characters stand out *in that particular way.*  Others have their own strengths and shine in their own ways.  As people have been discussing above, there's no need to make Dean stand back to give something that's his strength to others when they can just make the others show strength in what they're good at.  They're making it a zero-sum game--where if one is good at something, the other has to be bad (or at least out of the picture).  That's bad writing, especially for these characters.  

They heavily front loaded Sam having conversations with other people about admiring and looking up to their older siblings and wanting to be like them before they started the plot line, so maybe that's the motivation? Or maybe just wanted Mommy's approval. They really didn't make it clear. 

Regardless of what Sam called it, Dean was always the leader. 

And of course you are right, it is lazy writing. 

[ahrtee]

1 minute ago, Harleycat said:

Regardless of what Sam called it, Dean was always the leader. 

Yup.  I'm just saying that the writers have (over and over) made it into a negative, not a positive, going way back to season 4/5.  They had Sam and others actually say that Dean was overbearing, bullying, and not letting Sam breathe (or at least, not letting him "be all that he can be."  It didn't just start with season 14.  That's just the first time they had Dean step back and started talking about what a wonderfully fantastic leader Sam actually is (or could be, once Dean was out of the way.)  And while Sam might have chafed once upon a time at having to follow Dean, nowhere did anyone say he actually wanted to lead a whole group.  That's why it came out of nowhere and annoyed so many people.  

[DeeDee79]

2 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

They had Sam and others actually say that Dean was overbearing, bullying, and not letting Sam breathe (or at least, not letting him "be all that he can be." 

Which is ironic because Sam has been yelling and scolding Dean since season 1 and Dean always caves to what Sam wants even if he puts up a token protest before giving in. Are they painting him as a bully because he's older? It doesn't make sense to me. IMO.🤨

[AwesomO4000]

4 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

The bunker was supposedly running like a well oiled machine. 

Except that it wasn't really, in my opinion. Or at least even Sam didn't seem to think so. The episode made a point of showing that Sam was micromanaging, not getting enough sleep, and actually not doing a very good job of leading... part of which is knowing your team and giving them a bit of breathing room to work. From the beginning of the episode, the writer had Dean question Sam on his leadership ability in that regard, making important and intelligent points - which the writing had Sam ignore (likely a textbook leadership mistake.)

So whereas you saw Sam being shown as a good leader, I saw the writing already putting in doubts with having Dean - who has a lot of leadership experience - insert well thought out questions, and showing Sam being run ragged and not taking Dean's advice. In my opinion, the writers were inserting very well thought out doubt about Sam's leadership abilities from very early on. To me, the writers weren't showing Dean stifling Sam's true potential, they were showing Dean giving legitimate advice, and Sam ignoring it.

In my opinion, they were already sewing the seeds for Sam to fail, and likely never really had any plans for him to succeed as a leader. Even the father person of the week in this episode was described by his daughter as a "textbook workaholic with narcissistic tendencies" whose being over worked and inattentiveness lead to his wife committing suicide (dying) while he wasn't paying attention. Oh gee, I wonder who that could be paralleling. (This show is not subtle.)

And then to further illustrate the point, it was actually Dean who defeated the monster (which is one example of why I don't get the "Sam kills most of the monsters" criticism) and then gave the credit to Sam. Then Dean tries to pep talk Sam with "this was you, dude" type things... but not sure he really believes that since at the end of the episode he's already questioning - and rightly so - how Sam is going to be able to continue this way when he's not getting enough sleep, and we once again see that Sam is having unreasonable expectations about leading and is pretty well on the way to failure. We begin and end the episode on that point - again: subtle, this show is not.

So I pretty much interpret episode 14.5 differently than you do. You see it as an example of the show saying that Sam is a good leader of a well oiled machine, taking up the role he was meant to if only Dean got out of his way. I see the episode as showing an operation that seems to be working on the surface, but behind the scenes, things aren't sustainable and Sam doesn't have the skills needed to even know that he's in trouble, never mind right the ship. Dean is being used as the voice of reason - which Sam is ignoring - and the fact that Dean is the one who actually kills the monster reinforces that he knows what he's doing. He wants to support Sam, and wants him to succeed, but the show is already - even 5 episodes in - showing that it just ain't gonna work, and too bad that Sam isn't listening to big brother, cuz he's already headed for failure.

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

They have never once even hinted that Dean possesses this skill.

I think the writers do this in subtle ways, but they do it. They do it by showing the rest of the group - including Castiel, a centuries old celestial being - easily following Dean's lead. They do it in episodes exactly like this with Dean asking relevant intelligent questions of Sam, showing that he knows how to lead "You know these people survived a war, right?" This shows that Dean knows how to read people's potential whereas Sam apparently (at least now under Dabb) doesn't.

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

As I said, above, I believe they are attempting to both show and tell, but IMO, Jared just isn't executing.   But I believe the writers intentions are clear. 

Ironically I agree that the writers intentions are "clear." Or at least fairly so... I just don't see the same intentions that you do. I actually see the opposite intentions. And for those intentions, I think Jared played the role that they wanted him to.

The writers could easily have showed Sam succeeding as a leader, but they didn't. In fact in my opinion, they subverted it on almost every occasion - see "Beat the Devil" for example. For what narrative reason did the writer have the civilian under Sam's charge get killed except to show Sam failing spectacularly? It wasn't necessary for the rest of the plot to work. It didn't even have much bearing on the rest of the plot. They did it to make Sam screw up and fail. And show Dean succeeding in contrast. Period. In my opinion anyway.

3 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Which is exactly what it was for Sam, with no explanation of why he wanted to lead all of a sudden.

Exactly, They were trying to make Sam's character fit into something they thought he should be, because they had no respect for what his character actually was. But to add insult to injury, they were mainly setting him up to fail anyway.

6 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

I dunno.  Sam always called it bullying. 😊  Or at least, unwanted. 

Maybe if Sam were still the same character from season 4, though Sam never called it bullying or even implied the word that I remember. I believe his term for it was "bossy." Completely different as being "bossy" is not always a bad thing. Sam isn't and hasn't been that Sam for years. Heck even by as early as season 2, Sam sometimes would have appreciated it if Dean had been around to tell him what to do. (He explicitly said so in "All Hell..., pt 1")

What changed in season 3/4? Dean decided to make the deal, deciding something for Sam that was earth shattering for both of them and was something that Sam NEVER would have wanted and was never given any say about. That changed things, and I think Sam had a good reason to be affected by and object to that kind of decision being made for him.

However season 5, and especially season 6.5 - 7 Sam had come to terms with all of that and moved on. Carver bringing all of that crap back was a complete disservice to Sam's character ...and Dean's as well. (imo).

2 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

I'm just saying that the writers have (over and over) made it into a negative, not a positive, going way back to season 4/5.  They had Sam and others actually say that Dean was overbearing, bullying, and not letting Sam breathe (or at least, not letting him "be all that he can be." 

I don't remember that at all, so apparently miles vary.

[gonzosgirrl]

They literally had Sam yell at some demons and scare them back to hell, where they stayed for the majority of the season. 

[DeeDee79]

3 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

They literally had Sam yell at some demons and scare them back to hell, where they stayed for the majority of the season. 

Which was so ridiculous that I can't even believe that it actually happened.

[ahrtee]

37 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Maybe if Sam were still the same character from season 4, though Sam never called it bullying or even implied the word that I remember. I believe his term for it was "bossy." Completely different as being "bossy" is not always a bad thing. Sam isn't and hasn't been that Sam for years. Heck even by as early as season 2, Sam sometimes would have appreciated it if Dean had been around to tell him what to do. (He explicitly said so in "All Hell..., pt 1")

What changed in season 3/4? Dean decided to make the deal, deciding something for Sam that was earth shattering for both of them and was something that Sam NEVER would have wanted and was never given any say about. That changed things, and I think Sam had a good reason to be affected by and object to that kind of decision being made for him.

Well, Sam may have been devastated by Dean's deal (just like Dean was at John's) but I'd hardly say he suffered the worst consequences.  Sam always has a tendency to make his own issues seem more important than Dean's, and (unfortunately) Dean usually agrees with him and winds up feeling terribly guilty.  (Remember, this has continued on through today.)  

Actually, what I said was Sam was complaining about Dean as far back as season 4/5, which was when he started drinking demon blood.  By that time Dean was already back, and Sam had (supposedly) had a year of not being bossed (though he allowed Ruby to continually lead him by the...um, nose.) 

But he still kept complaining that Dean was putting him at the "kiddie table" or not letting him grow up, which may not be the same word as "bullying" but certainly implies it.  Even Bobby told Dean that they weren’t giving Sam enough credit and how wonderful he actually was.  And that lasted for a lot longer than just a few years, even through the current seasons whenever Sam gets pissed about a decision he doesn't like—not just earth shattering things but simple choices about how to handle a hunt or a monster.  He's heading towards 40--surely he can behave like an adult.  But he still insists on making Dean feel guilty for doing something that may be logical but he doesn't like--like the Ma’lak box.  So I’d say Sam actually *is* still the same person he was back in season 4/5.  *sigh*

[AwesomO4000]

8 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

They literally had Sam yell at some demons and scare them back to hell, where they stayed for the majority of the season. 

Well yes, likely a rare case of Sam getting a favorable outcome due to plotomium. The writers didn't want to have to deal with the demons that season, so voila, demons taken care of.

However, I'm pretty sure if they'd wanted the demons around they would have had Sam do something to make sure that would happen instead.

Basically I am saying that I'd guess it was more for writer's convenience than any actual reflection on how the writers see Sam as some super duper hunter... because as I said, we later on in the season saw Sam killed by human Nick, so apparently human Nick is less intimidated by Sam than demons with actual supernatural powers. In other words, it makes absolutely no sense that Nick should have been able to kill Sam if the writers actually thought that Sam was so intimidating and "powerful" as to scare demons is my point.

The writers seem to like to use Sam more as a plot device or to reflect some personal opinion more than actually use him as a developed character nowadays.

8 hours ago, ahrtee said:

even through the current seasons whenever Sam gets pissed about a decision he doesn't like—not just earth shattering things but simple choices about how to handle a hunt or a monster.  He's heading towards 40--surely he can behave like an adult. But he still insists on making Dean feel guilty for doing something that may be logical but he doesn't like...

I guess I was unclear in what I was saying. I was more thinking of seasons 5.5 - 7 and 10 - 11. The current writing for Sam is so inconsistent in my opinion, that it's hard to make any real broad statements.

I did mention that Carver regressed Sam for his own agenda. It was - as I said - season 5 through 7 where Sam learned to let that go and matured, but Carver decided he was going to do things "better" and pretty much undid Gamble's character development and ruined Sam's character for two seasons.

Things got better for a little while in season 10 and 11, but in my opinion, almost all of the writers who bothered to write well for Sam are gone now. Sam is more a plot device or a set of exaggerated character traits to them in these current seasons.

And it's exactly what you are saying here that I don't get why some think these current writers are favoring Sam. In my opinion they aren't even letting Sam be a mature, complex character - making Dean the poor, put upon brother who is always right, but is abused by everyone around him.*** Sam is generally the one made to do the stupid thing to further the plot - or get killed by or shown up by or saved by the generally more favored characters (such as Crowley, Lucifer, Nick, or Jack). He's almost always wrong. He almost always fails, screws up, or both. When was the last time Sam had any meaningful role in saving the world at all, besides being back up? Certainly not since the Carver years started. He sure as heck started two apocalypses though.

I really don't get how that's favoring Sam. I don't think most of these current writers even know - or care - who Sam even is as a character, and those that maybe do, want to change him into something else and insult his actual character by doing so.

My favorite writing for Sam was seasons 5 through 7. Seasons 1-3 and 11 were pretty good also. But it's been a long, long time since - barring a few exceptions - I've thought that the writing for Sam was very good.

*** And of course Dean has too low a self esteem to stand up for himself. *eyeroll* Just an excuse to make Sam look like the bad guy who then has to tell Dean that Dean was right later on in my opinion.

Edited January 13, 2020 by AwesomO4000

[Harleycat]

The current writers are definitely not too concerned with Sam the person. The girl he's into dies, he doesn't care. His mother and Cas dues, he doesn't care because he has "hope". He starts an apocalypse for a second time, he doesn't care. Jack is accidentally hurting and killing people, he doesn't even blink an eye. He is now killing people, not just monsters, but that's no big deal.  But telling people to not eat junk food, well that's important. 

[Aeryn13]

3 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

*** And of course Dean has too low a self esteem to stand up for himself. *eyeroll* Just an excuse to make Sam look like the bad guy who then has to tell Dean that Dean was right later on in my opinion.

If so, the writers are doing a spectacularly bad job with it, seeing as how Dean has been enemy numero uno in the fandom for a while now. The endless metas on how he is abusive to Sam have been joined to how he is abusive to Cas and Jack. I even saw a few Mary ones. "Abusive" and Dean is one of the most prevalent google searches. Yeehaw, thank you Carver and Dabb for that.

Also if the writers do not want to portray Dean as stupid or Sam as a great leader, they sure missed the mark with 85 % of their audience who bought into it hook, line and sinker.   

[Katy M]

1 minute ago, Aeryn13 said:

If so, the writers are doing a spectacularly bad job with it, seeing as how Dean has been enemy numero uno in the fandom for a while now. The endless metas on how he is abusive to Sam have been joined to how he is abusive to Cas and Jack. I even saw a few Mary ones. "Abusive" and Dean is one of the most prevalent google searches. Yeehaw, thank you Carver and Dabb for that.

Also if the writers do not want to portray Dean as stupid or Sam as a great leader, they sure missed the mark with 85 % of their audience who bought into it hook, line and sinker.   

I think that's tied with how ungrateful Sam is to Dean and how he emotionally manipulates him.  Why worry about what other fans think and just watch for your own enjoyment?  Everybody's going to create their own narrative and since it's a fictional show about fictional people it doesn't really matter.

[Aeryn13]

6 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I think that's tied with how ungrateful Sam is to Dean and how he emotionally manipulates him.  Why worry about what other fans think and just watch for your own enjoyment?  Everybody's going to create their own narrative and since it's a fictional show about fictional people it doesn't really matter.

Because I think of all the showrunners Dabb really did go on a little campaign to make the character of Dean (and probably even the actor) as less-liked as he could possibly make it. 

Kripke had Sam as his avatar but respected Dean. I think Gamble lusted after Sam and took some potshots at Dean but generally didn`t much care. Carver was pretty clumsy in his showrunning but actually did try to give the character something new. 

But Dabb? He makes sure that Dean has no skill or positive attribute left and hopefully that as many viewers as possible turn on the character. And Berens, if possible, hates the character even more. 

As for enjoyment, well, there is not really any to be had anymore with the show. Maybe two or three decent scenes per Season.

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Aeryn13

[gonzosgirrl]

32 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

If so, the writers are doing a spectacularly bad job with it, seeing as how Dean has been enemy numero uno in the fandom for a while now. The endless metas on how he is abusive to Sam have been joined to how he is abusive to Cas and Jack. I even saw a few Mary ones. "Abusive" and Dean is one of the most prevalent google searches. Yeehaw, thank you Carver and Dabb for that.

Also if the writers do not want to portray Dean as stupid or Sam as a great leader, they sure missed the mark with 85 % of their audience who bought into it hook, line and sinker.   

Exactly. The only place I ever see Sam's portrayal questioned negatively is here. Saint/SuperSam is alive and well in the zeitgeist.

[gonzosgirrl]

26 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

But Dabb? He makes sure that Dean has no skill or positive attribute left and hopefully that as many viewers as possible turn on the character. And Berens, if possible, hates the character even more. 

Co-signed. Nobody will convince me that there isn't a least a little petty, jealous frat-boy in these two, who have exerted their 'power' over a handsome, kick-ass, popular 'jock' in the only way they can. I hope karma comes for them one day (soon) beyond the fact* that they wrote themselves right out of a job.

 

*Fact as determined by me, lol. I will die on that hill.

[Myrelle]

24 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Because I think of all the showrunners Dabb really did go on a little campaign to make the character of Dean (and probably even the actor) as less-liked as he could possibly make it. 

Kripke had Sam as his avatar but respected Dean. I think Gamble lusted after Sam and took some potshots at Dean but generally didn`t much care. Carver was pretty clumsy in his showrunning but actually did try to give the character something new. 

But Dabb? He makes sure that Dean has no skill or positive attribute left and hopefully that as many viewers as possible turn on the character. And Berens, if possible, hates the character even more. 

As for enjoyment, well, there is not really any to be had anymore with the show. Maybe two or three decent scenes per Season.

 

ITA with all of this and it's sad beyond measure to me, but it's also why I can't be upset about it ending.

And it's especially hard to accept and deal with what the show has become because of this when you watch from the beginning again.

Maybe that will change with time, though, and the further we get/move away from the Dabb years, but for now, as I already mentioned, it just feels sad beyond words to this fan what Dabb is attempting to do to Dean/Jensen-the only character on this show that I stiil do care about.

I've been hoping to post something in The Ending thread for the last week or so, but it's difficult to keep the bitterness concerning this aspect of the writing out of things now, any time that I consider talking or posting about the show, but watching the early seasons on TNT has made me nostalgic and I really do want to post something in that thread.

But I fear that my greatest feeling at this very moment is utter sadness at the complete loss of such great potential that we had for the show and it's two main characters back in those days.

And yes, it is just fiction and they are just fictional characters,  but they've been with us for 15 years, so they feel like a lot more than that, at least to this fan, anyway.

[Aeryn13]

18 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

ITA with all of this and it's sad beyond measure to me, but it's also why I can't be upset about it ending.

And it's especially hard to accept and deal with what the show has become because of this when you watch from the beginning again.

Maybe that will change with time, though, and the further we get/move away from the Dabb years, but for now, as I already mentioned, it just feels sad beyond words to this fan what Dabb is attempting to do to Dean/Jensen-the only character on this show that I stiil do care about.

I've been hoping to post something in The Ending thread for the last week or so, but it's difficult to keep the bitterness concerning this aspect of the writing out of things now, any time that I consider talking or posting about the show, but watching the early seasons on TNT has made me nostalgic and I really do want to post something in that thread.

But I fear that my greatest feeling at this very moment is utter sadness at the complete loss of such great potential that we had for the show and it's two main characters back in those days.

And yes, it is just fiction and they are just fictional characters,  but they've been with us for 15 years, so they feel like a lot more than that, at least to this fan, anyway.

I`m at the point where I`m hoping for the ending to be at least decent for Dean. I will read up on it and if it`s not, I won`t put myself through watching. Then Season 11 is my ending. 

Also agreed on that it`s probably gonna be easier once more time has passed. 

What kinda helps my outlook a bit currently is Star Wars. Of which I have been a fan for a lot longer than even SPN and which had a pretty great ending IMO. Never imagined someone could or would ruin an ending (and all previous movies) forty years after the fact. But it has given me perspective that even if Dabb`s ending is horrible and renders the whole show null and void, I can just ignore it. I think so many people have stopped watching over the course of the show, that individually there must be a gazillion "endings" by now. 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Aeryn13

[auntvi]

At the risk of having a hand slapped for going OT, I agree with you on Star Wars. I loved The Last Jedi and I loved The Rise of Skywalker, no matter what the different factions screamed. The 2 directors had different points of view, but they both CARED about and respected the story. 

Same can't be said for the SPN showrunners at this point.

[7kstar]

1 hour ago, Myrelle said:

And yes, it is just fiction and they are just fictional characters,  but they've been with us for 15 years, so they feel like a lot more than that, at least to this fan, anyway.

Isn't the first show that I really liked that I didn't love how they ended it.  I also don't have an issue with creating my own ending.

The last group of Star Wars had some good moments.  But for me the best years were the first group of 3.  I didn't mind the last set but not sure it was the direction I would go.

somehow Dabb believes he is doing a great job.  I wish he could see the writing on the wall but he is stuck with his beliefs.  I just hate what he has done to both Sam and Dean.

[Aeryn13]

1 hour ago, auntvi said:

At the risk of having a hand slapped for going OT, I agree with you on Star Wars. I loved The Last Jedi and I loved The Rise of Skywalker, no matter what the different factions screamed. The 2 directors had different points of view, but they both CARED about and respected the story. 

Same can't be said for the SPN showrunners at this point.

Were you responding to my post? Because, heh, I guess I was confusing, I loathed TLJ and I hated everything I read about TROS (and felt they didn`t respect the story at all) which is why it is so similar for me with Dabb and SPN and I have to discard those movies from canon or else I could never enjoy the old ones again. My ending remains ROTJ.

But that has shown me I can do it and just have a work of fiction end at my point of choosing and just ignore what comes later. 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Aeryn13

[Harleycat]

10 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

If so, the writers are doing a spectacularly bad job with it, seeing as how Dean has been enemy numero uno in the fandom for a while now. The endless metas on how he is abusive to Sam have been joined to how he is abusive to Cas and Jack. I even saw a few Mary ones. "Abusive" and Dean is one of the most prevalent google searches. Yeehaw, thank you Carver and Dabb for that.

Also if the writers do not want to portray Dean as stupid or Sam as a great leader, they sure missed the mark with 85 % of their audience who bought into it hook, line and sinker.   

These people clearly have no experience with life in general if they think that Dean is abusive in any way, shape, or form. The writers have made their mistakes, but painting Dean as abusive hasn't been one of them. They make more attempts then past writers to highlight the fact that Dean has sacrificed his life from the time he was a child and through most of his adulthood for Sam. He continues to do what he does, work and take care of Sam, because that is what he knows. Is it healthy? Probably not. But it's the most true to life story line they have on this show.  

I think the fans in general are to blame for the watering down of Dean's character in a lot of ways. They can't handle passion without screaming abuse. Given, the writers should be stronger leaders themselves and not give a shit what 16 year old idiots are screaming about on twitter or whatever, but you can't have everything. 

[Castiels Cat]

On 1/12/2020 at 11:00 PM, gonzosgirrl said:

They literally had Sam yell at some demons and scare them back to hell, where they stayed for the majority of the season. 

Hell's great. Belphager spent 3 boring episodes hanging with TFW doing his darnest to get back because it's the best place ever.

That was ever so lame. Crowley lite 2.0 was a Mongol marauder and easily dispatched. I think that might have been what actually scared them more than the yelling. It wasn't super impressive but it was better than his leader6in the vampire cave.

[Castiels Cat]

On 1/13/2020 at 10:42 AM, Aeryn13 said:

Because I think of all the showrunners Dabb really did go on a little campaign to make the character of Dean (and probably even the actor) as less-liked as he could possibly make it. 

Kripke had Sam as his avatar but respected Dean. I think Gamble lusted after Sam and took some potshots at Dean but generally didn`t much care. Carver was pretty clumsy in his showrunning but actually did try to give the character something new. 

But Dabb? He makes sure that Dean has no skill or positive attribute left and hopefully that as many viewers as possible turn on the character. And Berens, if possible, hates the character even more. 

As for enjoyment, well, there is not really any to be had anymore with the show. Maybe two or three decent scenes per Season.

 

It is pretty obvious at this point. I  don't think it's about frat boy resentment. JA is the de facto leader on set and it's obvious from comments that has come out of Cons that he complained about the writing. He tried to bring in guest writers to make this season stellar. He probably made the call to end things.

[Myrelle]

9 minutes ago, Castiels Cat said:

He probably made the call to end things.

I would bet the ranch on it, at this point.  

[DeeDee79]

3 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

I would bet the ranch on it, at this point.  

Considering the crap that Dabb just spewed in the latest interview I really hope that he said "enough already" and was adamant about pulling the plug.

Edited January 15, 2020 by DeeDee79

[Castiels Cat]

Just now, Myrelle said:

I would bet the ranch on it, at this point.  

Yeah. I used to think that there wasn't really anything there seasons ago but now we are into season 15 with godlike Samuel master witch and his mean halfwit brother.

It also smacked of trolling. The show was built on the premise that they were men and heroes against the Supernatural. There is nothing godlike about them. Sam was tainted by demon blood and it was bad. They have been possessed and overcome it. They represent the best of humanity going head to head with the supernatural. This season they are going head to head with divinity. It's the worst odds they have had because they are human. That humanity has always given them the edge.

Dabb thinks he is clever. He is building an army of fans that won't follow him to his next project.

[Myrelle]

Just now, DeeDee79 said:

Going by the crap that Dabb just spewed in the latest interview I really hope that he said "enough already" and was adamant about pulling the plug.

I think it was the wire fight and the disastrous writing of the  MichaelDean arc that convinced him to call it quits- and this even if JP and MC wanted to continue on, IMO.

IOW, yes, I think he was adamant about it and his co-stars knew it.

[ILoveReading]

6 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

I think it was the wire fight and the disastrous writing of the  MichaelDean arc that convinced him to call it quits- and this even if JP and MC wanted to continue on, IMO.

IOW, yes, I think he was adamant about it and his co-stars knew it.

Part of me will always wonder if Jensen was that blind item about a major lead leaving his long running series.

[Myrelle]

3 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Part of me will always wonder if Jensen was that blind item about a major lead leaving his long running series.

I still want to know, too.

[ILoveReading]

From @gonzosgirrl in the bitter spoilers thread.  No spoilers mentioned

Quote

I just don't get that nobody ever calls him out on this kind of thing.

I think it has to do with set access.   I remember a reviewer during s8 reviewing taxi driver said Dean needed more to do.  Then with ep 21 she was suddenly convinced that Dean had a part to play, when he had even less to do in that episode.  I always wondered if she got her hand slapped.  It just seemed odd that she suddenly changed her tune. 

Alice Jester, who runs Winchester Family Business used to be on the list for screeners.  But stopped getting them.   TBH, I have no idea why.  I just remember her complaining that she didn't give one.