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

[catrox14]

Are you saying that Dean is a Mary Sue?

Both characters have had a pretty equal POV. It's just that one character's POV is not always nice or likeable vs the other one in any given episode or mytharc, IMO.

[catrox14]

I'm really not following how either Sam or Dean are Sue-ish characters at all. They both fuck up all the time. They both suffer consequences for their actions, they repeat some of their old patterns and at any one time either character is hated by the audience or someone else in the show.  Both are well drawn, well-developed, three-dimensional characters with internal lives.  I'm just really not seeing any sort of Mary Sue/Gary Stu characteristics whatsoever for either character.

[DittyDotDot]

I find the Mary Sue or total numbskull effect pretty evenly distributed over the years. I usually think the show is told from Dean's POV and has been since S2, but that doesn't mean he's cornered the market on being a Sue. The writers throw them both under the bus whenever it suits them and/or elevate them with the same regard, IMO.

[Mcolleague]

What?! On paper, Sam has TONS of positive traits. Early seasons Sam was intelligent, successful, rational, independent, introspective, empathetic, the sensitive one, the one with emotional maturity. He loved his girlfriend (and was NOT sexually promiscuous, like his brother). He fought for his own choices and forged his own path (and was NOT blindly loyal, like his brother). He was the hidden-depths character, the one with the edge, the rebellious streak, the capacity for ruthlessness, the foreboding future and the potential to turn dark. He was the Chosen One. He single handedly overcame Lucifer. A lot of the execution with his character has been horrendous, but there were plenty of traits that should have firmly established him as the Big Damn Hero. 

[7kstar]

I'm really not following how either Sam or Dean are Sue-ish characters at all. They both fuck up all the time. They both suffer consequences for their actions, they repeat some of their old patterns and at any one time either character is hated by the audience or someone else in the show.  Both are well drawn, well-developed, three-dimensional characters with internal lives.  I'm just really not seeing any sort of Mary Sue/Gary Stu characteristics whatsoever for either character.

Catrox14 I agree.  Sorry but Dean isn't a Mary-Sue nor is he written as one.  He's had flaws shown and has had help to do anything.  To save the day at the end of Season two, John stepped in.  Without that distraction, Dean couldn't have gotten his shot.  A Mary-Sue doesn't need any help and isn't real.  Is able to do it all and never fails.  Dean isn't that.  Wesley Crusher yes, he was a Mary Sue.  If anyone they tried to write as a Mary-Sue at first it was Sam.  He had all the traits that should have made him the favorite and yes I believe he was modeled to a degree from Kripke.

 

Kripke left home and wasn't the popular one.  I really think it shows that he sees Dean as one of his popular brothers that got all the good things.  They wrote Dean one dimensional, but Jensen is a talented actor and reflects about the issues and adds the layers even if it wasn't written in the lines.  Then I think they saw how talented he was and they started giving him better material which he could knock out of the park. 

 

This show has always shown that a loving marriage is not a good thing or something that can last.  Again it's embrace the dark and forget about the light.  To have a real balance show, you have to lean towards balance and that goes against Horror anyway and certainly against the shows writers.  Sorry but in my opinion nothing you've stated sways me to see Dean as a Mary Sue.  So I'll agree to disagree.

 

What?! On paper, Sam has TONS of positive traits. Early seasons Sam was intelligent, successful, rational, independent, introspective, empathetic, the sensitive one, the one with emotional maturity. He loved his girlfriend (and was NOT sexually promiscuous, like his brother). He fought for his own choices and forged his own path (and was NOT blindly loyal, like his brother). He was the hidden-depths character, the one with the edge, the rebellious streak, the capacity for ruthlessness, the foreboding future and the potential to turn dark. He was the Chosen One. He single handedly overcame Lucifer. A lot of the execution with his character has been horrendous, but there were plenty of traits that should have firmly established him as the Big Damn Hero. 

Sam was suppose to go dark.  The angel story was never suppose to happen, so yes we were suppose to see this wonderful person become a villain to save his brother.  Dean was the bad boy that everyone loves to save.  Simple as that.  Not that strong of writing.  But then again, neither was Star Wars.  I remember watching the first movie and going this is the movie everyone is raving about?  Why?  It was really the end that everyone loved.  I know some of the shows it is really the end that I love and remember fondly and some of the beginning and middle is just plain bad.

 

Sam's character was destroyed in season 4 - 9.  The hero aspect is gone for me.  I don't like Sam that much at all.  Dean wouldn't have drawn me in at first either.  If I had met Dean in a bar, he would be fine for a few laughs but both brothers wouldn't be someone I would say this is a great guy.  I blame bad writing for all of this. 

 

If there was a character that was moving into a Mary Sue, it would have been Bobby.  It was why so many started hating him.  He always had the answers, was always right and the other Mary Sue is Charlie. 

 

Dean's flaws, low self esteem, yes it is a big deal and only someone that doesn't deal with it would say it isn't.  He drinks too much.  He never thinks about the consequences before he acts, sometimes it has been a good move, but sometimes it has been deadly.  Going to hell and the Mark of Cain, anyone.  He backs down when he knows he is right because he doesn't always trust himself.  He doesn't trust anyone and expects to be betrayed.  The only one that hasn't was Benny.  Not counting Garth and Charlie. 

 

He defends his friends and family to death even if it will harm him at the end, Cass at the end of season 6. 

 

Those that think Sam has been redeemed will never see this.  Also those that have had a charmed life won't get how harmful a low self esteem is.  In teaching I see the damage of low self esteem.  All the trouble makers have such low self esteem that they become destructive so no one can see the pain they are hiding.  I teach in a low income area but we do get a mix of high income.  I laugh sometimes when the rich kids try to pretend they know how to be in a gang.  They don't have a clue and it shows. 

 

Dean lies, to himself as well.  He's been on suicide mission for a long time.  He's okay with dying because he doesn't have something worthwhile.  He see Sam as the one that can make it on his own.  In fact Sam did.  He left the family, was very successful, had the American dream until Jess was killed.  If Jess hadn't been killed, Sam never would have left school and never have gotten close to Dean. It wasn't wrong that he left, never thought that was a problem.  And as someone that barely talks to my family, I can totally relate to why it happened.  But I also can see Dean's side of loving his family and needing them far more than they ever needed him.  "What should be" really drives that one home.  If you listen to his commentary, none of us would ever liked Dean.  He didn't envision Dean, but Jensen added so much depth that he went with the flow.   Again, we can agree to disagree. 

 

It will be interesting to see how everyone talks about Demon Dean next season.  I think the reason that everyone felt Dean wasn't so awful this season was due to the acting skills, what was written on the page should have made us hate him.  But Jensen's talent and skill keeps that from happening.  Again, JMV

 

Jared couldn't make us love Gadreel and Soulless Sam.  I think the writers thought he could.  Jared is good at small doses of playing evil.  He is better with comedy and I think as an actor, he hates playing the old Sam.  So I would love to see them write something that will make me respect Sam and love him again, but a line telling me he had the worst hell, and overcame all the bad he's done won't do it.

 

I guess I should add I teach Debate and if I believe I can prove something, no one will change my mind and I'm fine if you don't get swayed either.  Dang this post turned out way too long.  Shame on me.  ;)

Edited June 25, 2014 by 7kstar

[catrox14]

Never mind. I misread your comment 7kstar

Edited June 25, 2014 by catrox14

[Mcolleague]

I don't think we are really disagreeing on much, 7kstar. Sam hasn't come across as sympathetic for a while, I just don't think it's ever been from a lack of effort on the writers' part. I thought Kripke loaded Sam with positive traits, and gave him great storylines. Sera Gamble clearly loved him. Even Carver era Sam, which was a spectacular fail and basically ruined him IMO, I think they tried to give him good storylines and sympathetic traits. The feeling unclean since he was a child, and purifying himself through the trials storyline in Season 8 sounds like it should have been a great redemption AND POV arc. They have a lot of great ideas for Sam, and then completely fail at execution. It's ridiculous. There was a large fandom survey on Tumblr/Twitter a little while back, where something like 50,000 people responded - and Sam's approval rating was in the toilet (I can't find the source, but iirc it was in the vicinity of 20%). They are seriously running this character into the ground. 

 

I think as others have said before, it's just been too many seasons of the story revolving around Sam. He had more plot arcs, Dean had more POV - but Dean's POV revolves around what happens to Sam, so more often than not, what we see onscreen is Dean caring and Sam not reciprocating. I know this is not necessarily true, but it takes a LOT of analysis and fanwanking to understand where Sam is coming from, and not all viewers are going to make the effort tbh? It's kind of bizarre as a writing choice. I think a simple role reversal would have done wonders, just Sam showing some concern and trying to save Dean for once. The MoC storyline should have been a good opportunity, but that's clearly not the way it went. I don't know if that's where they will go in Season 10. At this point it might be too late no matter what they do. 

[AwesomO4000]

I apologize in advance for the length of this. You guys were busy with discussion while I was away...

 

On paper, Sam has TONS of positive traits. Early seasons Sam was intelligent, successful, rational, independent, introspective, empathetic, the sensitive one, the one with emotional maturity.

 

It would be different if most of those things were only Sam's traits, were relevant, or were seen by the show as good traits, but breaking them down, they were all shown as irrelevant, not viewed as positive, or not being unique to Sam fairly quickly.

Intelligence: Dean was shown to be just as intelligent much of the time  - like his "surprise" reading of "the Odyssey," I think it was and knowing multiple Kurt Vonnegut novels - and in addition, Dean had street smarts. Usually Sam's intelligence was made fun of by Dean and the show, and by season 7 even Bobby was motioning to Sam and saying "aim lower" to Castiel when talking about book smart things. Usually Sam knowing things was more a plot device than showing Sam being smart as an admirable thing.

Successful: All of Sam's supposed successes turned out to be irrelevant. Law school Sam in "What Is..." was portrayed mostly as a jerk. Traditional success is usually mocked by this show and/or is hardly ever portrayed as a good thing.

Rational: Again, this never came to anything. Sam's decisions, even the rational ones were often wrong. The show generally admired Dean's less rational "We're not sacrificing anyone. We go down fighting" attitude (Like "Jus In Bello") and even his "shoot first" instinct was usually shown to be correct. "Croatoan" was a good example of exactly this. Sam's being "rational" is not generally portrayed as a positive thing. (It's the Scully factor. Scully is the more rational of the team, but she's also almost always wrong. It's interesting that Dean called Sam "Scully" right in the first episode. It might be coincidence, but looking back on it, it appears that it established their roles from the beginning. Sam is a short, read-headed woman.)

Independence and willingness to rebel: from early on in the show, this was shown to be the negative compared to Dean's more loyal nature. Sam was always the one who "abandoned" the family. His going to college was shown to be destructive to all of those around him, including Jessica and Sam's friend who got possessed. By season 4, it was shown that it didn't even make Sam happy in the end. It's what Sam learned fro "Afterschool special" and I might be wrong, but I don't remember a time on the show when Sam being independent or rebelling ended up accomplishing anything important, except maybe his going against Bobby and Cas and trusting Dean in "Point of No Return." Usually it's the opposite - Sam rebels and bad things happen.

empathetic and the sensitive one: As early as "Wendigo" (the second episode), the writers were showing Dean as the one who cared about saving people above his own wants. The show mostly showed that Sam was better at faking it when he needed to. There was genuine empathy as well, but this was never solely Sam's trait. Dean had it just as much if not more so. Unless being shown as able to better fake empathy is somehow a positive trait, this doesn't count as a Sam trait, in my opinion.

 

He was the hidden-depths character, the one with the edge, the rebellious streak, the capacity for ruthlessness, the foreboding future and the potential to turn dark

 

All things Dean also had. Dean defied his destiny and tortured when he needed to. As early as "Croatoan", it was Dean who was shown as being able to make the tough decisions while Sam hesitated from doing what needed to be done when he didn't shoot the kid (who turned out to be infected and likely infected others). The capacity for ruthlessness for Sam came later, and for Sam it was shown in a negative light as in "Death Takes a Holiday" and "Jump the Shark."

 

He single handedly overcame Lucifer.

 

I'm not convinced of that myself. If Dean hadn't shown up when he did, the fight would've gone down and likely half the planet would've been toasted. I still hold to the theory that it was Dean's being there in the present in conjunction with Sam's memories of the past and Michael's rejection of Lucifer as a brother that defeated Lucifer.  If Sam was gong to defeat Lucifer on his own, he would have done so as soon as he said "yes" and Lucifer took him over.

 

And if the events of "The End" are anything to go by - if that was the true potential future that Zach showed Dean - then Sam on his own succumbed to Lucifer and doomed the planet. I thought it was pretty well shown that Sam on his own would not have defeated Lucifer - both brothers were needed, and even more so Dean - since the one Deanless scenario we saw was in "The End" where Sam obviously was defeated by Lucifer and the earth was basically doomed. Not exactly evidence that Sam was the sole hero of that story, in my opinion.

 

And I'm not saying that I want Sam to be the hero either. I like Sam flawed. I find him more relatable and human that way. Though the mud they've dragged the character through in the last two seasons does annoy me.

 

They both fuck up all the time.

 

I guess my problem is that in the times when Dean fucks up, it seems that everyone else fucks up even more (usually Sam and Castiel). This may change since Dean has become a demon, but even that was shown to be not really Dean's fault. Yes, he took on the mark without finding out the consequences, but his killing Abaddon was a good thing (Unlike Sam's killing Lilith) and Dean made it clear that he wanted to die rather than become something monstrous, while both Sam and Crowley were working against his wishes, so, in the end, it wasn't really Dean that fucked up - he should have died heroically - other people fucked up for him.

 

It's like the Deal. Yes, Dean messed up and ended up breaking the first seal, but only after years and years of torture and he didn't even know that was going to happen by picking up that blade. But even then, breaking the first seal wouldn't have come to anything if Sam hadn't fucked up worse and killed Lilith - after being told multiple times not to continue on that path, and so was given warnings Dean never got. Then there was Castiel - again warned by Dean not to continue, but making the choice and fucking up on his own.

 

So my main reason for seeing the writers portraying Dean more sympathetically is because Dean's "fuck-ups" are either not entirely his fault, would only effect him unless someone else didn't fuck up worse, or they turn out to have good results instead (such as Gadreel helping in a major way to defeat Metatron). When Sam and Castiel fuck up, it's almost always all or mostly on them and it's almost always a huge fuck up that hurts others and has huge consequences. Even with the same motivations or rationale, Dean's results usually come out right, the other characters' wrong. Two examples 1) Revenge. Sam killing for revenge resulted in him raising Lucifer. Dean killing for revenge - both times (if you include Abaddon) - gave a good result, one saving the world, the other helping to save the world. 2) Trusting someone: Despite little reason to, Dean trusts Naomi and she turns out to be the right one to trust despite lots of potential evidence to the contrary. Castiel trusts Metatron and because of that mistake, the angels are all expelled and a huge war starts.

 

For me it's a difference of portrayal. Not that the characters all don't fuck up, but that Sam's and Castiel's fuck-ups are almost always so much worse.

 

The writers throw them both under the bus whenever it suits them and/or elevate them with the same regard, IMO.

 

I mostly agree with this except lately, since for the past two seasons, it seems that it's mostly Sam that's been consistently thrown under the bus.

 

Edited to add:

I think a simple role reversal would have done wonders, just Sam showing some concern and trying to save Dean for once.

 

We had that in season 3 and season 7. I really liked both seasons. It's just that Sam is never allowed to save Dean for some reason. He either always fails (season 3 and 7 and end of season 9) or he doesn't even try (season 8 and 9). Again, I think it must be a writer deliberate choice.

 

Even Carver era Sam, which was a spectacular fail and basically ruined him IMO, I think they tried to give him good storylines and sympathetic traits.

 

I'm not sure how having Sam not looking for Dean at all, abandoning Kevin to Crowley, trying to kill Benny all "just because," not apologizing to Dean while appearing to be mostly annoyed that he's back is trying to give Sam sympathetic traits. That seems like the complete opposite to me and I loved Sam as a character. If it wasn't deliberate sabotaging of the character - which I think it was to facilitate Dean's mental state and his MOC story - I'm not sure how... no that's really the only thing that makes sense to me. I can't think of a spin at all that would make any of that sympathetic. That's why I hated season 8. I was hoping season 9 would make it better, but they again trashed, Sam maybe so that Dean could be seen as the wounded, sympathetic brother and to feed his self-esteem issues.

 

Dean's flaws, low self esteem, yes it is a big deal and only someone that doesn't deal with it would say it isn't.

 

I'm not saying that its not necessarily a flaw. I'm more saying it's a sympathetic flaw. Most all of Dean's flaws are sympathetic ones. Compare it to say Sam's pride. Pride isn't a sympathetic flaw - most people don't feel sorry for someone who is too prideful and has a downfall. But most people feel sympathetic towards someone who has low-self esteem, especially one who fights valiantly anyway and never gives up despite that low self-esteem (which in my opinion is almost like having your cake and eating it too, since in a way those two things are sort of at odds).

 

Unfortunately for me Dean's low self-esteem starting losing it's believability in season 8. Too many people follow and look up to him. He knows he's a great hunter and knows he's important. He's saved the world multiple times. At least in season 7 there were deaths - people Dean couldn't save - so that I could believe it, but now? He saved the world almost single-handedly and then survived purgatory for cripes sakes and was the inspiration to an angel and a vampire.  After purgatory, It seems unbelievable to me that he would think that everyone else like Sam - who screws up constantly on this show - is somehow so much better than he is. So in order to keep this "flaw" of low self-esteem, the show has Sam treating Dean badly sometimes - as in season 8 and 9 - and Castiel not listening to him so this low self esteem "flaw" can be reinforced. I think it's unfair to the other characters in the story. Just give Dean a less sympathetic, more believable at this point flaw like all the other characters on this show, so that they don't have to be sacrificed and they too can be likable again.

 

I'm tired of low self-esteem Dean, and I'm tired of the writers trashing everyone else so Dean has an excuse to remain that way. Please move on.

Edited June 25, 2014 by AwesomO4000

[Mcolleague]

That is indeed quite a long comment, AwesomO4000, and I'll just respond generally rather than to your specific points.

 

I think both Dean and Sam have positive traits that can also be negative in certain circumstances. This is true of people in general, and quite realistic. Dean's loyalty is generally seen as positive, but on this show his loyalty to John was clearly misplaced. Dean's protectiveness, his altruism, the emphasis he places on family - these are his strengths AND his flaws. This is how he ended up making a deal with the devil. These are also not JUST Dean's positive traits - there is plenty of evidence Sam shares them, most human beings share them to some extent - they are just more defining for Dean. Same goes for the traits I listed for Sam. Yes, Dean is intelligent and strategic, but look at Sam being a badass ninja fighter too. It's hardly a clear divide. I don't think the show cracks down on any of these things as being bad by definition. Rationality can be misguided and exploited, just like loyalty can be. These guys don't fit into neat little boxes, they are complex characters. As much as I criticize the show, I think this is one of its strengths.  

 

As I've said on TWOP, I think in general, low self-esteem is an extremely unsympathetic character trait, especially for male characters. I don't think pride is less sympathetic at all. This discussion reminds me of an interview for House where Hugh Laurie was asked where he wanted the character to go, and he said basically that any idea can be made to work, it's the execution that's important. I strongly agree with this sentiment. There are amazing characters who have pride as a character flaw (Walter White, anyone?). It was just not the case with Sam. There were all these other characters (Chuck, Ruby, etc) pointing out that his decisions came from pride, but does Sam ever admit it himself? They just side stepped the issue after Season 4, which was IMO where they made their biggest mistake. Dean's self concept on the other hand is well-justified on this show. Happiness and self-esteem are not based on objective accomplishments - wealthy, successful, high achieving people can still feel like crap IRL. Dean was taught since he was a child that his only purpose, only worth was in protecting Sam and saving civilians. Saving people is the baseline - success is expected and not worthy of praise, but failure is completely unacceptable. He himself is unimportant and expendable. And more crap gets piled on him every season to make him feel more guilty, relentlessly, and without resolution. Last season, the brother who Dean sold his soul to save basically told him (as he interpreted it), that he would let Dean die - which, yes, I think is to facilitate Dean hitting bottom (Sam not looking for Dean in Season 8 was to facilitate Sam's OWN spiral though, IMO, to fuel the guilt which culminated in Sacrifice). I think this is why in this particular case, most viewers are still tolerant of the self-esteem flaw. We haven't seen Sam's pride flaw in many seasons either. With Sam... at some point they started going with self-righteousness, IMO. And I can't even think of a situation where this could work. As I've said, bizarre writing choices. 

[AwesomO4000]

I don't think pride is less sympathetic at all. This discussion reminds me of an interview for House where Hugh Laurie was asked where he wanted the character to go, and he said basically that any idea can be made to work, it's the execution that's important.

 

This is interesting, because personally, I thought that House was a jerk and the fact that he is always right on the show is annoying. I only watched it a few times and lost interest very quickly for that reason. I gave it a second chance and my opinion didn't change. I didn't really like House as a character. From the episodes that I saw, I much preferred Wilson and Chase. I liked Sam as a character much more than House, especially because as you pointed out, Sam and Dean are (or at least used to be) more complex and Sam may have had pride, but he also had guilt and self-loathing at other points in the show.

 

I agree with you that the character traits the brothers have can be good or bad. My main complaint is that lately, for me, there is very little subtlety anymore. As you say, the writers have chosen to pile more things on Dean relentlessly without resolution to keep him in that low self-worth place, and Sam's main role now seems to be to add to that piling on and little else. Sam's other layers appear to be gone.

 

Sam not looking for Dean in Season 8 was to facilitate Sam's OWN spiral though, IMO, to fuel the guilt which culminated in Sacrifice

 

Interesting observation. Really stupid idea on the writers' part in my opinion though if that was the only intent, since it required Sam to start out of character and they didn't show any of Sam's journey to get to that point or the development of his guilt later. Sam's had plenty of reasons before to feel guilt that made much more sense: season 5, what he did while soulless, etc. I don't get why Sam trying to get Dean out of purgatory or trying to save Kevin and failing yet again wouldn't have worked just fine as a guilt/ failure factor for Sam, except that Sam not looking for Dean had the added "bonus" of creating conflict between the brothers and lowering a fresh out of purgatory, confident Dean's self esteem yet again - so Yahtzee the writers threw Sam under the bus. My opinion, of course.

 

And I can't even think of a situation where this could work. As I've said, bizarre writing choices.

 

At this point, i don't think the current showrunners care about Sam's character. Once Sera left - I liked what she did with Sam in season 7 - Sam was more of an afterthought and a way for the writers to explore soap-opera plots.

 

but look at Sam being a badass ninja fighter too

 

I wish. We haven't seen badass Sam in at least 3 seasons now in my opinion. Usually Dean or the character of the week has to save him constantly.

[catrox14]

I think disagreement comes from all of us having a different definition of Sue/Stu characters. To me it's a character that is so poorly defined that the audience projects themselves into the character to try and make any sense of them at all. I don't think we really have to do that with Sam and Dean. IMO we know these guys. We may not LIKE the choices the characters make and we may not like the things they say or do, but that doesn't mean the characters are Sues or lack POV for that matter or are necessarily always acting Out of Character when they do something we don’t like.

 

I think Dean's fuck-ups are typically his fault. He may or may not be able to fix them but Dean makes unilateral decisions that bite him in the ass all the time.  Most recently, Dean allowed his brother to be possessed and that ended up with Kevin's murder.  Sam is alive, yes, but Kevin is dead because of Dean's unilateral decision. Dean killed Abaddon and it was the act of killing Abaddon with the first blade that really triggered the killing addiction and the Mark was going to kill him if he didn't kill.  I dunno, but that seems like a much worse consequence as a result of impulsive decision to take on the Mark without thinking about it at all. I have seen plenty of harsh criticism and hatred leveled Dean's way for Dean making that choice. I really fail to see how that is a Mary Sue outcome or result. 

 

Much of the criticism about  the writing of Sam in s8 was because he had no reason to not look for him. That it was OOC. I would argue that it really wasn't that OOC for Sam to go his own way, he's done it before for myriad reasons.  Carver et all, did give Sam a valid choice with the  heretofore unknown promise to not look for the other and get on with life.  He opted for that. I didn't LIKE that Sam didn't look for Dean but he had valid reasons in his own mind so to me that meshes with the independent side of Sam.

 

IMO, Bobby is the only character in the show that I think is close to the Gary Stu character.

Edited June 25, 2014 by catrox14

[7kstar]

See Mary-Sue. A female fanfiction character who is so perfect as to be annoying. The male equivlalent is the Marty-Stu. Often abbreviated to "Sue". A Mary Sue character is usually written by a beginning author. Often, the Mary Sue is a self-insert with a few "improvements" (ex. better body, more popular, etc). The Mary Sue character is almost always beautiful, smart, etc... In short, she is the "perfect" girl. The Mary Sue usually falls in love with the author's favorite character(s) and winds up upstaging all of the other characters in the book/series/universe.

 

I guess anyway I look at this definition, I don't see Dean as this.  He has anger issues that creates problems.  Even if he was the Mary-Sue, I perfer him over all the other characters...I use to be a brothers fan, with Dean slightly ahead of Sam.  No longer.

 

I agree it is terrible choices, actually in acting we would call it the stero-type choice, the one that is too obvious and the stronger one is always the one you don't see at first.

 

I think we all are complaining about some of the same things and Kripke started this nightmare when he had Dean discover he started it all when he broke the first seal.  Instead of dealing with it, they moved on to It's a Terrible Life and avoided the whole issue.  If you drop bombs but never deal with it, then what is the point.  You have to deal with the bombs in a creative way or other never use them.

 

I agree Carver's choices with Sam not looking for Dean at the beginning has me wondering just what is he thinking.  But I think it is a case of Group Think.  This is an issue that happens in groups.  Kripke definitely had this but finally listen to a strong voice that over-road his thoughts, Kim Manners.

 

So I think they believe they all know what the fans want but really never understood what the fans wanted in the first place.  The few that may get it aren't listened to, so a few override everyone opinion.

 

Jared wants to play anything other than season 1 Sam.  I get it, as an actor Sam's character is the terrible one to have to play as he  becomes dull after a very short time. And most actors want to flex their acting muscles to get something they can sink their teeth into unless they are a personality actor, like John Wayne.  So he will side with the writers when they want to make him evil.  He likes playing that over the helpless victim. 

 

I almost wonder if Carver is just going season 7 was a mess, I can't fix so lets just ignore it and start over.  This is the same writer that gave such a great brother moment at the end of season 8 only to trash it at the beginning of season 9.  This makes me wonder how much group think is in play and only the ones that agree get to voice their views. 

 

If the repeat and rinse it one more time, I really hope that season 10 is it.  I think the real reason this show is so popular and look at Fanfiction net to see how many stories are written all the time over this show, is that it has so much heart , so much potential and sadly so much failure. 

 

They really need to drop the over use of bad sex jokes and just bad gore for gore sake and start crafting a strong story.  I get that you will most likely only get 3 or 4 great ep, 3 to 4 good ep and some fair and some plan crap...but I wish they would collaborate  better to tell strong stories.  It's like the creative juices are not mixing well and what we get is a potluck.  Some parts are really good and some you know just to skip.

 

The one question I can't answer, is how can Carver create a half season that part of it is so solid and yet fail miserably on the other half.  Sam's story could have been so strong,

 

"I couldn't deal with you missing Dean and I just got in the car and drove off.  I thought I would go back to searching, I really did each day it was on my mind to try,  but I couldn't function because I couldn't deal with you being dead.  I was so numb that I don't even know where or what I was doing until I met Amelia.  She gave me a reason to get up but not enough to get back in the game." 

 

There are also so many other ways they could have done it but NOOOOOOOOOOO, they had to pick the worst one and the most shallow one.  I think this is the major problem about Sam.  It's always the shallow and most stupid excuse and no one can really buy it.

 

On one hand I'm hopeful about next season and on the other, I'm cringing with dread.  I've been waiting since season 4 for them to fix it, but I guess they never will.  Darn it!

Edited June 25, 2014 by 7kstar

[catrox14]

It's interesting that you mention that Jared doesn't want to play s1 Sam again. He made a comment recently at a con that he wants to get back to playing regular Sam for a change.  I wonder what's made him change his mind about that.

 

I think Carver wanted to erase s6 more than s7. I can't figure out if Carver likes or dislikes either brother that much. I think he likes beating them up.

[7kstar]

It's interesting that you mention that Jared doesn't want to play s1 Sam again. He made a comment recently at a con that he wants to get back to playing regular Sam for a change.  I wonder what's made him change his mind about that.

 

I think Carver wanted to erase s6 more than s7. I can't figure out if Carver likes or dislikes either brother that much. I think he likes beating them up.

  Well I haven't seen a recent one about that, but he may have finally gotten tired of being the brother that can't show he loves his brother. 

 

Maybe Carver is Dean and Sam whumper?  In fanfiction, there are authors...yep I'm guilty that like to whump their characters, but after doing it for a while... and started trying to insert the humor  into the whump until something in real life makes me want to hurt someone.  It's better that I hurt a fictional character than someone in real life.   Some times I think I can't say anything with words, so hopefully it makes sense.

 

I think all writers have to figure some things out.  I think on the whole, Craver is strong than Kripke but only time will tell.  I think Kripke lucked out on a lot and not much was his real genius at work.  His ideas are just too all over the place for me to think he really is that strong.  Although I can relate to his ability to come up with ideas, he just needs someone else to help him execute them.  JMV.

 

I don't even think he came up with the brothers on the road, he wanted reporters.

Edited June 25, 2014 by 7kstar

[DittyDotDot]

I think Carver thinks that conflict is the only way to make compelling drama. Maybe he's right, but I just think the conflict doesn't need to be between Sam and Dean, it could come from the outside like it did in the early years.

Edited June 25, 2014 by DittyDotDot

[Demented Daisy]

Huge list of Stephen King adaptations in the works, but here's the relevant SPN bit:

 

The Shop

 

Remember when I mentioned that whole business about how cool it would be to start movie franchise revolving around The Shop? Well, they're getting their own TV series thanks to TNT. What is in it's most basic form a sequel to Firestarter, will undoubtedly branch out to tell other Shop stories involving new characters with supernatural powers.

Charlie McGee will be back, once again running from an even more powerful Shop. Luckily, she'll have a guy named Henry Talbot, a former Shop employee, to guide her through her life as a fugitive.

The project is written by Robbie Thompson (Supernatural) and produced by James Middleton (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles), Jaime Paglia (Eureka) and Thompson.

 

[PeteMartell]

There was some confusion over whether that meant Thompson was leaving the show. I think he said he's there for season 10.

[FastenSeatBelts]

Can Jensen's outfit change during next season?

We've had plaid, plaid and plaid on top of more plaid for 10 years.

Could demonDean please wear something different? It doesn't have to be leather cuffs, a bow tie and little golden pants I'd be fine with any change.

Just please, don't pass up the opportunity to end this endless plaided nightmare!

[DittyDotDot]

Funny because with my current S1 re-watch I noticed that there wasn't all that much plaid in the wardrobe. Mostly T-shirts covered by army jackets for Dean and mostly T-shirts and that tan jacket for Sam. I don't even think Sam wore boots in S1. I'll have to pay attention to see if the switch was somewhere in S2.

[Mulva]

I hope Sam tells Dean off too for his godawful decisions this season. He got himself into a fine mess and has only himself to blame for it

 

Seconded.  Sam had to listen to Dean's rant in Southern Comfort and Dean's List Of Sam's Sins (some of which he wasn't even responsible for) in Sacrifice, so it's about time Sam gets to say his piece.

 

Other wishes:

 

Bring back Henry Winchester, he was a great character.

 

Keep Kevin dead - never liked the whiny punk.

 

Kill Crowley.  Love Mark Sheppard, but it's past time for Crowley to go.

 

Make up your mind about Cas.  Either turn him human permanently, keep him an angel permanently or kill him off. 

Edited June 30, 2014 by Mulva

[Demented Daisy]

QUOTE

I hope Sam tells Dean off too for his godawful decisions this season. He got himself into a fine mess and has only himself to blame for it

 

Seconded.  Sam had to listen to Dean's rant in Southern Comfort and Dean's List Of Sam's Sins (some of which he wasn't even responsible for) in Sacrifice, so it's about time Sam gets to say his piece.

 

 

 

Not me.  I don't want to see pissed off Sam and hurt Dean. Or pissed off Dean and hurt Sam.  I want everybody to get the hell over it so they can move on.

 

Sick to death of the ANGST.  Give me Sam and Dean working together against a common enemy -- no more fighting over who did/said what.  IMO, it has ruined what was once a fun, quirky, kicking-ass-and-taking-names show.

 

The only reason I'm still watching is because I believe that someday, they will be brothers again.  If I didn't believe that, I would have given up a long time ago.

[mertensia]

Has Dean ever not taken responsibility for his actions? Taking responsibility for everything and believing it is part of Dean's issues. Deep down he probably feels guilty for Krissy's dad's death.

Frankly I wouldn't be bitching out my returned from the dead as a demon brother who has a huge bloodlust but that's just me.

I'd like to see post-death Mary again.

[7kstar]

On one hand I would like Dean being unwilling to take responsibility for any of his past actions and allowing Sam to really experience an truly uncaring Dean.  That Sam can spew anything he wants and he just laughs in his face.

 

On the other hand, I'm sick and tired of the brother's fighting and angst and truly wish for some fun light moments with the brothers just enjoying working together enjoying their lives a bit more care free without the weight of the world on their shoulders.  

 

I also wouldn't mind a loving Mary showing back up.

 

The best part about wishing, if you get it and you don't like it, you can wish again.  :)

[shang yiet]

Dean feeling guilty for the Lindberg baby is not the point. Sam needs to get some things off his chest, Dean got the opportunity when Sam messed up with Lucifer. Now it should be Sam's turn.

[catrox14]

Dean's diatribe, if filled with truthiness, was fueled from a supernatural curse. If we forgive or put aside supernaturally enhanced truthiness diatribes and physical attacks by one brother on the other, then this one should be set aside too, and those attacks have gone both ways.

 

Sam was not supernaturally enhanced when he said what he wanted to say in the Purge.

 

Point is they both have had fairly even Airing of Grievances opportunities.

 

What I wish for is that they both figure out how to communicate and see each other as full functional people away from each other.

Edited July 2, 2014 by catrox14

[7kstar]

Dean feeling guilty for the Lindberg baby is not the point. Sam needs to get some things off his chest, Dean got the opportunity when Sam messed up with Lucifer. Now it should be Sam's turn.

Guess I just don't see this issue, Sam got everything off his chest and made his feelings very clear this season.  His reaction at the finale was we'll figure this out, so all he has left to gripe about is Dean taking the Mark without knowing the consequences, but Dean's always done that, so I don't think Sam thinks he can cure Dean of this issue.  JMV.

 

Dean's diatribe, if filled with truthiness, was fueled from a supernatural curse. If we forgive or put aside supernaturally enhanced truthiness diatribes and physical attacks by one brother on the other, then this one should be set aside too, and those attacks have gone both ways.

 

Sam was not supernaturally enhanced when he said what he wanted to say in the Purge.

 

Point is they both have had fairly even Airing of Grievances opportunities.

 

What I wish for is that they both figure out how to communicate and see each other as full functional people away from each other.

I can support that both learn how to work out differences and I kind of liked Sam's line can we get started before we find something else to argue about.  He acknowledged that they will never see things totally eye to eye. 

 

I really would like to avoid we did this with Sam in Season 5, so now let's do this with Dean in season 9.  I wouldn't mind seeing Dean having some humor with his being a Demon, like Sam had when he was soulless, but I hope they won't drag that idea out if they repeat something.

 

I just figure they won't be able to resist, well we've had possessed Sam do some awful stuff to Dean, now let's turn the tables on Sam.  Since I figure we can't beat them on this why not look for a way I could enjoy it for at least an ep or two. 

 

But maybe they'll surprise us...Now that would be interesting, seeing them surprise us.  I think the introduction of Angels was the only time we were really surprised, right?  I mean in a way that nothing leaked in the spoilers about it.

Edited July 2, 2014 by 7kstar

[Demented Daisy]

I'm holding on to what Cas said in First Born -- that if an angel can change, maybe a Winchester can, too.

[shang yiet]

I'm not talking about supernatural curses. Dean spoke his mind in the first ep of season five right after Lucifer was released, how he could never trust Sam again, blah blah blah, He wasn't under a curse then. I'm thinking of something like that for Sam.

[DittyDotDot]

Sam also spoke his peace in a couple of episodes this season where he said many of the same things Dean said to Sam back in S5 and wasn't under the influence of anything supernatural either. I think they've both gotten their chances to say their peace many times over the years, I just don't know what else can be said that the other doesn't already know or hasn't heard before. I think it just might be time for them to grow up, get over it and move on.

[catrox14]

I would say Sam had ample things to say this season. He said it in the Purge and at the end of Sharp Teeth. What else is left to say for Sam?

[mertensia]

 

I would say Sam had ample things to say this season. He said it in the Purge and at the end of Sharp Teeth. What else is left to say for Sam? 

Yeah, exactly. He's told Dean off numerous times. Dean's told Sam off. We get it already. They should get it. 

 

Though if he is angsty enough to bitch out Dean again, I'd suggest he not do it while Dean's a demon.

[FastenSeatBelts]

By the way, I'm still waiting for an army episode. I loved "The End" with that guerrilla army and I loved Dean in uniform in "PacMan Fever". And I'd love to see the boys as soldiers. But maybe demon Dean is a bit unlikely to sign up.

[DittyDotDot]

Watching No Exit last night got me to thinking about the period of time between the end of S2 and the start of S5 when Jo and Ellen were supposedly hunting together and how we were talking about some better spin-offs the show could of done.  This could have been another one-The Woman's World of Monster Hunting. A female hunting show could have been interesting, plus we could have gotten to see Jo grow into the job and what a odd dynamic would that have had--mother and daughter hunting together. I don't know, I might like this better than my Grumpy Hunter Hour with Rufus and Bobby or an origin story for Gordon ideas.

 

I'm actually hoping they drop the idea of doing a spin-off--I just don't think the current crew can pull another one out of their collective asses--but if they insist, I'd rather see something like this than whatever it is that they tried with Bloodlines.

[Tippi Blevins]

Dean: "Hey, I should go find me one of those rogue reapers and get Benny out of Purgatory!"

 

Because 1. I loved their friendship and 2. I'd like to see Benny's reaction to Dean being an actual monster.

[AwesomO4000]

I like that idea Tippi, but I also like the idea of Sam getting Benny out to help him find Dean.

 

This would do a few things. It would be a new dynamic which is something I think we could use - especially Sam interacting with someone other than Dean and sometimes Cas. It would let Sam make some amends with Benny perhaps, and it would give Benny some time to consider what kind of Dean he might rather have before actually seeing Dean and give him an active role in the story. It might also make Sam more likely to understand Benny and less likely to kill him than if Dean gets Benny out. Seeing Dean right off as a demon might be really tempting for Benny - and might give Sam an actual reason to kill him if Benny helps out/encourages Dean as a demon.

Edited July 11, 2014 by AwesomO4000

[AwesomO4000]

Brought over from the DVD extras thread:

 

   @Mcolleague -  Hmm maybe intent is not the right word. I think Carver assumed the audience would sympathize with Sam and blame Dean. He thinks that Sam is right, Dean is wrong - and he didn't expect or understand so many people siding with Dean and being mad at Sam. To him, this is the wrong reaction (to me, this is because of his bad writing but whatever). He assumed we would agree that what Sam said in The Purge was a "harsh truth". That's clearly how he sees it, that what was said there was truth - and he keeps reiterating this in interviews, Dean was selfish, Dean brought this upon himself. Instead, a large portion of the audience had a WTF this is utter BS reaction to that conversation - since as you say, noone was likely to forget about the forty years in hell. I mean, Sam WAS wronged and deserved some sympathy, I don't even disagree with that. I think Carver just really overestimated how far that sympathy would extend. Also he is just so completely out of sync with how most viewers see Dean, and Sam was Carver's mouthpiece, so, some collateral damage there.

 

As for the rest of the season, Dean did a lot of very unsympathetic things too IMO, way more than Sam. Letting Gadreel possess Sam, Kevin dying, all the violence later even towards women, and his declaration of a Deantatorship - I think these were unambiguously very unsympathetic things. Dean is just a really resilient character with the fans when it comes to the character assassination, partly because Jensen is an appealing actor, and partly just because the fandom was so starved for a Dean mytharc by this point that everyone was too busy cheering to care what he did lol.

I agree that we are agreeing on more than not, but this.. "Sam was Carver's mouthpiece" - just seems odd to me. With everything that Carver had Sam do in season 8, I don't see this... or at least it doesn't make sense to me. Why would Carver have his mouthpiece basically run away, avoid responsibility - including abandoning Kevin to Crowley, who likely would torture him - and declare that why was saving people his responsibility anyway when the mantra of the show has been "saving people, hunting things" since the beginning? So it would seem odd that a character doing the opposite of that (i.e. basically running and hiding from all responsibility and apparently ignoring potential hunts and so potentially letting people die) would be Carver's "mouthpiece" for the show. Sam was shown to be wrong about abandoning Kevin and about abandoning Dean. Sam even turned out to be wrong about Benny - therefore causing unnecessary death and tragedy.

 

It seems odd to me that Carver would have a character that is supposed to be his mouthpiece be wrong so often and fail to both complete the trials and fail to save Dean (again). And to me the biggest argument of all against Carver actually believing that Dean was wrong and Sam was right and that that was supposedly Carver's message? "I lied." With that sentiment (in an episode that he wrote), for me, Carver erased almost any argument that Sam was in the right or had any legs to stand on, since now Dean was right all along: Sam would do the same in Dean's position. So all of Sam's harsh words were unfounded, Sam would be the same "selfish" person that Dean was, and in addition Sam had been a jerk and a hypocrite about it. And it is Carver's own episode that was telling us this. So no - I wouldn't buy any "Dean was wrong" protestations at all from Carver, since Carver completely contradicts that in his own episode and shows us very succinctly that Dean was in fact right about Sam and by extension, right about Gadreel. And by further extension, it was Sam who was wrong in season 8 for not looking and trying to save Dean then -

which is why Sam will now look for Dean this season - again showing that Sam was originally wrong in season 8

. It all adds up to Sam was wrong to me.

 

In my opinion, if Carver wanted me to see that he believed Sam was in any way right, or even that Sam's point of view was also valid, he would've had Sam stick to his convictions and agree with Dean that he should die rather than become something he didn't want to be and agree to let Dean go. *  If the mark and/or the blade was going to bring Dean back anyway, it wouldn't have mattered at all to the storyline if Sam had stuck to his position. The only two reasons that I can think of to have Sam not stick to that position are 1) to show that Sam was wrong to be so angry with Dean, and he was wrong to say what he did, since he (Sam) would do the same thing ** or 2) that the show's position is that trying to save your brother at all costs is the "right" course of action, and now Sam sees the light. In either case, Dean was right or at least less wrong than Sam, and it would make no sense that Carver would agree with what Sam said in "The Purge" since Sam's "I lied" (or the original less succinct words that said the same thing before Jared changed them) erased all of that by making Sam wrong and/or a huge hypocrite and it was Carver's idea for that to be the case.

 

* Which is what I thought should've happened and what I thought could've easily been in character, for Sam - see "Croatoan" for an example of Sam being willing to let Dean go if he wanted, and for much less of a reason than Dean had here. Sam had learned something from "Faith" and that was apparently forgotten here.

 

** And also that Sam's unforgiving, judgmental, and is probably a hypocrite, too.

Edited September 9, 2014 by AwesomO4000

[mertensia]

You know, in high school I took a Film Study course and one say we were discussing some movie - I have long since forgotten which- and I confessed that I didn't understand why character X did Y or the ending. My teacher said "then the writer failed". I think someone needs to tell Carver this because he seems baffled that we don't get his view of either brother.

[DittyDotDot]

I'm of the general opinion that Carver's not a very good showrunner, but I can't get on-board with the idea that he hates Sam and/or Dean or uses Dean and/or Sam as a mouthpiece over the other.  I think the fact that there are just as many arguments on each side suggests to me that he neither loves nor hates either. I think he intended for both Sam and Dean to have valid points of view, but really failed on both sides, IMO.

 

I can sympathize with Dean's position he was in and faced with Sam dying he made a decision that in the end caused a lot of other harm. So, I agree that Dean got himself into this mess, all on his own, and I think he did make one rash and poor decision after another. Yes, Sam said some hurtful things that I didn't think were necessary, but that was two episodes after Dean took on the Mark Of Cain and that wasn't even the first rash and foolish decision he made all season. But, is "my brother hurt my feelings" really a valid excuse for an almost 40-year-old man to continue to make rash decisions anyway? And, I can sympathize with Sam being possessed without his knowledge and his memories of Kevin being killed by his own hands, and I appreciate that Sam's starting to consider whether all this saving each other isn't causing other people harm. But at what point does it wear thin watching 35-year-old man throwing a temper tantrum and acting like a pissypants for far longer than was necessary?

 

It's not that I don't understand what they were trying to portray, and it's not that I didn't see it on my screen; it's that I didn't enjoy watching it. I don't enjoy watching grown men act like stupid, dumb, petulant and annoying teenagers episode after episode. I think both Sam and Dean were equally sympathetic and equally annoying, it just wasn't equally entertaining to me.

 

 

ETA: Disclaimer--I haven't yet watched that featurette that kicked all this off (haven't had the desire to find the time), so I might be a little off point here. I apologize if I am.

Edited September 9, 2014 by DittyDotDot

[SueB]

To be fair, I think it is our assumption that Carver is either baffled or shocked by audience reaction. He never says or infers that. Instead he states the storyline in a way that is different than I expected him to.  For me, it came across as "expectation shaping". But that doesn't mean Carver was surprised by audience reaction.  Just that his statements were not what I perceive to be consistent with his viewpoint in S8.  Specifically, S8 DVD say "the brother's choose each other" with the "yay" vibe. S9 is "the brothers choose each other" with the "selfish" vibe. 

[Mcolleague]

I agree that we are agreeing on more than not, but this.. "Sam was Carver's mouthpiece" - just seems odd to me. With everything that Carver had Sam do in season 8, I don't see this... or at least it doesn't make sense to me.

 

I was actually specifically referring to the speech in The Purge. Carver sees what Sam said there as the truth, so he had Sam say it. In that sense, for that particular scene I thought Sam was Carver's mouthpiece. Of course there was SOME truth to what Sam said, I don't disagree at all that Sam should have been hurt and angry, it just went WAY too far. The fact that Carver is standing by this assessment of Dean, and still trying to justify this to the audience is discouraging to say the least. But In general, I don't think of Sam as a Carver avatar or anything. 

 

I don't know if he likes one brother more than the other. He certainly says harsher things about Dean in PR, but I get the feeling he does this because there are way more viewers siding with Dean, so he needs to *sell* Sam? Carver was the one who really character assassinated Sam in the first place, and now he's on the defensive like, "Nonono, but look! He's not that bad! He's only like this because Dean!". So a lot of the time, Dean comes across like the red headed stepchild. This doesn't even help, obviously, since we are not really going to have our minds changed because he said so. How about just stop making Sam such an ass, and course correct what you need to onscreen? Yes, anything we infer about Carver's expectations or surprise is absolutely an assumption, but that assumption is based on the huge discrepancy between what he says and what the audience sees (not looking for Dean/Kevin was maturity, Dean is selfish and causes more harm than good etc). I can only assume this wasn't intentional. Of course I may be wrong, but I'm fairly convinced he is trying to tell a different story from what most of us see. 

 

Ughhhhh, why did I even watch the DVD commentary. :( 

Edited September 9, 2014 by Mcolleague

[catrox14]

I'm just really puzzled why if it's a method of storytelling that Carver and Co are doing, as SueB, suggests, why would they expect the viewers to get anything meaningful out of that. I mean what is the point? Is it because they really think it will drive DVD sales? 

 

I remember being interested to watch Defiance. But they left so much world building on line or in the game itself that I just gave up watching after 3 episodes.  I was actively offended that they wanted me to learn what the hell was going on by going to the alternate media instead of putting it on screen. 

 

I really hope that is NOT what Carver is doing. This show is not based on a game that built the world. The show built itself by the storytelling on screen, enhanced by effective and good commentary at least through s8. I would much prefer to think Carver is mildly incompetent than thinking this new way of storytelling is acceptable.

 

Mileage varies ahead warning. LOL

 

It's no secret that I thought Swan Song was horseshit. Even though I hated it, I still got what Kripke was doing. He turned action!Dean into support!Dean and it was supposedly brotherly love that saved Sam and let Sam save the world. I appreciated that Kripke more or less told the story he wanted(after they got renewal that is) kept to his vision and gave his "beautiful little bird" flight even though I wanted to shoot that fucking stupid bird out of the sky, which is my own personal dislike to the end of that 5 year journey.  But I never felt like I needed to listen to commentary to understand what the fuck they were doing(minus the Chuck/God thing), because it was mostly all there on screen for me to either love or hate.

 

With Carver so far, I really feel like he wants us to think Sam and Dean are both selfish dicks with the whole 'who's really a monster' theme. That makes me twitchy. Because what he says generally contradicts what I think I've seen in the show and what I think I know about the boys until I'm looking to put a rusty spork into my eye out of frustration. 

 

The choices the boys make now don't make any sense given what's gone before and IMO is really inorganic storytelling. If you think about what Sam and Dean have done since he took over, it's all pretty shitty/shady stuff on both sides. The problem I have is that I don't really believe that the choices would be choices the brothers would have made in the first place so whatever fall and redemption story he tells comes off like it's from a show about different characters.

 

I love the Winchester brothers, one a little more than the other, but I love them both.  To me the show has been about two flawed human beings that fuck up a lot but keep trying to fight the good fight with mixed results. I am hopeful that Jared and Jensen are flexing their muscles to get the boys back to being the fucked up flawed heroes that I love. 

Edited September 9, 2014 by catrox14

[Aeryn13]

 

And to me the biggest argument of all against Carver actually believing that Dean was wrong and Sam was right and that that was supposedly Carver's message? "I lied." With that sentiment (in an episode that he wrote), for me, Carver erased almost any argument that Sam was in the right or had any legs to stand on,

 

Well, the "I lied" was an ad-lib by Jared and I don`t think the actual dialogue quite imlied this meaning. Furthermore, watch any interview with Carver about what went down in the Season 9 Finale, it`s the antithesis of Sam saying or even implying he was wrong. It was flat-out not the point he wanted to make.  

 

And while I agree having Sam say pretty much flat-out in the Purge speech that Dean for all his life had never been anything else than a piece of selfish, deluded cowardly filfth would open the door to "wow, asshole", I don`t think Carver really envisioned it. Because that IS how he sees the Dean-character. So not only does Sam speak "the truth" there but Carver can`t understand why the audience doesn`t nod along and join him in his contempt for the character. It seems to be so clear to him so why can`t everyone else see it, too?

 

That`s why I am very apprehensive about next Season too. A dark storyline for a character that the head guy saw as a piece of shit even before? That`s gonna work out splendidly.  

[AwesomO4000]

Well, the "I lied" was an ad-lib by Jared and I don`t think the actual dialogue quite imlied this meaning. Furthermore, watch any interview with Carver about what went down in the Season 9 Finale, it`s the antithesis of Sam saying or even implying he was wrong. It was flat-out not the point he wanted to make.  

 

And while I agree having Sam say pretty much flat-out in the Purge speech that Dean for all his life had never been anything else than a piece of selfish, deluded cowardly filfth would open the door to "wow, asshole", I don`t think Carver really envisioned it. Because that IS how he sees the Dean-character. So not only does Sam speak "the truth" there but Carver can`t understand why the audience doesn`t nod along and join him in his contempt for the character. It seems to be so clear to him so why can`t everyone else see it, too?

 

But to me, what you are saying here still doesn't track. From what I can tell, "I lied" might have been a Jared ad lib - and if that was actually the supposed script someone (was it catrox or DD?) supplied earlier, ugh, good thing Jared did - but the original sentiment was likely pretty much the same. There was evidence elsewhere in the episode with Sam proclaiming that he'd find some way to fix Dean, Sam calling Crowley of all people to get Dean fixed, etc. that this was exactly Sam's intention/thought-process.  Bottom line, in the finale, Sam was doing almost the same thing - or depending on Sam's plan for what he was going to do with Crowley, potentially something even worse - that Dean did with Gadreel and that supposedly incurred what you surmise was Carver's opinion of Dean expressed by Sam in "The Purge", so what does that logically mean? To me, it means since Sam would do the same thing to save Dean now as Dean did to save him then and admitted to it and was flat out doing it as seen onscreen (when he called Crowley), then Sam equals all those same things he said about Dean in "The Purge." If that "was not the flat-out point he [Carver] wanted to make" then why was that what Carver clearly showed onscreen with Sam calling Crowley to make some sort of bargain with him just to make sure we had a huge neon sign pointing to it? If Carver didn't want a Sam = Dean message, then he shouldn't have showed Sam = Dean so clearly.

 

As I said above, there would have been no change in the plot of Dean becoming a demon if Carver had had Sam agree with Dean's wanting to die rather than become something he didn't want to be and let Dean go. The only reason to have Sam do what he did by calling Crowley, in my opinion, was to show Sam = Dean, and by showing that Carver was basically showing that either Sam was overly harsh earlier to have said all of those things to Dean in "The Purge" or most if not all of those things would now also apply to Sam, since Sam would also do what Dean had done.

 

I'm not arguing for argument's sake. I truly don't see how it could be anything else, because if Carver did believe (and I don't think he does) one brother is all of those things he had Sam spout in "The Purge," why would he have the other brother do exactly the same thing unless he also thought the same way about the other brother? Especially since Sam being willing to do the same thing Dean did wasn't even necessary for the Dean becoming a demon plot. And trying to argue that saving his brother was wrong when Dean did it, but would've been okay for Sam to do it (with freakin' Crowley no less) that just makes no sense at all, especially since there was such an easy alternative for Carver to show he supposedly agreed with Sam's point of view * - i.e. have Sam not call Crowley, but agree to let Dean die, just as Sam said he would and Carver had a huge dramatic scene about just so Sam could then renege on it in the finale.

 

* Which I don't think Carver does at all based on the show.

 

Mcolleague - I was actually specifically referring to the speech in The Purge. Carver sees what Sam said there as the truth, so he had Sam say it. In that sense, for that particular scene I thought Sam was Carver's mouthpiece.

 

And as I argued above, how does this all mesh with what happened in the finale? If Carver supposedly sees what Sam said as "truth" (and again, I'm not sure I buy it), what does that mean when Carver has Sam do the same thing in the finale?

[Demented Daisy]

It's human nature for us to think one thing, yet react in a completely different fashion.  So for Sam to feel one way (that he would let Dean go when the time came), yet be unable to do so when faced with the reality is completely believable.  It's also believable, IMO, to forget lessons learned when in a stressful situation.

 

I think that Carver believed what Sam said in The Purge, just like I believe he thought it was "mature" to let Dean go.  I also believe that he changed his mind about those things, based upon audience reaction.  

 

Tv is probably the most fluid of all artistic mediums.  Once a piece of music is written, or a movie made, or a painting painted, or a book published, it's done.  The creator can only take feedback from fans and critics and apply it to a future work of art.  When making television, though, the work can change.  What's done is done, but future episodes can be crafted to respond to critical responses.  Especially in a show that has a mythology that spans years/seasons.

 

One more time:  TPTB are not infallible.  They make mistakes.  In this case, I think some of them (Carver included) made a huge mistake with the speech in The Purge.  (They narrowly avoided a huge mistake with the original title of the episode, IMO.)  

 

I think he has also made a huge mistake with Demon Dean.  I think the entire MoC story line was supposed to parallel Sam and his demon blood addiction.  I think his insistence that Dean's choices are what led him to becoming a demon is a direct comparison to Sam's choices in season 4.  I don't think that means that Carver dislikes either character.

 

If anything, I suspect it means that they are very much equals.

[Aeryn13]

 

And trying to argue that saving his brother was wrong when Dean did it, but would've been okay for Sam to do it (with freakin' Crowley no less) that just makes no sense at all,

 

While I agree, it makes no sense, I nevertheless think this is exactly Carver`s thought process. In that case, all things not being equal. And he would be far from the first showrunner or this being far from the first show to pull this and be completely tone-deaf to how it can come across.

 

There can always be justifications and explanations on why what Sam attempted to do was right and unselfish vs. what Dean actually did. Or what Sam attempted to do can be ignored. Take the episode with Benny and Martin in Season 8, you might argue both brothers did something crappy in it yet what was the message afterwards? Sam`s side of crappy was completely ignored and he was as white as the driven show while Dean`s was entirely blown out of proportion. Or take Carver`s own 100th episode, one quick "you are so much better than me because I let you rot in here" remark by Dean and voila, he is completely in the wrong for attempting the detox in Season 4 while Sam is as innocent as again the driven snow. And I think that exact writing trope with the brothers in those exact position is rather the norm.

 

And no matter what dark thing Sam does in Season 10, it can a) either be ignored again or b) pinned onto Dean because Dean selfishly became a demon through his own fault and, according to Carver, it`s all and entirely on him. So why shouldn`t Sam`s choices not also be? 

 

I fully believe Carver could have written an episode which had Sam let Crowley possess Dean to heal him or whatever "role reversal" they`d be going after next and still believe everything Sam said about Dean held and totally still holds true whereas Sam is simply better and therefore what he does is better. 

[AwesomO4000]

Or take Carver`s own 100th episode, one quick "you are so much better than me because I let you rot in here" remark by Dean and voila, he is completely in the wrong for attempting the detox in Season 4 while Sam is as innocent as again the driven snow.

 

I didn't see this. It made sense to me that Dean would say it the way he did, because that is how Dean thinks, and in his mind/context, it was true. Because he would've let Sam die rather than become a demon, Dean is going to equate that with "I would've let you rot." Also, as Dean said earlier in the episode, he had good reasons for not trusting Sam at that moment so therefore, logically, in the same situation they were in now, Dean wouldn't trust Sam, therefor, under the same circumstances, he wouldn't let Sam out. That only makes logical sense to me. What was Dean supposed to say - "Oh I totally would've let you out, too?" Dean was trying to convince Sam not to let him out, so that Sam understood that if something happened - as in Dean said "yes" - that Dean had entirely warned him so that Sam knew what he was getting into. That whole conversation made complete sense to me based on what was going on and had nothing to do with inferring blame IMO.

 

I'm also not sure how it makes Sam innocent, since Sam being in the panic room had nothing to do with Sam then releasing Lucifer. Similarly, I don't see how that supposedly shows that Dean attempting detox on Sam was "wrong" since it was clearly shown that if not for Castiel letting Sam out of the panic room, none of the rest would have happened. To me that shows that Dean putting Sam in the panic room was actually the right thing to do. It was what Castiel did that was wrong.

 

And if you mean that Sam was innocent for putting Dean in the panic room while Dean wasn't for putting Sam there - again, I don't agree. I think they both made the right call in putting the other brother in, and the only reason why letting Dean out was the right call was because Dean wasn't hopped up on demon blood and his moment of panic/doubt/depression had likely passed and Dean was now thinking more clearly. Nothing more complicated than that in my mind and not evidence that Dean was somehow being made wrong at all. So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

So why shouldn`t Sam`s choices not also be?

 

Because they are Sam's choices?

 

It would be like saying it was Sam's fault that Dean made the deal, because if Sam hadn't have gotten himself killed, Dean wouldn't have made the deal in the first place. Again we'll have to agree to disagree - and I'm not discussing "Fallen Idols" again since I do not think it puts the blame for Sam's choices on Dean in any way, shape, or form. I don't even think it has Sam implying that. I've looked at that episode and the dialogue many times and still don't see it and am not likely to change my mind. For me, it's not clear evidence of blaming Dean for anything at all, except for letting his feelings get in the way of solving the case in that particular episode - which they were - and that the current "working relationship" wasn't working - which it clearly was not.

 

I fully believe Carver could have written an episode which had Sam let Crowley possess Dean to heal him or whatever "role reversal" they`d be going after next and still believe everything Sam said about Dean held and totally still holds true whereas Sam is simply better and therefore what he does is better.

 

That makes little sense, so I'm not sure how to respond to that. Why not just have Sam do the "right thing" to begin with? If Dean has it so wrong, supposedly, just have Sam do it "right." Have Sam do the saving and heroic stuff and not have Sam fail all the time (except the once). To me it makes more sense that in actuality, Carver thinks what Dean is doing is the right thing in the context of the show - family loyalty (and not just blood based) above all else - but he wants to cover all of the bases, and so creates ambiguity by having Sam represent the other side just in case. I'm not saying this is what Carver is doing, but I am saying that to me, it makes more sense.

 

Edited to add:

 

I think that Carver believed what Sam said in The Purge, just like I believe he thought it was "mature" to let Dean go.  I also believe that he changed his mind about those things, based upon audience reaction.

 Yes, I can see this, and I appreciate this. I just wish he hadn't almost completely ruined a character for me in the process of doing it, and that he chose to contrast Sam's "maturity" with an epic, heroic story of how Dean didn't let go, but instead fought through Purgatory to save Castiel and kept his promise to Benny, and how that example helped a vampire to stay loyal and try to be good.

Edited September 9, 2014 by AwesomO4000

[catrox14]

 

o me it makes more sense that in actuality, Carver thinks what Dean is doing is the right thing in the context of the show - family loyalty (and not just blood based) above all else - but he wants to cover all of the bases, and so creates ambiguity by having Sam represent the other side just in case. I'm not saying this is what Carver is doing, but I am saying that to me, it makes more sense.

 

I think Carver wrongly estimated how some in the audience would react to Dean's actions in saving Sam.  I think he really thought most would be so horrified by Dean's actions that we would be with Sam all the way.  He carried out that bad Dean behavior with Dean constantly lying to Sam essentially gaslighting Sam (even though Gadreel was keeping that going by saying Sam would drop dead and I think  Dean was meant to be the bad guy here. Because he did not respect Sam's agency.

 

I think Carver didn't bank on some of the audience being willing to forgive Dean and not hate him for his actions. And that IMO is solely because Jensen plays Dean with such consistency about how he feels about Sam and his willingness to do anything to save Sam's life that IMO it's completely believable that Dean would take that extreme measure and some would understand why. That's not to say it was condoned but ultimately the audience (as in some not all) can forgive Dean even if Sam doesn't/shouldn't.

 

I think the Purge speech was Carver's attempt to remind the audience that Dean did a super shitty thing and that he didn't respect Sam's agency and that he was being selfish.  Carver backs that up in his commentary too. But again he didn't bank on some in the audience remembering that Dean hasn't always acted selfishly and that he has made sacrifices.

 

I participate on another blog that feel like Dean is the worst person in the history of ever for doing what he did.  There are rape analogies etc etc that make what Dean did reprehensible and  unforgivable and  some think Dean deserved exactly what he got for that mistake.  And that Sam was right to say what he did to Dean. 

Edited September 9, 2014 by catrox14

[SueB]

Went back and looked at the original Carver wording (per the linked script in the all episode thread).http://itsjustjensen.tumblr.com/post/96416980858

 

 

Well, the "I lied" was an ad-lib by Jared and I don`t think the actual dialogue quite imlied this meaning. Furthermore, watch any interview with Carver about what went down in the Season 9 Finale, it`s the antithesis of Sam saying or even implying he was wrong. It was flat-out not the point he wanted to make.

Carver's wording:

"I was okay with it. Before I knew you were actually going to die." 

To me, this wording is Sam unambiguously saying he was wrong.  This is stating that when faced with reality of Dean's death, Sam couldn't live up to his principles of having a moral event horizon line he wouldn't cross. 

 

Jared's modification to "I lied." is both better and worse from a Sam perspective.

 

1) WORSE perspective: "I lied." meant he knew Dean was right but he wanted to hurt Dean so he lied.  Kinda cruel. On the other hand, the brothers were one-upping each other the entire episode.  And it's pretty realistic to "fire for effect" when you've been hurt. And Sam was deeply hurt.  He put his trust in Dean to always "do the right thing". And Dean failed him, on a very personal level. And Sam kept saying he couldn't see how being alive was a good thing when Kevin was dead.  That Sam vs Kevin trade (which it wasn't at the time of Dean's decision but ended up being the consequence of Dean's decision in both Sam & Dean's mind) kept coming up from Sam's perspective.  He brought it up in Road Trip. Said it blatantly in First Born. Said it again in The Purge. Brought up Kevin's death in the finale.

 

2) BETTER perspective. Because Sam isn't stupid. Although it's very real to think you will stand behind you principles, only to find out "not so much" when push comes to shove, Sam's been down this road before.  He's had to stand behind his principles. He's also had to deal with Dean dying and turned into Robo-Hunter.  So, "I lied" is better because it acknowledges Sam's history and says that while he knows Dean is right, admitting that to Dean is not the right answer.  Dean needs to know he went TOO FAR.  Admitting that to Dean at the time of The Purge means sweeping his trauma under the rug and letting Dean off the hook.

 

My opinion: Jared did the right thing.  It was a choice between showing Sam to be naive or Sam to be petty.  Jared essentially respected Sam's intelligence more than Carver IMO.  Jared reasoned that lying meant Sam understood it was better to be petty and mean to your brother rather than let him walk all over you.  Dean wanted to just put a few "X's" in the win column.  He knows he messed Sam up but he doesn't want to DEAL WITH IT.  So Sam held his ground and essentially rejected Dean's arguments (whether or not they were good) because he wanted Dean to understand what he put Sam through. Because he wants Dean to let him die rather than have a consequence that trades an innocent's life for Sam.  And the only reason he puts that aside is because the MoC and Metatron are a bigger deal.  Dean is marching off on a suicide mission and Sam is not going to let the on-going argument get in the way.  Sam still hasn't forgiven Dean for the choice Dean made. He still brought it up in the finale (about nightmares seeing his own hands killing Kevin). But he doesn't need to forgive Dean at that moment. He never stopped loving Dean.  He just needs to be there for Dean as he takes on Metatron.  

 

But the conundrum for Sam (at least at first) is that he thinks Dean just doesn't get it.  This is also what Carver said in the documentary BTW. The reality, IMO, is that Dean isn't wired that way. Trying to make Dean turn into something he's not isn't going to work either. Sam either lives with it (Dean's prime directive of 'save Sam') or he walks away.  And Sam isn't going to walk away.  Personally I think Carver knows this and it's bullshit when he says Dean doesn't get it.  In Road Trip Dean said two really important things in that last speech: 1) 'it's not in me'... to let Sam die and 2) 'I'll burn for that."  The first says that Dean is at least recognizing what he can and can't do.  He let Sam go before when the entire world was on the line.  It nearly destroyed him.  He was in "misery"(EP 6.1). Letting Sam die vs violating Sam on a personal level?  Yeah. He'll let Sam go thru possession rather than let him die.  He still had hope it would all work out.  Which brings me to #2) going to hell for Kevin's death.  He KNOWS the consequences of his actions was an innocent's death.  So his solution (including in the finale) was to take all the consequences on himself and shield Sam. He told Sam "that's on me" (Kevin's death) but that doesn't stop Sam from feeling guilty. He sidelined Sam for both the Abbadon and Metatron confrontation. But the consequence for Sam was a out-of-control MoC Dean post Abbadon and a dead Dean post Metatron.  So Sam's alive... but he's still suffering. 

 

And just in case there is any confusion on where my heart lies:

- I totally sympathize with Dean's decision regarding Gadreel. I don't care if it's selfish, I'd do the same thing to my child (and Dean was totally parentified by John regarding Sam).

- I totally empathize with Sam regarding the need to have control over his own life. I'm not stupid. People shouldn't make those kind of calls for me. Why would I think Sam would be okay with Dean making those call for Sam?

 

Which leads me to:

- I think Carver actually feels the same way.  He's just a kid with a big magnifying glass and we are the ants.  He wants us to feel the freaking heat & pain of these terrible conundrums.  He's doing a good job.

Edited September 10, 2014 by SueB

[AwesomO4000]

  It was a choice between showing Sam to be naive or Sam to be petty.

 

Not much of a choice there, either. Neither choice was great, considering the corner his character was written into.

 

I agreed with most of your post, except potentially the last part. I don't think I can forgive Carver yet for what he did to Sam's character in season 8. We'll see where it goes in season 10, but for me having Sam not look for Dean, but much worse abandon Kevin to Crowley without so much as trying to save him or even explain that maybe Sam was too damaged to try to save Kevin (but instead that it was a conscious choice to abandon him and just move on) was just a horrific choice, in my opinion, that made little sense to me and damaged what I'd seen of Sam's character in the previous 7 seasons. I just can't in good conscience call that a good job at present, especially since there really was no need for it at all as far as I could tell.

Edited September 10, 2014 by AwesomO4000

[catrox14]

Fun "Genre Smash" podcast interview with Eric Kripke about Supernatural and Revolution. He discusses the creation process of SPN, why it's lasted so long, relationship with fanbase, Jared and Jensen etc etc. NSFW for language

 

https://www.wgfoundation.org/eric-kripke-genre-smash/

 

Kripke is a funny guy and funny storyteller.

Edited September 10, 2014 by catrox14