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

Idahoforspn · May 21, 2017

1 minute ago, companionenvy said:

In S1, did Jared get paid more than Jensen?

I've been trying to find that out but haven't found anything yet. All I can find is Jensen supposedly makes the most now. Not sure if that's true though because I thought the negotiated together now.

SueB · May 21, 2017

So I read all the comments, to which I say - revisionist history. While it's true Krioke dreamed up a series with one lead, he SOLD a series about TWO brothers. Yes, Kripke's bias towards Sam-centric didn't shift until Faith BUT from a Hollywood perspective, it was advertised as two brothers with both receiving equal pay.

Let me put it differently, Kripke's plan of a Sam lead ONLY did not fly. The concept was sold as the two brothers fighting urban legends. The actual show changed even more as the pilot was filmed and David Nutter put his own spin on it.

I completely agree Kripke WANTED a Sam show but that is not what he sold nor was that what was produced. Jensen was second billed but PAID THE SAME.

So, 'Sam was the the lead and Dean was a co-star is bullshit'.

And frankly doesn't matter except that 'alternative facts' builds biases. Now, if you state it's your opinion, you can claim any whack theory you want. If you present bias as 'fact,' you'll see me throw out a flag.

Just now, Idahoforspn said:

I've been trying to find that out but haven't found anything yet. All I can find is Jensen supposedly makes the most now. Not sure if that's true though because I thought the negotiated together now.

Also not true. Jensen does NOT make more money than Jared. Jensen gets extra for directing. Period.

catrox14 · May 21, 2017

Jensen and Jared earn the same per episode. Jensen earns additional salary for directing.

catrox14 · May 21, 2017

2 minutes ago, SueB said:

So I read all the comments, to which I say - revisionist history. While it's true Krioke dreamed up a series with one lead, he SOLD a series about TWO brothers. Yes, Kripke's bias towards Sam-centric didn't shift until Faith BUT from a Hollywood perspective, it was advertised as two brothers with both receiving equal pay.

Let me put it differently, Kripke's plan of a Sam lead ONLY did not fly. The concept was sold as the two brothers fighting urban legends. The actual show changed even more as the pilot was filmed and David Nutter put his own spin on it.

I completely agree Kripke WANTED a Sam show but that is not what he sold nor was that what was produced. Jensen was second billed but PAID THE SAME.

So, 'Sam was the the lead and Dean was a co-star is bullshit'.

And frankly doesn't matter except that 'alternative facts' builds biases. Now, if you state it's your opinion, you can claim any whack theory you want. If you present bias as 'fact,' you'll see me throw out a flag.

Are you saying that the comments made in 2014 by Jensen is revisionist history/alternative facts? Not being snarky.

I guess I just don't see where it's actually"alternative facts" here.

Does anyone know for a fact that J2 earned the same pay in the pilot or throughout s1? They may very well have not earned equal pay if billing affects pay in that first season. It seems reasonable that they or their representation or even the studio agreed that as of s2 going forward they would earn the same per episode.

RulerofallIsurvey · May 21, 2017

9 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I entirely disagree. It only took me one episode, "The Raid," to make me wonder if Sam had turned into an idiot.

You ain't the only one!

AwesomO4000 · May 21, 2017

6 hours ago, Idahoforspn said:

Umm. That's exactly what we have been complaining about. Sam is becoming Dean too while Dean is becoming a sidekick character.

No, that's not what I was trying to say. I am saying that Sam is being made to be more like Dean, except less so. Sam's original good characteristics are often being given also to Dean - like Sam's supposed book smarts - since Dean is also likely to give book information even if he often "pretends" not to be... and so then Dean also gets to be incredulous if people question his intelligence (so Dean gets to play both cards, depending on which one he wants to play.) More often in current seasons, Dean is shown to be smarter than Sam and definitely more observant and with better instincts. Sam does research but just as often he's wrong - like the episode with Moloch and in "Who We Are" with the spell. Sam's "smarts" don't play as much of a role in solving cases as they used to and his instincts - which Sam used to have sometimes (example Gordon) have pretty much tanked in recent years. He's generally wrong about people a majority of the time.

Dean is also just as likely to bond with the persons in peril - i.e. the empathy Sam is often given lip service about, but is often not really more than the usual and varies a lot. But when Sam does Dean leaning things - like say sacrificing for family above all else, Sam "fails" at it and causes some kind of catastrophe or apocalypse or something.

So what I was saying is that often the show will sometimes show that Sam should be more like Dean, taking away or criticizing things that are related to Sam - like implying that by following instead of leading, Sam is somehow "less" and/or just taking the "easy way" out - rather than letting Sam be Sam and that also being a good thing.

Sam's raid going well is a definite improvement here, but I don't expect "Sam as leader" to last, because thematically - and even within the current episode - it doesn't seem to me to be what makes sense. As someone pointed out in the finale episode thread, Sam was looking to Dean to come along and be his rock, and it wasn't until Dean told Sam that Sam could do it on his own that Sam was able to believe it. Dean has almost always been Sam's "stone 1" and most of their conflicts go back to when that dynamic gets shattered for Sam. I honestly don't see any of that changing completely as long as Dean is available. If Sam has to do it himself, yup he can and will, but is that what he will want when Dean is available? I don't think so, and it's not what the show has shown in the past.

What I would like to see are some of Sam's good characters to return and define Sam again, because generally - and for me this started in season 8 - it's Sam's negative characteristics that are more associated with him now - i.e. Sam's arrogance, his stubbornness (as in not listening to others' opinions enough - although typically the negativeness is mostly associated with Sam. Dean being stubborn is not usually portrayed as a negative thing and more often is portrayed positively), and Sam's tendency to be venomous when he's angry.

Aeryn13 · May 21, 2017

Quote

I honestly don't see any of that changing completely as long as Dean is available. If Sam has to do it himself, yup he can and will, but is that what he will want when Dean is available?

That would mean Dean`s "leadership" hinges on whether Sam gives it to him or not. In effect, making Sam the leader who allows the flunky control every now and then if he wants to. Ì seriously don`t want table scraps like that for my favourite character.

catrox14 · May 21, 2017

1 minute ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I am saying that Sam is being made to be more like Dean, except less so. Sam's original good characteristics are often being given also to Dean - like Sam's supposed book smarts - since Dean is also likely to give book information even if he often "pretends" not to be.

I disagree a bit here about Sam's book smarts being given to Dean. IMO, it's more like they just took them away from Dean.

In s1, Dean had those book smarts. He wasn't allergic to research nor libraries nor computers that he used at the library. He was clearly a rather well read guy given the Vonnegut references. He had newspapers with him all the time. It seems to me had to have had to enough book smarts and ability to research engineering oriented things to be able to convert a Walkman into an EMF detector. So to me in s1 Dean and Sam were both shown to be book smart but for some reason, which I think was likely a network note, they had to differentiate the boys ( I guess because they looked so much alike that the audience might be confused if they had ONE similar trait of book smarts) into the more studious sweet/empathetic/rebellious younger brother in Sam and the more brawny/prone to violence/smarmy/horny older brother who was suddenly allergic to book research.

ILoveReading · May 22, 2017

I have to say that if ep 22 was titled Who We are and and that is supposed to showcase who Sam and Dean are, given their roles in the episode with Sam the hunter and Dean the caretaker, it doesn't inspire confidence on getting badass Dean back

Edited May 22, 2017 by ILoveReading

CluelessDrifter · May 22, 2017

13 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I have to say that if ep 22 was titled Who We are and and that is supposed to showcase who Sam and Dean are, given their roles in the episode with Sam the hunter and Dean the caretaker, it doesn't inspire confidence that Dean will get the leadership role back.

It's more likely that it was called Who We Are because it's a direct quote from Dean to Mary about how the decision she made gave them the lives they've had, and that's what made them who they are, people who save the world. If anything it backs that this particular episode was primarily about Dean getting through to Mary. Sam was sent off on a mission to handle the BMoL, so Dean could do that. Sam's role was secondary . . . IMO.

Edited May 22, 2017 by CluelessDrifter

DittyDotDot · May 22, 2017

22 minutes ago, CluelessDrifter said:

It's more likely that it was called Who We Are because it's a direct quote from Dean to Mary about how the decision she made gave them the lives they've had, and that's what made them who they are, people who save the world.

And, they kick ass!! ;)

gonzosgirrl · May 22, 2017

21 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

And, they kick ass!! ;)

It's kind of fitting also that they bookended (almost) the season with that sentiment from Dean. In 12x01 he told Mary that hunting things and saving people was his and Sam's life, and that they made a better place, in response to her lamenting that she never wanted this for them. Twenty-two episodes later, he forgives her for it with almost the same words.

CluelessDrifter · May 22, 2017

15 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

It's kind of fitting also that they bookended (almost) the season with that sentiment from Dean. In 12x01 he told Mary that hunting things and saving people was his and Sam's life, and that they made a better place, in response to her lamenting that she never wanted this for them. Twenty-two episodes later, he forgives her for it with almost the same words.

I noticed that too. It's one of the things that really annoyed me about Mary's plan to rid the world of monsters following a 'better way' than the way her sons knew, because in doing so, she completely disregarded what he said. I'm glad that he said it again anyway, because I think it means he really believes it (Not that I didn't think he meant it the first time, but it was nice to see him maintain it).

AwesomO4000 · May 22, 2017

On 5/21/2017 at 4:27 PM, Aeryn13 said:

That would mean Dean`s "leadership" hinges on whether Sam gives it to him or not. In effect, making Sam the leader who allows the flunky control every now and then if he wants to.

No, not for me, it doesn't. Because that's not even what I said. I said that in their dynamic, Dean is Sam's "stone 1" and that I didn't see that changing as long as Dean is there. If something were to happen to Dean or they were separated for a while, Sam likely could lead a situation - as he tried to do in "All Hell..., pt 1", but that doesn't mean he'd always be comfortable with it or even want that. My point was that if Sam had his choice, he trusts Dean to lead - which is what I thought I was saying.

I'm not sure how you got from that that I was saying that Dean would be leader only when Sam "let" him be. I said that Sam would most often prefer it that way, because he does believe that Dean is his stone #1 when Dean is there, meaning that Sam trusts Dean's leadership skills. Which under more usual circumstances - i.e. not season 4 - we've seen many many times on this show.

But except for dynamics when there isn't a choice, don't most leadership roles hinge on whether the people following him/her "give" him/her that leadership role because they trust them and the leader earns that trust?

And even when Sam wasn't given the choice - as when Dean had the MoC and eventually flat out told Sam that he had no choice in the matter - Sam still followed Dean with little or no complaint rather than leaving.

On 5/21/2017 at 4:40 PM, catrox14 said:

I disagree a bit here about Sam's book smarts being given to Dean. IMO, it's more like they just took them away from Dean.

In s1, Dean had those book smarts. He wasn't allergic to research nor libraries nor computers that he used at the library. He was clearly a rather well read guy given the Vonnegut references. He had newspapers with him all the time. It seems to me had to have had to enough book smarts and ability to research engineering oriented things to be able to convert a Walkman into an EMF detector. So to me in s1 Dean and Sam were both shown to be book smart but for some reason, which I think was likely a network note, they had to differentiate the boys ( I guess because they looked so much alike that the audience might be confused if they had ONE similar trait of book smarts) into the more studious sweet/empathetic/rebellious younger brother in Sam and the more brawny/prone to violence/smarmy/horny older brother who was suddenly allergic to book research.

I didn't mean to imply that Dean wasn't smart to start with. He was. But I don't think "book smarts" was one of the main components of Dean's personality, or at least not what I remember. I saw Dean as more of a "doer." It's not that Dean couldn't research or even at times want to do so, it was that given a choice, for me, it seemed like Dean would rather be doing something active, especially if Sam was there and wanted to do the research, and was capable of finding out the information.

And for me, that's a similar thing to the Dean/Sam leadership/follower dynamic. So what if Dean could research? Why should he if Sam is perfectly capable of doing it and it would be a better use of their time and Dean would be happier if he was doing something else while Sam would likely enjoy it more than Dean? So I never had any problem with, when Sam and Dean worked together, that Dean would more often let Sam do the research. Presumably of the two of them, Sam would have more experience with that, considering that's a lot of what he did in college. And in turn, Dean would take the leader responsibility on the hunts. Each playing to their respective strengths. Or at least that's how I saw it.

The reason why I say that they seem to be taking that away from Sam, is that Sam's research seemed to me to usually have more of a focus in their case solving in the past. Now, it seems less important, and often Sam is just wrong. In other words, Sam doing research or his intelligence isn't really what he's known for any more. And in addition, Sam's instincts - which at least sometimes were actually good (like say when he knew the shifter wasn't Dean or that he could tell that Gordon was bad news) seem to have been thrown out the window in that he's hardly ever right about people or situations any more.

As I said, sometimes I'm having a hard time knowing what Sam is known for that is positive that's similar to how he was in the past*. He's changed so much since then. Whereas Dean is still know for his leadership - with maybe the exception of very recently if you see it that way - for his ability to talk his way into and out of situations, for his tenacity, his loyalty, and for his protectiveness of his family.

* Except for his hope and positivism. Sam still has that thankfully.

I will say, however, that I likely wouldn't be concerned about this at all if recently Sam's character hadn't been made to mess up and/or be wrong so often recently. Sam just couldn't seem to do much of anything right since the end of season 7. Though I will admit - as I said - the BMoL raid success is a welcome change - ignoring the bad messaging of it, that is - and I hope that trend continues.

Edited May 22, 2017 by AwesomO4000

AwesomO4000 · May 24, 2017

This is mostly about Sam's character, but I have some minor writer gripes potentially coming up, so I am putting it here.

Brought over from the "Who Are You" / "All Along the Watchtower" episode thread:

1 hour ago, rue721 said:

Dean telegraphing discomfort and discontent toward Mary all year was probably build-up to him forgiving her at the end IMO, but that makes Sam's story (of never even getting to the point of really expressing discomfort or discontent or whatever, let alone all the way through that to forgiveness) such a weird counterpoint to Dean's, doesn't it?

And I am sorry, I swear not to dwell, but there's another still-unforgiven-by-Dean parent lurking around in the background. Except that one, too, Sam is ostensibly already totally cool with (now that said parent is dead)? I dunno, I actually believe that Sam is super forgiving compared to virtually everyone, considering how he's always winding up working with his torturers and stuff, but again -- weird counterpoint, right?

Anyway, I think that Mary's main storyline (that was just about her) was the story of her trying to find her place in the world. And I'm not really complaining, I think that the BMOL involvement was actually a pretty good wrinkle in that story. I mean, most people don't have to be really worried that while their mom casts around for some kind of meaning and sense of worth, she's going to fall in with a bunch of fascist killers. LOL. But I also feel like her storyline didn't really arc, ultimately. Dean forgiving her was a good climax for HIS emotional arc, but her just accepting that forgiveness wasn't enough payoff for hers IMO.

Hmm I'm not sure what a good (emotional) climax for Mary might have been, though.

Brought over from the "Unpopular Opinions" thread:

15 hours ago, SueB said:

For me:
- Sam is an unreliable narrator -- he's got the guilt of not saving Dean himself plus he's now a power & demon blood addict

14 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Yes, Sam did say that (that Dean was weak), but IMO it only went to show how far Sam has his head up his own ass with the demon blood addiction. While I disagree with Sam's assessment and think he's being an ass, I actually think that is important to what's happening to Sam at the time.

Rue, I agree with you concerning Sam being forgiving, and I think it's supposed to be maybe a Sam trait, but unfortunately sometimes I think the writers might be a little too rigid with it, maybe sometimes to the detriment of the character - and I'll explain as I go along, and that is where my quotes from SueB and DDD come in.

I also agree with you Rue, about the emotional impact of forgiving Mary being a good climax for Dean's arc, but maybe not so much for Mary - this is actually what clicked for me and got me thinking about Sam, forgiveness, and season 4. That my brain put all those things together... well that's just my weird-ass brain and is all on me ; ).

So I was thinking about this, and decided that this is what has been bugging me about season 4. Sam being forgiving - which he often has been - didn't quite mesh completely with Sam's rage in the earlier seasons. I think the idea that Sam learned that his anger against John was something he regretted after John's death and that taught him / got him to be more forgiving was a good arc, and a good explanation, but maybe it was a little too quick? For example, in season 5, Sam still had some of that rage / anger he hadn't quite lost completely that was brought out by his stint in the mental hospital in "Sam, Interrupted," but where was that emotion in season 3 and especially season 4? Sure, I can see it working for Sam to forgive John specifically, but I think it went too fast from Sam forgiving John to Sam forgiving everyone for everything.

And for me, I think season 4 is where this was the most detrimental maybe to Sam's arc. For example, the "power" addiction that was supposedly one of Sam's motivations in season 4 didn't really work for me. I can more buy the ego, but in my opinion, that didn't go as well with the guilt. For me, I think it would've made much more sense if one of Sam's motivating factors was that he was angry with Dean and couldn't really forgive Dean for making the deal and leaving Sam all alone to deal with the consequences. The pieces of it were all there in my opinion. It was touched on in season 3, but then Sam immersed himself and put that energy into trying to save Dean and that I think could believably delay Sam's potential anger about that. But once Dean was dead and Sam was alone and had failed in trying to save Dean, I could see his guilt conflating with "how could Dean have done this to me?" And for me, anger would make so much more sense in terms of the "Dean is weak" thing, and Sam feeling that he had to do it instead, and maybe even being angry about that also, because Sam wasn't ready and maybe the blood addiction was part of that trying to feel ready. But then of course Sam would also feel guilty about feeling angry, because of all Dean went through. And for me that would've made a great emotional arc for Sam... much more satisfying than Sam wanted power or was just being arrogant.

But I guess maybe the writers thought Dean getting broken and having all that angst and unfair "you're weak" stuff from Sam was more emotional, so Dean got all of the heavy emotional stuff, and Sam's motivation was shifted from him being (in my opinion) understandably angry to Sam just being arrogant and wanting power. To me, maybe a satisfying emotional arc for Dean, but not so much for Sam.

Which in my opinion is too bad, because season 5 and beyond Sam being more forgiving does make sense - he could at that point understand screwing up and needing to be forgiven himself after messing up with letting Lucifer out by then - but I think Sam all of a sudden forgiving everyone in season 3 was too quick, and I think him being angry with Dean in season 4 and maybe not forgiving him for the deal - and the resulting guilt from that - would have made so much sense. Way more sense than the season 8 and 9 not forgiving thing...

Where once again, I think the writers did a disservice to Sam in terms of forgiveness. Then - in season 9 especially (I don't know what the hell was supposed to be going on in season 8) - Sam not forgiving Dean, for me, made less sense. I mean Sam forgave Castiel for almost killing him and making him live with Lucifer hallucinations just so Castiel could use Sam as leverage against Dean. And Sam forgives that, but not Dean for trying to save his life (badly I'll admit with the lying)... oookay. But then, if Sam had forgiven Dean we couldn't have the "Sam is wrong" thing at the end of season 9, so... again a more interesting emotional arc for Dean, but maybe sacrificing Sam's emotional arc to get there*. And it irks me that in order to make that "Sam is wrong" point, the writers not only made Sam uncharacteristically unforgiving, but had Sam shift what he should have been understandably angry about - Dean's lying - and kept hitting the "I was ready to die" semi-truth part in order to make it fit into what they wanted Sam to "learn." In other words, not only did it annoy me that they made Sam uncharacteristically not forgive Dean, I don't think they even let Sam be angry about the right thing so that they could push the plot / message that they wanted.

* Which to me was a shame, because I was entirely buying and was interested by Sam's "is something still wrong with me?" thing that they started at the end of season 8 and then seemed to be developing in the first half of season 9. But nope that was just dropped in favor of the missing the mark (in my opinion) "I was ready to die." *sigh* Sam should have been allowed to be angry about "You lied to me and let a being stay in my body and let me think I was going crazy again." But nope, apparently Sam shouldn't have been angry about that because Gadreel is a "friend." Sam's emotional arc was so short-changed in season 9 in favor of Dean's and the "message", in my opinion.

I hope some of that made sense.

SueB · May 24, 2017

@AwesomO4000 ITA that Sam has never gotten to work through his anger issues. He released some anger by going after Lilith but that fixed NOTHING. Sam was now guilty on top of now repressed anger. And then they made him all zen like with the 'I paid in Hell' thing. But Sam's anger was justified and yet never acknowledged as justified. It was always treated as a character defect vs an outgrowth of the helplessness of being carted around like baggage, treated like some prize, and never having control over other people's plans for him.

I don't want Sam to dredge that up because I think he's somehow made peace with his life. But I want him to at least hold John accountable for some of his actions. And Mary needs to explain why she didn't take any steps to protect him better.

AwesomO4000 · May 24, 2017

2 minutes ago, SueB said:

It was always treated as a character defect vs an outgrowth of the helplessness of being carted around like baggage, treated like some prize, and never having control over other people's plans for him.

I entirely agree.

SueB · May 24, 2017

4 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I entirely agree.

See, I LISTEN. :)

AwesomO4000 · May 24, 2017

13 minutes ago, SueB said:

See, I LISTEN. :)

And I appreciate that... since I know this thread is not your cup of tea.

DittyDotDot · May 24, 2017

5 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

And for me, I think season 4 is where this was the most detrimental maybe to Sam's arc. For example, the "power" addiction that was supposedly one of Sam's motivations in season 4 didn't really work for me. I can more buy the ego, but in my opinion, that didn't go as well with the guilt. For me, I think it would've made much more sense if one of Sam's motivating factors was that he was angry with Dean and couldn't really forgive Dean for making the deal and leaving Sam all alone to deal with the consequences. The pieces of it were all there in my opinion. It was touched on in season 3, but then Sam immersed himself and put that energy into trying to save Dean and that I think could believably delay Sam's potential anger about that. But once Dean was dead and Sam was alone and had failed in trying to save Dean, I could see his guilt conflating with "how could Dean have done this to me?" And for me, anger would make so much more sense in terms of the "Dean is weak" thing, and Sam feeling that he had to do it instead, and maybe even being angry about that also, because Sam wasn't ready and maybe the blood addiction was part of that trying to feel ready. But then of course Sam would also feel guilty about feeling angry, because of all Dean went through. And for me that would've made a great emotional arc for Sam... much more satisfying than Sam wanted power or was just being arrogant.

I'm moving this to the Sam thread...

auntvi · May 24, 2017

6 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

But I guess maybe the writers thought Dean getting broken and having all that angst and unfair "you're weak" stuff from Sam was more emotional, so Dean got all of the heavy emotional stuff, and Sam's motivation was shifted from him being (in my opinion) understandably angry to Sam just being arrogant and wanting power. To me, maybe a satisfying emotional arc for Dean, but not so much for Sam.

I never bought that Sam was arrogant, it seemed more desperation-based than ego-based. I can see your anger & guilt explanation much, much more.

CluelessDrifter · May 24, 2017

8 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

So I was thinking about this, and decided that this is what has been bugging me about season 4. Sam being forgiving - which he often has been - didn't quite mesh completely with Sam's rage in the earlier seasons. I think the idea that Sam learned that his anger against John was something he regretted after John's death and that taught him / got him to be more forgiving was a good arc, and a good explanation, but maybe it was a little too quick? For example, in season 5, Sam still had some of that rage / anger he hadn't quite lost completely that was brought out by his stint in the mental hospital in "Sam, Interrupted," but where was that emotion in season 3 and especially season 4? Sure, I can see it working for Sam to forgive John specifically, but I think it went too fast from Sam forgiving John to Sam forgiving everyone for everything.

I, personally, don't think Sam forgives anyone who hurts Dean or other people he cares about. For instance, I don't think he ever really forgave Crowley for any of the things Crowley did. I think the reason he was willing to go in and wipe out all the BMoL in the States was because of the things they'd done to the Eileen, Mick, Mary, the other hunters they killed, take your pick. Where Sam doesn't hold a grudge is when bad things are done to him. Even with Gadreel, he saw that more as something that was done to him than something that was done to Kevin even though he felt guilty about Kevin, and that's why he could forgive Gadreel. The exception to that general rule is that he can hold a grudge against Dean, which right or wrong, is probably realistic, because those closest to us have the ability to hurt us the most (and not really a discussion I want to expound upon here). And I think that Sam has been forgiving of any transgressions against himself since he got back from the cage, not since John died. I think being in the cage not only burned away the guilt he'd been feeling for years, but also the ability to feel like he is important enough to hold onto being angry about being wronged.

8 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

And for me, I think season 4 is where this was the most detrimental maybe to Sam's arc. For example, the "power" addiction that was supposedly one of Sam's motivations in season 4 didn't really work for me. I can more buy the ego, but in my opinion, that didn't go as well with the guilt. For me, I think it would've made much more sense if one of Sam's motivating factors was that he was angry with Dean and couldn't really forgive Dean for making the deal and leaving Sam all alone to deal with the consequences. The pieces of it were all there in my opinion. It was touched on in season 3, but then Sam immersed himself and put that energy into trying to save Dean and that I think could believably delay Sam's potential anger about that. But once Dean was dead and Sam was alone and had failed in trying to save Dean, I could see his guilt conflating with "how could Dean have done this to me?" And for me, anger would make so much more sense in terms of the "Dean is weak" thing, and Sam feeling that he had to do it instead, and maybe even being angry about that also, because Sam wasn't ready and maybe the blood addiction was part of that trying to feel ready. But then of course Sam would also feel guilty about feeling angry, because of all Dean went through. And for me that would've made a great emotional arc for Sam... much more satisfying than Sam wanted power or was just being arrogant.

But I guess maybe the writers thought Dean getting broken and having all that angst and unfair "you're weak" stuff from Sam was more emotional, so Dean got all of the heavy emotional stuff, and Sam's motivation was shifted from him being (in my opinion) understandably angry to Sam just being arrogant and wanting power. To me, maybe a satisfying emotional arc for Dean, but not so much for Sam.

I think Sam always felt a darkness there from the demon blood. He lost John and then Dean. He felt guilty about why Dean died, and he felt grief. He felt anger too. He tried to get CRDs to take him instead even after Dean was dead, and nothing worked. It was a perfect storm for the makings of an addict. Then along comes Ruby, and she gives him a purpose. He thinks maybe he can use this darkness for something good. Using it makes him feel better, and if he gets strong enough, he can get his revenge on Lilith for the loss of Dean.

Then Dean comes back. I think at first Sam felt ashamed of his secret, so he lied about it, but he couldn't stop and kept doing it until he got caught in Metamorphosis - addict behavior - I think he would've kept doing it at that point, because he kept throwing out excuses for why he should do it, like he was doing something good with his curse, but then Dean said that Cas told him to stop Sam, and Sam was a big believer in angels. That might've been enough to get him to stop for a while, but I also think there was a part of him that was looking for an excuse to start again, because he wasn't ready to give it up.

He started losing faith in angels after what happened in the Samhain episode and even more after Cas and Uriel went after Anna. He also met Alistair, and it gave him the excuse he needed to go back to it - he had to protect Dean who'd seemed weak against Alistair, and the angels weren't going to do it. I think he'd pretty much gone into a full blown addiction by the time of Sex and Violence when we get a look at what he's thinking about Dean and the new excuse for why he's doing what he's doing. He went from not being able to do anything to Alistair in IKWYDLS and HaH to being able to hold onto him in DTaH and then Killing him in PONR, and he knew in PoNR that he could kill demons, so he'd definitely gotten worse in leaps and bounds off-screen in 4 episodes, worse than he'd actually been in the 4 months that Dean was dead.

Also, at the time when Sam was 'cleansed' by Chuck and put on that plane, Sam still wasn't ready to give up the power/demon blood. It's also why going into detox the first time didn't work with him. He wasn't ready either time. He didn't make the decision either time. It's why he went back to Ruby in WtLB, and it's why he had to take a step back from hunting after GG,Y. It's also why he pushed the blame for his addiction onto Dean in Fallen Idols. It wasn't until after he relapsed again in MBV and chose to go into detox that he was finally ready, but by then, Dean had had enough.

Anyway, the addiction was always for the feelings he got from the power (because of when he felt powerless) and the excuses for why he needed that power were what changed over time, because addicts' excuses do change over time, so they can keep justifying to themselves and others why they keep doing x, y, or z. The arrogance was a result of feeling powerful. I don't think they threw Sam under the bus to make Sam the big old meanie to Dean, so Dean could have a good arc. Dean's side of the arc was dealing with an addict, and Sam was that addict, which was his arc. Dealing with addicts isn't a whole lot of fun.

8 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Which in my opinion is too bad, because season 5 and beyond Sam being more forgiving does make sense - he could at that point understand screwing up and needing to be forgiven himself after messing up with letting Lucifer out by then - but I think Sam all of a sudden forgiving everyone in season 3 was too quick, and I think him being angry with Dean in season 4 and maybe not forgiving him for the deal - and the resulting guilt from that - would have made so much sense. Way more sense than the season 8 and 9 not forgiving thing...

I'm not trying to be snarky in any way, but who did Sam forgive in season 3? It wasn't Gordon. I don't think it was Bella. Attraction isn't forgiveness. I don't think it was Gabriel. I know it wasn't Lilith. Ruby doesn't count, because it was a building up of trust rather than forgiveness. Who else could it have been?

Edited May 24, 2017 by CluelessDrifter

Idahoforspn · May 24, 2017

8 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

but had Sam shift what he should have been understandably angry about - Dean's lying - and kept hitting the "I was ready to die" semi-truth part in order to make it fit into what they wanted Sam to "learn." In other words, not only did it annoy me that they made Sam uncharacteristically not forgive Dean, I don't think they even let Sam be angry about the right thing so that they could push the plot / message that they wanted.

* Which to me was a shame, because I was entirely buying and was interested by Sam's "is something still wrong with me?" thing that they started at the end of season 8 and then seemed to be developing in the first half of season 9. But nope that was just dropped in favor of the missing the mark (in my opinion) "I was ready to die." *sigh* Sam should have been allowed to be angry about "You lied to me and let a being stay in my body and let me think I was going crazy again." But nope, apparently Sam shouldn't have been angry about that because Gadreel is a "friend." Sam's emotional arc was so short-changed in season 9 in favor of Dean's and the "message", in my opinion.

I hope some of that made sense.

That flip from "you lied to me" to "I was ready to die" was so confusing to me and seemed to be the source of a lot of fan contention that season. The writing baffles me regularly because the writers often decide to go with the concept they didn't really set up in the previous writing.

Idahoforspn · May 24, 2017

I believe Mark P was promoted to a regular with the planned concurrent demotion of Mark S from that status. IMO, the move to make Mark P a regular and Mark S not gives pretty strong hints of the dynamic for next year. Mark S was associated with Dean and more often paired with Dean on screen. Mark P is more associated with Sam and paired with Sam. The cast change fits in nicely with Dabbs continued efforts (IMO it was pretty blatant this season) to move to more Sam centered stories.

DJG1122 · May 24, 2017

13 minutes ago, Idahoforspn said:

I believe Mark P was promoted to a regular with the planned concurrent demotion of Mark S from that status. IMO, the move to make Mark P a regular and Mark S not gives pretty strong hints of the dynamic for next year. Mark S was associated with Dean and more often paired with Dean on screen. Mark P is more associated with Sam and paired with Sam. The cast change fits in nicely with Dabbs continued efforts (IMO it was pretty blatant this season) to move to more Sam centered stories.

You're probably right. Abruptly bringing in Mark P mid-season and making him a regular right off the bat makes it look like they were "pre-replacing" Mark S. With the Nephilim story line, there's no place for Crowley.

DittyDotDot · May 24, 2017

22 minutes ago, DJG1122 said:

You're probably right. Abruptly bringing in Mark P mid-season and making him a regular right off the bat makes it look like they were "pre-replacing" Mark S. With the Nephilim story line, there's no place for Crowley.

I don't think it was abruptly done. Last summer Mark Pelligrino tweeted that he'd be back as Lucifer in S12. ::shrugs::

Katy M · May 24, 2017

On ‎5‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 4:40 PM, catrox14 said:

He was clearly a rather well read guy given the Vonnegut references.

Shadow: Sam: What was the last book you read? Dean: Alright, I called Dad's friend, Caleb.

Red Sky at Morning: Sam: Please tell me I wasn't groped by Mrs. Havisham for nothing. Dean: Mrs. Who?

Provenance: Sam: Kind of like a Da Vinci code thing? Dean: I don't know. I'm still waiting on the movie for that one.

The Man Who Would Be King: Bobby: HP Lovecraft... Dean: I was busy having sex with women.

All we know for sure that he read for books are maybe a couple of Vonnegut books. And he read something about the Oddyssey. I've never read the Oddyssey, but I know most of the stuff about it. I think Dean's literary prowess is usually exagerrated by some fans, on the strength of two lines in Season 4.

gonzosgirrl · May 24, 2017

12 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Shadow: Sam: What was the last book you read? Dean: Alright, I called Dad's friend, Caleb.

Red Sky at Morning: Sam: Please tell me I wasn't groped by Mrs. Havisham for nothing. Dean: Mrs. Who?

Provenance: Sam: Kind of like a Da Vinci code thing? Dean: I don't know. I'm still waiting on the movie for that one.

The Man Who Would Be King: Bobby: HP Lovecraft... Dean: I was busy having sex with women.

All we know for sure that he read for books are maybe a couple of Vonnegut books. And he read something about the Oddyssey. I've never read the Oddyssey, but I know most of the stuff about it. I think Dean's literary prowess is usually exagerrated by some fans, on the strength of two lines in Season 4.

Momma Mia: Dean: Turns out this ape did read a book or two. :P

Edited May 24, 2017 by gonzosgirrl
to correct the quote

Aeryn13 · May 24, 2017

The "see how stupid he is, he didn`t go to College and doesn`t know stuff"-"jokes" were always in the show, in the early Seasons and now. And they were always annoying, especially because they did it as a zero sum game most of the time in the "Sam is the smart one" vein. Gee, so every group has one designated smart person? And all the others are the dumb losers of the group?

Edited May 24, 2017 by Aeryn13

catrox14 · May 24, 2017

The problem with Sam calling Gadreel a friend with is that Sam himself was going to kill Gadreel but Dean stopped him and took that on himself like what a couple of episodes before 9.23? Maybe it was another "Turn the other cheek" moment for Sam that I mentioned in another thread here...somewhere(I can't remember where now). Maybe Cas' willingness to work with Gadreel lead Sam to characterize him as a friend, but that's a reach. Mostly though, I think it was clunky writing to have Sam classify Gadreel as a "friend" along with Cas, to demonstrate to Dean that Crowley was no friend. And it has the bonus of giving Gadreel the Winchester Seal of Approval to let the audience feel sympathy for Gadreel when he blows himself up to help Cas and the Winchesters.

Quote

SAM [more than slightly annoyed]

I guess one of us doesn't need a demon to help follow a clue trail. You're looking for miracle lady, right? Yeah, she's gone. I had a nice chat with her, though.

DEAN

Sam, whatever kind of intervention you think this is, trust me, it ain't. I'm not gonna explain myself to you.

SAM

Yeah, I sort of got that. I just thought you might like to know that while you two have been playing, uh, odd couple, your real friends, like Cas, like the angel you stabbed, Gadreel --they're out there right now risking their asses to help you win this fight.

DEAN

What the hell are you talking about?

SAM

A fight, I might add, you made that much more complicated when you decided to stab the one angel who could actually get us to Metatron.

DEAN [angry flaring]

You mean the angel that took you for a joy ride? The angel that slaughtered Kevin? That angel?

SAM

Who you let in the front door in the first place. You tricked me, Dean. And now I'm the one who wakes up in the middle of the night seeing my hands killing Kevin, not you. So, please, when you say you don't want to explain anything to me, don't. I get it. And I also get that Metatron has to go. And I know you're our best shot to do that.

DEAN

I'm gonna take my shot, for better or worse.

SAM

I know.

DEAN

No matter the consequences.

SAM

I know. But if this is it, we're gonna do it together.

You want to know what he whispered to her, right, in the video? His next stop.

CROWLEY [overhearing from the car]

So what are we all gollywagging on about? Chop-chop.

[DEAN and SAM both turn to face him with faces that tell him to get lost.]

Excuse me. I'm not exactly demon Minion number three here. As the kids say, I've got mad skills.

DEAN

Look, I don't know what you expected here, okay. I don't really care, but you wanted off the hamster wheel. Get off.

CROWLEY

Well, I guess I've been Winchestered. I'd wish you boys good luck... If I thought it would help.

The "I lied" change by Jared did him and Sam no favors. I have a vague recollection of seeing the actual script out on the interwebs somewhere where they altered a pretty lengthy scene prior to Dean's death.

Quote

Dean: What happened to you being okay with this?

Sam: I lied.

Dean: Ain't that a bitch.

************************

Dean: I’m proud of us.

I understand that actors as good as J2 and have played these characters this long, do have a good read on how to read a line or understand the tone of a scene, and they generally make good choices to alter dialogue or play as they think it should be played, but I think this was a choice that someone needed to rethink. I dunno. I'm not bashing Jared here because I think Jensen inserts comic beats that are too broad and make Dean look like a gross buffoon but maybe he likes taking the piss out of his own character from time to time. I dunno. I just don't always enjoy those choices that Jensen makes for a gag. But I digress.

I recollect Jensen saying he thought Dean would not be as wordy as he was in that scene so he changed it to "I'm proud of us", which doesn't really seem to undermine Dean's arc or undoes much of anything and still seems apt for Dean to be able to acknowledge only when he's dying, that he could be proud of not only Sam but himself; that the bad judgment he exercised and the bad choices he, and Sam, have made didn't outweigh the good they have done especially given the shitty hand they were dealt in their lives by their parents.

I wonder if Jared didn't consider it would undermine Sam's position in the Purge or maybe he did and he's okay with it because maybe he never liked not thought Sam would have said ALL of those things to Dean in the first place nor made the decision to not look for Dean in s8. I dunno. That's just something I wondered about.

Dean's "I thought you were okay with this" was rather ambiguous in and of itself. I had presumed it was Dean thinking Sam was not going to save him at all given how I think Dean took Sam's words in the Purge to mean. But even if it was only about that particular battle with Metatron, the "I lied" response makes it all ambiguous.

If Sam meant that he would not save Dean under the same circumstances of using angel possession via dubious consent, then that doesn't make sense because Dean was not in the position to be saved by angel possession unless Sam was considering that which was never shown nor implied IMO.

If Sam meant he would never save Dean AT ALL, well that makes Sam look like the literal worst brother ever and the "I lied" comes too little too late. That said, Dean's response of "Ain't that a bitch" does imply some sad irony, like maybe Sam's harsh words pushed Dean to hide the effects of the Mark more than he may have done if Sam hadn't said what he said. Maybe Jared was okay with Sam taking that hit now as long as he knew Sam would get redemption at some point.

The "I lied" could have worked if it was about Sam being okay with Dean dying in battle against Metatron alone but that's not what happened. Sam was planning to fight alongside Dean until Dean cold cocked him and left him on the ground by the car. But even then Dean' reply of "Well ain't that a bitch" to the 'I lied" is out of place.

I do wonder if what was supposed to be filmed was actually more kind to Sam than it turned out. I really need to find that pic of the script. I just put it down to something didn't make sense for Jared and the 'I lied' made it all work for him so there it stands,

ETA: Sam was trying to get Dean to hang on when he said they would find a way to save him, a spell or a doctor. It was only after Dean died that Sam summoned Crowley.

Edited May 24, 2017 by catrox14

CluelessDrifter · May 24, 2017

2 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Momma Mia: Dean: Turns out this ape has read a book or two. :P

Baby: Dean: Come on, man. That quote? "God helps those who help themselves"? God didn't say that. That's not even in the Bible. That's an old proverb that dates way back to Aesop. I read (...)"

catrox14 · May 24, 2017

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

Shadow: Sam: What was the last book you read? Dean: Alright, I called Dad's friend, Caleb.

Red Sky at Morning: Sam: Please tell me I wasn't groped by Mrs. Havisham for nothing. Dean: Mrs. Who?

Provenance: Sam: Kind of like a Da Vinci code thing? Dean: I don't know. I'm still waiting on the movie for that one.

The Man Who Would Be King: Bobby: HP Lovecraft... Dean: I was busy having sex with women.

All we know for sure that he read for books are maybe a couple of Vonnegut books. And he read something about the Oddyssey. I've never read the Oddyssey, but I know most of the stuff about it. I think Dean's literary prowess is usually exagerrated by some fans, on the strength of two lines in Season 4.

Even if you remove any reference to Dean's literary prowess from my comment about Dean in s1, that doesn't actually change that in s1 Dean was shown to be book smart which was my material point.

Being well read is in the eye of the bookholder. Someone doesn't have to have read ALL the books to be considered well read.

Dean earned a GED, which requires broad knowledge of literature and language arts, math, and the sciences both hard and social. He had to have studied which means he needed to read a decent amount of literature of various types, maybe that's why he read Vonnegut and other works. Maybe he just decided he wanted to read them because he wanted to read them.

Maybe Dean read some Lovecraft, thought it was shit, so he didn't remember the author's name. Sam knew Lovecraft's name but does that mean Sam necessarily read Lovecraft? We don't know either way. I figured he did. Dean snarking about having sex with women was juxtaposing Smart Sam and Smart Bobby with Dumb Horny Dean but that scene was really all about how smart Bobby was compared to both Dean and Sam, IMO.

Sam presumed a lot of things about Dean in s1 because they had not been in contact for like two or three years. Sam mocking Dean for not picking up a book lately does not mean that Dean does not read. Sam mocked Dean for making an EMF from a Walkman. Yup I bring that up all the fucking time because that cannot have been any kind of easy peasy plug in play. That would have required reading manuals, taking that knowledge and applying it properly to make it work. How many variations did he make to get the one that worked? How many days or weeks of work did that take?

In Baby, Dean remembered about Aesop's Fables when Sam seemed to not remember and once more Sam is surprised that Dean knew this. Why is Sam always surprised by what Dean knows about literature? Maybe Sam doesn't really know as much about Dean as he thinks he does? Maybe Dean just doesn't bother to roll out his literary knowledge until the moment calls for it.

But the bottom line for me to decide about Dean's literary prowess and it's not 'exaggerated' that he's probably more well read than not is from Dean himself:

"I read"

Edited May 24, 2017 by catrox14

AwesomO4000 · May 24, 2017

4 hours ago, CluelessDrifter said:

I, personally, don't think Sam forgives anyone who hurts Dean or other people he cares about. For instance, I don't think he ever really forgave Crowley for any of the things Crowley did. I think the reason he was willing to go in and wipe out all the BMoL in the States was because of the things they'd done to the Eileen, Mick, Mary, the other hunters they killed, take your pick. Where Sam doesn't hold a grudge is when bad things are done to him. Even with Gadreel, he saw that more as something that was done to him than something that was done to Kevin even though he felt guilty about Kevin, and that's why he could forgive Gadreel. The exception to that general rule is that he can hold a grudge against Dean, which right or wrong, is probably realistic, because those closest to us have the ability to hurt us the most (and not really a discussion I want to expound upon here). And I think that Sam has been forgiving of any transgressions against himself since he got back from the cage, not since John died. I think being in the cage not only burned away the guilt he'd been feeling for years, but also the ability to feel like he is important enough to hold onto being angry about being wronged.

I agree. When I was talking about Sam's forgiveness, I was meaning things done to Sam personally.

Quote

Also, at the time when Sam was 'cleansed' by Chuck and put on that plane, Sam still wasn't ready to give up the power/demon blood. It's also why going into detox the first time didn't work with him. He wasn't ready either time. He didn't make the decision either time. It's why he went back to Ruby in WtLB, and it's why he had to take a step back from hunting after GG,Y. It's also why he pushed the blame for his addiction onto Dean in Fallen Idols. It wasn't until after he relapsed again in MBV and chose to go into detox that he was finally ready, but by then, Dean had had enough.

Anyway, the addiction was always for the feelings he got from the power (because of when he felt powerless) and the excuses for why he needed that power were what changed over time, because addicts' excuses do change over time, so they can keep justifying to themselves and others why they keep doing x, y, or z. The arrogance was a result of feeling powerful. I don't think they threw Sam under the bus to make Sam the big old meanie to Dean, so Dean could have a good arc. Dean's side of the arc was dealing with an addict, and Sam was that addict, which was his arc. Dealing with addicts isn't a whole lot of fun.

I see where you are coming from with this* - and the reasoning of what came before in your post - and I agree that's where the arc was going, but personally I still thought it made much less sense than Sam's anger - the anger which was even brought up again in "Sam Interrupted." Except where did that anger go in season 3 and 4 and even earlier in season 5? And where did Sam's supposed want of power come from? The control over his own life, I get and that makes sense, but for me Sam's anger would be tied up in that lack of control over his own life, and I thought the anger part was summarily dropped and this "power" thing put in instead.

And I'm still not sure how Sam as an addict was a "good" arc. Yes, he got to overcome it in season 5, but not until after considerable damage was done to his character, and still without addressing some of the underlying conflicts I thought Sam had - namely his anger. As for Dean dealing with an addict, Dean already had a whole lot going on, in my opinion. Having to deal with Sam the addict, for me, was just unnecessary piling on to up Dean's angst which was already off the charts with his memories from hell. Like much of season 4, I thought it was overkill.

* With one (admittedly large) exception, and that is that I don't agree that Sam supposedly blamed his addiction on Dean in "Fallen Idols," but I have covered my reasoning on that extensively in the past, and don't want to put everyone through that again. Suffice it to say in short summary - little brothers can feel like "little brothers" no matter what a big brother does: that's the nature of family dynamic. That Sam felt like a little brother was on him - which is exactly what Sam said - "no, it's mine (fault)."

Now that being said... in my opinion Sam could have at this point brought up his anger with Dean for leaving him in the situation to begin with. To me it's kind of bizarre that the writers would hint at / imply Sam's motivation might be that he found Dean too big brotherly - which again I don't think that's what the dialogue said exactly anyway - than have Sam mention the completely understandable - in my opinion - reason that Dean made the deal. It's further bizarre that Sam would be even saying he bristled at being the little brother when in their dynamic it has previously been shown that Sam prefers being the little brother at times. "All Hell Breaks Loose, Pt 1" for example. "Playthings" for another. And the episode where Sam tells Dean he just wants his (big) brother back in season 3.

I mean, sure Sam could feel like he wanted to be on his own and "stronger" sometimes and it would be perfectly normal, but the conversation to me was ignoring/avoiding the anger elephant in the room - that part of why Sam might have ended up in the situation he was in and addicted to demon blood was because of his anger and guilt and anxiety over Dean and the deal. And that that likely played just as a big of a role - if not larger - than Sam wanting to feel "stronger." Sam didn't start forming a relationship with Ruby so that he could get away from Dean's big brotherness and so he could be stronger. He formed a relationship with Ruby because she said she could help him get out of Dean's deal. To me it's kind of ridiculous that that part of the motivation and the resulting anger from the betrayal and everything going to crap was just somehow dismissed and forgotten in favor of "well I felt more confident not being the little brother." Why do the writers not want to directly address Sam's anger in any meaningful way here?

Quote

I'm not trying to be snarky in any way, but who did Sam forgive in season 3? It wasn't Gordon. I don't think it was Bella. Attraction isn't forgiveness. I don't think it was Gabriel. I know it wasn't Lilith. Ruby doesn't count, because it was a building up of trust rather than forgiveness. Who else could it have been?

Dean - who made a deal which Sam rightly told him was a crap move. Sam had personally seen what John's deal had done to Dean, and Dean was doing it all again to Sam... declaring basically "tough. I deserved to make that decision unilaterally. Don't be mad at me." And throughout season 3, Sam mostly wasn't... he was even guilty about Dean's deal, letting Dean tease him into feeling badly and getting more drinking time. Sam made one remark, but that was about it. Mostly he was shown to have easily forgiven Dean for this thing that was likely going to go hugely wrong for Sam unless Sam could save him - which in itself was a whole lot of pressure, worry, and guilt put on Sam by Dean's unilateral decision. But Sam apparently forgave Dean for that easily.

Gabriel - We didn't see it exactly in season 3, but somewhere along the line, Sam forgave Gabriel enough to consider working with him in "Changing Channels." And considering that "Mystery Spot," in my opinion, was one of the turning points in Sam's life - in a soul-crushing way - that Sam even considered working with Gabriel in "Changing Channels," to me, was pretty telling concerning his willingness to forgive.

John, to a lesser extent - Even as Dean was figuring out that the things John did weren't exactly right and had some anger towards him ("Dream a Little Dream...), Sam was still in forgiveness mode when it came to John, even though supposedly in season 5's "Sam Interrupted" Sam still had some of that anger somewhere.

For me, that's a lot of forgiveness for a lot of crap, but that's just my opinion on that.

CluelessDrifter · May 24, 2017

4 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I see where you are coming from with this* - and the reasoning of what came before in your post - and I agree that's where the arc was going, but personally I still thought it made much less sense than Sam's anger - the anger which was even brought up again in "Sam Interrupted." Except where did that anger go in season 3 and 4 and even earlier in season 5? And where did Sam's supposed want of power come from? The control over his own life, I get and that makes sense, but for me Sam's anger would be tied up in that lack of control over his own life, and I thought the anger part was summarily dropped and this "power" thing put in instead.

Think of the demon blood as something akin to a genetic predisposition to the addiction of his powers. It was something that was there and laid dormant his entire life until he started using his powers. Then add in powerlessness, the 5 stages of grief, guilt, and being alone. He was in the right state of mind to give into trying something that he is inclined to become addicted to already. Enter Ruby. That makes much more sense to me.

Having felt powerless with John growing up, feeling powerless when Jess died, feeling powerless after John died, feeling powerless over Azazel's plans for him, feeling powerless while knowing Dean was going to die, and feeling powerless after Dean died, I'd say having a little bit of power probably felt pretty good to him, but 'Power corrupts.' I'd also say that feeling powerless may have lead to anger, but the powerlessness was the underlying feeling that lead to the anger, so anger wasn't the dominant reason for his need for that power. That power was filling a void, and his feelings of depression and guilt on top of those two feelings made giving into his addiction easier. I think that's much more complicated than just anger.

4 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

* With one (admittedly large) exception, and that is that I don't agree that Sam supposedly blamed his addiction on Dean in "Fallen Idols," but I have covered my reasoning on that extensively in the past, and don't want to put everyone through that again. Suffice it to say in short summary - little brothers can feel like "little brothers" no matter what a big brother does: that's the nature of family dynamic. That Sam felt like a little brother was on him - which is exactly what Sam said - "no, it's mine (fault)."

Only part of that conversation was what he said about going off with Ruby to get away from Dean, so he could feel strong. Only part of it was that he said he was the one who made the choices he did - 'No, it's mine.' There was also the part that came before that when he asked how long he was going to be on 'double secret probation' and said Dean wasn't making his job of climbing out of his addiction any easier. For me, it was a combination of a couple of things that said he wasn't quite ready to take responsibility over his own recovery, so we'll have to agree to disagree on this, and I'm okay with that.

4 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

And I'm still not sure how Sam as an addict was a "good" arc. Yes, he got to overcome it in season 5, but not until after considerable damage was done to his character, and still without addressing some of the underlying conflicts I thought Sam had - namely his anger. As for Dean dealing with an addict, Dean already had a whole lot going on, in my opinion. Having to deal with Sam the addict, for me, was just unnecessary piling on to up Dean's angst which was already off the charts with his memories from hell. Like much of season 4, I thought it was overkill.

Honestly? The addiction story line was the only way to make Sam go dark if they wanted to take Sam to the brink, have him step over the edge (choke Dean, exsanguinate the nurse, and his eyes going black when he killed Lilith), and maintain enough sympathy for him that they could pull him back in time to salvage the character, and even then some fans had a hard time forgiving Sam or liking him the way they did before season 4.

With regard to Dean dealing with an addict, Dean knew Sam lied to him over and over again, so he dealt with that and Sam's change in personality, but he didn't know he was dealing with an addict until the end of The Rapture/start of When the Levee Breaks. I don't think we even knew Sam was an addict until the start of The Rapture, so I can't agree that it was done to increase Dean's angst after Hell when we only know in hindsight that the problems with Sam were an addiction.

4 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Dean - who made a deal which Sam rightly told him was a crap move. Sam had personally seen what John's deal had done to Dean, and Dean was doing it all again to Sam... declaring basically "tough. I deserved to make that decision unilaterally. Don't be mad at me." And throughout season 3, Sam mostly wasn't... he was even guilty about Dean's deal, letting Dean tease him into feeling badly and getting more drinking time. Sam made one remark, but that was about it. Mostly he was shown to have easily forgiven Dean for this thing that was likely going to go hugely wrong for Sam unless Sam could save him - which in itself was a whole lot of pressure, worry, and guilt put on Sam by Dean's unilateral decision. But Sam apparently forgave Dean for that easily.

Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. In season 3, Sam tried bargaining (searching every way he could to get Dean out of the deal). He tried bargaining some more (tried to trade places with Dean). He felt anger (CRD turned him down, so he killed her). He was in denial (A Very Supernatural Christmas). He tried bargaining (after Malleus Maleficarum he started thinking Ruby would help him get Dean out of it). He felt anger (Mystery Spot). He was in denial (What happened in Mystery Spot was going to happen, but he carried on like everything was normal). He tried bargaining (Time Is on My Side). He tried bargaining again (last ditch effort to confront Lilith). He never reached acceptance when Dean died, and then he felt anger . . . at Lilith. Why wouldn't he be angry with her instead of the dead brother in his arms? I understand what you're saying, but I think that after his anger was transferred to Lilith, it stayed with Lilith even after Dean came back, and that anger he did deal with in Lucifer Rising.

4 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Gabriel - We didn't see it exactly in season 3, but somewhere along the line, Sam forgave Gabriel enough to consider working with him in "Changing Channels." And considering that "Mystery Spot," in my opinion, was one of the turning points in Sam's life - in a soul-crushing way - that Sam even considered working with Gabriel in "Changing Channels," to me, was pretty telling concerning his willingness to forgive.

I don't think he worked with Gabriel in Changing Channels. He and Dean had to play their parts to get out of Gabriel's TV Land.

4 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

John, to a lesser extent - Even as Dean was figuring out that the things John did weren't exactly right and had some anger towards him ("Dream a Little Dream...), Sam was still in forgiveness mode when it came to John, even though supposedly in season 5's "Sam Interrupted" Sam still had some of that anger somewhere.

SAM: Most of the time, I can hide it, but...I am angry. I'm mad at everything. I used to be mad at you and Dad, then Lilith, now it's Lucifer, and I make excuses. I blame Ruby or the demon blood, but it's not their fault. It's not them. It's me. It's inside me. I'm mad...all the time...and I don't know why.

Is this what you're referencing? I note 'used to be,' and I take that to mean he was mad at John and Dean when he was growing up, and he was mad at John right up until John died. Then Dean died, and I already described the way I saw Sam cycle back and forth in season 3 and why his anger transferred to Lilith, and then Lucifer . . . This, long after Fallen Idols, was his first big break through. He's not blaming anyone or anything but himself, and he's trying to figure out the underlying problems. I'm guessing his anger is about powerlessness as you said, which is why getting power was so addictive for him. By the time he goes through his second detox, he's ready to take charge of his own recovery, and I think they do address his addiction issues in SS if powerlessness was the root cause of them, because he should have been powerless as Lucifer's vessel, but because of Dean, he takes that control back. By the time he comes back from the cage, he's faced his issues head on and comes back much more forgiving of others who wrong him. Of course all of this is my opinion.

Edited May 25, 2017 by CluelessDrifter
spelling

auntvi · May 25, 2017

@CluelessDrifter I wish I could bookmark your post, because it will take me forever to put a response together. TL;DR - The way you talk about Sam's anger/powerlessness makes a lot of sense to me.

Airmid · May 25, 2017

1 hour ago, CluelessDrifter said:

I don't think he worked with Gabriel in Changing Channels. He and Dean had to play their parts to get out of Gabriel's TV Land.

I believe it was directed at the start of the episode, they see a suspicious case and suspect the trickster. He does suggest finding the pagan god and asking for help. Dean does point out that this was the thing that killed him many, many times and Sam says they need backup cause they got almost none at that point. So, Sam was willing to work with the trickster and may have come to understand what his message, garbled as it was, meant. He at least didn't have the pent of rage to prevent him from working with something that crossed them before.

Now, finding out that the trickster was Gabriel? Given the expression that JP went with in that scene I'm going with any olive branch/forgiveness being revoked, and rightfully so. Gabriel had a slew of options, including just chatting without blowing his cover and he went with a soul crushing one that probably damaged Sam more in the end. Nice going.

CluelessDrifter · May 25, 2017

12 hours ago, Airmid said:

I believe it was directed at the start of the episode, they see a suspicious case and suspect the trickster. He does suggest finding the pagan god and asking for help. Dean does point out that this was the thing that killed him many, many times and Sam says they need backup cause they got almost none at that point. So, Sam was willing to work with the trickster and may have come to understand what his message, garbled as it was, meant. He at least didn't have the pent of rage to prevent him from working with something that crossed them before.

I stand corrected - mostly. He does suggest talking to the Trickster and say that the world is going to end, so they don't have the luxury of a moral stand, but it is conditional on the Trickster helping them. If the Trickster won't, Sam says they can kill him. I wouldn't call that necessarily being forgiving, but it does suggest he'd be willing to work with the Trickster. It also suggests he's just as likely to kill the Trickster if the Trickster won't do what is for all intents and purposes a suicide mission with them (which Gabriel actually does several episodes later).

Edited May 25, 2017 by CluelessDrifter

AwesomO4000 · May 25, 2017

1 hour ago, CluelessDrifter said:

I think that's much more complicated than just anger.

What you are saying here makes a lot of sense and you have a good point. I think my main question for that is that for me, there's a difference between "power" and "control." I more look at it as Sam wanted control over his own life than the supposed "power over everyone" that the writers morphed it into and that I didn't completely buy.

Then that question for me was complicated by Sam stopping his blood drinking for quite a while in season 4, because he wanted to do it for himself - his choice. He regained control from feeling a little out of control after he got somewhat addicted. I think that I could have been on board more with the power thing if Sam hadn't been better and even more successful in a way after giving up the demon blood. In "Heaven and Hell" they were able to come up with a plan that worked without Sam having to rely on his powers... And then there was "Chris Angel..." For me that episode didn't do a very good job of conveying why Sam would want to go back to his blood addiction again - and from that I wouldn't easily have guessed it had anything to do with power. Of course much of that was in retrospect, because we didn't even know what it was that Sam was returning to with Ruby after that episode or that Sam was addicted. After all of this time, I still don't know what "I don't want to be doing this when I'm old" was supposed to mean, why the events in that episode would trigger Sam to fall off the wagon again after so long being "sober," or how any of that supposedly tied into Sam's addiction or his motivations.

And it's because of that, even conceding that it could mainly be power that Sam wanted or got addicted to, I still say that the anger part of it - and even clear motivation for Sam at all - got the short shrift in season 4 in favor of the story needing Sam to fall off the wagon and be addicted again, so that his dark story arc could proceed. I realize that's just my opinion on that though.

1 hour ago, CluelessDrifter said:

There was also the part that came before that when he asked how long he was going to be on 'double secret probation' and said Dean wasn't making his job of climbing out of his addiction any easier.

Ah, see I never thought Sam was referencing Dean making it more difficult to climb out his addiction. I thought that Sam was referencing that Dean wasn't making it any easier for Sam to work towards forgiveness for betraying him* and their working relationship. And I mainly thought that, because Sam didn't know that part of the reason - likely most of the reason - that Dean agreed to work with Sam again was because of what Zachariah had shown Dean in "The End." All Sam was told was that Dean changed his mind and that Dean thought they "keep each other human," and so thought Dean was willing to give him a chance to work towards forgiveness. So thinking that - because he didn't know that Dean was actually worried that Sam would say "yes" as mush as anything else - Sam was understandably confused as to why Dean was now acting like he didn't trust Sam at all and wouldn't trust him for any time in the near future. I thought Sam's "you're not making this any easier" was Sam saying that Dean wasn't giving him a chance for Sam to regain Dean's trust again - which apparently is a theme with Sam from here on out - or giving them a chance to work together effectively.

Looking at it through your interpretation - with the "hole" being Sam's addiction - I can entirely see where you are coming from.

* I thought that's what the "I know what I did. What I've done" was referencing - the betrayal that Dean referred to of Sam choosing Ruby over him. And that the "hole" was the hole he'd dug himself into with Dean. It never occurred to me that the "hole" could be his addiction, since I thought that Sam felt pretty good about his ability to deal with that after he was able to resist the blood in "Free to Be You and Me."

2 hours ago, CluelessDrifter said:

Honestly? The addiction story line was the only way to make Sam go dark if they wanted to take Sam to the brink, have him step over the edge (choke Dean, exsanguinate the nurse, and his eyes going black when he killed Lilith), and maintain enough sympathy for him that they could pull him back in time to salvage the character, and even then some fans had a hard time forgiving Sam or liking him the way they did before season 4.

It wasn't the addiction that bothered me or even the control (power) per se... it was the writers having Sam say those awful things about Dean being weak and making fun of him for breaking. To me that would have made more sense, and at least been a tiny bit more understandable - although in my opinion, it was fairly unnecessary to Sam's addiction arc, and was done mainly to make Sam look bad* - if Sam had been saying that due to some buried anger he had towards Dean for making the deal in the first place. But as part of a Sam wants to be more powerful thing, it just makes Sam look like an asshat.

* And I say this, because to me, it makes no sense that the writers would have Sam say the things that they had him say in "Sex and Violence" and not know that this would be absolutely horrid for Sam's character, and that a portion of the viewers would hold that against him. There isn't an argument that I would believe based on the narrative the writers gave us.

3 hours ago, CluelessDrifter said:

With regard to Dean dealing with an addict, Dean knew Sam lied to him over and over again, so he dealt with that and Sam's change in personality, but he didn't know he was dealing with an addict until the end of The Rapture/start of When the Levee Breaks. I don't think we even knew Sam was an addict until the start of The Rapture, so I can't agree that it was done to increase Dean's angst after Hell when we only know in hindsight that the problems with Sam were an addiction.

For me, the increasing Dean's angst part was all of the awful things that Sam said which was somehow part of Sam's addiction and seemed to come flying out of nowhere, since we didn't understand that Sam was even addicted. In my opinion, there wasn't much of a need for the writers to get that nasty with it - especially "Sex and Violence" - except to up the angst factor for Dean. I understand that this is just my opinion, but I'm fairly bitter about it - mostly because I think that Dean already had enough going on with the hell memories and Sam lying to him trauma. For me, there was no reason to have Sam go so over the top when his behavior, too, was already bad enough. For me the overkill only served to trash Sam's character almost beyond redemption for me and beyond redemption for others. And so I'm still somewhat bitter about that.

Idahoforspn · May 25, 2017

18 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

It wasn't the addiction that bothered me or even the control (power) per se... it was the writers having Sam say those awful things about Dean being weak and making fun of him for breaking. To me that would have made more sense, and at least been a tiny bit more understandable - although in my opinion, it was fairly unnecessary to Sam's addiction arc, and was done mainly to make Sam look bad* - if Sam had been saying that due to some buried anger he had towards Dean for making the deal in the first place. But as part of a Sam wants to be more powerful thing, it just makes Sam look like an asshat.

* And I say this, because to me, it makes no sense that the writers would have Sam say the things that they had him say in "Sex and Violence" and not know that this would be absolutely horrid for Sam's character, and that a portion of the viewers would hold that against him. There isn't an argument that I would believe based on the narrative the writers gave us.

But I honestly think the writers didn't realize how badly the fans would react. Being the favored character (IMO) didn't save Sam from the very poor writing. I doubt the writers would have intentionally done that much damage to his character.

AwesomO4000 · May 25, 2017

2 minutes ago, Idahoforspn said:

But I honestly think the writers didn't realize how badly the fans would react. Being the favored character (IMO) didn't save Sam from the very poor writing. I doubt the writers would have intentionally done that much damage to his character.

But that's just it, I don't think the writing was supposed to be bad in season 4. Many fans - and even maybe critics - think it was one the better written seasons. And really, I think it's more than improbable that the writers could take a situation like Dean's where he's tortured horrifically for 30 years and understandably breaks and feels terrible about it, focus on his pain in a sympathetic way, have Sam ask about it and at first be extremely sympathetic... only to later have Sam make fun of Dean for it. And if there was any doubt (in my mind, anyway) that that was supposed to be seen as horrible? The writers then write Alastair - a character I'm pretty certain we are not supposed to see as in any way good or as someone we are supposed to identify or sympathize with - do almost the same thing two episodes later while also having Sam infer that Dean can't get the information out of Alastair, because he's too damaged / weak. I mean wow, really? How is that not supposed to be seen as painting Sam completely unsympathetically and horribly on purpose? I just don't see writers being that careless with their characters - especially one of two main characters of their show.

Even if Sam was the "favored" character - which I'm not so sure about - what would be the rational for basically having that character do the narrative equivalent of kicking a disabled person?* Because even if I agreed that the writers did think that Dean was actually weak and pathetic - which I don't, but let's say I did - how is having someone kick that weak, pathetic person when they are down (or any person when they are down) in any way supposed to look anything but awful? I'm sorry, I just don't see a way it could happen. For me, it defies any form of earth logic.

Sorry about the rant - this is a sore spot for me.

* That only works if it's another disabled person who is doing the beating up and you happen to be South Park. And even then it's just so, so wrong, and might still be considered in very bad taste.

Idahoforspn · May 25, 2017

18 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

But that's just it, I don't think the writing was supposed to be bad in season 4. Many fans - and even maybe critics - think it was one the better written seasons. And really, I think it's more than improbable that the writers could take a situation like Dean's where he's tortured horrifically for 30 years and understandably breaks and feels terrible about it, focus on his pain in a sympathetic way, have Sam ask about it and at first be extremely sympathetic... only to later have Sam make fun of Dean for it. And if there was any doubt (in my mind, anyway) that that was supposed to be seen as horrible? The writers then write Alastair - a character I'm pretty certain we are not supposed to see as in any way good or as someone we are supposed to identify or sympathize with - do almost the same thing two episodes later while also having Sam infer that Dean can't get the information out of Alastair, because he's too damaged / weak. I mean wow, really? How is that not supposed to be seen as painting Sam completely unsympathetically and horribly on purpose? I just don't see writers being that careless with their characters - especially one of two main characters of their show.

Even if Sam was the "favored" character - which I'm not so sure about - what would be the rational for basically having that character do the narrative equivalent of kicking a disabled person?* Because even if I agreed that the writers did think that Dean was actually weak and pathetic - which I don't, but let's say I did - how is having someone kick that weak, pathetic person when they are down (or any person when they are down) in any way supposed to look anything but awful? I'm sorry, I just don't see a way it could happen. For me, it defies any form of earth logic.

Sorry about the rant - this is a sore spot for me.

* That only works if it's another disabled person who is doing the beating up and you happen to be South Park. And even then it's just so, so wrong, and might still be considered in very bad taste.

I see your point. I just think they were giving Sam flaws he needed to overcome to be the hero in the end. But their execution was awful and Sam was never really shown overcoming his flaws. I think the writers thought the hero moments would out weigh the other stuff and it didn't work out quite like they expected. I hope that makes sense and of course it is just my opinion. I just don't think the writers read fans correctly. Hand waving faults away does not a hero make.

AwesomO4000 · May 25, 2017

26 minutes ago, Idahoforspn said:

I see your point. I just think they were giving Sam flaws he needed to overcome to be the hero in the end.

I so wish I could agree...

But the addiction was a flaw. Sam's arrogance was a flaw. For me the other was nothing more than character assassination.

And that's coming from someone who did think that Sam overcame many of those flaws - the arrogance for one (through his actions throughout season 5 - for me: your miles may vary) and the addiction as well.

And I might not be so annoyed by it if didn't end up later being a pattern. Thankfully Gamble found a way to have Sam go dark without assassinating his character, but then Carver did it again at least twice by throwing Sam's character under the bus with similar callous behaviors that didn't make much sense but increased "angst" and/or forwarded the plot, and that Sam was again given little narrative rationale for. Again my opinion on that one.

Dabb at least didn't make Sam do something awful while he was making him be "wrong" and at least let Sam win one, so that's a step in a better direction in my opinion.

CluelessDrifter · May 25, 2017

9 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

What you are saying here makes a lot of sense and you have a good point. I think my main question for that is that for me, there's a difference between "power" and "control." I more look at it as Sam wanted control over his own life than the supposed "power over everyone" that the writers morphed it into and that I didn't completely buy.

Well, the lack of control over ones life breeds feelings of powerlessness, or that's the way I see it. Feeling powerless made having the physical manifestation of power addictive, and power, even supernatural power, corrupts. That's where arrogance comes into it, and the mean-natured belittling goes hand in hand with that, so we'll have to agree to disagree. :)

9 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Then that question for me was complicated by Sam stopping his blood drinking for quite a while in season 4, because he wanted to do it for himself - his choice. He regained control from feeling a little out of control after he got somewhat addicted. I think that I could have been on board more with the power thing if Sam hadn't been better and even more successful in a way after giving up the demon blood. In "Heaven and Hell" they were able to come up with a plan that worked without Sam having to rely on his powers... And then there was "Chris Angel..." For me that episode didn't do a very good job of conveying why Sam would want to go back to his blood addiction again - and from that I wouldn't easily have guessed it had anything to do with power. Of course much of that was in retrospect, because we didn't even know what it was that Sam was returning to with Ruby after that episode or that Sam was addicted. After all of this time, I still don't know what "I don't want to be doing this when I'm old" was supposed to mean, why the events in that episode would trigger Sam to fall off the wagon again after so long being "sober," or how any of that supposedly tied into Sam's addiction or his motivations.

This is the way addiction works though. It's like dancing with a flame you think you have under control. You can even quit for a while at the start, but it's still there shining in the background, and when you go back to it, which people often do for one excuse or another, it consumes you, but I understand you just don't like the story line, and that's okay. All of this is our own opinion and no one opinion is better than the other. How boring would it be if we were all the same?

7 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Dabb at least didn't make Sam do something awful while he was making him be "wrong" and at least let Sam win one, so that's a step in a better direction in my opinion.

What I really, really didn't like about Sam's story line this season was the reason they gave for why Sam joined the BMoL. I felt like it made more sense for Sam to be upset by Vince Vicente's death since Sam was a fan, and for him to start to toy with the idea of using the BMoL technology, like the magic egg, so they could be more effective on hunts. Then I thought with Mary joining them, and her saying that it was okay for him to work with them too, it might have given him the little push he needed to go for it, but saying he did it because it was easier to follow orders than do things their own way was really disappointing, especially since, as I said, Sam felt like he had no control over his life for much of his life, and now he just wants to give that up completely?

I also have to question his thinking that a world without monsters is a good thing when he has championed 'good' monsters in the past (with the exception of Benny). Just following orders to exterminate all of them indiscriminately doesn't seem like Sam or even like something Sam would want. Also, I still think that we were shown through a symbolic visual representation that Sam thrived under the BMoL conditions (big kills), while Dean did not (no kills, while knowingly working for the BMoL), and now it would appear to me that the reason for that is because Sam does better as a drone worker bee, and Dean doesn't. I know there's been a lot of anger from Dean fans about how out of it he's been this season, particularly in the back half of the season after they started working with the BMoL, but if this is the moral of the story line, then Dean comes out looking better.

It's not just that there's the 'it's easier to follow than lead,' that makes Sam look bad and Dean look better, because that in and of itself isn't a problem. We can't all be leaders, and that's fine, but it does call into question whether people who are followers will follow anything their leaders tell them to do even when those things are morally wrong. Sam didn't in the end, but that's because the BMoL started hunting down his friends. What about the innocent monster families that were completely wiped out by the BMoL? Sam had to know that's what they were doing, because Mary said that's what they were doing with the vampires, and he even gave having a monster-free world as one of his reasons for joining, but then he was against killing the werewolf girl, and Dean and he both talked about how not all monsters were bad earlier in the same episode . . . it all just seems like a jumbled mess to me, so if you could shed some light on that, maybe I could get behind it, but as it stands right now, I think this season was a bust for me with regard to characterization for Sam and Dean (Dean's characterization was so subtle as to be almost non-existent until episode 22 when he had his chat with Mary).

Edited May 25, 2017 by CluelessDrifter

Idahoforspn · May 25, 2017

8 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I so wish I could agree...

But the addiction was a flaw. Sam's arrogance was a flaw. For me the other was nothing more than character assassination.

And that's coming from someone who did think that Sam overcame many of those flaws - the arrogance for one (through his actions throughout season 5 - for me: your miles may vary) and the addiction as well.

And I might not be so annoyed by it if didn't end up later being a pattern. Thankfully Gamble found a way to have Sam go dark without assassinating his character, but then Carver did it again at least twice by throwing Sam's character under the bus with similar callous behaviors that didn't make much sense but increased "angst" and/or forwarded the plot, and that Sam was again given little narrative rationale for. Again my opinion on that one.

Dabb at least didn't make Sam do something awful while he was making him be "wrong" and at least let Sam win one, so that's a step in a better direction in my opinion.

I understand what your saying. The writing often makes it very hard to empathize with Sam and that's never a good thing IMO. As far as all the subtleties to the plots everyone is coming up with, IMO you are giving the writers to much credit. They appear to me to only know how to do the in your face style of writing. I still don't think they are intentionally trying to do such damage to Sam's character. There is no way they are doing that intentionally to Jared so that leaves me with unintentional.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Idahoforspn

RulerofallIsurvey · May 25, 2017

10 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

* I thought that's what the "I know what I did. What I've done" was referencing - the betrayal that Dean referred to of Sam choosing Ruby over him. And that the "hole" was the hole he'd dug himself into with Dean. It never occurred to me that the "hole" could be his addiction, since I thought that Sam felt pretty good about his ability to deal with that after he was able to resist the blood in "Free to Be You and Me."

To me, they are both so tied up in the other I can't separate them as well as you and @CluelessDrifter seem to have! Since the addiction is what led to Sam choosing Ruby over Dean, whether it's the actually 'betrayal' of Sam choosing Ruby or the demon blood addiction people talk about: to me they are practically one and the same. I remember interpreting that to include both.

Idahoforspn · May 25, 2017

On a different topic, the Dean storyline of Purgatory was cut way short. The major reason they GAVE was the extra cost for the special effects although I have my doubts that was it. There is arguably less money for special effects now with higher J2 salaries and other regulars in the cast. Season 13 has an alt universe that is very heavy on special effects and is not a Dean storyline. Do you think it will get cut short too?

Wayward Son · May 25, 2017

11 minutes ago, Idahoforspn said:

On a different topic, the Dean storyline of Purgatory was cut way short. The major reason they GAVE was the extra cost for the special effects although I have my doubts that was it. There is arguably less money for special effects now with higher J2 salaries and other regulars in the cast. Season 13 has an alt universe that is very heavy on special effects and is not a Dean storyline. Do you think it will get cut short too?

I'm fairly certain the main reason they cut the purgatory storyline short was a lack of desire, on the showrunners part to separate Sam and Dean, which was why they skipped Deans time there and told it through a series of quick flashbacks.

Aeryn13 · May 25, 2017

Quote

Season 13 has an alt universe that is very heavy on special effects and is not a Dean storyline. Do you think it will get cut short too?

Depends, if it was a Sam-storyline it would go on for half a Season. Mary and Lucifer are apparently pet characters to these writers so I can see them making some effort. But I`m not sure they warrant the expense of having multiple scenes in doom-world. Singer is the budget guy, he would probably say no to it.

Idahoforspn · May 25, 2017

38 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I'm fairly certain the main reason they cut the purgatory storyline short was a lack of desire, on the showrunners part to separate Sam and Dean, which was why they skipped Deans time there and told it through a series of quick flashbacks.

I thought when fans griped about the Dean in purgatory sl disappearing so fast that Singer said they had to cut it short because the VFX was too expensive. I know splitting up the brothers is supposed to be a problem but there was no effort to write a solution that would have extended purgatory. Instead, we got Sam/Amelia.

33 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Depends, if it was a Sam-storyline it would go on for half a Season. Mary and Lucifer are apparently pet characters to these writers so I can see them making some effort. But I`m not sure they warrant the expense of having multiple scenes in doom-world. Singer is the budget guy, he would probably say no to it.

I pretty much agree.

Reganne · May 25, 2017

5 minutes ago, Idahoforspn said:

I thought when fans griped about the Dean in purgatory sl disappearing so fast that Singer said they had to cut it short because the VFX was too expensive. I know splitting up the brothers is supposed to be a problem but there was no effort to write a solution that would have extended purgatory. Instead, we got Sam/Amelia.

I pretty much agree.

Wasn't purgatory just as long as Sam/Amelia? TBH, I didn't care for either plot, so Im glad they weren't the focus of a whole episode each and were only flashbacks. But I can see why they would want to focus on both Sam and Dean and not just Dean so adding the Sam/AMara makes sense.

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Aeryn13

BabySpinach

BabySpinach

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment