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

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

IMO, S8 and S9 was all about equal opportunity pettiness. They both were sympathetic and both wrong at the same time, IMO.

I totally agree with you on this.

[Reganne]

2 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

They actually attacked Dean. As a group. Granted, they didn`t know they were playing with fire but they would have happily beaten him to death. So, I can`t really feel bad for them that they picked the wrong victim. Since they seemed to prefer gangraping teenagers, guess it`s not as much fun when someone fights back.   

Do we know if Claires mentor fought him though?  He didn't seem fond of the men who were there and it went offscreen for his kill.  Granted at the beginning of season 10 Lester was making a deal with a demon to kill his wife.... yet the narrative of the show has it blaming Sam for his death.  Why were we suppose to feel bad about a guy wanting to kill his wife?

[CluelessDrifter]

1 hour ago, Reganne said:

I meant for the apocalypses specifically in this case.  

As for the people he killed while saving Claire, I don't think they were all bad or deserved to be killed.  One was Claires mentor or something.  Yeah what he did wasn't a good thing, but did he deserve to die? 

They were all scumbags.  They deserved what they got IMO.  Dean had already had a bottle smashed over his head before being kicked in the head.  More would have gotten in on the action after that.  If he weren't supernaturally afflicted at the time, he would've died as opposed to coming back as Demon!Dean, and even if Claire's mentor didn't join in, which who knows, he would've definitely been the one to dispose of the body.  Not to mention what he did to Claire.  I have no pity whatsoever for any of them.

Edited June 25, 2017 by CluelessDrifter

[Reganne]

3 minutes ago, CluelessDrifter said:

They were all scumbags.  They deserved what they got IMO.  Dean had already had a bottle smashed over his head before being kicked in the head.  More would have gotten in on the action after that.  If he weren't supernaturally afflicted at the time, he would've died as opposed to coming back as Demon!Dean, and even if Claire's mentor didn't join in, which who knows, he would've definitely been the one to dispose of the body.  Not to mention what he did to Claire.  I have no pity whatsoever from me for any of them.

See I had no pity for Lester in season 10 who wanted to make a deal with a demon to kill his wife.  Yet that was brought up as Sam's fault and something he should feel bad about.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Do we know if Claires mentor fought him though?  He didn't seem fond of the men who were there and it went offscreen for his kill. 

He sported the same sleazy grin as the others if I recall. So again, boohoo for poking the bear.  

But the narrative certainly played it as Dean the horrible monster who just attacked them out of nothing when they peacefully huddled in the corner.

Thanks for waiting in the car, Sam and Cas. Real vigilant there, guys.  

Quote

 Granted at the beginning of season 10 Lester was making a deal with a demon to kill his wife.... yet the narrative of the show has it blaming Sam for his death.  Why were we suppose to feel bad about a guy wanting to kill his wife?

I didn`t. And tthat little interlude was ludicrous. It was like Sam`s "darkside" glimmers in Season 2 and 3. Like faux-dark. Did the narrative expect me to take this seriously?

Edited June 25, 2017 by Aeryn13

[catrox14]

9 minutes ago, Bessie said:

That's something I've thought about. I find Ackles choices generally to fall on the side of portraying Dean sympathetically while Padalecki seems more open to Sam being viewed in a less than flattering light. This may just arise out of the basic premise of the story i.e. Sam was going dark one way or another.  

I don't think Jensen specifically intends to make Dean sympathetic to the audience just to make sure the audience feels sorry for Dean. I mean look at Demon!Dean, MoC!Dean, Future!Dean and regular!Dean in early s9 or s8, s1 and s3.

I think Jensen tries to portray Dean as organically as possible. So when it comes down to something about Dean saving Sam's life, the emotions that Dean would have about Sam, come through in that Dean fully believes that he did the right thing and he cannot fathom on any level why Sam wouldn't see it that way and that comes through in the performance.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

7 hours ago, Pondlass1 said:

 But this is one instance where I wish I hadn't delved into online posts and criticisms.  I was a blubbering snot filled mess the first time I watched Swan Song (during a binge).  I cried and loved the next ten repeated viewings too.

Then I joined the IMDb message boards and now I can't watch without being miffed.  A toy flipping soldier!!   I'm assuming Dean's pulpy bruised face was too passé?

This is might be a completely inappropriate comment, so I won't be surprised if it gets removed, but your's is not the first or only comment like this I've seen (and not only about Swan Song) so please don't take this as 'picking' on you - but I can't help but wonder why anyone would let a bunch of faceless internet 'voices' change their mind about whether or not they loved an episode?  

Now, I do understand 'fandom' influencing certain things - for example, I watched In The Beginning today.  The first time I watched, I didn't even notice or pay attention to the fact that Sam was only in the episode a grand total of 30 seconds.  (Okay, a gross exaggeration, but I hope you get my drift.)  However, after the kerfuffle on this forum about American Nightmare and Dean 'disappearing' for 9 minutes (and the gross exaggerations in that episode thread about 'half an episode'), I did notice.  But here's the thing: It didn't change the fact that I still enjoyed the episode - just as I did the first time I watched it before I became a member here.  I did, however wonder if there was a similar kerfuffle back in the day (I guess that would have been on TWOP?) over Sam not being in this episode.  I don't know if I'm explaining this correctly.  But there is nothing anyone on this forum or any other could ever say to make me dislike an episode that I'd already watched and decided I loved - or even just liked.

[catrox14]

14 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

The problem with that entire speech though was that it wasn`t about that action. It was one blanket statement after another. 

 I think on paper it was supposed to Sam kitchen-sinking Dean's life to show JUST HOW UPSET and angry he was and to show that Dean had crossed a line in Sam's mind. I tend to think they went all in like because they think Dean deserved that admonishment from Sam; that Dean  wasn't going to comprehend Sam's issues unless he was told in the harshest terms. 

[AwesomO4000]

4 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I don't think the words of Sam's speech were intended to make Sam look bad. IMO, it was intended to be hard truths that Dean refused to see or hear or take inside for consideration. Sure the camera landed on Dean's broken hearted face but IMO that didn't change that I think the writers fully thought the audience would be right on board with Sam's words. And given Dean had just agreed to bear the Mark of Cain and was prowling around with Crowley, bringing Dean himself into question. 

I disagree, because the main thing that Sam should be legitimately angry about - Dean's lying - is not what Sam was allowed to focus on. Not even not focus on, it wasn't even mentioned in Sam's tirade. At all. The writers had Sam focus on either a bunch of things that we, the audience, knew weren't true, on things that were "low blows," or both. If the writers supposedly wanted these things to be "hard truths" it seems kind of odd to include gripes from Sam that are outright untrue.

If they wanted "hard truths," how about "Dean, okay, I can understand you wanting to save me. Spur of the moment decision. I get it. But you lied to me for months. While I felt like I was going crazy or turning wrong again. While Gadreel was screwing with my head and killing people people with my hands. You didn't even warn Kevin. How is that 'the right thing to do?'"? That, to me, would've been showing things from Sam's point of view and giving "hard truths." Instead, what we got was a bunch of "meen to Dean" declarations and Sam saying something that the writers probably knew they were going to have Sam renege on 10 episodes later, because the writers didn't want "hard truths," in my opinion. They wanted Dean to be right about saving Sam and letting Gadreel stay - and for me, this is supported by Gadreel's redemption and Sam declaring that he didn't think Gadreel wanted to hurt him (despite us seeing that Gadreel obviously having hurt him - at least emotionally) and then calling him a "friend." The writers would've looked somewhat silly for redeeming Gadreel and having Sam take Gadreel's side if they'd actually had Sam say the hard truths like I mentioned. But if they had Sam say a bunch of stuff that would badly hurt Dean's feelings and weren't actually true and then show Sam to be a hypocrite? Well, then the writers could justify Dean's choices, because well, see, Sam was wrong all along about Dean's motives. See Dean wasn't just thinking about himself, and he's not (paraphrase) "doing more bad than good," because see, Gadreel helped save the world!... So therefor the writers proved Sam wrong and Dean right. The only "hard truths" were that Sam was wrong and Dean was right. In my opinion, anyway.

22 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

And I still saw multitudes of "you go Sam" for exactly that message because apparently that was gods honest truth about Dean. And it wasn`t so much that he should learn anything from it but be slapped in the face with how much garbage he truly was.

Interesting. I'll admit social media isn't my thing, but anywhere I've ever been reading comments, I've never seen a one.

And in my opinion, if it was meant to show "hard truths" then in my opinion, there would have actually been more truths in what Sam was saying. As it was, it was just pissed off Sam saying stuff to hurt Dean, because he was angry - and that's all that it came off as to me.

4 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

And, I think we're supposed feel sympathy for Sam because he has a right to be angry, but we're also supposed to be pissed as Sam for lashing out when the reasonable thing to do would be try and see the position Dean was in.

Then they failed. Because even though I usually favor Sam, and I had felt lots of sympathy for him before this episode, I felt no sympathy for Sam with this speech. Actually I started to dislike Sam all over again. I only felt sympathy for Dean - which I shouldn't have, because Dean was wrong, I thought - because Sam was just spewing venom all over him instead of actually having a real point.

And truthfully, I think Sam should be a better debater than that. Sam had a legitimate beef - that Dean lied to him - and yet he never even mentioned it. Which is why I still somewhat contend that we're not supposed to see Dean as wrong here, because if we were, then I would think that the end of the season would support Dean being wrong rather than have Dean's decisions turn out to be the right ones in the end. For me, the writers couldn't imply that it was so wrong to allow Gadreel in and that Dean should never have selfishly done it and then turn around and have Gadreel be the good guy and Sam do the same thing without looking like complete hypocrites, so instead have Sam spew untruths and be the hypocrite instead... and so to me, this is what the "The Purge" speech did.

[catrox14]

Just now, RulerofallIsurvey said:

 But there is nothing anyone on this forum or any other could ever say to make me dislike an episode that I'd already watched and decided I loved - or even just liked.

Speaking for me, I don't let other opinions necessarily CHANGE my opinion, but if they make a point that I didn't think about or offer a different perspective, I may reconsider something.

8 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

 However, after the kerfuffle on this forum about American Nightmare and Dean 'disappearing' for 9 minutes (and the gross exaggerations in that episode thread about 'half an episode'), I did notice.  But here's the thing: It didn't change the fact that I still enjoyed the episode - just as I did the first time I watched it before I became a member here.

Big difference as to the context of Sam's absence from In The Beginning vs Dean's in American Nightmare.

Sam's  absence in 4.03 was 100% explained in the opening scene. He was shown sneaking out of the room he shared with Dean and got in a care with Ruby and left. It was already known that Sam was practicing his Hand of Ipecac. There was no question as to where he was or why he wasn't in the episode. He was with Ruby. There was no such explanation in American Nightmare about Dean's absence.

[Bessie]

23 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I only felt sympathy for Dean - which I shouldn't have, because Dean was wrong, I thought - because Sam was just spewing venom all over him instead of actually having a real point.

This is how I felt too. If they intended for me to feel some sympathy for Sam, they missed the mark by a mile. And I do think the acting choices contributed to this.

Padalecki was angry and yelling and, as you said, venomous. While Ackles was all sad and heartbroken. That certainly didn't engender any sympathy toward Sam or anger at Dean. 

Edited June 25, 2017 by Bessie

[RulerofallIsurvey]

2 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Dean isn`t able to kill Amara - which even God later can`t do - but hey, with Dean, it MUST be a sign that he didn`t really want to. What the hell?   

But God/Chuck also didn't really want to kill Amara either, imo.  

[DittyDotDot]

33 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I don't think Jensen specifically intends to make Dean sympathetic to the audience just to make sure the audience feels sorry for Dean. I mean look at Demon!Dean, MoC!Dean, Future!Dean and regular!Dean in early s9 or s8, s1 and s3.

I think Jensen tries to portray Dean as organically as possible. So when it comes down to something about Dean saving Sam's life, the emotions that Dean would have about Sam, come through in that Dean fully believes that he did the right thing and he cannot fathom on any level why Sam wouldn't see it that way and that comes through in the performance.

Yes, Jensen is an actor and, IMO, he's a tad method, but I think he fully intended for Dean to be sympathetic while also being unsympathetic--as do I think the writers intended it. I also think the writers and Jared intended for Sam to be sympathetic while also being unsympathetic, as well.

IMO, it wasn't about who was more wrong or right, but was perpetuating the behavior that permeated the entire episode. It was basic kindergarten behavior--Sam hurt Dean's feelings, so Dean hurt Sam's feelings, so Sam hurt Dean's feelings more; so Dean hurt Sam's feelings more; so Sam hurt Dean's feelings to the core and stomped off leaving Dean no chance to hurt Sam's feelings even more.

They both were acting like petty little jerks, IMO, while both having valid points of view. IMO, that's exactly what was written and that's exactly what was acted. There was never any intended resolution to the conflict, just escalation, IMO.

Edited June 25, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[catrox14]

14 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I disagree, because the main thing that Sam should be legitimately angry about - Dean's lying - is not what Sam was allowed to focus on. N

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Sam was actually ever angry about the lying in and of itself. I'm not being snarky.  Did Sam ever tell Dean he was pissed about the lying? I might be forgetting something, too.

IMO, Sam was pissed that Dean let an angel in without his consent. He was pissed that his hands killed Kevin, and he was pissed that Dean couldn't see it. 

[DittyDotDot]

21 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Sam was actually ever angry about the lying in and of itself. I'm not being snarky.  Did Sam ever tell Dean he was pissed about the lying? I might be forgetting something, too.

IMO, Sam was pissed that Dean let an angel in without his consent. He was pissed that his hands killed Kevin, and he was pissed that Dean couldn't see it. 

I think Sam was pissed that Dean made a decision about Sam without consulting Sam and then acted like Sam had no reason to be angry and told him he'd do it all again knowing how it all turned out. I don't think the lying helped, but I don't think that's what he was pissed about.

Edited June 25, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[RulerofallIsurvey]

10 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Big difference as to the context of Sam's absence from In The Beginning vs Dean's in American Nightmare.

Ah, but much of the dislike of the episode was that Dean was absent for X period of time.  Period.  The 'context' was really just an excuse to complain about Dean not being fully present in the episode (especially during the 'action' sequence), because I didn't have a problem with the explanation of Dean's absence in American Nightmare any more than I had a problem with Sam's absence in In The Beginning.    

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 hour ago, DeeDee79 said:

everyone seems to look at both POV's IMO.

If Only!

[catrox14]

Just now, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Ah, but much of the dislike of the episode was that Dean was absent for X period of time.  Period.  The 'context' was really just an excuse to complain about Dean not being fully present in the episode (especially during the 'action' sequence), because I didn't have a problem with the explanation of Dean's absence in American Nightmare any more than I had a problem with Sam's absence in In The Beginning.    

Actually, the complaints were two fold...that Dean was absent and that it was unexplained. Both existed at the same time.

What was the explanation for Dean's absence in American Nightmare?  I'm not being snarky here, I don't recall any on screen textual or subtextual explanation not even a line of dialogue that explained it. I am happy to hear what it is because at least then I'll understand what happened. 

Whereas with Sam, he was literally shown leaving the hotel, getting in a car with Ruby and them driving off together. Sam's absence was textually explained. There was no fanwanking or head!canons required to explain why Sam was not 97% of  In the Beginning.  And despite his absence he was still central to the episode even with his absence since the entire point of Dean being sent back in time was for Dean to learn that he couldn't stop the deal from happening which meant he had to find a way to stop Sam's actions or the angels would stop him.

[Bessie]

21 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

so Sam hurt Dean's feelings to the core and stomped off leaving Dean no chance to hurt Sam's feelings even more.

He stomped off leaving Dean nearly in tears and that acting decision was emphasized by the director/editor. They can't actually expect me to look at that face and feel anything but sadness for him, can they? And if they really wanted me to feel some sympathy for Sam then they should've allowed Padalecki a reaction shot as well.  Easy enough for them to do, but they chose not to for whatever reason. 

So the last lingering close-up shows the audience just how much Sam has hurt Dean. And that's how I was left feeling. Ouch, Sam!

But I get it if others didn't have that same emotional reaction to that final shot. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

Actually, the complaints were two fold...that Dean was absent and that it was unexplained. Both existed at the same time.

What was the explanation for Dean's absence in American Nightmare?  I'm not being snarky here,

Both existed at the same time - and independent of each other.  

And I'm not being snarky here either, but I'm just not willing to get into a dialogue about this because I already know that we disagree - so I really don't see any reason to belabor the point, and I know I've given my opinion on the matter in the appropriate episode thread.  Anyway, that wasn't the point of using it in my example.    

[catrox14]

37 minutes ago, Bessie said:

Padalecki was angry and yelling and, as you said, venomous. While Ackles was all sad and heartbroken. That certainly didn't engender any sympathy toward Sam or anger at Dean. 

I decided to go back and re-watch that scene and neither really raised their voices at all. Sam was strident, measured and assured of what he was saying. He spoke with sharp pointed words, and his voice had quite a bit of emotion but he never yelled at him, if by yelling you mean actually shouting at each other.  I think that's why this seemed even worse than if he had raised his voice.  They had a more 'shouty' argument in Sharp Teeth but I didn't think Sam yelled at Dean in the Purge at all.

[MysteryGuest]

The benefit of being on the outside looking in is that you get to see both perspectives.  I completely understood Dean's inviting Gadreel in to save Sam.  He wasn't going to let Sam die if there was anything at all that he could do to prevent it, including knowingly doing something that Sam wouldn't like.  He was more than willing to let Sam be angry with him, if it meant he didn't die.   

Had things gone according to plan, the angel would have hopped in, fixed Sam, and left.  That was the deal Dean made, initially.  Of course, things didn't turn out that way.  The longer Gadreel insisted he needed to stay in Sam, the guiltier Dean felt about what he'd done, and the more he wanted to come clean.  Obviously, killing Kevin was not part of the plan.  And Dean was fully prepared to kill Gadreel/Sam at that point to keep Gadreel from hurting anyone else in Sam's vessel.  

Sam certainly had every right to be angry at Dean for what he'd done, but again, if things had gone according to plan, I think he would have gotten over Dean's deception fairly quickly.  He'd be alive and healed, and no one would have been hurt.  But things turned to shit like they always do with these two, and Kevin was killed.  Dean rightly took the blame for that, but I'm sure that didn't make Sam feel any better.

The Purge scene was over-the-top in my opinion, because it wasn't written just as anger on Sam's part, it was written with cruelty.  I'm not sure why the writers felt the need to take it so far, other than just building more angst between the brothers.  They created a character whose MO is saving his brother at all costs, but then attempted to make it seem that he was wrong for saving him...as if letting Sam die was ever an option.  They should have allowed Sam his justified anger without the "I wouldn't save you" part (considering he turned right around and did the same thing in season 10).  

Edited June 25, 2017 by MysteryGuest

[RulerofallIsurvey]

7 minutes ago, Bessie said:

He stomped off leaving Dean nearly in tears and that acting decision was emphasized by the director/editor. They can't actually expect me to look at that face and feel anything but sadness for him, can they? And if they really wanted me to feel some sympathy for Sam then they should've allowed Padalecki a reaction shot as well.  Easy enough for them to do, but they chose not to for whatever reason. 

So the last lingering close-up shows the audience just how much Sam has hurt Dean. And that's how I was left feeling. Ouch, Sam!

While I agree with @DittyDotDot that, objectively, the 'point' of the speech (if there was one) was just to continue the brotherly angst/division/drama; subjectively, this is exactly how I felt also.    

[gonzosgirrl]

3 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

That's exactly the point I was trying to make! 

If the writers were trying to glorify Sam and make Dean look bad then they would not have later negated the one aspect of Sam's speech most would consider reasonable. By removing the legitimacy of Sam's anger towards Dean they transformed the whole scene into simply being one where Sam is a liar who lies and said a bunch of horrible things to Dean for the sake of it. 

 

As I said earlier that scene was all about glorifying Dean and his pain. Sam was there to look bad by being overly harsh towards poor delicate little Deaan hence the whole scene ending with mean old Sam walking off and a zoom in on precious Gary Stu Deans devastated expression. 

I could maybe accept some of your arguments for Sam, but honestly, they lose all their credibility when they are bolstered by this kind of condescending hyperbole. And repetition doesn't make it any more convincing.

Edited June 25, 2017 by gonzosgirrl

[Bessie]

4 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

13 minutes ago, Bessie said:

 

So the last lingering close-up shows the audience just how much Sam has hurt Dean. And that's how I was left feeling. Ouch, Sam!

While I agree with @DittyDotDot that, objectively, the 'point' of the speech (if there was one) was just to continue the brotherly angst/division/drama; subjectively, this is exactly how I felt also.    

I actually agree too. If you read that scene in a book, that is likely how it would come across. A continuation of an ongoing problem. But the way that scene played out on screen - that's not how it came across to me. 

[catrox14]

1 minute ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Both existed at the same time - and independent of each other.  

And I'm not being snarky here either, but I'm just not willing to get into a dialogue about this because I already know that we disagree - so I really don't see any reason to belabor the point, and I know I've given my opinion on the matter in the appropriate episode thread.  Anyway, that wasn't the point of using it in my example.    

If the absence had been explained, it would have still be annoying but at least explained. That's my point. And that's where I think most of the consternation arose.

Quote

because I didn't have a problem with the explanation of Dean's absence in American Nightmare any more than I had a problem with Sam's absence in In The Beginning.    

I'm sorry, I thought this comment was saying that there was an in-show explanation for Dean's absence that you were okay with like the in-show explanation for Sam's absence in 4.03. I legitimately don't recall that discussion.  Was it this thread or the episode thread or All seasons? Just so I have a good starting point because I am interested in what it is. 

[DittyDotDot]

13 minutes ago, Bessie said:

He stomped off leaving Dean nearly in tears and that acting decision was emphasized by the director/editor. They can't actually expect me to look at that face and feel anything but sadness for him, can they? And if they really wanted me to feel some sympathy for Sam then they should've allowed Padalecki a reaction shot as well.  Easy enough for them to do, but they chose not to for whatever reason. 

So the last lingering close-up shows the audience just how much Sam has hurt Dean. And that's how I was left feeling. Ouch, Sam!

But I get it if others didn't have that same emotional reaction to that final shot. 

Sure, they could do that, but for me I didn't need. I don't really need to see that Sam was also hurt to understand that he was hurt--although I wouldn't be opposed to it--the entire reason he said what he said was because he too was hurt and was lashing out at Dean out of frustration and anger.

I just don't think it would've mattered as to the reaction in fandom, myself.

[Wayward Son]

19 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I could maybe accept some of your arguments for Sam, but honestly, they lose all their credibility when they are bolstered by this kind of condescending hyperbole. And repetition doesn't make it any more convincing.

I wasn't being condescending towards anyone, except perhaps the writers, since IMO the attempt to make a few harsh words from Sam remotely equate to Dean collaborating in what the show had previously used as a metaphor for rape on  Sam as laughable and worthy of being mocked. The same way so many Dean leaning fans like to mock what they call "super Sam" or "Gary Stu" Sam in Red Meat. 

Edited June 25, 2017 by Wayward Son

[catrox14]

28 minutes ago, Bessie said:

So the last lingering close-up shows the audience just how much Sam has hurt Dean. And that's how I was left feeling. Ouch, Sam!

I got the ouch just from Sam's words. I thought showing Sam turning his back on Dean after saying he wouldn't save him under the same circumstances was pointed.  And I truly think the writers believed that everything Sam said, had value and merit and was at least partially true because I think there are some writers who think Dean is

--co-dependent with Sam to the degree that he cannot live without him which is why he did it. A

--that Dean lost any ability to understand boundaries

--that Dean was cruel and selfish and did not respect Sam's agency.

And that Sam was right to walk away.  I still want to know what the original dialogue was in 9.23 that Jared changed.

I also think Sam coming back later and essentially forgiving Dean without verbally forgiving him is intended to show Sam was being a bigger, more magnamious person, (turn the other cheek thing). It bothers me because in s9 I would have preferred that Sam just leave the bunker and not come back. Instead of coming back and forth and IMO being passive aggressive with Dean. But that's just me. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

8 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I just don't think it would've mattered as to the reaction in fandom, myself.

I disagree.   Now, sure, it wouldn't have made much, if any, difference to some.  But to others, like me: by leaving the parting shot on Dean's devastated face, imo, that was purposely making sure that my sympathies stayed with Dean.  If there had been one last shot of Sam's devastated face (that he had to say such harsh truths to Dean) as he walked away (after the shot of Dean's face), I sincerely doubt I would have been left with the "Ouch, Sam!" reaction.

[catrox14]

11 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Sure, they could do that, but for me I didn't need. I don't really need to see that Sam was also hurt to understand that he was hurt--although I wouldn't be opposed to it--the entire reason he said what he said was because he too was hurt and was lashing out at Dean out of frustration and anger.

I just don't think it would've mattered as to the reaction in fandom, myself.

I go back and forth if Sam was lashing out or really truly believed what he said. And then maybe thought later that perhaps he gone a little too far with the "I wouldn't save you under the same circumstances". Or since Jared changed that line if maybe Sam was written to mean what he said, that he thought that about Dean, but that Jared couldn't accept it if Sam felt that way about Dean.

I want a little more BTS stuff on why all that changed in 9.23. 

[Bessie]

4 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I got the ouch just from Sam's words.

Don't get me wrong, that dialogue was cruel and Padalecki didn't hold back in delivering it. The close-up of Dean just rammed the point home in an extremely emotional way. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

17 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I'm sorry, I thought this comment was saying that there was an in-show explanation for Dean's absence that you were okay with like the in-show explanation for Sam's absence in 4.03.

My original point (today) was that only because of the hoop-de-doo on the forum about Dean's absence in American Nightmare and the resultant discussion of screen time did I even notice Sam's major absence in In The Beginning.  That's all.  Otherwise, I would have thought nothing of it.  As I thought nothing of it the first time I watched ITB.  

[MysteryGuest]

I think it was said for shock value, and not much else.  In the same way that Dean's comment about how it should be Sam on the funeral pyre and not Charlie were meant to shock.  But at least in that case, the cruelty was meant to show just how far gone Dean was with the Mark by then.  The writers did Sam's character a disservice then, just like they did in season 8.

[Bessie]

9 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

If there had been one last shot of Sam's devastated face (that he had to say such harsh truths to Dean) as he walked away (after the shot of Dean's face), I sincerely doubt I would have been left with the "Ouch, Sam!" reaction.

I'm the same. I'm predisposed to see both brothers sides when there's an issue between them. Had I seen a shot of a heartbroken Sam, that scene would have played completely differently for me. 

[catrox14]

3 hours ago, Reganne said:

As for the people he killed while saving Claire, I don't think they were all bad or deserved to be killed.  One was Claires mentor or something.  Yeah what he did wasn't a good thing, but did he deserve to die?

I call them Randy and the Rapists for a reason.

Randy might have started as mentor to Claire but he sent her in to rob a store because ...reasons. Then when he couldn't pay the debt to the guys he owed the money, he basically gave Claire to them.  Two of them went upstairs to Claire's room and were going to rape her. That is not an exaggeration. She fought them off until Dean, Cas and Sam arrived to save her.   Then as Sam, Cas and Claire all left the house, leaving Dean in there alone with a 5 to 1 disadvantage. One guy pistol whipped Dean and then when he was down, the leader of the gang of rapists (I'm not being hypebolic) kicked Dean in the head. IMO, Dean acted in self-defense at that point. No matter what Cas and Sam said about Randy not being a good guy, he was beyond "not good" given he sold Claire off to another person to pay off his debt.  

Whether that is something he deserved to die for, is I guess a matter of one's own personal sense of justice. 

I came away thinking Sam and Cas were far more worried about Randy and the Rapists than it being presented as them being really concerned for Dean's fate. Like they could have still been worried about Dean's looming issues and still make it clear that Randy and the Rapists had it coming in some way, shape or form. I hated that scene in Hunger Games so much.

Edited June 26, 2017 by catrox14

[DeeDee79]

5 hours ago, Reganne said:

See I had no pity for Lester in season 10 who wanted to make a deal with a demon to kill his wife.  Yet that was brought up as Sam's fault and something he should feel bad about.

I just saw that as Demon Dean throwing that out there to taunt Sam to throw him off balance because he didn't want to be cured. The only other person to bring that up was the actual crossroads demon right? Lester wasn't a good person; if Sam didn't hip him to demon deals he probably would have ended up killing his wife himself.

[DeeDee79]

5 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Now, I do understand 'fandom' influencing certain things - for example, I watched In The Beginning today.  The first time I watched, I didn't even notice or pay attention to the fact that Sam was only in the episode a grand total of 30 seconds.  (Okay, a gross exaggeration, but I hope you get my drift.)  

I remember listening to the commentary on this ep and they said that Jared was in Hawaii on vacay while Jensen had to work. I always assumed that they knew he would be out for a certain period of time so they used the time to write a Dean centric ep while putting more focus on Castiel who was a brand new character that had to be fleshed out. I could be wrong...

[catrox14]

22 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

My original point (today) was that only because of the hoop-de-doo on the forum about Dean's absence in American Nightmare and the resultant discussion of screen time did I even notice Sam's major absence in In The Beginning.  That's all.  Otherwise, I would have thought nothing of it.  As I thought nothing of it the first time I watched ITB.  

I understand.

I'm just asking a question about your follow up remark about there being an explanation for Dean's absence that you thought was satisfactory which implied it was an in-show explanation.  I'm just asking if you can give me a rough idea of which thread I can read about it. 

[DeeDee79]

4 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

If Only!

Well, I try to do so at least :)

[catrox14]

31 minutes ago, Bessie said:

I'm the same. I'm predisposed to see both brothers sides when there's an issue between them. Had I seen a shot of a heartbroken Sam, that scene would have played completely differently for me. 

 

I guess to me both actors played the emotions of their characters as the scene dictated. Sam was indignant and angry with Dean for not seeing his POV and really did think that way about Dean in that moment. I don't understand where a heartbroken Sam would have shown up in that scene because IMO Sam wasn't heartbroken IMO. He was filled with righteous anger, resentment, disappointment. I mean to me he flat out thought Dean was wrong and an asshole basically. I've seen a lot of comments elsewhere that Sam was 100% correct in what he said and that Dean probably deserved an even harsher judgment from Sam on all of that. 

[Bessie]

35 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

He was filled with righteous anger, resentment, disappointment. I mean to me he flat out thought Dean was wrong and an asshole basically. I've seen a lot of comments elsewhere that Sam was 100% correct in what he said and that Dean probably deserved an even harsher judgment from Sam on all of that. 

I think he did have all of those feelings, but I also believe he was hurt, betrayed and devastated, which a reaction shot could've depicted. Eh. Water under the bridge now, but it would've changed the tenor of that scene. It wouldn't have impacted on the cruelty of the dialogue, but it could have added depth to the words.

I cant speak to other people's comments on other sites, but those sound to me like they aren't fans of Sam or Dean. Most Sam fans I know hated that scene. I think that's why I tend to equate it with Fallen Idols when it comes to fan reaction.  In my experience, most Sam fans hate The Purge in a similar way to the hate most Dean fans have for Fallen Idols. (Huge generalization, I know. It's just based on comments I've read.)

Edited June 26, 2017 by Bessie

[catrox14]

Just now, Bessie said:

I cant speak to other people's comments on other sites, but those sound to me like they aren't fans of Sam or Dean. Most Sam fans I know hated that scene. I think that's why I tend to equate it with Fallen Idols when it comes to fan reaction.  In my experience, Sam fans hate The Purge in a similar way to the hate Dean fans have for Fallen Idols. 

Oh don't get me wrong. I hate that speech in the Purge. I hate it. I'm not defending it at all. I wanted to push Sam off a cliff after he said that. My point is more that I don't think it was quite as hated in fandom in general as it might be here. These were Sam fans who were like "You go, Sam!!" they were proud of him for what he said. I don't think they even disliked Dean per se, but many felt Dean had crossed a line with the Gadreel possession that they would never forgive him, and that Sam should have never helped Dean at all.  And that Sam maybe should have killed Dean for it. I thought that was a bit much!

[DittyDotDot]

20 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

I remember listening to the commentary on this ep and they said that Jared was in Hawaii on vacay while Jensen had to work. I always assumed that they knew he would be out for a certain period of time so they used the time to write a Dean centric ep while putting more focus on Castiel who was a brand new character that had to be fleshed out. I could be wrong...

Oh, no, Jared went to Hawaii because he suddenly had a week off due to them writing him out of the episode, not the other way around. As I recall, they originally planned for Sam to go back with Dean, but realized in the development of the episode that, storywise, it was something Dean needed to do alone. Most of In The Beginning was something they had wanted to do in S3, but the writer's strike ruined that plan. I remember Kripke commenting on how it turned out to be a happy accident though because they had no idea how they were going to manage the time travel until they decided to add angels to the show in S4. 

As to American Nightmare, I think it was just a mistake of an inexperienced writer and an new showrunner not seeing that the amount of time lapsing between the phone call and Dean arriving on-scene would be so long on screen. It may even have been that it wasn't supposed to be so long and they ran out of time and had to shoot the scene with the paramedics now in the daylight--kinda like instant dawn in Bugs?

I mean, look at the finale, the amount of time between when Crowley finished the spell and the void closing was ridiculously long. Which I chalk up to a miscalculation on the writing side of how much time would need to pass on screen to get Cass through the void; Sam and Dean through the void; Cass back out of the void with that initial sense of relief only to have the Devil step through and kill him...then to have Mary show up to punch the Devil and shove him through the void and drag her with him. 

TBH, I think there are so many reasons how this could've happened and most of them would just be honest mistakes. It's not something that should happen to a show in it's 12th season, but it seems more plausible to me than it being a deliberate slight against Dean or Jensen.

12 minutes ago, Bessie said:

I cant speak to other people's comments on other sites, but those sound to me like they aren't fans of Sam or Dean. Most Sam fans I know hated that scene. I think that's why I tend to equate it with Fallen Idols when it comes to fan reaction.  In my experience, most Sam fans hate The Purge in a similar way to the hate most Dean fans have for Fallen Idols. 

Personally, I love Fallen Idols. I think it's a fun episode that has some much needed resolution for both Sam and Dean. Personally, I think Sam is right that their dynamic needed to change so they could function effectively again. It wasn't about whose fault it was for the Devil getting let out of the cage, but about them moving forward as a team. Relationships are two way streets and even though Sam made a lot of mistakes with Ruby, the problems between Sam and Dean were not one-sided or about Ruby. If they were going to work together and move forward, it can't be just Sam changing his ways, but Dean was going to have to make some adjustments too. Falling back into that big brother/little brother dynamic was only going to lead them to being back in the same place again.

As to The Purge, I mostly hate the episode because it's not a fun episode and is all about escalating the conflict between Sam and Dean. However, I think the talk at then end is actually some of the better parts of the episode. They were petty little jerks either way, but at least they were actually talking instead of the passive aggressive bullshit that was going on earlier. 

[catrox14]

5 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I mean, look at the finale, the amount of time between when Crowley finished the spell and the void closing was ridiculously long. Which I chalk up to a miscalculation on the writing side of how much time would need to pass on screen to get Cass through the void; Sam and Dean through the void; Cass back out of the void with that initial sense of relief only to have the Devil step through and kill him...then to have Mary show up to punch the Devil and shove him through the void and drag her with him. 

I'm not sure that was a mistake re the Rift. I think someone was controlling the rift itself.

[DittyDotDot]

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I'm not sure that was a mistake re the Rift. I think someone was controlling the rift itself.

Perhaps, and at first I was sure it was, but over time I've come to think it was just poor pacing. There was a quite a few pacing problems throughout the season, so I've been leaning more towards it being something Dabb isn't very good at noticing on the page. 

[DeeDee79]

25 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Oh, no, Jared went to Hawaii because he suddenly had a week off due to them writing him out of the episode, not the other way around. As I recall, they originally planned for Sam to go back with Dean, but realized in the development of the episode that, storywise, it was something Dean needed to do alone. Most of In The Beginning was something they had wanted to do in S3, but the writer's strike ruined that plan. I remember Kripke commenting on how it turned out to be a happy accident though because they had no idea how they were going to manage the time travel until they decided to add angels to the show in S4. 

Well I did say that I could be wrong. Thanks for the clarification!

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

Oh don't get me wrong. I hate that speech in the Purge. I hate it. I'm not defending it at all. I wanted to push Sam off a cliff after he said that. My point is more that I don't think it was quite as hated in fandom in general as it might be here. These were Sam fans who were like "You go, Sam!!" they were proud of him for what he said. I don't think they even disliked Dean per se, but many felt Dean had crossed a line with the Gadreel possession that they would never forgive him, and that Sam should have never helped Dean at all.  And that Sam maybe should have killed Dean for it. I thought that was a bit much!

I wasn't crazy about The Purge speech.  But, I could deal with it.  I think a lot of what was said needed to be said because Dean DID cross a line.  Definitely.  However, I think when Sam stomped off in Captives after promising Ghost Kevin to cut the drama and rebuffed all of Dean's overtures in Thinman was when he was going too far.  If he fully intended to freeze Dean out for eternity (which I don't believe he did), he should have just left entirely.  Or said he was taking off for a month, a year, whatever.  Or, just had a more distant relationship with Dean, as in they occasionally work cases together, but don't live together and share a car and blah blah blah. But, as soon as he came back, IMO, he had the responsibility to express how he felt to Dean (which he certainly did) and then to move past it (I'm not going to use the phrase get over it, because it was a big deal). But, if you're going to be in a relationship of any kind, you need to deal with your stuff in a timely manner, and when you're done dealing with it, it's over.  You can't keep throwing it in the other person's face. 

[AwesomO4000]

3 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Sam was actually ever angry about the lying in and of itself. I'm not being snarky.  Did Sam ever tell Dean he was pissed about the lying? I might be forgetting something, too.

IMO, Sam was pissed that Dean let an angel in without his consent. He was pissed that his hands killed Kevin, and he was pissed that Dean couldn't see it. 

I'm sure that Sam was angry about Dean making the decision for him, but for me, I think it was more the lying for so long that exacerbated it. If Dean had told Sam right away, as soon as he was conscious and capable of understanding, then Sam could've made his own choice. And I think this was reflected in Sam's comments when he first learned about Gadreel and what happened. From "Road Trip:"
 

Quote

 

Dean: All right. Let me hear it.

Sam: What you do want me to say – that I'm pissed? Okay. I am. I'm pissed. You lied to me. Again.

Dean: I didn't have a choice.

Sam: I was ready to die, Dean!

Dean: I know. But I wouldn't let you, because that's not in me.

Sam: So, what? You decide to trick me into being possessed by some... psycho angel?

Dean: He saved your life.

Sam: So what? I was willing to die.

And now... Kevin... [His eyes fill with guilty tears]

Dean: No. That is not on you. Kevin's blood is on my hands, and that ain't ever getting clean. I'll burn for that. I will. But I'll find Gadreel. And I will end that son of a bitch.

But I'll do it alone.

Sam: What's that supposed to mean?

Dean: Come on, man. Can't you see? I'm... I'm poison, Sam. People get close to me, they get killed...or worse. You know, I tell myself that I-I – I help more people than I hurt. And I tell myself that I'm – I'm doing it all for the right reasons, and I – I believe that. But I can't – I won't... Drag anybody through the muck with me. Not anymore.

Sam: Go. I'm not gonna stop you... But don't go thinking that's the problem, 'cause it's not.

Dean: What's that supposed to mean?

Sam: Just go.

 

So yes, Sam was angry about being tricked, but the very first thing Sam mentions and purposely says that he's pissed about is that Dean lied to him.

And I'm also not sure what Sam meant by the last thing. He said that Dean wanting to do or thinking he was doing the right thing wasn't the problem - something that the "The Purge" speech seemed to contradict - since Sam does say exactly what Dean was saying rather than sticking with his "don't go thinking that's the problem," statement.

So not only do the writers have Sam go back on his statement here in "Road Trip" during the "The Purge" speech, they completely disregarded that Sam was pissed - and made a point of saying that he was pissed - about Dean lying to him. And considering that it was the lying that lead to most of the tragedy - since Sam could have rejected the weakened Gadreel and avoided anyone being killed if he'd been told the truth earlier - and that Dean's continued lying was a part of Dean making a decision single-handedly for Sam, in my opinion, the lying's omission from Sam's "The Purge" speech was either a grievous omission on the writer's part or it was a purposeful omission, because the writers would rather Sam have had a straw man's argument than have a real point in his grievances. My opinion on that one.

4 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

I think Sam was pissed that Dean made a decision about Sam without consulting Sam and then acted like Sam had no reason to be angry and told him he'd do it all again knowing how it all turned out. I don't think the lying helped, but I don't think that's what he was pissed about.

But in my opinion, the lying  was a big part of Dean making a decision without consulting Sam, because as I said above, much of the tragedy could have been avoided - and Sam could've been given his agency back - if Dean had told him earlier about Gadreel. Sam was practically begging Dean at certain points in early season 9 to tell him what was wrong with him. Why was he losing time? Why did he feel "wrong?" And Dean continued to make the choice to keep Sam in the dark. Considering all of that, I don't see how Sam wouldn't be angry about the lying, and I think that he was angry about it, just as he'd told Dean in "Road Trip." It's similar to the lying being one of the reasons why Sam was originally angry about Amy in season 7. Sam was just as angry that Dean had been lying to him as he was that Dean killed Amy behind his back.... "Don't... Don't lie to me again."

For whatever reason, after "Road Trip," the writers decided to ignore the lying issue and instead just had Sam get vicious rather than let him have a legitimate beef and express it in a way that I, at least, could see sympathetically. And for me, they chose not to do that.

[catrox14]

7 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

For whatever reason, after "Road Trip," the writers decided to ignore the lying issue and instead just had Sam get vicious rather than let him have a legitimate beef and express it in a way that I, at least, could see sympathetically. And for me, they chose not to do that.

Thanks for that reminder.

I guess for me, I didn't think Sam really cared that Dean had lied to him. I think he cared that Dean didn't respect his agency. I think that mattered more than the lying. But I can see that factored but not more than the other things, given they both lie to each other all the time. Dean was still at the mercy of Gadreel holding Sam hostage. So even if Dean tried to tell Sam, Gadreel IMO would have killed Sam immediately to keep from being ejected.