Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

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


  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

I'm a Dean girl and am very aware of my bias. I love Dean and I think Jensen is a brilliant actor. But I also appreciate Sam  I don't think either brother is 'better'. I just prefer Dean.  So long as we remain respectful we can have our biases. We have to be aware we have them. The whole show spins along because there are two tall handsome screwed up brothers to argue over.

I do have to smile, tho, when a scene or line of script totally out of context is dredged up to support a point. ?

I really love this post because it's how I feel about the characters. Like you stated I absolutely love Dean but I enjoy Sam and it's possible to like both characters. I don't get pointing out the flaws of one character while pretending that the other is without flaw or acting as if one character is the source of all misery for the other. The writing for Dean may frustrate me at times but as @MysteryGuest said I don't understand viewers that watch when they hate one of the main characters; I wouldn't be able to watch if I did.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
53 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

I really love this post because it's how I feel about the characters. Like you stated I absolutely love Dean but I enjoy Sam and it's possible to like both characters. I don't get pointing out the flaws of one character while pretending that the other is without flaw or acting as if one character is the source of all misery for the other. The writing for Dean may frustrate me at times but as @MysteryGuest said I don't understand viewers that watch when they hate one of the main characters; I wouldn't be able to watch if I did.

It's not even "hating" one character so much as pitting them against each other, as if saying something positive about one means that you're against the other one.  This is *not* a win/lose situation, or a war zone where everyone has to choose sides.  I think *all* the characters are terribly flawed and that's what makes them interesting.  I have no desire to watch Mary Sues or superheroes who never do anything wrong.  And while I might get angry with a situation or the way a particular character behaves (or, in the case of Lucifer, just being tired of watching the same old retread SL), it doesn't mean I hate the character himself.  

So, while I tend to understand/identify with Dean more, and there are some things Sam does that bother me, *based on my own triggers and emotional reactions,* it doesn't mean that I dislike Sam in general or even that I don't understand (or even sympathize with) his actions.   The same goes for Cas, and even John and Mary.   

Getting on my soapbox here (sorry, and feel free to skip if you want): IMO there are no absolutes, that someone "always" does something or "never" gets something (whether good or bad), because as far as I can see they've all had their shares of ups and downs (and bad or OOC writing) over the years.  (TBH, even the phrase "yet again [someone] will be wrong/apologize/be made to look like a fool..." makes me skip the rest of the post.)  We may think it's uneven because we're more focused on what we perceive as insults to our favorites, but the fact that fans on all sides are complaining indicates to me that it's pretty evenly divided and no one is getting all the love (or all the hate) from TPTB.  

My bottom line:  I used to enjoy hearing other opinions, when there was actually discussion and you didn't have to worry about getting into a fight (or being labeled a "hater") if you disagreed, and I wish we could get back to that.   And while everyone is free to express their own thoughts or opinions, personally I'm not going to read posts that do nothing but complain about how badly their favorite is treated or use language that's snide or insulting to anyone, even characters (whether I like them or not.)   It may not be against the rules, but IMO "be civil" doesn't just mean "you can say nasty things as long as you're polite about it."  

  • Love 10
Link to comment

Great post, ahrtee. I do tend to think that the show tends to make Sam and Cas catastrophically wrong on big picture issues more often than is warranted, but I agree that, at least as far as Sam and Dean are concerned, both brothers have gotten moments to shine while, conversely, both have been victims of poor writing at times. Similarly, both brothers have said awful things to each other, and  both are flawed (in some similar ways, and some very different ones). Not everything is equal, but I think, overall, it mostly balances out, and frequently, whether one thinks one brother is being favored or not is based on necessarily subjective judgments of what is and is not a valued role. 

In the first half of the S12 finale, for instance, Sam got the big hero speech, but also had to do a mea culpa for trusting the BMOL, and didn't play a markedly bigger role in the actual raid than the other hunters (indeed, Jody got the biggest kill). All the same, he was in action-hero role. Dean got the more emotionally resonant scene, saved his mother, and also got a chance for a little badassery of his own (although Mary finally killed Ketch). 

Which role is better? As we've seen, there's a lot of room for disagreement, and there's no objective answer. Are you all about the action? Then you probably thought Sam got the better role. Are you all about inner struggle and interpersonal dynamics? You probably think Dean got the better role.  How much do you privilege whether the character acted alone, or as part of a group? How much do you factor in which actor got the meatier scene? The better written one? Does Sam taking the lead in the raid make up for his instincts proving faulty once again? Was Dean's speech compromised as a growth moment because of his focus on Sam? There are different ways to answer these questions, but if we can't agree on which brother had the better role, I don't see how it is plausible to assume the showrunners and writers have a consistent anti-Dean or anti-Sam bias, because what some people perceive as "anti-Dean" writing some people perceive as "pro-Dean" writing. Of course, there are times that we can largely agree that an episode or plotline was Dean or Sam-centric -- but again, I think over 12 years, it mostly averages out. 

At the end of the day, while this show frequently annoys me for any number of reasons, it is clear to me that both Winchesters are heroes and fundamentally good people who love each other deeply and, for the most part, respect one another as well. In light of that, issues like determining whether Sam's worst comments have been an "8" on the scale of nastiness while Dean's have been a "10," or whether it is the other way around seem relatively unimportant. 

For the record, I think Dean is the more interesting character, but I tend to find Sam easier to identify with.  Except in the first half of Season 8, of course. And, you know, the soulless period. 

  • Love 10
Link to comment
12 hours ago, MysteryGuest said:

This actually seems like a fairly new development, IMO.  We've certainly always had these discussions before about who did what to whom, which brother we like best, etc., but I don't remember there being so much open dislike for either brother.  

I admit to being a Dean fan, but I have come to Sam's defense many times throughout these discussions.  I absolutely think it's possible to have a favorite, but to still see things from multiple perspectives.  And just because Dean is my favorite, that doesn't mean I dislike Sam.  To each his own, I guess.  I'm not sure I'd want to watch if I actually disliked one of the brothers.  That wouldn't be much fun for me, personally.  

I admit to being a Sam fan and at times just have to walk away from this place. I have found "ignore user" to be helpful, at least in keeping my blood pressure down.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

IMO, one of the worst culprits at Sam vs Dean or putting down one brother to prop the other is the show itself.  It's not surprising that it carries over to fans.  The writers admitted to keeping score and letting Sam do stuff because Dean got too.

I can name several times when the show propped Sam at Dean's expense and I suspect Sam fans can also name examples of the reverse. 

This was never more evident than in their hell time.  The show could have just said both boys suffered terribly.  Instead they made sure to degrade and devalue Dean's at every opportunity.  They even made Dean call it Graceland.  If they even mention Dean's time its to degrade it further, or act like it was no more annoying than a hang nail.  They keep going on about Sam's time, and from the sounds of this season we're going there again. 

Or when Dean wanted to say yes to Michael.  It was the worst idea ever and Dean was a quitter and deserved to get beaten by Cas.  (Some even called that scene hot).  Sam wants to say yes and its the best idea ever.

I can name several more but those two stick out the most.

Last season, Sam is suddenly the planner, decision maker, weapons expert, leader, and go between with all the guest stars (he's leading the questioning and doing all the bonding)

I'd rather Dean have an the action scene since his scene with Mary was all about Sam anyway.  It's like Deans' trauma doesn't exist and its only brought up to make a point at how Dean failed Sam.  Then they juxtapose that with Sam leading the charge on the men of letters headquarters, and showing that Sam succeeded despite Dean.  What good is a mea culpa when the narrative rewards Sam for it.  He's now the leader of Team Free Will and the hunting community despite being the only hunter snowed by them.

This season

Spoiler

Dean's most core characteristic has been stripped from him, since when does Dean give up on family?  He's no longer the leader, Sam's suddenly the big brother/mentor to Jack.  Sam's also going to be leading the search for Mary

 

So while this sounds bitter, its an honest question I have-

What's Dean's purpose/role on the show these days?

Edited by ILoveReading
  • Love 2
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

Unless one loves both equally it's impossible to claim complete unbiased. 

I would say that even if one claims to love both brothers equally, it is still impossible to claim complete non-bias, since we all view events through our own personal filters.  :)

5 hours ago, companionenvy said:

Which role is better? As we've seen, there's a lot of room for disagreement, and there's no objective answer. Are you all about the action? Then you probably thought Sam got the better role. Are you all about inner struggle and interpersonal dynamics? You probably think Dean got the better role.  How much do you privilege whether the character acted alone, or as part of a group? How much do you factor in which actor got the meatier scene? The better written one? Does Sam taking the lead in the raid make up for his instincts proving faulty once again? Was Dean's speech compromised as a growth moment because of his focus on Sam? There are different ways to answer these questions, but if we can't agree on which brother had the better role, I don't see how it is plausible to assume the showrunners and writers have a consistent anti-Dean or anti-Sam bias, because what some people perceive as "anti-Dean" writing some people perceive as "pro-Dean" writing. Of course, there are times that we can largely agree that an episode or plotline was Dean or Sam-centric -- but again, I think over 12 years, it mostly averages out. 

Great post, @companionenvy!  Especially the part I quoted above.  

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

Last season, Sam is suddenly the planner, decision maker, weapons expert, leader, and go between with all the guest stars (he's leading the questioning and doing all the bonding)

I'd rather Dean have an the action scene since his scene with Mary was all about Sam anyway.  It's like Deans' trauma doesn't exist and its only brought up to make a point at how Dean failed Sam.  Then they juxtapose that with Sam leading the charge on the men of letters headquarters, and showing that Sam succeeded despite Dean.  What good is a mea culpa when the narrative rewards Sam for it.  He's now the leader of Team Free Will and the hunting community despite being the only hunter snowed by them.

I disagree that last season Sam was "suddenly" the planner, as over the course of 12 seasons, the 'researcher, planner' role has generally (not always) fallen to Sam.  

I don't know how the raid on the BMoL headquarters was Sam succeeding despite Dean.  That makes it sound like Dean purposely tried to sabotage the raid and Sam got 'er done anyway.  That's not what happened.  

I also disagree that Sam is now the leader of Team Free Will.  And he is definitely not the leader of the American hunting community.  Remember, Wally?  (RIP Wally!)  American hunters don't really like one big boss telling them what to do.  :)   I think some people are reading a lot more into the 'Sam's going to take on more of a leadership role' than is actually going to play out.  

ETA: I'm assuming you meant Sam was the only hunter snowed by the BMoL: if this is wrong, then ignore the rest of this comment.  :)  Sam was not the only American hunter snowed by the BMoL.  Mary was.  And they also had other American hunters working with them - for example the one in the ep with the Alpha vamp, though I can't remember his name.  

Edited by RulerofallIsurvey
Snowed
  • Love 7
Link to comment
1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

What's Dean's purpose/role on the show these days?

Dean will continue to provide POV and emotional narrative, I think they're well aware they can't  hand that over to Sam.

But whoever wrote that Dean line... "Can YOU fix it?" should be slapped in the head.  These writers ... ::sigh::.    And it looks like we're in for an abundance of fatherly Sam scenes as he counsels wild & crazy Dean in terms of Jack rearing.  Hope I'm wrong because it's going to be bloody annoying to watch.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

Dean will continue to provide POV and emotional narrative, I think they're well aware they can't  hand that over to Sam.

But whoever wrote that Dean line... "Can YOU fix it?" should be slapped in the head.  These writers ... ::sigh::.    And it looks like we're in for an abundance of fatherly Sam scenes as he counsels wild & crazy Dean in terms of Jack rearing.  Hope I'm wrong because it's going to be bloody annoying to watch.

Is he really going to be the emotional POV when all the emotion seems like its going to take place between Jack/Sam and Sam/Mary. 

Last season I wouldn't even say Dean had the' POV since for the first time in 12 seasons I was completely lost as to what was going on with Dean.  I expect a lot more of the same this season.   "Sam's got it."  "What do we do Sam."  "Can you fix it Sam"  "Sam's working on it."

I guess Dean can stand around an look pretty.

Quote

I don't know how the raid on the BMoL headquarters was Sam succeeding despite Dean.  That makes it sound like Dean purposely tried to sabotage the raid and Sam got 'er done anyway.  That's not what happened.  

I don't mean just doing the raid.  I meant overall.

Edited by ILoveReading
  • Love 3
Link to comment
1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

Or when Dean wanted to say yes to Michael.  It was the worst idea ever and Dean was a quitter and deserved to get beaten by Cas.  (Some even called that scene hot).  Sam wants to say yes and its the best idea ever.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Dean's most core characteristic has been stripped from him, since when does Dean give up on family?  He's no longer the leader, Sam's suddenly the big brother/mentor to Jack.  Sam's also going to be leading the search for Mary

 

 

But there was a clear difference in the circumstances between Dean's plan to say yes and Sam's plan to say yes. 

 

In the case of Dean he was in a state of depression and resignation. He wasn't planning to say yes because of some greater purpose, but rather he had decided it was time for them to give into the inevitable. At this time they hadn't found out about the horse mans ring being the key to the cage, so there was no known way to stop the battle! All Dean would have done was allow Michael to destroy the world quicker! Hardly a plan for Castiel, Sam and Bobby to fawn over and praise him for.

 

With Sam on the other hand they did have a plan. They did have a plan of action! They had found a way to contain the devil and stop the major battle that would destroy half the worlds population from occurring. It was a risky plan to be sure, but there was a plan. Unlike Dean, Sam was not going in with a defeatist plan and condemning the world because he had given up.

 

As for the Cas and Dean beat down, I have thoughts on it I'll post when I get to PONR in my rewatch, but what I will say is I don't approve of Cas beating Dean like that. 

  • Love 3
Link to comment
6 hours ago, companionenvy said:

Which role is better? As we've seen, there's a lot of room for disagreement, and there's no objective answer. Are you all about the action? Then you probably thought Sam got the better role. Are you all about inner struggle and interpersonal dynamics? You probably think Dean got the better role.  How much do you privilege whether the character acted alone, or as part of a group? How much do you factor in which actor got the meatier scene? The better written one? Does Sam taking the lead in the raid make up for his instincts proving faulty once again? Was Dean's speech compromised as a growth moment because of his focus on Sam? There are different ways to answer these questions, but if we can't agree on which brother had the better role, I don't see how it is plausible to assume the showrunners and writers have a consistent anti-Dean or anti-Sam bias, because what some people perceive as "anti-Dean" writing some people perceive as "pro-Dean" writing.

This is so true. I am bibro, yet I get more frustrated by the writing for Sam but I can recognize that this is because of my own bias toward character-driven stories. I think the writers do a fantastic job with Dean on this level, which is what I value. I also believe they have a long way to go when it comes to Sam's characterization. Too much is brushed off as Sam being an introvert or compartmentalizing etc.  

I'm not saying I disagree with these explanations for his lack of relationships or internal struggles, but this isn't a novel I'm reading where that can be compensated for, it's a tv show where they need to get better at portraying Sam's inner life. I love the way they write Dean and his emotional/psychological life and I don't ever want that to change. I'd just like to see more of it with Sam. Because again, that's what is important to me. 

  • Love 6
Link to comment
1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

IMO, one of the worst culprits at Sam vs Dean or putting down one brother to prop the other is the show itself.  It's not surprising that it carries over to fans.  1) The writers admitted to keeping score and letting Sam do stuff because Dean got too.

2) I can name several times when the show propped Sam at Dean's expense and I suspect Sam fans can also name examples of the reverse. 

3) This was never more evident than in their hell time.  The show could have just said both boys suffered terribly.  Instead they made sure to degrade and devalue Dean's at every opportunity.  They even made Dean call it Graceland.  If they even mention Dean's time its to degrade it further, or act like it was no more annoying than a hang nail.  They keep going on about Sam's time, and from the sounds of this season we're going there again. 

4) Or when Dean wanted to say yes to Michael.  It was the worst idea ever and Dean was a quitter and deserved to get beaten by Cas.  (Some even called that scene hot).  Sam wants to say yes and its the best idea ever.

I can name several more but those two stick out the most.

Last season, Sam is suddenly the planner, decision maker, weapons expert, leader, and go between with all the guest stars (he's leading the questioning and doing all the bonding)

I'd rather Dean have an the action scene since his scene with Mary was all about Sam anyway.  It's like Deans' trauma doesn't exist and its only brought up to make a point at how Dean failed Sam.  Then they juxtapose that with Sam leading the charge on the men of letters headquarters, and showing that Sam succeeded despite Dean.  What good is a mea culpa when the narrative rewards Sam for it.  He's now the leader of Team Free Will and the hunting community despite being the only hunter snowed by them.

This season

  Reveal hidden contents

Dean's most core characteristic has been stripped from him, since when does Dean give up on family?  He's no longer the leader, Sam's suddenly the big brother/mentor to Jack.  Sam's also going to be leading the search for Mary

 

So while this sounds bitter, its an honest question I have-

What's Dean's purpose/role on the show these days?

1) The writers admitted ONE time, if there's no story line specifying who gets the kill, they look for balance.  This was specifically for Stuck in the Middle (With You) and Sam killing Ramiel.  Now, with fans who OBVIOUSLY KEEP SCORE themselves, this seems like a reasonable thing to do.  Especially since, as been so aptly pointed out, what fans "score" is a random variable based on what matters to each fan.  But it was clear to me from that interview, that the story dictates first. If there is no specific story motivation -- then they look for balance.  So those who wailed when Sam used the Michael lance probably saw a story issue (Dean connected to Michael) that the writers simply didn't think was a big deal.  

2) That would be a sign of "balance".  Balance indicating that it matters to the writers that one character is not favored over the other.  The term "propped up" is pejorative in nature.  I suspect it's a little closer to "someone gets in trouble, someone fixes it" as part of the plot.  And who gets in trouble versus who fixes it

3) You are right, Sam's hell time was longer (because they didn't know his soul was still in hell for quite some time) and it was worse because Lucifer is supposed to be worse.  This was not a balance issue.  This was a plot point.  They devoted quite a bit of time to Sam's hell fallout.  But that's NOT the same thing as 'propping Sam up at Dean's expense.'  When Dean came back from Hell, Kripke was on a 5 year mission.  Re-watching S4 in the last couple of months, I'm struck by how MUCH of Dean's hell trauma we actually do see.  If I was to go from what I've read hear, it seems like it was ignored.  It wasn't.  There were at least 16 of 22 episodes in S4 where the hell time was brought up or it's impact on Dean was discussed.  In S5, Kripke was focused on completing his opus.  When S6 came on, they went towards a more open-ended approach and they centered a mystery on "what is wrong with Sam/how do we fix Sam" for half a season.  Then the fallout for that became an even bigger deal with Hellucinations.  Different seasons, different showrunners, different timetables.  

4) Dean vs's Sam's yes.  This was Kripke's opus (again). He wanted the show to end with Sam 'redeemed' but in Hell and Dean alive but damaged.  A tragic ending.  And when Sam said "yes" it was to trick Lucifer, not to go along.  Dean was originally saying "yes" to give up.  It's REALLY CONSISTENT with what the show's priorities were -- thwart the Apocalypse plan.  When Dean was threatening to go along with the Apocalypse plan, he's in the wrong.  It's pretty clear to me.

5. The idea that Dean's scene with Mary was all about Sam doesn't fit with what we've seen of Dean IMO.  Even if you aren't a parent, the show has made it abundantly clear - injury to your child is MUCH MUCH worse than injury to yourself.  So Dean, by putting it in the context of Sam, simultaneously deflects from himself while also proving that the WORST thing Mary did was force Dean into a Mom and Dad role and then had to watch his 'child' be injured.  It's SO MUCH WORSE for Dean.  Dean would much rather have been the one to suffer than to let Sam suffer.  I think the show has shown that consistently.  But honestly, if your not a parent, ask one ... what's worse - getting injured or watching your child get injured.  I bet you get a 10 out of 10 response on that one (watching child get hurt is worse).  So ultimately, it was STILL about Dean.

5.  I do think Sam taking a more leadership role (but still deferring to Dean) is what we will see.  I think that is correcting a long-standing imbalance that had Dean make almost all the moves.  I think Dean is still the leader of Team Free Will. I think he gets final say.

6. What is Dean's purpose?   Saving People, Hunting Things -- the family business.  He's going to continue to grind away at each problem in own way.  Insisting that Dean have a purpose OTHER than that goes right back to this whole 'tit for tat' mentality where fans keep score based on their own biases. 

  • Love 10
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

But there was a clear difference in the circumstances between Dean's plan to say yes and Sam's plan to say yes. 

 

In the case of Dean he was in a state of depression and resignation. He wasn't planning to say yes because of some greater purpose, but rather he had decided it was time for them to give into the inevitable. At this time they hadn't found out about the horse mans ring being the key to the cage, so there was no known way to stop the battle! All Dean would have done was allow Michael to destroy the world quicker! Hardly a plan for Castiel, Sam and Bobby to fawn over and praise him for.

 

With Sam on the other hand they did have a plan. They did have a plan of action! They had found a way to contain the devil and stop the major battle that would destroy half the worlds population from occurring. It was a risky plan to be sure, but there was a plan. Unlike Dean, Sam was not going in with a defeatist plan and condemning the world because he had given up.

 

As for the Cas and Dean beat down, I have thoughts on it I'll post when I get to PONR in my rewatch, but what I will say is I don't approve of Cas beating Dean like that. 

Sam came up with that idea when he was drunk and upset because Dean left to go work with Crowley.    It's wasn't any less of a hail Mary than Dean wanting to say yes to Michael. 

I dont' believe Dean would have just sat back and watched the world burn without attempting to do something.  Maybe instead of treating Dean like he was a quitter they could have backed him and came up with a plan for Dean to attempt to take control.  (I disagree that Dean couldn't do it. In the end its a show and if the writers want them to do it they can).

Logically, the plan makes no sense because Lucifer was 3 steps away from his vessel imploding, so that would have made it easier for Michael to defeat Lucifer in a weakened state.  (The way that scene went with them basically whining at each other, I didn't believe they were going to destory half that cemetary let alone the world).

Take Sam and Dean out of the equation-

Two plans neither are very good.

Plan A- If it fails you have a 50% chance of survival.  You're powering up your strongest weapon and sending him against an enemy that is weak and getting weaker every day.  The quarterback is a guy who has a history of being able to talk sense into people and overcoming long odds.

Plan B- If it fails you have no chance at survival.  You're giving the enemy its strongest weapon, fuel to make it stronger (and by that I mean demon blood), and sending an inferior weapon to stop it.  Plus the quarterback in that plan tried and failed twice to do what he said he was going to do.

If you knew nothing about the situation, what makes more sense from a strategic point of view.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
(edited)
45 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Maybe instead of treating Dean like he was a quitter they could have backed him and came up with a plan for Dean to attempt to take control.

To what end? I mean, Dean takes control of Michael and then, what? They all just stand around and look at each other while Lucifer continues to run amok?

They needed to, first and foremost, contain Lucifer somehow because, you take Lucifer off the board, Michael goes back to Heaven and continues to ignore humanity.  Taking only Michael off the board solves nothing; taking Lucifer off the board puts them back where they were before Lucifer was on the board. 

ETA: Actually, first and foremost they needed a plan. Dean didn't have a plan at all, he just figured it was inevitable, so why keep fighting against it. I'm quite certain if Dean had come up with an actual plan, the team would've supported him just like they did Sam in the end.

Edited by DittyDotDot
  • Love 6
Link to comment
4 hours ago, SueB said:

3) You are right, Sam's hell time was longer (because they didn't know his soul was still in hell for quite some time) and it was worse because Lucifer is supposed to be worse.  This was not a balance issue.  This was a plot point.

So the writers pick and choose what the "balance issues" are going to be for the fandom. Sam got to kill The Alpha Vamp with the colt in the exact same manner as Dean killed Azazel. Sam is taking more of a leader role this season. Sam connected with all of the guest stars in s12.

It seems to me what they're picking and choosing to "balance" takes from Dean and give to Sam, but where is the vice versa that would actually make the "balance" definitive in that equation?

Sam's role is Saving People and Hunting Things, too-and now he's doing it in his old role AND in Dean's, too! So again, I'm failing to see where all their purported "balance" is in that.

Spoiler

 

And for the record I hate the double standard that the PTBs exhibit(IMO) when they give interviews about the two main characters-and even some of the cast(Samantha Smith, I'm looking at you)-Sam is the "Brains" and Dean is the "Brawn"? Since when? Sam was "mature" when he moved on and w/o even trying to look for Dean, but Jensen gets his eared pinched by Singer as if he is an unruly little boy at CC for Dean not believing that Mary is still alive?!

Thank God what they spout at CC doesn't often appear on screen in the the way that they talk about it; but still,  if they talk about it that way, then that must be how they feel they've written it. Oy. What a mess, it's all become. S13A sounds like it's just going to be a reversal of the S8A roles to me and nothing more and the hell with more core characteristics that might have once existed for Dean again and some more and to an even worse degree. Yay... *insert eye roll*...

 

Spoiler

 

Edited by Myrelle
  • Love 3
Link to comment
45 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

dont' believe Dean would have just sat back and watched the world burn without attempting to do something.  Maybe instead of treating Dean like he was a quitter they could have backed him and came up with a plan for Dean to attempt to take control.  (I disagree that Dean couldn't do it. In the end its a show and if the writers want them to do it they can).

Here's my take on the Sam/Lucifer, Dean/Michael thing and you can take it for whatever it's worth.  Even back in Season 2, Sam said something about hunting being their destiny and Dean said he didn't believe in destiny. The same thing was said in It's a Terrible Life when they didn't even have any memories.  Sam has been focused on destiny. Dean has been focused on free will.  Now, that's not so say that you can't use your free will to fulfill your destiny, but I do think the show was going for dichotomy.  So, Dean wanted to not fulfill his destiny in being Michael's vessel.  And, it's not so much that Sam wanted to be Lucifer's vessel, but in a way, he felt he had no choice.  So, Dean saying yes to Michael, was like him giving up because he had been going against it all along.  Dean, ultimately saying no, and Sam saying yes, seems to me to be the fulfillment of what they had been building up to all along in terms of free will versus destiny.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

To what end? I mean, Dean takes control of Michael and then, what? They all just stand around and look at each other while Lucifer continues to run amok?

They needed to first and foremost contain Lucifer somehow because, you take Lucifer off the board, Michael goes back to Heaven and continues to ignore humanity.  Taking only Michael off the board solves nothing; taking Lucifer off the board puts them back where they were before Lucifer was on the board. 

Michael has the power to kill Lucifer.  Or he could have fought and shoved him back in the cage.  All the more easier to do when Lucifer is weak.  Or the show could have gone with the original ending with both brothers saying yes and going into the pit together. 

It's not true there were no other options.

Only taking Lucifer off the board presents the same problem, because there was no guarantee Sam was going to be able to wrestle control.  So Sam saying yes, even with a plan was as much danger as Dean saying yes without one.  Becuase ultimately the odds are Lucifer running amok with no one to stop him and   If he can't Lucifer is in his true vessel and it makes it easier for him to destroy the world.

7 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Dean, ultimately saying no, and Sam saying yes, seems to me to be the fulfillment of what they had been building up to all along in terms of free will versus destiny.

 

7 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Dean, ultimately saying no, and Sam saying yes, seems to me to be the fulfillment of what they had been building up to all along in terms of free will versus destiny.

Sam's destiny was supposed to be him leading a demon army so he over came his destiny even by saying yes.  Dean saying no ultimately made no difference since there was someone else there to say yes.  It didn't change the story since it was Sam's plastic toy that was needed for Sam to take control. 

Edited by ILoveReading
  • Love 4
Link to comment
3 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I disagree that last season Sam was "suddenly" the planner, as over the course of 12 seasons, the 'researcher, planner' role has generally (not always) fallen to Sam.  

I also disagree that Sam is now the leader of Team Free Will.  And he is definitely not the leader of the American hunting community.  Remember, Wally?  (RIP Wally!)  American hunters don't really like one big boss telling them what to do.  :)   I think some people are reading a lot more into the 'Sam's going to take on more of a leadership role' than is actually going to play out.  

If I'm being totally honest, I thought both brothers roles were pretty rubbish last year.  

Sam with his about-facing on not only the BMoL, but his philosophy that not all monsters are evil and therefore don't all have to be exterminated.  His last minute explanation of joining the BMoL just being easier, because it's easier to follow than to lead, felt tacked on at the last second, as I saw nothing all season to indicate that's why he worked with them.  I thought it had something to do with Lucifer killing Vince Vicente, of whom Sam was a fan, and calling for assistance when Lucifer was possessing the president, then being impressed with their gadgets, and Mary telling him it was okay to work with them, and that if he did there was a chance he could have the life he's always wanted, not what he said in 12.22.  

I did think his tactics in getting Dean to join the BMoL were very Sam, but other than that, I can't really think of any of his story line that really stuck out to me from season 12, not even his speech, because the whole time I was thinking, 'But when did he have to learn to want to lead?  That was only brought up at the start of the episode, and this speech seems to be doubling down on that.  It makes no sense.'  In short, I think you're right.  I think that Sam's leadership role was tacked on at the end of the season and will be as forgotten next season as the BMoL.

Then you have Dean . . . Oh, Dean.  

Where was his POV this season?  (To be fair, where was Sam's?)

I thought they were going somewhere with Sam getting the kills, because he was thriving with the BMoL for various reasons, and Dean wasn't for other reasons - nope, although according to my theory combined with what Sam said in 12.22, that means Sam is a better follower than leader, and Dean is the reverse, and that only stands if I am searching under every rock to find a meaning to the back half of the season and is in direct contradiction to Sam accepting responsibility as a leader, not something I ever thought was a problem (Note, a leader, not the leader.  If Sam were really taking over all leadership, then Dean wouldn't have gone his own way to save Mary and would have instead gone with Sam on The Raid the way Sam wanted).  

I also thought that all of the betrayals around Dean were going to be addressed, because everyone in his inner circle betrayed him at some point, and he seemed to be falling into patterns he uses when trying to avoid something, like food and sex, and maybe it was these issues that were causing his hunting prowess to be affected, but nope.  Apparently, the food and sex are just Dean stereotypes played for laughs now.  He did get to address his issues with Mary, but it took 22 episodes to get there, however, I did think it was a memorable scene (as were some in Regarding Dean) and that it was very in keeping with Dean, but I think what didn't work for me in the Dean/Mary dynamic the rest of the season was a lack of any in depth character building when it came to Mary.  There was a lack of focus on both sides as well, for me at least.  Aside from that, I agree with every word @SueB said about Dean's speech to Mary.  It was about Dean, and he was connecting to her parent to parent over Sam, or that's the way I saw it when I watched it.

 

About how I see the spoilers for next season when it comes to Dean?

Spoiler

Dean would never give up on saving family, even when the odds are stacked against him.  This philosophy is a massive part of the bedrock of Dean as a character, and this on the heels of a season where there was no explanation for why Dean was less present during hunts, something I could have been okay with if it had been explained in a logical way (in the show), but it wasn't and does seem to be reducing the role some of us have come to expect from him for no apparent reason.  Dean's also the one that is supposed to be good with kids . . . even monster kids, but it would appear that's being forgotten too.  It seems like all they're leaving us with is a caricature of Dean.  When he isn't going to be depressed and drinking or lashing out in anger at Jack, apparently, he's going to be the butt of jokes, and there is so much more to Dean than this.  They say expectations are what let you down, so these are my expectations for season 13, and I hope what I'm given is better than this, but I'm not expecting it.

Edited by CluelessDrifter
  • Love 2
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Sam's destiny was supposed to be him leading a demon army so he over came his destiny even by saying yes.  Dean saying no ultimately made no difference since there was someone else there to say yes.  It didn't change the story since it was Sam's plastic toy that was needed for Sam to take control. 

No, it wasn't. Not really.  That may have been what Azazel believed, or it may not have.  But, his ultimate destiny was to be Lucifer's vessel.  Lucifer wouldn't have said "find me a special child" simply to lead a demon army.  And, Dean saying no DID make a difference.  He took control of his own destiny.  Maybe it didn't make a difference to the entire world, but it made a difference to Dean. And, it made a difference to sam, whether you see that or not.  And, when Sam saw his plastic toy, it wasn't a montage of plastic toy memories that went through his mind.  It was Dean.

  • Love 6
Link to comment
(edited)
9 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Michael has the power to kill Lucifer

But, if Dean was the one in control... . Plus, Micheal didn't just want to kill Lucifer, he wanted the big fight which would torch half the planet. 

9 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Or he could have fought and shoved him back in the cage.

They didn't know about the cage yet. By the time they did know about the cage, Micheal was already possessing Adam.

9 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Only taking Lucifer off the board presents the same problem, because there was no guarantee Sam was going to be able to wrestle control.    If he can't Lucifer is in his true vessel and it makes it easier for him to destroy the world.

Right, it was a Hail Mary--and quite frankly, I thought and still do think it was a stupid plan--but, it was the only plan they had at that point. Micheal possessing Dean was no longer an option, so they had to go with what they had left.

Edited by DittyDotDot
  • Love 5
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

To what end? I mean, Dean takes control of Michael and then, what? They all just stand around and look at each other while Lucifer continues to run amok?

They needed to, first and foremost, contain Lucifer somehow because, you take Lucifer off the board, Michael goes back to Heaven and continues to ignore humanity.  Taking only Michael off the board solves nothing; taking Lucifer off the board puts them back where they were before Lucifer was on the board. 

ETA: Actually, first and foremost they needed a plan. Dean didn't have a plan at all, he just figured it was inevitable, so why keep fighting against it. I'm quite certain if Dean had come up with an actual plan, the team would've supported him just like they did Sam in the end.

Agreed! Sam's plan was reliant on him gaining control for a few minutes at most, just long enough to jump into the cage. Sure Dean could have gained control for a short period of time, but what does he do with it besides stand around pointlessly? He can't try and kill Lucifer because that's exactly what Michael had planned to do anyway. Unless viewers really just want  Dean to get the credit for destroying half the world using Michael's power. They can't lock him in the cage because again they didn't know about the horseman's rings acting as a key. 

 

Castiel did something wrong when he beat on Dean! He took it way too far! However, Sam and Bobby were right to treat Dean the way they did. They treated him like he had given up because he had given up. Dean himself says it quite clearly himself

 

Quote

DEAN
Reality happened. Nuclear’s the only option we have left

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh to anyone reading, but I think it's absolutely ridiculous to blame the others for not going like "Of course Dean! You just go off and help Michael scorch half the planet. We are such silly, silly people for trying to stop it for so long". There was absolutely nothing to be gained by them allowing Dean to say yes at this point. At least with Sam they had a plan and a chance of success. It was a slim chance,  but even a 1/10 chance beats no chance at all.

Edited by Wayward Son
Cas beat on Dean not Sam
  • Love 6
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

They didn't know about the cage yet. By the time they did know about the cage, Micheal was already possessing Adam.

Michael knew about the cage, regardless of what vessel he was in.

13 minutes ago, Katy M said:

nd, when Sam saw his plastic toy, it wasn't a montage of plastic toy memories that went through his mind.  It was Dean.

But it wasn't Dean that allowed Sam to access those memories. It was the toy.   I dont' see why an avatar for Dean was needed if Dean was right there.   That will never make sense to me.

Because imagine if Dean treated that toy like Sam treated the amulet and he kept it in the glove compartment?

The toy ruined that ep for me becuse it showed how easily Dean can be replaced.

Why would Dean stand around pointlessly?  If he got control of Michael even for a few minutes, he could have killed Lucifer.  If Dean was in control, the world didn't have to burn, because Lucifer was too weak by this point.

Edited by ILoveReading
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Quote

And, Dean saying no DID make a difference.  He took control of his own destiny.  Maybe it didn't make a difference to the entire world, but it made a difference to Dean. 

Which, to be honest, I couldn`t care less about. I much rather he does something important than him feeling good about nothing. 

And in a general sense if his purpose on the show is "saving people, hunting things", then to me he was already not fulfilling it for a lot of episodes in Season 12. Because what he had were pointless filler scenes where he didn`t contribute anything worthwhile to the case at hand. I felt that for a good chunk of 12.B Sam played the role of Sam and Dean both. It was just awkward because they hadn`t bothered to kill Dean off first so Jensen randomely appeared in the episodes. 

To me that would be like if Mary had never died and still lived with the family but for some reason John and/or Dean played the role of father and mother both while Mary just stood around and looked awkwardly at a wall. That would make for a seriously weird show.  

Quote

It seems to me what they're picking and choosing to "balance" takes from Dean and give to Sam, but where is the vice versa that would actually make the "balance" definitive in that equation?

Sam's role is Saving People and Hunting Things, too-and now he's doing it in his old role AND in Dean's, too! So again, I'm failing to see where all their purported "balance" is in that.

And for the record I hate the double standard that the PTBs exhibit(IMO) when they give interviews about the two main characters-and even some of the cast(Samantha Smith, I'm looking at you)-Sam is the "Brains" and Dean is the "Brawn"? Since when? Sam was "mature" when he moved on and w/o even trying to look for Dean, but Jensen gets his eared pinched by Singer as if he is an unruly little boy at CC for Dean not believing that Mary is still alive?!

Yup, that shows me a lot. And Singer is usually one of the worst offenders. He also brought up the "brain and brawns" in terms of the brother. 

What more do they need to tell me they think Dean is the stupid brother? If the writers/actors (who parrot stuff from writers and showrunners and possibly directors) and showrunners say it pretty much outright, well, I can take a hint. 

That they didn`t think of the Michael connection for Dean, or the Alpha vamp or maybe that he could get a good cathartic hellhound kill? That they didn`t bother to make one comment when he had to go back to hell in Season 11? That such things wouldn`t even enter their brains is not surprising to me. 

Last Season I think the character had one writer in his corner, the unexperienced newbie Meredith Glynn. And even she appeared to have gotten a "dial it down with the Dean love" note. Yockey managed to sneak in a good treatment of the character in overall more balanced eps.

Everyone else was godawful.

I never for a second believed it would be revealed that Dean was struggling with the BMOL thing and that`s why he was suddenly such an incompetent damsel in distress. Or that the betrayals would go somewhere. Those things never had a point because they were a by-product of the storylines of the other characters. What happened to Dean was a by-product of those stories but it didn`t have rhyme or reason onto itself. 

Why wasn`t he allowed to comment one way or the other on the leadership discussion? Sam just brings it up out of the blue and...well...? What ARE Dean`s feelings on leadership? Is it hard, easy, what? Does he want it/not want it? Feel he has gotten it/not feel he has gotten it? This scene was all about Sam realizing his new problem was he wasn`t King of the Castle or something. He just simply expected Dean to be a foot soldier in his army. So clearly Sam also doesn`t think of Dean and leadership. 

Edited by Aeryn13
  • Love 3
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

And in a general sense if his purpose on the show is "saving people, hunting things", then to me he was already not fulfilling it for a lot of episodes in Season 12. Because what he had were pointless filler scenes where he didn`t contribute anything worthwhile to the case at hand. I felt that for a good chunk of 12.B Sam played the role of Sam and Dean both. It was just awkward because they hadn`t bothered to kill Dean off first so Jensen randomely appeared in the episode

As much as I don't like to say it, Dean was much more of a liability in 12B

  • Love 1
Link to comment
(edited)
14 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Castiel did something wrong when he beat on Dean! He took it way too far!

While I'm a big supporter of keeping your hands to yourself and using your words instead of your fists, I get why Castiel lost it on Dean. I don't advocate it, nor do I think it was right of Castiel to do it, but I totally understand why he would. I mean, Castiel rebelled and gave up everything because Dean showed him the plan was wrong...and now Dean was just going to go sign up to make the plan happen? Yeah, I'd be epically pissed off too, if I were Cass. 

12 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Michael knew about the cage, regardless of what vessel he was in.

But, how would've that been a plan TFW could've gotten behind? I mean, were they just supposed to let Dean be possessed and hope Micheal would figure it out for them?  I thought the point of having a plan was, well, having a plan?

13 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

But it wasn't Dean that allowed Sam to access those memories. It was the toy.   I dont' see why an avatar for Dean was needed if Dean was right there.   That will never make sense to me.

For me, the toy wasn't an avatar for Dean, but it was a distraction. Sam saw it and focused on it as a way to distract Lucifer long enough to take control of him.

Edited by DittyDotDot
  • Love 5
Link to comment
Quote

As much as I don't like to say it, Dean was much more of a liability in 12B

Unfortunately, you are right. He not only wasn`t any help, he was often in the way. 

Quote

but it was a distraction. Sam saw it and focused on it as a way to distract Lucifer long enough to take control of him.

As a distraction it should have only worked if the toy meant something to Lucifer. After all, why would Lucifer care if Sam looks as his old childhood toy or not? 

In that case, they should have put in a flashback of Michael and Lucifer playing with the green army man as little angels. Then at least I could understand the significance.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

 

IMO, one of the worst culprits at Sam vs Dean or putting down one brother to prop the other is the show itself.  It's not surprising that it carries over to fans.  The writers admitted to keeping score and letting Sam do stuff because Dean got too.

 

I think there is a difference between the kind of score-keeping some of us are talking about and maintaining a general sense of parity -- or sometimes recognizing, "Brother A usually does this/has done this in the past, so let's let Brother B do it this time." That's just halfway decent writing. Recalling at least one of the examples you are referring to, I think it is a legitimate writing consideration to answer the question of "who gets the Yellow-Eyed Demon?" with "Well, Dean killed Azazel, and given Sam's history, especially, he should get this one." It is possible that part of the reason Dean got the MOC was because the show didn't want to do another supernaturally-influenced Sam story, and decided it was Dean's turn. Again, that's hardly the same as the kind of parsing that I think sometimes goes on here.

 

2 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

I can name several times when the show propped Sam at Dean's expense and I suspect Sam fans can also name examples of the reverse. 

But that second part of your sentence is precisely the point.  If we can do it for either brother, that isn't a sign of inequality -- and I'm not so sure we can even call it "propping one at the other's expense." Sometimes, one brother will look bad and the other will look good. Sometimes, that will be in the service of the arc of the brother being made to look good. Which is OK, because  some arcs are more Sam-centric and some are more Dean-centric. When that requires the other brother to act out of character, as it sometimes does, that's lousy writing, but that happens for both brothers. 

The problem comes in when you think of yourself as a "Sam fan" or "Dean fan", which I suspect even most fans who acknowledge a preference for one or the other don't. If you are laser-focused on one of the brothers to the almost total expense of the other, you're going to notice every possible slight against him, and basically have no reason to watch when it is your character's turn to play second fiddle (or, when you perceive the role your character is playing as second-fiddle). 

2 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

Last season, Sam is suddenly the planner, decision maker, weapons expert, leader, and go between with all the guest stars (he's leading the questioning and doing all the bonding)

I'd rather Dean have an the action scene since his scene with Mary was all about Sam anyway.  It's like Deans' trauma doesn't exist and its only brought up to make a point at how Dean failed Sam.  Then they juxtapose that with Sam leading the charge on the men of letters headquarters, and showing that Sam succeeded despite Dean.  What good is a mea culpa when the narrative rewards Sam for it.  He's now the leader of Team Free Will and the hunting community despite being the only hunter snowed by them.

I agree that the new writers have been over-reliant on caricatured shorthand like "Sam is the brains," when one of the best aspects of early seasons was the way Kripke complicated those stereotypes. But Dean, as I indicated earlier, carried the emotional arc this season; his relationship with Mary was given much more attention and exploration than Sam's. That may not be the kind of arc you most like or value, which is fine, but it isn't evidence of a vast anti-Dean conspiracy, especially given that he got the closest to the main plot-arc and hero role at the end of S11 (whether or not you liked it, found it sufficient, thought it made up for Sam's heroism in Swan Song, etc). As for the final episode -- what you're describing is precisely the kind of subjective framing of the scene I was talking about. Not that that's a problem; all of our opinions are subjective.  However, I think It becomes more problematic when you try to use it as evidence that the writers don't respect Dean, that Sam gets all the attention, etc, because there are "Sam fans" who wish that Sam had gotten an emotional arc culminating in the saving Mary scene, and think Sam's nominal leadership of the raid was negated by his being wrong about the MoL. 

I also find some of the hyperbole tiresome. How does one scene in which Sam takes a leadership role mean he is now and forever the leader of Team Free Will? How does leading a raid that included no more than a handful of hunters, most of whom wound up dead, make him a leader of the hunting community? I also strongly disagree that the Dean/Mary scene was "all about Sam," but that topic was discussed to death and I don't feel like going into it again.

I'm also not going to quote or otherwise refer to spoilers for next season, which don't belong in this thread except under spoiler tags, except to note that the tidbits we've gotten about season 13 so far tell us very little about how all of this is going to play out on screen. I can say that I think if you go in expecting to be outraged on Dean's behalf, you'll probably find plenty to be upset about, especially if you have a tendency to get upset about any scene in which Sam gets a substantive emotional arc or heroic moment unless Dean got an obviously better one in the same episode. 

  • Love 9
Link to comment
Just now, DittyDotDot said:

While I'm a big supporter of keeping your hands to yourself and using your words instead of your fists, I get why Castiel lost it on Dean. I don't advocate it, nor do I think it was right of Castiel to do it, but I totally understand why he would. I mean, Castiel rebelled and gave up everything because Dean showed him the plan was wrong...and now Dean was just going to go sign up to make the plan happen? Yeah, I'd be epically pissed off too, if I were Cass. 

But, how would've that been a plan TFW could've gotten behind? I mean, were they just supposed to let Dean be possessed and hope Micheal would figure it out for them?  I thought the point of having a plan was, well, having a plan?

Killing Lucifer also would have been a plan.  I can't see Dean standing back and just letting Michael destroy part of the word.  What's to say Dean couldn't have worked his magic and talked Michael into working with them.  So it wouldn't be necessary for Dean to wrestle control.

Those Jensen vs Jensen scenes would have been spectacular to watch. 

In the end its a TV show, things aren't written in stone, so Dean saying yes to Michael doesn't  have to fit with the way Swan Song played out.  The writers could have adapted that ep to allow for Dean to say yes, or for both to say yes or for neither to say yes. 

Its why I feel like Sam was propped at Deans' expense because the show made Dean into a quitter and had everyone support Sam for wanting to do the same thing.\

While this may sound harsh, why would anyone have faith that Sam could over come Lucifer when he couldn't even over come ghost possession or Meg, who compared to Lucifer is stunt demon number 3.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
On 8/2/2017 at 4:15 PM, ILoveReading said:

Michael knew about the cage, regardless of what vessel he was in.

But it wasn't Dean that allowed Sam to access those memories. It was the toy.   I dont' see why an avatar for Dean was needed if Dean was right there.   That will never make sense to me.

Because imagine if Dean treated that toy like Sam treated the amulet and he kept it in the glove compartment?

The toy ruined that ep for me becuse it showed how easily Dean can be replaced.

The little green army man is the thing I dislike the most in this entire show.  Story lines, scenes, speeches, characters, what have you, nothing else comes even close to eliciting the hate I feel when I think of that stupid toy.  We hadn't even seen it before SS, and as you said, Dean was right there in front of him.  There was no need for the avatar.  Maybe Kripke was trying to be clever by not going the conventional route, but after 5 seasons of building the brother's relationship, having it all come down to a toy, a toy that reminds Sam of the brother about to die by his hands, it was very . . . disappointing doesn't even begin to cover it.

On 8/2/2017 at 4:27 PM, DittyDotDot said:

For me, the toy wasn't an avatar for Dean, but it was a distraction. Sam saw it and focused on it as a way to distract Lucifer long enough to take control of him.

The glint on the window was the distraction for me, and Sam seeing the toy is what made him remember the times with Dean, which made Sam want to take control.  I think Sam was locked down tight and unaware of what was really happening until that moment, much the way we saw Sam stuck inside his head after Gadreel took off with him and the way we saw Cas when Lucifer was possessing him.  I just think it should have been Dean himself, not the toy that did all that.

Edited by CluelessDrifter
  • Love 3
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

While this may sound harsh, why would anyone have faith that Sam could over come Lucifer when he couldn't even over come ghost possession or Meg, who compared to Lucifer is stunt demon number 3.

I completely agree that it didn't make any sense that Sam, or anybody else, could have taken control over the devil, or any other angel, or even expect to do it with a demon, although we've had two instances of it happening prior to that point.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
Just now, Katy M said:

I completely agree that it didn't make any sense that Sam, or anybody else, could have taken control over the devil, or any other angel, or even expect to do it with a demon, although we've had two instances of it happening prior to that point.

Yes, but it wasn't Sam.  Sam tried and failed twice.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, CluelessDrifter said:

The glint on the window was the distraction for me, and Sam seeing the toy is what made him remember the times with Dean, which made Sam want to take control.  I think Sam was locked down tight and unaware of what was really happening until that moment, much the way we saw Sam stuck inside his head after Gadreel took off with him and the way we saw Cas when Lucifer was possessing him.  I just think it should have been Dean himself, not the toy that did all that.

I think it was supposed to all be about the Impala.  The toy was in the Impala, and was supposed to be a part of it.  The problem for me is I don't care one iota about the Impala.  However, I understand that some fans do, and practically consider "Baby" to be a third brother.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
Quote

How does one scene in which Sam takes a leadership role mean he is now and forever the leader of Team Free Will? How does leading a raid that included no more than a handful of hunters, most of whom wound up dead, make him a leader of the hunting community?

Because those were the first scenes in the show where either one was explicitely brought up as a plot point. And Dean`s side of it was completely ignored. If they had acknowledged Dean having leadership skills. Or being a prominent figure in the hunting community. Instead Dabb outright lied with his "the brothers (plural) will become Generals". 

Compare that to the hunting funeral episode where they made it clear crazy stories where going around about both brothers, not just one.

Now the one time the show takes on leadership and the leadership of American hunters, Dean ceases to exist for all intents and purposes.

It reminded me of Dean being the resident poker player in early Seasons and then, when poker becomes the lynchpin of an episodic plot, Sam is the one who wins the day. So no matter how many little side scenes there has been of Dean doing it, Sam is the one who gets the focus the one time it truly matters. 

Also, I see it as a template with the leadership. And obviously, so does Jared.  They used  the one-time focus to be on Sam. That sets the example for how they think and for how things are likely going in the future. It doesn`t matter what Dean did in the past, he got ignored the one time it mattered in that area.  

  • Love 3
Link to comment
(edited)
17 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

As a distraction it should have only worked if the toy meant something to Lucifer. After all, why would Lucifer care if Sam looks as his old childhood toy or not?

It doesn't have to mean something to Lucifer for Lucifer to wonder why Sam is suddenly so fascinated by this thing over there. It's like two people walking down the street together and one suddenly stops talking and looks at the sky. The other generally stops and follows the their companion's line of sight to see what was so interesting and forgets the conversation they were having at the time.

That's what I think the toy did for Sam. It wasn't a representation of Dean, IMO, but something Sam could focus on to get Lucifer to stop focusing on trying to keep Sam locked away, if even only for a moment. Dean gave him the leg up when he egged the Devil on and got him angry. Sam then focused all his energy on this one thing in order to distract Lucifer even further. IMO, Sam took control by using the old magician's tricks of misdirection and distraction and feeding into the Devil's own hubris.

Edited by DittyDotDot
  • Love 4
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Killing Lucifer also would have been a plan.  I can't see Dean standing back and just letting Michael destroy part of the word.  What's to say Dean couldn't have worked his magic and talked Michael into working with them.  So it wouldn't be necessary for Dean to wrestle control.

Maybe he could have and would have, but that wasn't what Dean seemed to be intending. It was very clearly framed as Dean giving up and deciding that giving half the world a chance was better than risking the whole world being destroyed. 

In addition, it sounds like you're not arguing for parity, but for Dean to replace Sam. What exactly would have been Sam's role in this spectacular "Jensen vs. Jensen" battle? The guy who started the apocalypse and watched his big brother correct his mistake? 

15 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

As a distraction it should have only worked if the toy meant something to Lucifer. After all, why would Lucifer care if Sam looks as his old childhood toy or not? 

In that case, they should have put in a flashback of Michael and Lucifer playing with the green army man as little angels. Then at least I could understand the significance.

No.  Seeing the army man prompted something in Sam. It wasn't Lucifer reacting to the toy, it was Sam. Seeing the army man which symbolized his relationship with Dean -- at the very moment at Dean had come to be there with Sam at the end, and was allowing himself get beat to hell by Lucifer -- is what let Sam take control. As I've indicated before, trying to contort that episode so that Sam's ability to overcome Lucifer wasn't a result of both Dean's immediate presence and the brothers' shared history as evoked by the army man (complete with flashbacks to their childhood) suggests to me a determination to be indignant on Dean's behalf. 

  • Love 5
Link to comment
(edited)
22 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Its why I feel like Sam was propped at Deans' expense because the show made Dean into a quitter and had everyone support Sam for wanting to do the same thing.

Are you sure it's not you that made Dean into a quitter? I certainly don't think Dean was a quitter and I don't think that's what the show told me either. 

Edited by DittyDotDot
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Quote

As I've indicated before, trying to contort that episode so that Sam's ability to overcome Lucifer wasn't a result of both Dean's immediate presence and the brothers' shared history as evoked by the army man (complete with flashbacks to their childhood) suggests to me a determination to be indignant on Dean's behalf. 

To be honest, I don`t really care what it was, the toy, the car, Dean or if Sam thought of England. It`s all just "wind beneath my wings" things. Sam still had to uber-power an archangel all by himself, no matter what gave him the motivation to do it.

I`ll always be indignant on Dean`s behalf because of that. Being the "motivation" is passive and gives no real importance to that character. The active act goes to the one who does what they do in the here and now. That is fine if you give that motivation role to a long-dead character because you expect them to be passive and who cares if they mean nothing?

If Dean had been dead at that point in the show, it would have been a better fucking role for him. 5.22 could still have played out roughly the same, the writing didn`t need to change that much and for Dean it would have been a little post-hum nod. 

Quote

and I don't think that's what the show told me either. 

The show said he had "given up" and wasn`t doing it for any kind of "trying to save at least some people" plan. Giving up and quitting are pretty much synonymous. And "giver upper" isn`t a term one uses so IMO "quitter" is accurate. 

Edited by Aeryn13
  • Love 3
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Are you sure it's not you that made Dean into a quitter. I certainly don't think Dean was a quitter and I don't think that's what the show told me either. 

No, it was the show.  They said Dean wanting to say yes was a result of him wanting to give up.  I didn't interpret that it was part of the show.  That is the reason the show gave for Dean wanting to say yes.

11 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

As I've indicated before, trying to contort that episode so that Sam's ability to overcome Lucifer wasn't a result of both Dean's immediate presence and the brothers' shared history as evoked by the army man (complete with flashbacks to their childhood) suggests to me a determination to be indignant on Dean's behalf. 

We'll have to agree to disagree here because again why was the toy even needed?  Why wasn't Dean showing up, allowing himself to be beaten to a pulp, and promising to never leave Sam enough of a distraction?  Couldn't that have reminded Sam off all the times Dean was there for him?  It's not like John needed the moon light to bounce of his wedding ring and have flashbacks to Dean being before before he wrestled control.  Dean's pleading and begging was enough.  It's not like Bobby needed some kind light to show him a picture of his wife and make him realize that even if he didn't want kids he did a pretty good job with John's.   Dean pleading was enough. 

Why is it that the brothers who are supposed to have the strongest bond needed some kind of prop.  One we've also never heard of or saw before.  If the amulet had fallen out of Sam's pocket, I wouldn't have liked it but at least its something that had history.  The toy was pulled out of thin air.

I understand what Kripke was going for, but I think the toy solider muddied the waters and put more focus on it rather then Dean's himself (and I'm talking physical presence.).

Plus, the narrative itself called the car the most important object in the universe.  Not, the brothers bond. 

Plus, the show itself has never once acknowledged Dean played a part.  Even in Sam's mind, Dean's just a half wit who didn't do Jack, and it was Sam and Sam alone who saved the world.

Edited by ILoveReading
  • Love 1
Link to comment

Keeping score --- works both ways. What about the times when Dean got to do something and not Sam because of this? Propping up --also happened both ways.Agreed? Perhaps someone can name all those times Dean was propped up at the expense of Sam? 

  • Love 5
Link to comment
1 minute ago, ILoveReading said:

No, it was the show.  They said Dean wanting to say yes was a result of him wanting to give up.  I didn't interpret that it was part of the show.  That is the reason the show gave for Dean wanting to say yes.

Except that wasn't the reason they gave for why Dean wanted to say yes, IMO. That was what a couple characters THOUGHT was Dean's reason for saying yes. Doesn't mean they were right, though.

IMO, Dean wasn't giving up as much as changing tactics--Dean decided to start playing the game using the other team's playbook, all by himself, because he was tired of having no play at all. The problem wasn't that Dean wanted to say yes, but that the other team's play sucked ass and wasn't really any different than having no play at all. And, it being a team sport and all, you really do need the team in on the play if you want it to be successful.

The only reason the play worked for Sam was because they reworked the play a bit--it still sucked ass though, just ever so slightly less than it did before--and taught the play to the whole team.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, companionenvy said:

No.  Seeing the army man prompted something in Sam. It wasn't Lucifer reacting to the toy, it was Sam. Seeing the army man which symbolized his relationship with Dean -- at the very moment at Dean had come to be there with Sam at the end, and was allowing himself get beat to hell by Lucifer -- is what let Sam take control. As I've indicated before, trying to contort that episode so that Sam's ability to overcome Lucifer wasn't a result of both Dean's immediate presence and the brothers' shared history as evoked by the army man (complete with flashbacks to their childhood) suggests to me a determination to be indignant on Dean's behalf. 

Or it just didn't work for some people and did others.  I don't think that you can make any kinds of assumptions about people based on whether or not this worked for them.  I'm indignant about poor story telling more than anything.  As I said, the build up of the brothers' bond over 5 seasons felt trumped by a toy.  I agree with @Katy M's point that it was most likely about the Impala, because there's the voiceover by Chuck about the Impala's importance in the universe, the glint on the window that brings Lucifer's eyes in that direction, and the toy was in the Impala, but I like the Impala, so I'm not going to focus on that and really, the Impala was reduced to transporting the toy around.  ; )  Instead, I am going to focus my malcontent on a never before seen toy (one that hasn't been seen since), because that is what is responsible for the exact moment when Sam was able to focus on his life with Dean and all the rest.  That moment was the most important moment on the show (Or it was until Lucifer came back), and it was given to a toy, not Dean or their bond, because the memories of Dean and their bond came after that moment, but the moment itself that triggered all of that was seeing the toy, and IMO, it should have been Dean's moment - right after he told Sam it was okay and that he wasn't going to leave him.   Yes, it's the more obvious way to go, but it's what I would've rather seen.

 

ETA:  And really how did the toy get there anyway?  Dean rebuilt the Impala from scratch in season 2, so did he managed to save the ashtray with the green army man and put them back in while he was rebuilding her?  

Edited by CluelessDrifter
  • Love 3
Link to comment
47 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

The only reason the play worked for Sam was because they reworked the play a bit--it still sucked ass though, just ever so slightly less than it did before--and taught the play to the whole team.

As they could have done with Dean taking on Michael; or with both of them taking on their respective archangels, but that would have meant that Sam wouldn't have been written as the sole savior of the world and Jesus character-which is obviously what Kripke and co. wanted more than anything else in the resolution to that five year arc to me.

Series-long, Dean has often and usually appeared to me to actually be written as more of an afterthought in a Sam storyline; even the DemonDean and MOC storylines, IMO. JA's acting has always in the past been able to make the character and the writing for the character far more interesting than what the writers actually put down on the page for him, though. Except in S8B and 12B, of course, either of which I don't think even Laurence Olivier could have saved for the character.

Edited by Myrelle
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Quote

Plus, the show itself has never once acknowledged Dean played a part.  Even in Sam's mind, Dean's just a half wit who didn't do Jack, and it was Sam and Sam alone who saved the world.

Followed by Death going "all the other people in the universe might be insignificant amoeba but I`m deeply honored by you, Sam Winchester". He never even said he`d be honored by reaping God, just Sam. 

Or Ruby going "it`s about you, it`s all about you."

Or the fangirl in the musical episode "brave, sweet, selfless Sam, there is nothing he can`t do". 

If there was a fifth wall, this stuff would break it meta-wise, the fourth is in shambles already. Because this is IMO as if you beamed the thoughts right out of the writers` heads. And my eyes roll heavenwards.

It would be different if the writers in general just used such over the top twelve year old fangirl writing for both or even all main characters. But has a side character acting like a writer`s mouthpiece ever said something like that about Dean? 

Quote

 but that would have meant that Sam wouldn't have been written as the sole savior of the world and Jesus character-which is obviously what Kripke and co. wanted more than anything else in the resolution to that five year arc to me.

I still believe Kripke worked out some personal issues there. 

Then Gamble followed in his footsteps. Carver was a weird case, he started just like them, was even worse for a time and then was the first one ever to give Dean a real supernatural arc with something akin to powers.

And now we have Dabb who is the worst. 

At this point making sure Sam is seen as the important and skilled-in-everything-one reminds me of that old movie Airplane where Leslie Nielsen periodically comes into the Cockpit to tell the main character they all believe in him. Even after he managed to stick the landing. 

Edited by Aeryn13
  • Love 3
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Or the fangirl in the musical episode "brave, sweet, selfless Sam, there is nothing he can`t do". 

A single man tear slips down his face

He shows emotion without a trace

He hides behind a mask so strong

Worried that he could be wrong

I wish that he could see the way I see him

The perfect brother, a man without sin

Cause underneath the manly sheen

It is my brother, a boy named Dean

5 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Followed by Death going "all the other people in the universe might be insignificant amoeba but I`m deeply honored by you, Sam Winchester".

Except that I don't think that was actually Death.  Why would Death come to personally reap Sam?  Sam was having a dream.  We know for a fact it wasn't really Dean in his dream, and as close to fact as you can get that it wasn't really Bobby, so why would we think it was actually Death.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
Quote

We know for a fact it wasn't really Dean in his dream, and as close to fact as you can get that it wasn't really Bobby, so why would we think it was actually Death.

Because they couldn`t leave well enough alone and had Death reference it later with the "you stood me up last time, Sam" remark in Season 10. Thereby erasing any doubt that it was Death himself.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Because they couldn`t leave well enough alone and had Death reference it later with the "you stood me up last time, Sam" remark in Season 10. Thereby erasing any doubt that it was Death himself.

IMO, all Death was saying later was that Sam was supposed to die and didn't. That doesn't mean that was actually Death Sam saw in his comascape, though.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Because they couldn`t leave well enough alone and had Death reference it later with the "you stood me up last time, Sam" remark in Season 10. Thereby erasing any doubt that it was Death himself.

They didn't erase my doubt because I agree with @DittyDotDot.  Sam was trying to convince himself it was OK for him to just let go and die.  What better way to do that than to have Death come and tell you personally.  But, we've never seen Death personally reap anyone.  Besides the first time, the only time we've seen him interact with the Winchesters is when they've summoned him. which he made clear he doesn't appreciate.  So, no, I don't see Death making a personal visit to Sam to reap him, much less praise him. Especially when he was doing the complete opposite of praising, IMO, the next time he saw him.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

IMO, all Death was saying later was that Sam was supposed to die and didn't. That doesn't mean that was actually Death Sam saw in his comascape, though.

See, I think it was said to clear up any misunderstandings, like there were people, including Julian Richings, who didn't think it was really Death talking to Sam (I think he said that Death not eating was what made him think that?), but that would mean that it was Sam's ego telling him the things Death said to him in S9E01, and the show wanted to correct that by confirming that no, it was actually Death.  

Edited by CluelessDrifter
  • Love 1
Link to comment

If Death was just a figment of Sam's imagination then its why I have a hard time believing Sam really believes he's "the least of them," and why his humbleness rings false.

It wasn't just death showing up to reap Sam, he was full on fan boying him. 

1 hour ago, Katy M said:

A single man tear slips down his face

He shows emotion without a trace

He hides behind a mask so strong

Worried that he could be wrong

I wish that he could see the way I see him

The perfect brother, a man without sin

Cause underneath the manly sheen

It is my brother, a boy named Dean

There is a 2nd verse to that that. 

A single man tear, that’s all I’ll spare

I bury feelings, don’t show I care

Even though I am haunted, must be the man daddy wanted

Wish I could be as strong as Sam

Blaze my own trail, be my own man

But underneath this broken mask

It is my father, with all his wrath

A single man tear, a single man tear, a single man tear, that’s all we fear

 

Even here they had to make sure they emphasized Sam. 

Edited by ILoveReading
  • Love 2
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

If Death was just a figment of Sam's imagination then its why I have a hard time believing Sam really believes he's "the least of them," and why his humbleness rings false.

It wasn't just death showing up to reap Sam, he was full on fan boying him. 

There is a 2nd verse to that that. 

A single man tear, that’s all I’ll spare

I bury feelings, don’t show I care

Even though I am haunted, must be the man daddy wanted

Wish I could be as strong as Sam

Blaze my own trail, be my own man

But underneath this broken mask

It is my father, with all his wrath

A single man tear, a single man tear, a single man tear, that’s all we fear

 

Even here they had to make sure they emphasized Sam. 

I know there's a second verse, but the charge was that Dean was never appreciated it or whatever.  And, I don't see this as being more emphasized than Dean.  Dean is called "perfect" and a "man without sin."  You can't get better than that.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I know there's a second verse, but the charge was that Dean was never appreciated it or whatever.  And, I don't see this as being more emphasized than Dean.  Dean is called "perfect" and a "man without sin."  You can't get better than that.

The ep is called Fan Fiction for a reason.   That's a fan fic version of how Sam sees Dean.  In the show verse, ep 9,01 doesn't paint a very flattering picture of how Sam views his brother.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...