S12.E16: Ladies Drink Free

[catrox14]

5 minutes ago, rue721 said:

Naw but Rowena was just being Rowena. Can't expect better from her. That's Crowley's own fault for being lulled by her. It's a situation of, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice..."

It was the Winchesters who "exploited" Gavin's noble nature and encouraged him to sacrifice his life. They're "the good guys," so Crowley had reason to trust them to try and save his son. (ETA:  this is what I think Crowley's POV is, not my personal POV. Well, kinda sorta my personal POV, too :P).

So I think Crowley would see their "betrayal" as more serious or meaningful. Rowena's betrayal is just ~family stuff.~ Their betrayal is an actual betrayal-capital-B. Something he wouldn't have expected from them.

If I were Crowley, I would pull a Rowena and play the long game, by getting myself into a position of trust with the Winchesters, making myself essential to them -- just so that I could leave them high and dry at the worst possible moment. That's what I THINK he's doing? But he could also lose his nerve and never actually pull the trigger on betraying them, I dunno. I do think he loves them in his horrible, demon-y way.

Taking my reply to the all seasons thread.

[ahrtee]

37 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Crowley was the one that didn't fulfill his promise to send Gavin back to his own time in the first place.  If Crowley had put Gavin back, he would have been on the boat with ghost!GF. She isn't raped and doesn't become a vengeful spirit, they both die on the boat when it sinks. Rowena figured out how to actually make it happen and she's the one who  interfered when Crowley was going to zap Gavin away.  Crowley will take the pound of flesh from Rowena not the boys.

If the writers really wanted to confuse things (or maybe settle them?) ... Henry W. used a blood spell to bring him to his grandchildren.  Rowena is a powerful witch and I'm guessing either knows the spell or can figure it out from MoL stuff.  And she's Gavin's blood (as opposed to Crowley, who's in a different meatsuit.) 

They also know the date, location (and probably time) the ship went down. So... Rowena can pull Gavin from the ship right before it sinks.  I don't think she can pull the girlfriend, though--but Gavin being there with her up to the end will save her from turning vengeful, so that won't get undone.  

Of course, that still leaves an extra person in the 21st century, but that didn't seem to bother anyone before.  

Maybe that should be the next spinoff--Gavin MacLeod in the 21st century.  Crowley and Rowena can be semi-regulars.  I might actually watch that.

[Wayward Son]

18 hours ago, catrox14 said:

--There is no logical reason within the episode to have Dean namedrop Garth without later telling Claire she could go live with him and learn to deal with being a werewolf. That's a pretty important reference, IMO. If it was written and filmed, why delete it? Assuming it was never written into the episode, then IMO the only reason, is to set up a Garth reveal later. I'm saying it's 'Chekhov's Garth' and will show up again two episodes from now. Or it's a newbie writer, being a noob.
 

I actually found the mention of Garth a strange one! Unless there is a plot twist later, that made it necessary, I can't understand why they made Dean the one to mention him by name. Throughout the episode Sam and Dean had taken firm positions in regards to the man of letters. Sam was pretty open to the idea and enamoured with their advanced technology, while Dean was still distrustful, surly and borderline hostile. 

However, from this scene you'd think the opposite was true. Sam was careful to use a vague "friend" while referring to Garth, while Dean was the one to actually mention his name. It was just odd IMO and I really can't understand why Glynn chose to write it that way. The scene would have made much more sense in the reverse i.e Dean's the vague one and Sam is the one who says too much. It would have had the benefit of sticking to their general demeanour while also conveying the same plot information i.e. Mick learns they've a werewolf friend called Garth. 

 

18 hours ago, mommo said:

Hey all, I just drifted over here after the IMDB boards closed, looking for obsessed fans like me.  I've been reading awhile, but only signed up today when I realized what I'm missing this season:  music.  Where is the classic rock that has helped make this show so special for 12 seasons?  I didn't care for the music in this episode at all, or the previous 3 episodes for that matter.  Is it just me, am I missing something? Besides Cas? :)

You miss Cas? I like you already! :p 

Seriously though; welcome to the forums Mommo :)

3 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

To me Sam was saying we're not just angry, we're more than angry. 

ETA: This had me thinking of Lassiter's quote about Juliet needing to get uppercase mad on an episode of Psych. ;)

 

3 hours ago, catrox14 said:

 

I do think it's curious that in a season wherein Sam has been playing the middle at best and outright deceiving/lying to Dean, that this line is one that is being interpreted by me as Sam basically being honest but others interpret it as Sam was so angry that he was icing Mick out now . Yet by the end he's giving them another chance.

I guess that really is the  norm with this show in that the writing and characters and viewer interpretation are often contradictory.

 

While I share @SueB And @DittyDotDot's interpretation of the scene I can understand where you are coming from too @catrox14. 

If our interpretation of things is correct Glynn may have been better altering Sam's words slightly so he said; "We are not just angry! We are done". The word 'just" may have helped emphasise that anger was felt, but it was too tame a word to describe the way they felt about his actions and the consequences of Micks actions. 

[Aeryn13]

Quote

If our interpretation of things is correct Glynn may have been better altering Sam's words slightly so he said; "We are not just angry! We are done". The word 'just" may have helped emphasise that anger was felt, but it was too tame a word to describe the way they felt about his actions and the consequences of Micks actions. 

I think it could have been altered in two ways, either "we are not angry, we are pissed" - which IMO is a writer`s shorthand for establishing a "higher" version than just angry. But that `doesn`t really fit the message of the scene.

The other way would be "we are past angry, we are done". Which says a) yes, there is anger but that isn`t even the point anymore and b) the point is their working relationship is dissolved. Which actually conveys the message better.

However, either line of dialogue is rendered pretty much useless if they obviously still show them to HAVE a working relationship, even if it is strained. And that long before they verbally expressed the idea of a second chance. Dudes, you already gave him one by continue working with him and even trusting him with Claire. So technically, if he screws up again NOW, it would be his third chance. Which you said he wouldn`t get. So haha.  

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, Wayward Son said:

However, from this scene you'd think the opposite was true. Sam was careful to use a vague "friend" while referring to Garth, while Dean was the one to actually mention his name. It was just odd IMO and I really can't understand why Glynn chose to write it that way. The scene would have made much more sense in the reverse i.e Dean's the vague one and Sam is the one who says too much. It would have had the benefit of sticking to their general demeanour while also conveying the same plot information i.e. Mick learns they've a werewolf friend called Garth. 

I won't be a bit surprised to find out that Mick has a bug planted on him or that he's taking back all the info the boys spew out.

I'm calling it now, and this is not a spoiler but just my spec, that  the BMoL find Garth, and send Ketch to kill him. And it will be on Dean's head for name-dropping him. Then Dean goes on a vengeance run. Or he falls into a deep depression and drinks ALL the things. 

Edited April 4, 2017 by catrox14

[companionenvy]

To me, interpreting Sam's "we're not angry, we're done" to mean anything other than "we're beyond angry" is a example of willful misreading. Sure, the writers could have said "We're beyond angry, we're done" -- but since they are assuming an audience who more or less likes both Sam and Dean and isn't looking for proof that Sam is being manipulative, callous, disrespectful of Dean's opinion, approving of genocide, etc., they thought that the line as written was abundantly clear. Which, again, I think it was. 

If you choose to assume the worst of Sam at all times, on the other hand, all bets are off. 

[Aeryn13]

Quote

but since they are assuming an audience who more or less likes both Sam and Dean and isn't looking for proof that Sam is being manipulative, callous, disrespectful of Dean's opinion, approving of genocide, etc., they thought that the line as written was abundantly clear. Which, again, I think it was. 

Honestly, those are not attributes I would describe Sam with for this episode. If I had to sum him up in one word for this one, it would be:  vanilla.

Meaning he didn`t ping my radar in either a good or a bad way. Some specific dialogue choices weren`t to my liking but there was nothing that made me go: "this is bullshit." And the line delivery also was nothing that drove me up walls.  So yes, vanilla, it is.    

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Vanilla lovers are impulsive.

Vanilla is one of the simplest of ice cream flavors, but its fans are actually likely to be colorful, impulsive, idealistic risk-takers who "rely more on intuition than logic," according to studies conducted by neurologist Dr. Alan Hirsch, founder of the Smell and Taste Treatment and Research Foundation. Vanilla lovers were also emotionally expressive and successful in close relationships. 

http://www.rd.com/food/fun/hidden-personality-traits-revealed-ice-cream/

Just sayin'.  :)

[ILoveReading]

My issue with that line isn't whether or not Sam is angry its the 2nd part where he says were done.  I thought the line was out of place because I knew it would be false.  Because its a tv show and the current story line is the brothers working with the BMoL.s.  No matter what happened this episode they weren't going to be done, so I felt it was empty words that ultimately were going to be proven false.  They were. Actions speak so much louder than words and they didn't' send Mick away after the line was spoken, they continued to work with him.  So "we're done" doesn't work for me when obviously they weren't and didn't seem to have an real intention of walking away.  

IMO, a better line would have been something along the line of "We're not just angry and you have five seconds to give us a reason why we shouldn't just leave you behind right now?"

[DittyDotDot]

28 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Vanilla lovers are impulsive.

Vanilla is one of the simplest of ice cream flavors, but its fans are actually likely to be colorful, impulsive, idealistic risk-takers who "rely more on intuition than logic," according to studies conducted by neurologist Dr. Alan Hirsch, founder of the Smell and Taste Treatment and Research Foundation. Vanilla lovers were also emotionally expressive and successful in close relationships. 

http://www.rd.com/food/fun/hidden-personality-traits-revealed-ice-cream/

Just sayin'.  :)

Thanks for that! I love vanilla... . ;)

[trxr4kids]

3 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Vanilla lovers are impulsive.

Vanilla is one of the simplest of ice cream flavors, but its fans are actually likely to be colorful, impulsive, idealistic risk-takers who "rely more on intuition than logic," according to studies conducted by neurologist Dr. Alan Hirsch, founder of the Smell and Taste Treatment and Research Foundation. Vanilla lovers were also emotionally expressive and successful in close relationships. 

http://www.rd.com/food/fun/hidden-personality-traits-revealed-ice-cream/

Just sayin'.  :)

Vanilla ice cream is my favorite, I prefer white cake and frosting and 90% of candles I purchase have a vanilla base. I sadly however meet none or almost none of those descriptors, maybe I'm a lemon or pumpkin person which tie for second with me and I've just been fooling myself. ; )

I thought the episode was fine although now that I think about it the cure did lack vanilla as far as we saw.

Edited April 5, 2017 by trxr4kids
had to add almost

[DittyDotDot]

13 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

I thought the episode was fine although now that I think about it the cure did lack vanilla as far as we saw.

Heh, maybe they should think of incorporating vanilla into the cure to make it palatable so it can be ingested instead of injected? ;)

13 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

Vanilla ice cream is my favorite, I prefer white cake and frosting and 90% of candles I purchase have a vanilla base. I sadly however meet none or almost none of those descriptors

Yeah, I do love vanilla--when it comes to ice cream though, I can't say I have a clear favorite--but I wouldn't say any of those descriptors fit me. However, I'd say most of them sound like Dean... . ;)

Edited April 5, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[mommo]

I agree with Rue about Sam being low-key this season.  Actually both the guys seem to be.  For me, I guess I prefer to think of them as being tired.  They've chased Amara, then Lucifer, and now his baby mama, all the while thinking 'oh no, this really IS bad this time', like as Crowley said "end of all things" bad.  Or maybe after all they've seen and done, they're more than a bit jaded.  Sam is ever hopeful of a different kind of life, and is willing to put up with Mick's shenanigans for a chance to see that happen.  Dean has evolved in so many ways, Jensen has done an amazing job keeping the spirit of Dean alive while allowing him to, I don't know, mellow a bit.  Forgiving Mary, agreeing to work with the Brits, telling Mick that he used to see all monsters as something to be killed but now he says things are not just black and white, those are huge for the Dean. He didn't hesitate to kill Sam's friend Amy (Season 7).

[MysteryGuest]

I think Sam was just responding to Mick's "I know you're angry", comment.  For Sam and Dean, the killing of the young girl went so far beyond just angry, it was the breaking point for them.  They absolutely were angry, but that was the least of Mick's problems.  But they also weren't going to cut off their noses to spite their faces when it came to the possible cure for Claire.  Mick was their only chance there, so of course they were going to still work with him to try and save her.  Once the cure worked, it was then that they decided to give him one more chance.  But they're on to the BMOL and their methods now, so hopefully, there won't be any more naive acceptance of their bullshit from either Sam or Dean.

[SueB]

@catrox14 said:

Quote

 

I do think it's curious that in a season wherein Sam has been playing the middle at best and outright deceiving/lying to Dean, that this line is one that is being interpreted by me as Sam basically being honest but others interpret it as Sam was so angry that he was icing Mick out now . Yet by the end he's giving them another chance.

I guess that really is the  norm with this show in that the writing and characters and viewer interpretation are often contradictory.

 

I'm not sure I'm following you.  If I get the logic, you are saying:
- Your interpretation is that Sam is not really mad in that scene. That the intention of the writer is for us to see him as sincerely not mad.  That Jared's facial expression and tone supported the idea that Sam is not mad.  
- I can't tell how you've interpreted the words "We're Done." because you tied that to other's people's POV.  BUT if Sam is okay with Mick and "not mad", then why did he say "We're Done"?  Are you saying Sam is sincere in the first statement and lying in the second?  Under what circumstance would Sam be not disturbed by Hannah's death and yet be honest about quitting? 
- Your "yet by the end" suggests that you are saying you were right because they are still working with them? Maybe? This is unclear.
- Your ability to have a different perspective for this scene is confirmation that the writing creates contradictory interpretation. 

In sum: Do you STILL believe Sam has no issue with the BMoL moral code of black and white monster killing and this is what the writers want us to think?

 

7 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

My issue with that line isn't whether or not Sam is angry its the 2nd part where he says were done.  I thought the line was out of place because I knew it would be false.  Because its a tv show and the current story line is the brothers working with the BMoL.s.  No matter what happened this episode they weren't going to be done, so I felt it was empty words that ultimately were going to be proven false.  They were. Actions speak so much louder than words and they didn't' send Mick away after the line was spoken, they continued to work with him.  So "we're done" doesn't work for me when obviously they weren't and didn't seem to have an real intention of walking away.  

IMO, a better line would have been something along the line of "We're not just angry and you have five seconds to give us a reason why we shouldn't just leave you behind right now?"

But Sam, the character, did not.  The important part, that apparently REALLY had to be demonstrated based on this forum, is that Mick HAD crossed a line.  By making it clear that Sam was "done" the speculation that Sam would let the BMoL get away with crap is proven false.  Sam acted completely in character in this episode.  

Prior to this episode Sam said he didn't like them but they were getting some good results and had lore they never had access to before.  He accepted, cautiously, that Lady Tony was a rogue.  He never saw the shady shit we saw.  And the FIRST time he did -- when Mick killed Hannah -- he said "We're Done."   

Bottom Line: There is no evidence that Sam has bought into the BMoL whack moral code**.  What the show has both told (in the words "We're Done."  plus "We" in the second chance scene) AND shown us (in the framing of the "we're done" scene and the second chance scene) is that:
1) Sam and Dean are on the same page on their hunting morality (defense of werewolves who were "good").
2) Both Sam and Dean do NOT agree with the BMoL moral code "We're done."
3) Sam and Dean have told Mick it's unacceptable but since Mick did the right thing by Claire, they'll give him one more chance to show he's seen the error of his ways and won't cross them again.  (no third chance)
 

**Unless you think that Sam's "We're not mad." was meant to be taken literally and he was lying about "we're done". 

Edited April 5, 2017 by SueB

[Myrelle]

14 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

However, either line of dialogue is rendered pretty much useless if they obviously still show them to HAVE a working relationship, even if it is strained. And that long before they verbally expressed the idea of a second chance. Dudes, you already gave him one by continue working with him and even trusting him with Claire. So technically, if he screws up again NOW, it would be his third chance. Which you said he wouldn`t get. So haha.

One of the things that drove me bonkers about this one is that they're still working with them. They have to now know that Ketch(and likely others) are out there still doing the types of things that Mick did in this one with no one around to scare or shame them into saving any newly turned werewolves or vampires. so I'd be happier if it would eventually be shown that Sam WAS actually lying concerning the "We're done." line and that the brothers had decided together to get to the bottom of things where it concerned the Brits-especially as their mother is neck deep into them and their ways of doing things. I know that this had been brought up before when it was just Sam who wanted to join with them, but now it would make more sense than ever since Dean, who thinks everyone is always lying, has decided to work with them, too. 

But(as was also pointed out earlier), this would require the writers to actually write something clever and something that would reflect well on the brothers' ability to see through certain apparent scenarios even when they've been given huge hints and anvils regarding what's not apparent and lying under the surface in those same scenarios. The only writer who's so far shown that she can do this in any way, is the writer of this episode, when she utilized the double interrogation scene. So hopefully, we'll get more of Dean being less than trusting of the Brits(and much less so now) and Sam, too, for that matter, IF they are indeed on the same page(and to the same degree) regarding trusting the Brits, as this episode's writer seemingly wanted us to believe that they are because at this point, the absolute only reason that I can see them as wanting to work for these asshats-because that's what they're doing by taking cases from them, IMO-working for them, not with them-is because they know that something is very rotten about these guys and they've come over and onto the American hunters' turf looking to take it over and Mommy Dearest is apparently one of their biggest supporters in that and something has to be done about them.

[ILoveReading]

6 hours ago, SueB said:

Bottom Line: There is no evidence that Sam has bought into the BMoL whack moral code**.  What the show has both told (in the words "We're Done."  plus "We" in the second chance scene) AND shown us (in the framing of the "we're done" scene and the second chance scene) is that:
1) Sam and Dean are on the same page on their hunting morality (defense of werewolves who were "good").
2) Both Sam and Dean do NOT agree with the BMoL moral code "We're done."
3) Sam and Dean have told Mick it's unacceptable but since Mick did the right thing by Claire, they'll give him one more chance to show he's seen the error of his ways and won't cross them again.  (no third chance)

I'd have to disagree on the first part because there is a lot of evidence that the Brits had a sketchy moral code even before the events of this episode.   In The Raid, Mick tells Sam they're planning on eliminating every last vampire in America.  Mary tells Sam that they're planning a world without monsters.  Sam doesn't object to this and at the end agrees to sign up.  He shouldn't need a case to remind him there are good monsters out there since he's usually the one championing them.    He sees a hunter being lead off in chains to be tortured and his response is "good."  At this point Sam knows its not just rogue Lady Toni who torturing humans.  Its something the organization seems to condone.  That should be a read flag.

Also Mick says they're having trouble recruiting top notch American Hunters- why?  If no other hunter wants anything to do with them, its another anvil. 

It's like when Mary called Sam to the compound.  She tells him she's not trying to recruit him.  Mary might even believe that, but her action and words suggest otherwise.  She continues to defend the British Men of Letters, points out their toys and gadget and takes him on a tour.  In that case actions don't match words and it seems very much like she is trying to recruit Sam.  

As for being on the same page with morality, they're still showing contradictory view points.  After The Raid Sam was impressed by what he saw (for whatever reason), and agreed to sign up.  He even tells them their changing the world.  Mary even tells him they're goal is a world without monsters.  Sam knows that they aren't just going to stop at vampires.  That eventually they're going to move on to types of monsters.   He's not naive.

When Sam signed up he lied to Dean about it and took away Dean's choice about working for them for weeks.   He's already doing sketchy things to justify working with them.

Despite the words, the actions don't match.  Even after Sam says it, Mick is still part of the conversation.  Sam reads the books and starts questioning Mick about their experiments.  Those aren't the actions of someone who is done.  Mick may have earned a 2nd chance but he's one guy.  Sam or Dean can't be naive enough to think that he's going to go back  and suddenly work to his bosses and start to get them to change. 

So in the end, despite the words their position really didn't change.  Both Sam and Dean are still working for them.

ETA:

Or what @Myrelle said just so much more eloquently

Quote

I'd be happier if it would eventually be shown that Sam WAS actually lying concerning the "We're done." line and that the brothers had decided together to get to the bottom of things where it concerned the Brits-especially as their mother is neck deep into them and their ways of doing things. I know that this had been brought up before when it was just Sam who wanted to join with them, but now it would make more sense than ever since Dean, who thinks everyone is always lying, has decided to work with them, too. 

I agree with this.  It would have been better the show took this route.  I'm hoping Dean is still maintaining his skepticism, but if both brothers are still working for them, then at some point skepticism isn't enough.   Because actions speak louder then words and if he continues to work for them, then it shows both brothers being okay with their methods

Edited April 5, 2017 by ILoveReading

[Aeryn13]

Quote

But they also weren't going to cut off their noses to spite their faces when it came to the possible cure for Claire.  

And if they had gone to Mick with a pitch like "you can redeem yourself by helping our friend", it would have worked better. But in the discussion with Claire, Mick was there right from the beginning. And then Sam brought up the cure. 

So other than saying they were done with him. they never were at any point during the episode. Those were empty words. If I say I`m done with someone and then right away continue to interact with them like nothing happened, I was never "done".  I either bullshitted them or myself. 

By continue to include him on the case without any break at all, they were giving him a second chance already. That`s what this is. And they did it two seconds after supposedly being done. What? Did they plan on being actually "done" after the Claire situation got resolved? That would be ridiculous IMO. Like if someone said "I never want to see you again. Starting next month. But before that lets go on vacation together."

They used an empty threat, they gave him another chance right away and at the end said he would be only getting one more chance. Hahahaha. One more, yes? And if he screws that up, will you be actually done or just ignore it like this time? It`s also not Mick`s fault if the Winchesters can`t count. He already had a second chance and they extended their offer for number 3 at the end. Don`t know why because he did good on his second go.  

I get that the Winchesters were supposed to look like they would draw the line after what Mick pulled in the hospital but if they only say they will and never do, why bother? It`s like a little nonsensical rant in the middle of the episode that went nowhere. 

[companionenvy]

2 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

'd have to disagree on the first part because there is a lot of evidence that the Brits had a sketchy moral code even before the events of this episode.   In The Raid, Mick tells Sam they're planning on eliminating every last vampire in America.  Mary tells Sam that they're planning a world without monsters. 

What a "world without monsters" means depends on your definition of monster. I don't think the boys would ever have referred to someone like Magda as a "monster" simply because she had a supernatural ability. In addition, since the great majority of monsters are probably out there killing humans, I think it is OK to say "world without monsters" without putting in an asterisk for "except for the ones who aren't hurting anyone. We're OK with them."

If someone said, during World War II, "We're going to kill every Nazi bastard out there," I wouldn't immediately assume that the person meant "Even the ones that are secretly working with the resistance. Plus every single enlisted man wearing a Nazi uniform. And no exceptions for pre-teens wearing Hitler Youth armbands." Someone might well acknowledge all of those exceptions and still say "We're going to kill every Nazi bastard out there," because it sounds a lot better than saying "We're going to kill every Nazi, but I'm really only talking about party bigwigs, and obviously if someone's a double-agent they don't count, and I recognize that some people joined under duress, but seriously, we are going to get most of them!"

3 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

If no other hunter wants anything to do with them, its another anvil. 

 Based on what we've seen of hunters, if no other hunter wants to work with them, it isn't because they all feel really bad for innocent supernatural creatures who might get hurt. Plenty of the hunters Sam and Dean have encountered would likely agree that all vamps should be killed - as Sam and Dean probably would have before encountering Lenore. I suspect there are plenty of hunters out there who would have killed the werewolf girl in this episode, too, even if they had felt really bad about it. I mean, even Bobby once demanded that a mother keep a shifter baby locked up for life as a condition for not killing her. And there's really no reason a shifter has to be evil. 

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

By continue to include him on the case without any break at all, they were giving him a second chance already. That`s what this is. And they did it two seconds after supposedly being done. What? Did they plan on being actually "done" after the Claire situation got resolved? That would be ridiculous IMO. 

I wouldn't say they included him as much as Mick didn't take the hint and leave when they said they were done. Basically, they didn't have time to deal with Mick's melodrama right then, so they just kept doing their thing with Mick still in the room. Mick used it to his advantage to worm his way back in, IMO. 

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I wouldn't say they included him as much as Mick didn't take the hint and leave when they said they were done. Basically, they didn't have time to deal with Mick's melodrama right then, so they just kept doing their thing with Mick still in the room. Mick used it to his advantage to worm his way back in, IMO. 

But if that`s how they enforce being done with someone, I wouldn`t take them seriously either. Which is my problem. With the way things went, all this "this is your last chance" at the end seems like posturing. I wouldn`t respect it and, as such, not feel particularly compelled to keep to any lines in the sand they may draw. What`s the consequence gonna be next time? A slap on the wrist before yet another "final" chance is given? .

Quote

What a "world without monsters" means depends on your definition of monster. I don't think the boys would ever have referred to someone like Magda as a "monster" simply because she had a supernatural ability. 

They don`t. But I also don`t think they are actually stupid enough not to realize that the BMOL do. Those guys were pretty in-your-face about it. When they say "world without monsters" and the entire backstory about their supposed effectiveness back in England, it was more than clear what they meant. Blind aliens could see it. I do believe the Winchesters can too.  

Quote

Based on what we've seen of hunters, if no other hunter wants to work with them, it isn't because they all feel really bad for innocent supernatural creatures who might get hurt. 

I don`t think so either. Their objections was most likely not wanting to be lackeys of some shady organization they don`t know and they don`t trust. Which, I can`t blame them for. The BMOL sales pitch itself about killing monsters might work but they really haven`t done much about coming across as uptight and snobby. The hunters aren`t so stupid as not to realize they are not asked to join in a partnership but put themselves under a British authority as underlings. Given the history between the two countries, that is a hilariously flawed attempt at recruitment.  Maybe they should have tried something a little more subtle and not so "please don`t throw our tea in the harbour this time". 

Edited April 5, 2017 by Aeryn13

[RulerofallIsurvey]

4 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

Mary tells Sam that they're planning a world without monsters.  Sam doesn't object to this and at the end agrees to sign up.  He shouldn't need a case to remind him there are good monsters out there since he's usually the one championing them.    He sees a hunter being lead off in chains to be tortured and his response is "good."  At this point Sam knows its not just rogue Lady Toni who torturing humans.  Its something the organization seems to condone.  That should be a read flag.

What @companionenvy said about a "world without monsters".  

Dean was also standing right there when they led away the rogue hunter in chains to be dealt with.  We may not have heard him say "good," but he could have been thinking it.  He sure didn't say or do anything to stop them, did he?  At that point, it's also Dean who knows it's not just Sketch's ex who is torturing humans, therefore the big red flag is as applicable to Dean as it is to Sam, and yet they BOTH agreed to give them a second chance (or third, however you want to count it.) at the end of this episode.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

sorry for the double post...

Edited April 5, 2017 by RulerofallIsurvey

[RulerofallIsurvey]

25 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

But I also don`t think they are actually stupid enough not to realize that the BMOL do. Those guys were pretty in-your-face about it.

It was more than clear to us because we were shown images of what their effectiveness in England entailed.  Sam and Dean don't have that information.  An as @SueB noted, they probably still don't (or didn't at the beginning of the episode) know that Sketch killed Magda.  If they accept the explanation that Sketch's ex was rogue, then they could very well have interpreted hunting monsters as limited to those that kill humans, because that's what they consider a monster.  It may be a little naive, but I prefer to think of it as they tend to see the best in people.  Besides, the only other MoL personnel with whom they'd had contact was Eileen (also a 'legacy' like them) and she wasn't a raging psycho all-monster murderer, so there's really no reason for them to think that, rogue lunatics aside, the BMoL would necessarily be different.  

[ILoveReading]

35 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

What a "world without monsters" means depends on your definition of monster. I don't think the boys would ever have referred to someone like Magda as a "monster" simply because she had a supernatural ability. In addition, since the great majority of monsters are probably out there killing humans, I think it is OK to say "world without monsters" without putting in an asterisk for "except for the ones who aren't hurting anyone. We're OK with them."

Its true there is no defining definition of what makes a monster on this show, but I think its pretty clear that the British Men of Letters define monster as the typical definition of vampire, werewolf, siren, etc. Sam isn't that naive.   Even if they don't  IMO, there was zero grey area with the Vampires.  It was Mick's exact statement.  We're going to eliminate every last one.   They  were eliminating by vampires, tracking nests, waiting them out and then rolling in an exterminating them all.   Sam seemed okay with that otherwise he would have brought up there being good vampires.  He didn't mention there was a cure for newly minted ones or talk about someone like Alex who was held as a blood slave and then turned against their will. 

To use your example, if there are two commanders planning a strike against a nazi bunker and one commander knows there are resistance fighters inside and says nothing and just lets the other one blow it up.

3 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Dean was also standing right there when they led away the rogue hunter in chains to be dealt with.  We may not have heard him say "good," but he could have been thinking it.  He sure didn't say or do anything to stop them, did he?  At that point, it's also Dean who knows it's not just Sketch's ex who is torturing humans, therefore the big red flag is as applicable to Dean as it is to Sam, and yet they BOTH agreed to give them a second chance (or third, however you want to count it.) at the end of this episode.

Which is also why I have said repeatedly that I don't agree with Dean working for them either and why I didn't see the end of episode 15 as character growth, and why I said  this...

 

4 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

'm hoping Dean is still maintaining his skepticism, but if both brothers are still working for them, then at some point skepticism isn't enough.   Because actions speak louder then words and if he continues to work for them, then it shows both brothers being okay with their methods

  Sam and Dean giving Mick a second chance is one thing but he's still an employee of the Brits but both are still working for the them.  They're overall policy hasn't changed which means there will  be multiple Hannah's out there.  Why bother making them get so upset about one when its going to keep happening.  Threatening to quit is an empty threat at this point.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

It may be a little naive, but I prefer to think of it as they tend to see the best in people.  Besides, the only other MoL personnel with whom they'd had contact was Eileen (also a 'legacy' like them) and she wasn't a raging psycho all-monster murderer, so there's really no reason for them to think that, rogue lunatics aside, the BMoL would necessarily be different.  

Did Eileen identify herself as BMOL? I don`t remember that. I don`t think she is really part of the organization.

And in terms of the Winchesters believing the BMOL to be better than they are, there are some TV characters where a certain sense of naivety can be endearing but not in the brothers. Not after everything they have seen and done. For them, I`d just consider it stupidity. Which would even be worse to me than what I think now, that they realize what is what but Sam is interested in the overall mission statement and Dean was feeling so nihilistic about it all, he said "eh, why bother". That doesn`t paint a flattering picture but still better than being that stupid.     

[Katy M]

9 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Did Eileen identify herself as BMOL? I don`t remember that. I don`t think she is really part of the organization.

She said her father was in the Men of Letters, and then I think she said they didn't exist any more.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 minute ago, Aeryn13 said:

Did Eileen identify herself as BMOL? I don`t remember that. I don`t think she is really part of the organization.

Not BMoL as far as I recall.  This was also before they knew the BMoL even still existed.  Her parents were part of the MoL - they found her grandfather's profile in the MoL books, if I recall.  Her parents were part of a group sent over to establish the MoL in GB.  (I think.)  I remember Sam telling her she was a 'legacy' like them.  (From the wiki: Eileen's maternal grandfather, Edward Durban II, was inducted into the Men of Letters on September 12, 1939, making Eileen a legacy.)  Also from the transcript:

Quote

DEAN

According to the Men of Letters' records, Edward Durbin II was inducted in 1939, part of a small delegation that was sent to Europe.

Okay, 'Europe', not GB specifically (But GB is part of Europe, so...)  Still, the was before the BMoL was even a thing on the show, and since her parents were in Ireland, I think it could be reasonably inferred that this small delegation was also sent to GB.  (However, it does not say for what purpose, so I guess that was my own headcannon that they were sent to establish the BMoL.)

And no, I don't think she is part of the BMoL organization, as she didn't seem to know they still existed either.  In fact, in "Into the Mystic" she said the organization was "now defunct."  My point was, until Lady $#@%^!, Eileen was the only other 'MoL' they'd met, as apparently, NO ONE in the US knew the BMOL even existed.  

And what @Katy M said so much more concisely and faster!  Lol.  

[RulerofallIsurvey]

19 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Threatening to quit is an empty threat at this point.

Not really.  I mean, sure they now know the BMoL's overall policy with a clarity they probably didn't have before.  But that's the point, isn't it?  They now know the BMoL's overall policy.  So I think it's a little premature to assume that things are just going to remain with the status quo and they're not going to do anything about the 'kill all monsters' policy, just because they said they'd give Mick and/or the BMoL a second chance.  I thought it was pretty clear that the 'second chance' included the caveat of 'you've got to change your kill all monsters policy'.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Not really.  I mean, sure they now know the BMoL's overall policy with a clarity they probably didn't have before.  But that's the point, isn't it?  They now know the BMoL's overall policy. 

I really do believe they knew before. Just for whatever reason put their fingers in their ears and went "lalala" about it. Maybe they needed this episode as a wake-up call but that just annoys me. Dean`s point for even giving them a chance was "we also work with people like Crowley". They do that knowing he is evil and what his overall interests are. I consider working with the BMOL the same. 

Quote

I thought it was pretty clear that the 'second chance' included the caveat of 'you've got to change your kill all monsters policy'.

I think the whatever chance was for Mick specifically. They can`t seriously be stupid enough to think the BMOL as an organization are gonna change things to fit the Winchesters liking. That goes beyond being a pipe dream. If they need a wake-up call episode for that also, I`m seriously concerned about the IQ droppage going on.  

[Katy M]

1 minute ago, Aeryn13 said:

They can`t seriously be stupid enough to think the BMOL as an organization are gonna change things to fit the Winchesters liking.

Of course they can.  Sam was offended that Metatron had never heard of them (or at least said as much) because they're "the freaking Winchesters."  Demons ask for their autographs (Dean's anyway, and that was probably more sarcastic than anything else, but I'm on a roll here), and random hunters they meet say "I've heard of you."  They are clearly hunting royalty and can therefore expect the BMOLs to bow down to their way of doing things.

[Aeryn13]

Well, expecting people to have heard of them is actually a pretty legitimate expectation for them. At least in the supernatural circles. That is different from the expectation of being catered to. They don`t expect that from their other evil allies either. Not without some give/take.   

[RulerofallIsurvey]

14 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Well, expecting people to have heard of them is actually a pretty legitimate expectation for them. At least in the supernatural circles. That is different from the expectation of being catered to. They don`t expect that from their other evil allies either. Not without some give/take.   

I don't understand how it would be an expectation of being catered to, when it's on AMERICAN soil that they want to operate.  You know...'when in Rome'...?  This isn't England.  So Sam and Dean have every right to have every expectation, IMO, that a foreign organization which wants to operate in the US will abide by rules as set forth by US hunters.  

[Aeryn13]

Quote

So Sam and Dean have every right to have every expectation, IMO, that a foreign organization which wants to operate in the US will abide by rules as set forth by US hunters.  

If they had never met the BMOL and never interacted with them maybe but they have and they did. Can they not read people and situations at all? I can have every expectation not to get murdered in my own home but if someone comes running inside, swinging an axe and screaming "I`ll kill you", it would be beyond stupid of me to have that expectation.

The BMOL have been equally unsubtle in their conduct. Apparently every other hunter who turned them down got that within five minutes of meeting them. Do the Winchesters really need to have it spelled out for them, to their face, that the BMOL as an organization thinks of hunters as trained monkeys who should obey and not question things. And that they apply this way of thinking to the American hunters?  

Edited April 5, 2017 by Aeryn13

[catrox14]

2 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

wouldn't say they included him as much as Mick didn't take the hint and leave when they said they were done. Basically, they didn't have time to deal with Mick's melodrama right then, so they just kept doing their thing with Mick still in the room. Mick used it to his advantage to worm his way back in, IMO. 

 

Sam's "We're DONE"  rang hollow for me because neither of them followed it up with GTFO, which IMO would be a VERY DEAN thing to do given he told Crowley to GTFO out or help just a few episode ago. 

I don't think they were just doing their thing and not giving any further thought to Mick given it was in Mick's lore that Sam read about the cure in the first place. If Mick had left and then called Sam to say "Hey I know a cure" then I would agree it was to his advantage. Now as much as I really don't trust Mick at all, upon rewatches, Mick seemed to be against using it. He told Sam it had only been tested on mice and one human who suffered greatly and died. I thought in that situation that Mick was actually not in favor of trying it, if nothing else than covering his own ass after killing Hayden.

I dunno. The pacing of that entire sequence was squirrelly and it makes me wonder if there are edits that would make the whole thing work better. But as it stands now, Sam lead the charge to use a cure that would save Claire or kill her.

Edited April 5, 2017 by catrox14

[RulerofallIsurvey]

41 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

If they had never met the BMOL and never interacted with them maybe

But they never had met them nor interacted with them until just very recently.  So...?  I'm also not sure that Sam and Dean got the official spiel which other hunters (including Mary) got.  Maybe there was a contract which they wanted other hunters to sign, but since Sam and Dean never got the spiel, that part never came up?  I don't know.  But I think there are or at least could be reasonable explanations for Sam and Dean to expect the BMoL to operate according to their terms on their turf.  As of yet..they haven't come into their house swinging an ax yelling, "I'll kill you!"

Spoiler

Apparently that's the next episode

[Aeryn13]

I think they had enough interactions with them, however brief, to raise warning flags. And both brothers used to think so unless Sam walked into a botched vampire hunt and inexplicably came to the conclusion he wanted to join. Then Dean threw up his hands and basically said "whatever, can`t be any worse than Crowley, right?"

But I think before they joined up they already were at the point where I think they should be now. So basically their up to episode 13-selves (up to episode 15 for Dean) would IMO not expect the BMOL to adhere to any code set forth by American hunters. Too bad their past-selves were smarter than their now-selves. Maybe that dumb-period was necessary to facilitate Mick`s redemption arc with a little culmination in this episode but I find it exasperating character-wise. 

[ILoveReading]

51 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

But they never had met them nor interacted with them until just very recently.  So...?  I'm also not sure that Sam and Dean got the official spiel which other hunters (including Mary) got.  Maybe there was a contract which they wanted other hunters to sign, but since Sam and Dean never got the spiel, that part never came up?  I don't know.  But I think there are or at least could be reasonable explanations for Sam and Dean to expect the BMoL to operate according to their terms on their turf.  As of yet..they haven't come into their house swinging an ax yelling, "I'll kill you!"

  Hide contents

Apparently that's the next episode

Sam did get the official spiel in The Raid.  He got even more with a tour of the their operations and got too see first hand how they operate, and heard them flat out state their goals to get rid of all monsters, starting with Vampires.    Sam and Dean never stated any terms to  Mick and Co.  Sam just told Mick he was in that he would work on Dean.  At that point all indications are that Sam agreed with what they were doing and how they were doing it  

It was Dean who added if things aren't good we bail condition.  No one in the BMoL's had any idea about about condition.  They still don't because at the end they told Mick they were giving him another chance.  From the Brits perspective the Winchesters are still following orders, where they go out on missions assigned to them by Mick's boss.    Unless Mick, brings up what happened in this case to his superiors they would have no reason to think that Sam and Dean were going to bail, and that everything wasn't as before. 

As for US hunters, they seem to have networks where they share info and meet up and exchange stories but there is no formal organization of US hunters.  They all seem to operate and hunt according to their own set of rules and moral codes.  If I recall correctly, Toni talked about how they came over because they felt the American Hunters were failing on the job and they needed to take over.  If they were willing to operate within Sam and Dean's rules there would have been no reason to kidnap and torture Sam.

[catrox14]

58 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

But they never had met them nor interacted with them until just very recently.  So...?  I'm also not sure that Sam and Dean got the official spiel which other hunters (including Mary) got.  Maybe there was a contract which they wanted other hunters to sign, but since Sam and Dean never got the spiel, that part never came up?  I don't know.  But I think there are or at least could be reasonable explanations for Sam and Dean to expect the BMoL to operate according to their terms on their turf.  As of yet..they haven't come into their house swinging an ax yelling, "I'll kill you!"

They should know that the below things are the tip of the iceberg for the sketchy methods of the BMoL. They typically always expect there is more to any story.  But here, they just aren't? Why?

--Dean was alarmed by Ketch beating the vampire for no reason, when they were there to hunt. The beating served no purpose really. 
--Dean knows that Lady FuckOffandDie tortured Sam and was ready to run a needle through his eye. And surely Sam remembers being mind-raped by her.  I don't care that they claim she was rogue. Dean knows better. HOnestly that is enough right then and there for Dean to just say NOPE and never ever agree.
--Ketch told them both he's not an idealogue and he doesn't care whether they live or die. So he wouldn't have their back in all situations IMO

Those three things should be enough to make Dean never join. 
 

[rue721]

6 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

I think the whatever chance was for Mick specifically.

Yes, I think the second chance is for Mick, not the BMOL in general. I don't really know what their stance is on the BMOL in general, but I assume they'll say something next time they get assigned a case? I dunno.

5 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

As of yet..they haven't come into their house swinging an ax yelling, "I'll kill you!"

Toni basically did. That was her general MO. It was only when it didn't work that the BMOL chose different recruitment tactics.

4 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

I think they had enough interactions with them, however brief, to raise warning flags. And both brothers used to think so unless Sam walked into a botched vampire hunt and inexplicably came to the conclusion he wanted to join. Then Dean threw up his hands and basically said "whatever, can`t be any worse than Crowley, right?"

LOL that description is hilarious.

3 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

If I recall correctly, Toni talked about how they came over because they felt the American Hunters were failing on the job and they needed to take over.

Oh yeah! But in retrospect, that's likely not to be the real reason. Why DID they come over?!

[SueB]

Their "second chance" was with Mick.  I don't think they expect Mick to change BMoL moral code but they expect Mick to use THEIR moral code if he wants to work with them.  They expect Mick to defer to THEM, not the other way around.

Yes, that leaves the bigger issue of the BMoL position still unresolved but I think they want to make sure that at least on the cases THEY work, they don't have Mick undermining their decisions.

As for not telling Mick to GTFO, they were about to try an experimental procedure on Claire. One that Mick knew more about than either of them.  Further, they had Mick watch Claire while they went to go get the sire.  So they still had use for Mick.  They were'nt giving him a second chance in that moment so much as saying stay here and don't screw up any more.  If Mick had acted not been as helpful, they would have said 'this is where we part ways'.  I don't think they would have started a war with the BMoL, but they wouldn't do cases with them anymore.

Sam and Dean don't go out of their way to enforce THEIR moral code on other hunters. If they have a hunter they think is sketchy, they stay clear.  They are interested in managing only their own business (at this point) and not every other hunter or hunter-related group (BMoL).  

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, SueB said:

Sam and Dean don't go out of their way to enforce THEIR moral code on other hunters. If they have a hunter they think is sketchy, they stay clear.  They are interested in managing only their own business (at this point) and not every other hunter or hunter-related group (BMoL).

Has anyone here actually suggested this?

[SueB]

18 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Has anyone here actually suggested this?

@rue721 said it was implied they would work with the them if the policy was changed. 
@Aeryn13 suggested it would be stupid of the boys to think the BMoL would change their policy.
@rue721 said it was Mick only.

My comment was to agree with @rue721 saying the "second chance" was for Mick ONLY because it's not in the boy's nature to try and change other people's hunting code.  And the "second chance" is the willingness to still take tips on cases from Mick.  

So... the short answer is that it appeared @Aeryn13 THOUGHT @rue721 was implying "this" but in fact, that was not the implication.  I was agreeing with @rue721 clarification and further pointing out that the boys generally have a "live an let live" policy towards other hunters.  

Why that "live and let live" approach matters: Because it explains how they can disassociate taking cases from Mick while the BMoL retain their unacceptable moral code.  Essentially, they are not fighting the BMoL but they aren't adopting their moral code and won't work with Mick if that's how he acts with THEM when he gives them cases.  

Edited April 6, 2017 by SueB

[RulerofallIsurvey]

I rewatched several eps last night and this was the first one.  Some extra things I noticed this time through (maybe others already thought of these, but they didn't really occur to me the first time or two I watched.)  :)  

• When Mick told Dean he'd killed the teen girl wolf, Sam was off with Claire at the school.  The next scene is all of them together looking at Claire's injuries.  That's when the "Mick, you killed a kid. We're not angry. We're done!" line is said.  So obviously (like I said, I just didn't think too much about it earlier, until this time I watched, it really jumped out at me) Dean had to have told Sam what Mick had done by the time we see that scene with the guys looking at Claire's injuries - because Sam knew that Mick had killed the girl.  
• I also think Sam and Dean had already discussed, or maybe there wasn't much to discuss since Sam had agreed with Dean's proviso in Somewhere ("But the minute -- and I mean the second -- something feels off, we bail."), ending their tentative relationship with the BMoL when he said the "We're done!" line.  Maybe it's too bad we didn't get that onscreen, and maybe there's a deleted scene of Dean angrily telling Sam what Mick had done and then letting him (Sam) know that they were through (with the BMoL.  Then again, it probably would have been a little redundant since we as the audience knew that Dean knew - and from this line from Sam, we can infer [even though it takes some like me a little longer to catch on :) ] that the guys obviously had this discussion.
• Other than the idiotic walking away from Sam (because she was angry and pouting) with headphones on and blasting music so she can't hear what's going on around her, Claire actually has some good instincts as a hunter - and she carried herself well at the morgue in her fake fed suit.  
• On the second chance thing:

  Quote

  Dean: Listen, uh... thanks for the win back there.

  Sam: Yeah.
  Mick: So we're good?
  Sam: Not quite, but we'll give you a second chance.

  Dean: Just don't mess it up. There won't be a third.

  Still not quite sure from dialogue (and rewatch) whether that was meant only for Mick or for Mick and the organization which he represented in America.  (I'm sure they didn't mean the BMoL as it operated in Britain.)  They couldn't think Mick came without the BMoL.  And I don't think it's completely unreasonable for them to think that, as the agency's head/representative, Mick had some ability to set policy - as far as their operations/interactions with them were concerned.  

• I paid more attention this time to the beginning with Dean's annoyance at 'reporting for duty' and Mick being late.  And I get it.  Bugs the crap out of me when my boss calls a meeting and the rest of us are sitting around waiting for him to show (just because he wants an update on progress which ain't progressing while I'm sitting around!) when I got other things I could be doing - like making more progress on that project he's stressing out about.  :)  

Overall a very enjoyable episode to watch again.  I like Sam and Claire's and Dean and Claire's interactions.  I especially like Dean threatening the bartender on Claire's behalf and Sam backing Claire's up in trying the werewolf cure.  

[bettername2come]

God, Dean, don't tell Mick Garth's name! You're gonna get him murdered! Although, damn, how nice would it have been to see a BMOL try it and get Garthed? I like Dean telling off Mick. Dammit, Claire, you're a hunter! You know better than to go off and be an angsy, headphones teen in a werewolf-infested town. I did like the song, though. Downloaded it when the ep first aired. I do love when Sam hugs people. And I always enjoy protective Dean. I think this episode, post-bite, is the Claire actress's finest acting on the show. 

[Hanahope]

Damn, almost thought we’d be rid of Clair.  Though I am glad that the BMOL might be willing to let some live, in very limited circumstances.

I still don’t trust Mick.

[The Companion]

On 3/30/2017 at 8:08 PM, Jediknight said:

Claire didn't die, and she called Jody her mother.  Awesome episode for her character.  I like her sibling chemistry with Sam and Dean.  Dean's the overprotective older brother who wants to kick the crap out of anybody who might hurt her, and he wants her to be as safe as possible.  Sam is protective but he's also trying to connect with her more emotionally, and if anybody hurts her, he'll kick the crap out of them.

Mick is starting to come around to the Winchesters side.  I guess killing a high school girl could make you realize that what you're doing isn't good.  Along with Dean telling him that Magda was an innocent victim in life.  Of course this means he'll go rogue, and wind up getting killed by Ketch to protect the Winchesters.

The British Men of Letters had to have been the ones to wipe out BartenderWolf's pack.

I like Claire (i know, I am an outlier). I loved seeing that Jody's home for wayward girls is becoming a true family. I know some people didn't like the mom thing, but I thought it was lovely. I feel like loving someone else doesn't invalidate your love for someone who went before. 

I love Dean's protectiveness over Claire. I loved his capitulation to her wishes and his hesitation because he didn't want to hurt her. It was just really touching for me. 

I also kinda enjoyed Mick, which shocked me. It was interesting to watch him expand his worldview. And I enjoyed watching the guys set boundaries. We will work with you for cases, but this is how we do things. 

On 3/30/2017 at 8:20 PM, Katy M said:

I forgot about the hotel.  That was awesome.  Mick's all like "only 3 stars" and Dean was like "paradise."  Then complaining the next day to not give Mick any satisfaction.  Yep.  That's the Dean we know and love.

.

I loved this. It struck a much nicer balance than they have lately for him and it was the perfect amount if petty, IMO, to deny Mick any satisfaction. Hee.

On 3/30/2017 at 10:39 PM, lora said:

Dean interrogating Mick in the middle of the bartender interview was great and smart. Mick didn't see it coming.

Regarding Claire, it would've been a surprising turn of events if the writers actually let her die.

I loved loved loved the interrogation. This is what I love about Dean. He reads people. He can subtly parse out what he needs to know. 

I am, personally, good with them not killing yet another recurring female character. 

On 4/4/2017 at 11:52 AM, rue721 said:

I think he was being honest.

He wasn't icing out Mick because he was angry. He was icing out Mick because they don't kill innocents.

ETA:  except for Gavin 😉

*and meatsuits. 😬

 

So much if this season has ranged from meh to terrible for me, so this episode was a nice surprise. I thought it was well written and balanced. For a basic werewolf story, there was a surprising amount of plot development and suspense. I loved that the guys got to establish their ground rules and restate their code. 

I know a lot of people hate Claire, but hear me out. I love that we are getting to follow a character who has suffered a deep trauma and who is trying to reassert control. Does she act like a teenager? Of course. But I actually like the alignment of the typical teenager angst (nobody takes me seriously) with being a young hunter. Claire was bounced around the foster system, neglected and abused. To be able to truly bond with her family was really great to watch. And how gutted was I when she said Jody would be so mad. It was such a great and believable moment. I don't mind that she overestimates her abilities. That seems consistent. I love that she is trying to find her place in the world. And perhaps part of it is that I was particularly alarmed about how Castiel took iver Jimmy's body. I don't know. I just get her as a character and really enjoy seeing her. Aware mileage varies substantially.

With regard to keeping her secret, it sorta reminded me of a friend of mine who jokes that she aims to be the fun aunt the kids run away. She is a confidant to several godchildren. Would I rather know if my kid is taking risky chances? If course. But second best for me is knowing that my kid has someone to call if he/she won't talk to me. Claire ultimately did come clean, but because she controlled the circumstances, she will be comfortable calling in Sam and Dean in the future 

[Katy M]

3 minutes ago, The Companion said:

know a lot of people hate Claire, but hear me out. I love that we are getting to follow a character who has suffered a deep trauma and who is trying to reassert control. Does she act like a teenager? Of course. But I actually like the alignment of the typical teenager angst (nobody takes me seriously) with being a young hunter. Claire was bounced around the foster system, neglected and abused. To be able to truly bond with her family was really great to watch. And how gutted was I when she said Jody would be so mad. It was such a great and believable moment. I don't mind that she overestimates her abilities. That seems consistent. I love that she is trying to find her place in the world. And perhaps part of it is that I was particularly alarmed about how Castiel took iver Jimmy's body. I don't know. I just get her as a character and really enjoy seeing her. Aware mileage varies substantially.

I like Claire, too.  She's realistic for a child who was abandoned by her mother at the age of 12 or so.  I'd have anger issues, too.  Even when she found out the truth, it was really her mom going on a wild goose chase. How was she going to find Cas and what would she do about it when she did?

[gonzosgirrl]

My main objection to Claire is the same as it is with Charlie, and far too many other peripheral characters. They can't seem to make another character smart without dumbing down one or both of the Winchesters in order to do so, i.e., Sam is suddenly dumbstruck by computers and the internet whenever super!Charlie is around. Well, that, and I find Kathryn Newton's acting choices to be supremely annoying, which is jarring because I think she, as a person, is a doll.

[The Companion]

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

My main objection to Claire is the same as it is with Charlie, and far too many other peripheral characters. They can't seem to make another character smart without dumbing down one or both of the Winchesters in order to do so, i.e., Sam is suddenly dumbstruck by computers and the internet whenever super!Charlie is around. Well, that, and I find Kathryn Newton's acting choices to be supremely annoying, which is jarring because I think she, as a person, is a doll.

I also liked Charlie, which I know is controversial. I guess it doesn't bother me, or more accurately it bothers me as much when they dumb them down for supporting characters as it does that they occasionally dumb them down for plot reasons or "humor" or to build up the other sibling. It's an infuriating choice by the writers, but it doesn't affect my view of the supporting character.

I totally feel you on the latter point, even if this  performance isn't a problem for me. Sometimes you just can't click with a character or performance. That was how I felt for the sister-witch a few episodes ago. I found her to be over the top and totally distracting. True confession and unpopular opinion: it's also how I feel about Tom Hanks. He always feels like Tom Hanks reciting lines to me. *ducks and runs away*