S12.E22: Who We Are/S12.E23 All Along the Watchtower

[Idahoforspn]

5 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

How did Dean get the Grenade Launcher out of the trunk of the Impala?  And why did it take him 3 days to remember it?  When Ketch first entombed them that was my first thought.  But then when Toni said the garage was sealed I thought ok there goes the Grenade Launcher.  But no I was right the first time.

Impala was parked in the garage. Garage exit was sealed so they couldn't get out thru there but they had access to anything in the bunker including anything in the garage. Took him a couple of days to remember because where's the drama if he thinks of it right away.

[catrox14]

22 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

How did Dean get the Grenade Launcher out of the trunk of the Impala?  And why did it take him 3 days to remember it?  When Ketch first entombed them that was my first thought.  But then when Toni said the garage was sealed I thought ok there goes the Grenade Launcher.  But no I was right the first time.

Drama is why he didn't remember it for 3 days.  Oxygen deprivation? ALL THE PLOTONIUM??

The garage is inside the Bunker. He didn't have to go outside to get the Impala.

And another thing those angel killing bullets.

.Crowley made angel bullets in s8 and Castiel used one to kill Angel Not!JakeGyllenhall at Biggersons.

Wouldn't Dean have gotten wind of angel killing bullets? Why did he seem surprised that those existed?

[companionenvy]

1 hour ago, tessathereaper said:

hey weren't stacked against him, imo, not after Season 2. His demon blood didn't cause him to drink demon blood either, his free will did.  Ruby offered him demon crack in a supposedly sexy package and he chose to smoke it.

Any further reply should probably move to All Episodes, but I'd still say there was some heavy manipulation going on. For instance, Lillith and Ruby had orchestrated scenarios in which Lillith tried to kill or did kill Ruby, which went a long way toward gaining Sam's trust; similarly, Sam really couldn't have realized that Lillith wanted him to kill her. The demons altered Dean's message to prevent Sam from turning back at the last moment. And, while this isn't outright stated, I think that in retrospect it is fairly evident that the angels and demons were manipulating situations so that Sam would be under duress and be, if not forced, then heavily pressured to use his powers. In the episode with Samhain, Uriel (who knows the score) and Cas (who doesn't) refuse to help, so that Sam using his powers is the only thing that gets them out alive. We also know Uriel deliberately messed with the devil's trap containing Alistair, which led to Sam, again, coming in and using his powers to kill him. 

[catrox14]

And yet ANOTHER THING. Someone else here mentioned they thought Sam's reaction to Cas being stabbed was weird.

Upon a couple of rewatches, I agree. I wonder if Sam knew more about the shenanigans in the end. He had an expression of "Oh yes, Cas made it back. And then "OH SHIT this wasn't supposed to happen" and how he was dragging Dean away from Cas in the AU seemed weird. I dunno.  I'm not sure.

Question? Did they play Dean's Family Theme at all in these past two episodes?

I realized upon rewatch one thing that was really distracting and bothersome was the score during the Dean confronting Mary in the dreamwalk. I expected to hear Dean's Family Theme, but no it was some  overwrought theme that I don't remember ever hearing before.

Edited May 22, 2017 by catrox14

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, tessathereaper said:

How did Mary's deal with Azazel have anything to do with Heaven and how did Heaven in any way manipulate Sam prior to Dean going to Hell and coming back?  I don't recall heaven having involvement with manipulations until then beyond making sure John and Mary got together so BOTH Dean and Sam would be born to be vessels for Michael and Lucifer.  

Well, it depends on how you define "prior to Dean going to hell." In the series' history it actually happened after, but the angels did manipulate Dean into going back in time which helped to start in motion the YED becoming aware of and interested in Mary. That ended up being a big manipulation, in my opinion, because the higher up angels knew exactly what Sam was up to, so the real reason to send Dean back (since as Castiel said, Dean couldn't change the past) was to help to put that in motion. Then in the second time travel episode, Michael again manipulated things by wiping Mary and John's memory.

These things directly affected Sam, imo, because it made sure that Mary wouldn't know what would happen so that Sam would get dosed. You might not call that manipulation, but I do.

Other than that, I agree with @Reganne and @CluelessDrifter that I thought Dean's headwalk with Mary was the better scenario.

[rue721]

44 minutes ago, tessathereaper said:

If John is basically leaving the job of the day to day caretaking to Dean which he pretty clearly was, I'm pretty sure Dean knows protecting them from monsters isn't the be all end all to being a father

I mean, yes, I agree -- but what was interesting IMO was that Dean was airing some dirty family laundry to Mary. I'm wondering why he would do that? What he expected her reaction to be? If he wanted her to pick up on it? If he even realized he was doing it? I mean, for all I know, even the writers didn't realize the implications of what he was saying, I dunno.

Anyway, he's been airing dirty laundry to some extent from jump. It seems like he has been consciously trying to be open with her IMO.

But the scene in E22 was different, I think, because he wasn't just being frank, he was flat out angry with her and was giving her what for, and IMO some of his grievances weren't actually about anything that Mary had done wrong or would have had control over or really were her responsibility at all. I mean, to me, anger over having to be *father* to Sam, for example, is anger about John's choices and limitations, not Mary's. When Dean says that he had to be father and mother to Sam, IMO that's a condemnation of them *both* (Mary and John). Even though then the scene continues as though he's only condemning Mary for it, and John's inclusion is glossed over.

It just reminds me of something else that always sticks in my mind -- at one point when Dean is really pissed off at Sam (possibly in S5?), and yells at him for leaving him (Dean) to deal with John by himself. Which on the one hand, is a completely understandable and common kind of grievance to have, but on the other hand, IMO weirdly absolves John even as Dean is complaining about him.

IMO it was interesting that Dean gets angry, realizes how hurt and upset he is by Mary's betrayal ("betrayal" meaning:  the deal, "abandoning" the family by getting herself killed, etc), and THAT is apparently what makes him realize that he really does love her. Which is what allows him to forgive her. That's what I mean by "welcome to the world of having a mother." Because I think that it was easy not to feel deep betrayal and hate toward her when he didn't really know her and she didn't really know him. But the betrayal and hurt, anger, etc, is going to have a different feel to it when it's personal, when it's about something Mary as an individual did to Dean as an individual, when they have a personal relationship. I don't think it's just that Dean wouldn't have felt comfortable having or expressing negative feelings toward her before, I think he actually had a lot of emotional distance from her before because they didn't really know each other -- she was an abstraction and not a person who he knew and (maybe most importantly, given how the scene ended?) who *knew him.* Now that he knows her, and now that she *knows and sees him,* it opens up a whole different level of feeling IMO. It reminds me somewhat of Rowena saying something like, nobody knows how to break your heart like your mother (in the episode with Gavin). I think that before he went into Mary's head, Dean wouldn't have necessarily known what makes that different or how that feels different, but he felt that specific kind of heartbreak when he did go in her head, and that triggered a lot of other feelings -- the creation of an actual mother/son connection, I guess?

And IMO seeing that process was interesting also because IMO, implicit in a lot of what he was saying was some quasi-hidden venom for his dad. Except that even though John was implicitly included in some condemnations, he wasn't included in the "I love you" and "I forgive you" parts. I'm just so curious about that. Obviously Dean and John had a lot of baggage and history that Dean and Mary don't, and it's interesting to me that maybe that baggage and history might actually love and forgiveness more difficult, even as it likely makes their bond deeper and closer, too. Well, and it's perpetually interesting to me how Dean's love for John curdled into the bitterness he shows toward him now, anyway. Although I know that's probably a big fat UO ;)

Sorry if this is incoherent -- too tired and should go to bed. Insomnia sucks!

[ahrtee]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

And another thing those angel killing bullets.

.Crowley made angel bullets in s8 and Castiel used one to kill Angel Not!JakeGyllenhall at Biggersons.

Wouldn't Dean have gotten wind of angel killing bullets? Why did he seem surprised that those existed?

I'm guessing it would be pretty difficult for a human to melt down an angel blade.  JMO.

But my question about the "angel killing bullets" is why they didn't work on Lucifer?  The Colt, OK, I can accept that.  But we know angels blades can kill archangels--Luci used one to kill Gabriel. And Gabriel obviously thought it would work on Lucifer, because he was *trying* to kill him with it when the tables turned.   So what (in theory) *would* kill him?  

[AwesomO4000]

26 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

But we know angels blades can kill archangels--Luci used one to kill Gabriel. And Gabriel obviously thought it would work on Lucifer, because he was *trying* to kill him with it when the tables turned.   So what (in theory) *would* kill him?  

According to Gabriel, archangel blades are needed to kill archangels. And since both Lucifer and Gabriel are archangels, their blades could kill one another. I doubt, if Gabriel is correct, that a regular angel blade would kill Lucifer.

[ahrtee]

2 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

According to Gabriel, archangel blades are needed to kill archangels. And since both Lucifer and Gabriel are archangels, their blades could kill one another. I doubt, if Gabriel is correct, that a regular angel blade would kill Lucifer.

Ah.  I didn't remember hearing about archangel blades.  I wonder where the other ones are?  (I'll assume Lucifer took Gabriel's, but did all archangels have them?)  But Lucifer and Michael didn't have blades in their aborted Apocalyptic battle.  I wonder what they were planning to use to kill each other? 

But then, I wonder what happened to Death's scythe when he died (or, if it passed to Billie, then when *she* died?) Surely that would have worked on Lucifer, if Death said he would reap God.  

And what about the mini-scythe Crowley gave to Dean to use on Death in Two Minutes to Midnight (and the scythe the demon was using to kill reapers in Death Takes a Holiday, before reapers just became ordinary angels)?  Where did they come from, and where are they now?

So many potential weapons lying around *somewhere* for all these years, and so little logic... 

[DittyDotDot]

4 hours ago, ahrtee said:

I wonder where the other ones are?  (I'll assume Lucifer took Gabriel's, but did all archangels have them?)  But Lucifer and Michael didn't have blades in their aborted Apocalyptic battle.  I wonder what they were planning to use to kill each other? 

They probably had them up their sleeves. ;)

[sarthaz]

7 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Crowley made angel bullets in s8 and Castiel used one to kill Angel Not!JakeGyllenhall at Biggersons.

LOL.  Not!JakeGyllenhall and Not!JimCarrey make my brain hurt.

[catrox14]

10 hours ago, ahrtee said:

I'm guessing it would be pretty difficult for a human to melt down an angel blade.  JMO.

But my question about the "angel killing bullets" is why they didn't work on Lucifer?  The Colt, OK, I can accept that.  But we know angels blades can kill archangels--Luci used one to kill Gabriel. And Gabriel obviously thought it would work on Lucifer, because he was *trying* to kill him with it when the tables turned.   So what (in theory) *would* kill him?  

My spec is that the angel killing bullets were made from regular angel blades instead of archangel blades so it wouldn't work on Lucifer. OR  weapons designed to be used in the AU do not work on something not of that universe.

I want to know why Dean would unload a full round of angel killing bullets and not aim for Lucifer's head even ONCE. That was so stupid. Dean shoots for the head when he's shooting to kill. Why the hell wouldn't he do that in that situation against FUCKING LUCIFER.  That was possibly the stupidest thing in the episodes other than  Cas apparently making a rookie mistake and not checking to make sure Lucifer was really most sincerely dead before coming back through the portal that he wasn't supposed to go through the 3rd time anyway.

Once more, I call shenanigans and nothing is as we think it is.

[Whimsy]

Because there has been some discussion about this, we just wanted to clarify the decision to create one thread for both episodes.  It is typical on this site for one episode thread to be created when two episodes are aired back-to-back.  Most people will watch both episodes in one sitting.  This causes some confusion when posting because a poster may refer to something that happened in episode 2 in the episode 1 thread and vice versa.  It's too easy to spoil the 2nd episode accidentally. 

[sarthaz]

"Girls, Girls, Girls" is on TNT right now, and I'm still fuming over Rowena's apparent off-screen demise.  I don't mind her dying, but if that's really her last gasp, I'm still really fucking mad about how they handled it.

[gonzosgirrl]

1 hour ago, GenL said:

Because there has been some discussion about this, we just wanted to clarify the decision to create one thread for both episodes.  It is typical on this site for one episode thread to be created when two episodes are aired back-to-back.  Most people will watch both episodes in one sitting.  This causes some confusion when posting because a poster may refer to something that happened in episode 2 in the episode 1 thread and vice versa.  It's too easy to spoil the 2nd episode accidentally. 

I for one didn't understand it, and now I do. So thanks for this, and for updating the thread title to reflect that there were indeed 23 eps in the season. :)

[RulerofallIsurvey]

18 hours ago, tessathereaper said:

Why wouldn't it have worked?  Talking about all of Sam's pain and suffering is the thing that worked to get her out of it, I'm sure Sam talking about his suffering himself would have done it just as well as Dean talking about it.

IMO, it wasn't talking about all of Sam's pain and suffering that got Mary to finally come out of her fugue state.  It was Dean pleading with her to look at HIM and see HIM - as he was as an adult.  As for why I don't think Sam would have been able to reach Mary like Dean did, because LittleDean was the one to whom DreamMary made the promise to protect and not let anything bad happen.  That was the jumping off point for Dean to get angry and demonstrate all the ways she did not protect him (and Sam.)  Mary didn't make that same promise to Sam.  He was just an infant and didn't already have a relationship with Mary like Dean did - even as young as he was.  

18 hours ago, tessathereaper said:

The demon blood didn't stack anything against Sam.  Sam made the choice to drink it, that is why he got addicted to it.  

I thought it was the demon blood taint from when he was a baby (not the demon blood he drank as an adult) that made him Lucifer's vessel.  The demons (like Meg) being after him for this purpose before he even ever drank demon blood would tend to support this I think.  So, it absolutely did stack the odds against Sam - and that was a direct result of Mary's deal.  He also would not have been predisposed to get addicted to demon blood as an adult if he hadn't been tainted as an infant.  Plus what @reganne said below:

18 hours ago, Reganne said:

 Sam was surrounded by demons all his life.  They would have never rested until they got from him what they wanted.  One way or another.  When Sam refused to lead the demon army, they manipulated him into believing he was saving the world.

And that was all because of being one of Azazel's 'special children'.

[Mick Lady]

On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 8:01 AM, Idahoforspn said:

They blew it big-time! And it would have taken so little to fix that scene!

Yeah! I wanted Dean to give his Braveheart speech again!

[sarthaz]

13 minutes ago, Mick Lady said:

Yeah! I wanted Dean to give his Braveheart speech again!

Or Rent

[catrox14]

32 minutes ago, sarthaz said:

Or Rent

Heh and those speeches didn't go on and on and on. Even Dean's address to Mary didn't feel like a monologue. It felt like a conversation, because Dean was waiting for a reply of some kind. But Sam was just talking and talking.

Like seriously, even if Dean would have given that speech saying those same words, with that same length, if I were one of those hunters, I would have shot myself to make it stop.  I mean it was hitting Negan (Walking Dead reference) levels of monologuing. LOL.

[Idahoforspn]

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

Heh and those speeches didn't go on and on and on. Even Dean's address to Mary didn't feel like a monologue. It felt like a conversation, because Dean was waiting for a reply of some kind. But Sam was just talking and talking.

.

And talking, and talking, and talking? and did I say talking? That speech was pretty major bad.

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, Idahoforspn said:

And talking, and talking, and talking? and did I say talking? That speech was pretty major bad.

And to be clear, I'm not bashing Jared's acting. It was just SO out of place in this show. I mean seriously. The closest thing I can think of in a serious non one-off episode was Jus In Bello but that wasn't even much of a speech. 

[Idahoforspn]

2 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

And to be clear, I'm not bashing Jared's acting. It was just SO out of place in this show. I mean seriously. The closest thing I can think of in a serious non one-off episode was Jus In Bello but that wasn't even much of a speech. 

Jared did a good job on the delivery. Unfortunately nothing could save it with what he was given to say. It is often very difficult for an actor to maintain appropriate emotion for such a long long long long speech. He did really well with what he was given.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Out of curiosity, and because I'm a geek like that (and the complaints about the length), I timed Sam's 'speech' starting from the time he started talking until the end of the scene (and note: he didn't actually talk the entire time, regardless of how it may have seemed to some.  There were significant pauses - and an especially long silence at the end, which I still included in my time.) It was 2:14 minutes - give or take a few milliseconds for response time pressing the start/stop.

And then just for fun, I timed Dean's monologue to Mary.  This was a little trickier, since at the beginning, it was inter-cut with scenes of the raid at the BMoL.  I started timing though, after the break after Dean first said "I hate you."  (Note: I did not include that time in my total.)  I paused when the scene shifted to Lady Yay!she'sdeadnow! checking their psychic connections or whatever she was doing.  Up to that point, it was all Dean talking to Mary.  Time: 2:09 (only 5 seconds less than Sam's total speech.)  I started timing again when it went back into Dean/Mary's head and once again it was all Dean talking to Mary.  I did keep the timer counting until the end of that scene, when Dean was yanked out, so the total includes Mary's "Dean?" and Dean's final "Mom."  Total time: 4:16.85.  Sure, I could have stopped the timer sooner, but since I let it run to the end of the scene with Sam, even though he was no longer talking, I only felt it fair to do the same with Dean.  Also note: the only time Dean was really waiting for an answer, was at the very end, definitely not in the first (2:09 minute) part.  

Notice that Dean's entire speech to Mary was nearly twice as long as Sam's speech to the hunters.  

I think people might not be accurately remembering how long Sam's speech actually was for several different reasons, among them possibly: 1. they just don't like Sam that much so it seemed longer, 2. it didn't have the emotional impact of Dean's speech, 3.  There was a 14-14.5 second break around the middle of Dean's speech (at that 2:09 mark) which helped break it up, so it didn't seem as long and Sam's speech had no break.  

But Sam's speech to the hunters was not in fact longer than Dean's speech to Mary.  

[Idahoforspn]

15 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Out of curiosity, and because I'm a geek like that (and the complaints about the length), I timed Sam's 'speech' starting from the time he started talking until the end of the scene (and note: he didn't actually talk the entire time, regardless of how it may have seemed to some.  There were significant pauses - and an especially long silence at the end, which I still included in my time.) It was 2:14 minutes - give or take a few milliseconds for response time pressing the start/stop.

And then just for fun, I timed Dean's monologue to Mary.  This was a little trickier, since at the beginning, it was inter-cut with scenes of the raid at the BMoL.  I started timing though, after the break after Dean first said "I hate you."  (Note: I did not include that time in my total.)  I paused when the scene shifted to Lady Yay!she'sdeadnow! checking their psychic connections or whatever she was doing.  Up to that point, it was all Dean talking to Mary.  Time: 2:09 (only 5 seconds less than Sam's total speech.)  I started timing again when it went back into Dean/Mary's head and once again it was all Dean talking to Mary.  I did keep the timer counting until the end of that scene, when Dean was yanked out, so the total includes Mary's "Dean?" and Dean's final "Mom."  Total time: 4:16.85.  Sure, I could have stopped the timer sooner, but since I let it run to the end of the scene with Sam, even though he was no longer talking, I only felt it fair to do the same with Dean.  Also note: the only time Dean was really waiting for an answer, was at the very end, definitely not in the first (2:09 minute) part.  

Notice that Dean's entire speech to Mary was nearly twice as long as Sam's speech to the hunters.  

I think people might not be accurately remembering how long Sam's speech actually was for several different reasons, among them possibly: 1. they just don't like Sam that much so it seemed longer, 2. it didn't have the emotional impact of Dean's speech, 3.  There was a 14-14.5 second break around the middle of Dean's speech (at that 2:09 mark) which helped break it up, so it didn't seem as long and Sam's speech had no break.  

But Sam's speech to the hunters was not in fact longer than Dean's speech to Mary.  

I see a couple of things. First of all, the short break in Deans speech gives a definite mental stop. Even that tiny time gives the mind a reset point. The other thing is Jensen had the definite upper hand in what he was given. It would have looked pretty silly for Sam to cry through his speech. The sheer emotion in Deans speech makes it seem shorter just like a really good story seems shorter than one not as good even if they are the same length. That emotion just makes  it FEEL shorter. And I think there is probably a little bit of preferring one character over the other but I really don't think it is the major factor.

[Affogato]

On 5/18/2017 at 10:11 PM, Katy M said:

Why does everyone care so much that Crowley died for "nothing?"  We all know he's evil right?  He should have been killed off a couple of seasons ago at the latest.

Well, yeah. also he was always represented as a really poor, poorly liked boss in hell. That got old.

[auntvi]

3 minutes ago, Idahoforspn said:

The sheer emotion in Deans speech makes it seem shorter just like a really good story seems shorter than one not as good even if they are the same length. That emotion just makes  it FEEL shorter. And I think there is probably a little bit of preferring one character over the other but I really don't think it is the major factor.

But in fact, Dean's monologue/speech was twice the length of Sam's speech. I think character preference has quite a bit to do with how one reacted to Sam's speech. I didn't particularly like the speech myself, but I wasn't tempted to blow my brains out just to make it stop. YMMV

[Binns]

20 hours ago, catrox14 said:

So I was just thinking, if that was OUR!Cas that was with the boys in the AU when he met Alt!Bobby wouldn't he have just said 'NO! Don't shoot him. That's another Bobby!' I mean Cas knew Bobby. IMO he wouldn't have said "You!" when Bobby saved him. I think he would have said 'Bobby??!!' So why have that kind of dialogue for OUR!Cas aside from the gotcha nonsense.  So that feels like it's more points for AU!Cas being dead.

BUT I kind of have a new theory that if it IS OUR!Cas, then something happened to him every time he went through the portal. Like maybe it made him forget who he was, like he can't kill Lucifer with an angel blade or he couldn't remember Bobby.  Of course, that also implies Sam and Dean going back and forth through the portal should have altered them in some way as well.

So I dunno, I'm still like  98% sure it's still AU!Cas that died. 

Oohhh...this is an interesting theory. AUCas might have responded to AUBobby that way bc he knows AUBobby loves killing angels. Seems like he was a badass so he might have a reputation. I'm going to have to rewatch and see if there were any interactions with the boys that were more our Cas. 

[SueB]

1 minute ago, auntvi said:

But in fact, Dean's monologue/speech was twice the length of Sam's speech. I think character preference has quite a bit to do with how one reacted to Sam's speech. I didn't particularly like the speech myself, but I wasn't tempted to blow my brains out just to make it stop. YMMV

Amen.  

I watched it again, and it bothered me a LOT less the second time.  In real time watching, I was thrown by Dean taking a knee (I didn't expect it).  So I kinda missed what he said.  When I listened more carefully the second time, I liked the speech. Not a "woo-hoo let's go storm the castle!" feeling but more of a "Sammy's got this" feeling.  I think I was EXPECTING to feel like I wanted to storm the castle and didn't. When I dropped that expectation, it worked better for me.

However, I like Sam and I already knew the episode outcome, so that affected my second viewing.

In sum, I think it's not the speech I expected and it didn't meet my expectations (which were REASONABLE IMO) the first time around.  The second time I appreciated the speech but totally understand why others found it lacking.  

[rue721]

Dean's speech is dynamic, it actually goes somewhere; over the course of the speech, he figures out what's going on with Mary, he figures out how he feels, one strong feeling triggers the next and then finally leads him to forgiveness, and he and Mary reconcile even as he saves her. It's just talking, but he's doing A LOT of different stuff and making A LOT of different things happen through that talking. He's basically on a journey.

Meanwhile, Sam just hammers home a single point in his speech: that the Americans need to go kill the BMOL. Sam had already reached his conclusion before he even started talking. And we didn't really get to see him persuade the hunters, because his speech was more like a pep talk than an actual pitch or real attempt at persuasion. He talked a lot without what he was saying really going anywhere.

But honestly, I think that the idea of giving Sam a speech instead of making the persuasion of the American hunters more dynamic and more democratic was just inherently bad -- because it was counter to the point of the speech and the theme of the storyline anyway! So even if the speech itself hadn't been boring and cheesy as all get out, I don't think it would have worked. YMMV.

Edited May 22, 2017 by rue721

[gonzosgirrl]

On 5/18/2017 at 10:11 PM, Katy M said:

Why does everyone care so much that Crowley died for "nothing?"  We all know he's evil right?  He should have been killed off a couple of seasons ago at the latest.

 

13 minutes ago, Affogato said:

Well, yeah. also he was always represented as a really poor, poorly liked boss in hell. That got old.

But he was also directly responsible for saving the boys at least a few times, and from S9 onward was more frenemy than full-on villain. And Mark is such a great actor - his line delivery was often, ironically for a demon, the only light spot in some pretty dark, dour episodes.

Edited May 22, 2017 by gonzosgirrl
to add quote for clarity

[Idahoforspn]

16 minutes ago, auntvi said:

But in fact, Dean's monologue/speech was twice the length of Sam's speech. I think character preference has quite a bit to do with how one reacted to Sam's speech. I didn't particularly like the speech myself, but I wasn't tempted to blow my brains out just to make it stop. YMMV

Not if you take Dean in the segments. I was comparing speech to unbroken segment of speech.

19 minutes ago, Affogato said:

Well, yeah. also he was always represented as a really poor, poorly liked boss in hell. That got old.

For me, I guess I'm a bit of a softy. I care about Mark not being treated very well if he's dead. SPN is supposed to be a family and I just think if you are killing off a long time character you can be respectful of the character or not. IMO, this was not. It has nothing to do with how I feel about the character.

[Idahoforspn]

18 minutes ago, rue721 said:

Dean's speech is dynamic, it actually goes somewhere; over the course of the speech, he figures out what's going on with Mary, he figures out how he feels, one strong feeling triggers the next and then finally leads him to forgiveness, and he and Mary reconcile even as he saves her. It's just talking, but he's doing A LOT of different stuff and making A LOT of different things happen through that talking. He's basically on a journey.

Meanwhile, Sam just hammers home a single point in his speech: that the Americans need to go kill the BMOL. Sam had already reached his conclusion before he even started talking. And we didn't really get to see him persuade the hunters, because his speech was more like a pep talk than an actual pitch or real attempt at persuasion. He talked a lot without what he was saying really going anywhere.

 

You said it much better than I did. Way to go!!

[Affogato]

22 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

 

But he was also directly responsible for saving the boys at least a few times, and from S9 onward was more frenemy than full-on villain. And Mark is such a great actor - his line delivery was often, ironically for a demon, the only light spot in some pretty dark, dour episodes.

I like the actor and he has a lot of charisma but neither Lucifer nor Crowley seemed to be going anywhere as characters and repeated the same plots over and over. AND the boys were just kind of nasty to him all the time when it seems like they should, oh, you know, acknowledged that he was their shady little buddy. I don't begrudge them their paychecks and hope they also are having careers in productions of shakespeare and small independent films.  I may be hallucinating but hasn't Crowley pulled that rat trick before? Maybe if they didn't kill off all the female characters consistently they'd have some different people to liven things up.

[ahrtee]

34 minutes ago, auntvi said:

But in fact, Dean's monologue/speech was twice the length of Sam's speech. I think character preference has quite a bit to do with how one reacted to Sam's speech. I didn't particularly like the speech myself, but I wasn't tempted to blow my brains out just to make it stop. YMMV

Honestly?  What's the difference how long the speeches were?  Are we down to timing on-screen minutes for each character now?  (And if so, please move to Bitch/Jerk thread where those of us who don't want to get involved in those arguments can avoid them.)

Not everything comes down to character preference.  Sometimes it's just the writing and directing that makes the difference.  (And I'm not intending to open that can of worms about who the writers prefer/write for better.  That should go in another thread.) 

[Idahoforspn]

2 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

 

Not everything comes down to character preference.  Sometimes it's just the writing and directing that makes the difference.  (

Absolutely!!

[catrox14]

Here's the difference for me regardless of actual time between Dean's monologue and Sam's speech and it has nothing to do with "bitch/jerk" or liking or disliking a character and why it  felt interminable to me and overly "speechy".

In the case of the speech to the hunters, regardless of who made the speech, the speaker was not seeking to have dialog with the people was speaking AT. Sam's speech did not have the benefit of letting any other character actually interact with him other than to ask, "What do you want from us" . And was there really any doubt, that  Sam would rally the hunters to fight with him? I mean truly, honestly? There was no worry. A few might not have gone with them and he also wasn't trying to deprogram them of brainwashing, so there was no emotional payoff, no suspense. It was just a speech with an assured outcome of at least 4 hunters joining Team Hunter. 

Whereas, with  Dean, he was "talking" TO Mary, in his mind and her mind. He wasn't "talking" AT her because he trying to engage her in the conversation even though Mary was not responding. I was anticipating, expecting and hopeful that at any moment Mary would respond to him. Dean WANTED and sought dialog with Mary; he wanted her to reply.

Another person was actively involved in that scene so the audience had another person to focus on because they wanted us to focus on her and whether she would respond or not. Mary wasn't just sitting there doing nothing in the actual scene. She was active, checking on Sam and making Wee!Dean a PBJ but it was all to ignore Dean because it was clear she could hear him.  So it was more of a suspense scene than a staged monologue. It has tension from the start with "Would Dean be able to get through to Mary? What is it going to take to get her to respond to him? How far will he go to get her to respond? How much more emotionally devastating will his next words be over the first "I hate you"?  IMO that's why 4 minutes didn't feel like 4 minutes because it was filled with anxiety, tension, emotion and suspense.  YMMV

[Idahoforspn]

4 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Here's the difference for me regardless of actual time between Dean's monologue and Sam's speech and it has nothing to do with "bitch/jerk" or liking or disliking a character and why it  felt interminable to me and overly "speechy".

In the case of the speech to the hunters, regardless of who made the speech, the speaker was not seeking to have dialog with the people was speaking AT. Sam's speech did not have the benefit of letting any other character actually interact with him other than to ask, "What do you want from us" . And was there really any doubt, that  Sam would rally the hunters to fight with him? I mean truly, honestly? There was no worry. A few might not have gone with them and he also wasn't trying to deprogram them of brainwashing, so there was no emotional payoff, no suspense. It was just a speech with an assured outcome of at least 4 hunters joining Team Hunter. 

Whereas, with  Dean, he was "talking" TO Mary, in his mind and her mind. He wasn't "talking" AT her because he trying to engage her in the conversation even though Mary was not responding. I was anticipating, expecting and hopeful that at any moment Mary would respond to him. Dean WANTED and sought dialog with Mary; he wanted her to reply.

Another person was actively involved in that scene so the audience had another person to focus on because they wanted us to focus on her and whether she would respond or not. Mary wasn't just sitting there doing nothing in the actual scene. She was active, checking on Sam and making Wee!Dean a PBJ but it was all to ignore Dean because it was clear she could hear him.  So it was more of a suspense scene than a staged monologue. It has tension from the start with "Would Dean be able to get through to Mary? What is it going to take to get her to respond to him? How far will he go to get her to respond? How much more emotionally devastating will his next words be over the first "I hate you"?  IMO that's why 4 minutes didn't feel like 4 minutes because it was filled with anxiety, tension, emotion and suspense.  YMMV

Really like this explanation too! Thank you!

[DeeDee79]

Even though I lean more towards Dean than Sam it isn't preference for the character that made me favor one speech over the other. Dean talking to Mary felt like just that: a talk. It was an emotional stream of thoughts that didn't come across as a written speech. Sam's talk with the hunters no matter how earnest felt like a cheesy, motivational speech and it didn't hit me in the feels as I'm sure it was supposed to. It wasn't Jared's delivery just bad writing IMO.

P.S. what @catrox14 said :)

Edited May 23, 2017 by DeeDee79

[ILoveReading]

The other problem with Sam's speech was that it wasn't really necessary.  He didn't have to try and de-brainwash any of the other hunters because none of them fell for the BMOLs.  

 I really don't think it was necessary for him to go into depth because I really doubt any of the hunters cared about why Sam was wrong.  Plus, the life of every hunter in that room was at stake.  Convincing them should have been as easy.

All that was really needed was something like,

I was wrong to fall for what they were selling, but since we're all in danger I think we can agree we need to get them before they get us.  So, please give me the benefit out of the doubt and lets send those SOB's packing.

[Idahoforspn]

3 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

The other problem with Sam's speech was that it wasn't really necessary.  He didn't have to try and de-brainwash any of the other hunters because none of them fell for the BMOLs.  

 I really don't think it was necessary for him to go into depth because I really doubt any of the hunters cared about why Sam was wrong.  Plus, the life of every hunter in that room was at stake.  Convincing them should have been as easy.

All that was really needed was something like,

I was wrong to fall for what they were selling, but since we're all in danger I think we can agree we need to get them before they get us.  So, please give me the benefit out of the doubt and lets send those SOB's packing.

Can they hire you for the writing team? I could have gotten behind that speech.

[AwesomO4000]

9 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I really don't think it was necessary for him to go into depth because I really doubt any of the hunters cared about why Sam was wrong. 

I agree, but you can probably guess why I think they had Sam go into detail about it. : P

[DittyDotDot]

2 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I think people might not be accurately remembering how long Sam's speech actually was for several different reasons, among them possibly: 1. they just don't like Sam that much so it seemed longer, 

Sorry, I do not dislike Sam, but found that speech incredibly cheesy and hokey. It's not that it was so long, but that it went on longer than necessary. IMO, the hunters were already on board when Sam said, "We take the fight to them." It was pointless to continue it at that point. 

But, it didn't put me in a rage blackout or anything. It's not like they haven't done hokey before and I'm sure it won't be the last time either. ::shrugs::

[RulerofallIsurvey]

3 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Sorry, I do not dislike Sam, but found that speech incredibly cheesy and hokey. It's not that it was so long, but that it went on longer than necessary. IMO, the hunters were already on board when Sam said, "We take the fight to them." It was pointless to continue it at that point. 

But, it didn't put me in a rage blackout or anything. It's not like they haven't done hokey before and I'm sure it won't be the last time either. ::shrugs::

In all fairness to me, dislike of the character was only the first "possible" reason I listed.  I also listed other possible reasons, however I admit that I did not, and most likely could not list all possible reasons.  :)  

The only reason I actually timed it, was because I saw complaints about it being 'sooooo' long, which made it sound like it was a 5 or 10 minute speech.  (And tbh, I think some people might have started believing that it was, just because it may have seemed long to them.)  I just wanted to show that, technically, it wasn't very long (2:14 minutes is really not that long.)  That is not to say that maybe it went on longer than necessary.  TechnicalMe thinks those are two different arguments.  :)

[catrox14]

5 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

In all fairness to me, dislike of the character was only the first "possible" reason I listed.  I also listed other possible reasons, however I admit that I did not, and most likely could not list all possible reasons.  :)  

The only reason I actually timed it, was because I saw complaints about it being 'sooooo' long, which made it sound like it was a 5 or 10 minute speech.  (And tbh, I think some people might have started believing that it was, just because it may have seemed long to them.)  I just wanted to show that, technically, it wasn't very long (2:14 minutes is really not that long.)  That is not to say that maybe it went on longer than necessary.  TechnicalMe thinks those are two different arguments.  :)

 Sometimes snark is just snark with a side of hyperbole.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

2 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

 Sometimes snark is just snark with a side of hyperbole.

Really?  I never would have guessed.   

[catrox14]

My point is that people like me, who were snarking on the interminable speech said it was 5 minutes for snarky effect whilst knowing it actually did not last that long.

It doesn't really change that it still felt like an eternity to this viewer. :)

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Just now, catrox14 said:

My point is that people like me, who were snarking on the interminable speech said it was 5 minutes for snarky effect whilst knowing it actually did not last that long.

Sorry, I must have not recognized the snark font everyone (as there were several) who complained about the length of the speech obviously used.  

13 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

It doesn't really change that it still felt like an eternity to this viewer. :)

And that's fine!  But like I said, I think that's a different argument than saying it was too long.  

[rue721]

41 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I was wrong to fall for what they were selling, but since we're all in danger I think we can agree we need to get them before they get us.  So, please give me the benefit out of the doubt and lets send those SOB's packing.

I think one thing that wasn't included in the speech and really needed to be -- in order to make it a conversation and not just a lousy TED talk -- is *how Sam knows* that they're in danger, that they're all going to be slaughtered, what the timeline is for that (need to strike immediately), etc.

IMO we needed to see the hunters actively participating and having their minds changed during the speech -- Sam's mind was already made up going in, so that would really be the only way to make it a dynamic scene IMO.

In any case, I don't think that it should necessarily have been such an easy sell to get them to go to the HQ. Sam was coming from a place of not having a whole lot of credibility, seeing as he has a reputation for poor judgement with at least some of the hunters there (eg Roy and Walt) and was just admitting another major error in judgement. In fact, you'd think they'd be relatively suspicious of Sam, not just lacking in faith in him. And these hunters are presumably a pretty tough sell in general, seeing as they didn't fall for the BMOL's pitch.

And also, I think it's a pretty big deal to basically decide to slaughter a bunch of human beings. Even shitty human beings. If it's genuinely kill-or-be-killed, that's one thing. But I don't think that Sam was all that convincing that it was, seeing as he gave no specifics. And even if everybody is Rah-Rah about killing every soul in the place with no further questions, the logistics of that are still pretty complicated. You can't just commit a massacre and then blow up a big building filled with tech and medical waste and whatever, all on a whim.

Honestly, I know that seems kind of tertiary, but I really wish all that hadn't been ignored. It's yet another way that the show could have differentiated between the American hunters and the BMOL. I mean in a way that actually demonstrated the difference, not just Sam telling everybody that there's a difference.

But anyway, the speech itself was more of an eye-roller than a rage-blackout-causer for me, because I think it's in keeping with the show's overall handling of Sam's storyline with the BMOL. I feel like Sam's emotional through-line this season was just pretty poorly done. That's not bitch v jerk, I like Sam and I think I grok him pretty well. But his story especially in the back half of the season didn't make a whole lot of emotional sense IMO.

[SueB]

So... IF Rowena is NOT dead, I was thinking.....

I'm just saying... it might be possible..... *holds out hope for the sassy ginger*

They made a point of showing him playing with her doll.  And she's been keeping that around for a while now...

[rue721]

I never would have thought there'd be a way for me to enjoy Rowena more. But if she becomes a creepy living ragdoll? I'm sorry, that's awesome beyond my wildest dreams.