These Spoilers Suck: Bitter Speculation About SPN Spoilers

Myrelle · April 21, 2018

Quote

I don`t think it`s gonna be a dual role for an extended period, not with the current yearly mandate of "more time off". Nina Dobrev was close to collapse when she did that during Season 2 of TVD because of the shooting schedule.

That tweet picture of the glass window with Michael is either a pretty obvious clue or some epic foilery trolling because they must know that "Michael" is the number one speculation.

Maybe they do indeed get a "Michael" from the past and he just happened to be around on Earth during the 20s. It`s almost silly now that when angels were first introduced Cas said they hadn`t been walking the Earth for thousands of years. The Lily Sunders episode alone told us that was hogwash.

Heck, it could be the favourite time period of someone from costuming and after the tentacle porn episode with the girl in the flapper outfit, they begged to go 20s again and the writers went "why not? we`ll just be writing something in".

I`m not counting out Death, he is definitely a high number two on my spec list.

I'm also now leaning more towards it being Death-unless the twenties garb is the foilery(Jensen did make sure that the fandom on-lookers that day noticed him in that garb-in fact, he more than made sure of it, just going by that one tweet).

The main reason that I now think it's Death is because of his comment about having big shoes to fill.

FWIW, Dean!Michael would still, IMO, be a very, VERY! bold move for these writers to make-and frankly, I just don't think that they will go through with it. For years I've felt that someone BTS of this show has been adamantly against JA playing the role of the Archangel Michael.

Still, I would be thrilled to be proven wrong about that, just not expecting it now.

ILoveReading · April 21, 2018

10 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

FWIW, Dean!Michael would still, IMO, be a very, VERY! bold move for these writers to make-and frankly, I just don't think that they will go through with it. For years I've felt that someone BTS of this show has been adamantly against JA playing the role of the Archangel Michael.

There is also the Dean steps up spoiler. That fits better with Michael.

I was hoping that it was about Dean doing something to save the world and not just about Sam. If Dean becomes death, I can only seeing it being about Sam somehow. Like Sam dies but death agrees to let him live if Dean takes over but he can't have any of his memories and he can't see Sam. It wouldn't surprise me if they gave Michael to Sam, given that Jared said he got chills and gets to speak words he's wanted to speak for years

That kind of storyline would be over by the end of the first episode.

Demon Dean, Purgatory, and Deans' hell time is preventing me from fully getting excited.

Edited April 21, 2018 by ILoveReading

Reganne · April 21, 2018

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

There is also the Dean steps up spoiler. That fits better with Michael.

I was hoping that it was about Dean doing something to save the world and not just about Sam. If Dean becomes death, I can only seeing it being about Sam somehow. Like Sam dies but death agrees to let him live if Dean takes over but he can't have any of his memories and he can't see Sam. It wouldn't surprise me if they gave Michael to Sam, given that Jared said he got chills and gets to speak words he's wanted to speak for years

That kind of storyline would be over by the end of the first episode.

Demon Dean, Purgatory, and Deans' hell time is preventing me from fully getting excited.

Jared said there were words that were spoken... not necessarily that he spoke them. As for Michael, I don't see that going to Sam and I wouldn't want that. At this point in the series, I want them to explore Sam's character. I don't need to see Gadreel part 2. I didn't like it the first time.

As for how long the arc will last for Dean, I don't see it lasting as long as some people want it to, especially if it involves a totally different character than Dean. They will want to get back to Dean. As far as people playing other characters, the longest one was Gadreel and they got away with that bc Sam wasn't always Gadeeel and they could still use Sam.

Aeryn13 · April 21, 2018

Quote

As far as people playing other characters, the longest one was Gadreel and they got away with that bc Sam wasn't always Gadeeel and they could still use Sam.

They could do the same here, with Dean taking control for stretches of time. They could even make another angsty secret story about it. But I do agree that it is unlikely. Unfortunately, I do not see the story lasting beyond maybe episode 2 of next Season. I just hope I`m getting a big heroic moment out of it, something for the greater good, not for Mary or family or the same selfishness smallmindedness that usually entails.

DeeDee79 · April 22, 2018

3 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

Demon Dean, Purgatory, and Deans' hell time is preventing me from fully getting excited.

Very, very good point.

Myrelle · April 22, 2018

5 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

I was hoping that it was about Dean doing something to save the world and not just about Sam. If Dean becomes death, I can only seeing it being about Sam somehow. Like Sam dies but death agrees to let him live if Dean takes over but he can't have any of his memories and he can't see Sam. It wouldn't surprise me if they gave Michael to Sam

The bolded part is my worst fear ever, where it concerns my ability to continue watching this show.

The rest of it, I could easily see happening also, and w/o the bolded part, I could even live with it if it meant we would get JA in a role that didn't strictly and only revolve around another character again and if it would also afford us a deeper look into Dean, himself.

The bolded part would be a breaking point for me with this show, however.

I would quit the show if this happened and would feel that JA should also-if he cared anything about the integrity of his craft, that is.

Edited April 22, 2018 by Myrelle

gonzosgirrl · April 22, 2018

55 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

I would quit the show if this happened and would feel that JA should also-if he cared anything about the integrity of his craft, that is

I think there are many concessions Jensen would make for Jared, but I don't believe this is one if them. I'm with you though. I quit Castle in its penultimate season, I can quit Supernatural, too.

Pondlass1 · April 22, 2018

11 hours ago, Myrelle said:

JA in a role that didn't strictly and only revolve around another character again and if it would also afford us a deeper look into Dean, himself.

Oh, if only......

Dean not being Dean is an issue for MOTW's. They managed with Soulless Sam, but DD lasted 3 weeks I think because they need Dean as Dean for the MOTWs and POV.

But it would be cool if it's some kind of inner thing that Dean must control. We know Dean is struggling but Sam and the others don't. It comes and goes kind of thing. Jensen would rock it. Struggling to maintain control...maybe being transported somewhere in dreams for days but it's only seconds in real time. He's out of place on that street, and no one seems aware of him. And he's not walking like Dean. It's all so very intriguing.

I just hope they provide Jensen the challenge he deserves and the writing isn't too awful.

belbar · April 22, 2018

3 hours ago, Pondlass1 said:

Oh, if only......

Dean not being Dean is an issue for MOTW's. They managed with Soulless Sam, but DD lasted 3 weeks I think because they need Dean as Dean for the MOTWs and POV.

But it would be cool if it's some kind of inner thing that Dean must control. We know Dean is struggling but Sam and the others don't. It comes and goes kind of thing. Jensen would rock it. Struggling to maintain control...maybe being transported somewhere in dreams for days but it's only seconds in real time. He's out of place on that street, and no one seems aware of him. And he's not walking like Dean. It's all so very intriguing.

I just hope they provide Jensen the challenge he deserves and the writing isn't too awful.

I'm gonna quote you here, if only...

AwesomO4000 · April 22, 2018

5 hours ago, Pondlass1 said:

They managed with Soulless Sam, but DD lasted 3 weeks I think because they need Dean as Dean for the MOTWs and POV.

In my opinion, Demon Dean lasted 3 episodes not because they needed Dean per se, but because Demon Dean wanted to kill Sam. Obviously they couldn't have the two of them interacting if this was Demon Dean's goal. And I can't imagine a quick scenario where Demon Dean would change his mind about that or a scenario that would make me believe that Sam would believe him (because that would make Sam an idiot.) I couldn't really think of a long term scenario either that I would've wanted to see. Six or seven episodes where Dean either goes bad and starts killing innocent people (which would've caused some backlash I think) or continues his karaoke ways while Sam frets and Crowley feels indignant and rejected until something happens - which I couldn't imagine what - to change Demon Dean's mind wouldn't have sounded like much fun to me. At least Soulless Sam didn't care one way or another, and he wasn't trying to actively off Dean.

And I personally thought that Mark of Cain Dean was sufficiently different from regular Dean myself. He did some very unDean-like things as Mark of Cain Dean. And MoC Dean lasted a season and a half, which I think was a good length arc for Dean to be acting not always exactly himself... and they not only made that work all of that time, it was even incorporated that Dean being that way had some beneficial consequences as well.

Whatever this new character is, I think part of the reasoning for the length of time the character stays around will be does the new character want Sam, Castiel, Jack, etc. dead. If any of those things are in play, then I think the character will have to be short-lived. If the character wants the world dead, this would be a different thing and how long it might last depends on on how powerful the character is or could become... the more the potential for the power to grow over time, the less likely the character would be allowed to stick around to get more powerful and less likely for the rest of the gang to beat on their own... unless there are plans to get other heavy hitters - like Chuck- involved.

All just my opinion on that.

gonzosgirrl · April 22, 2018

32 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

In my opinion, Demon Dean lasted 3 episodes not because they needed Dean per se, but because Demon Dean wanted to kill Sam. Obviously they couldn't have the two of them interacting if this was Demon Dean's goal.

I disagree. Killing Sam was not Demon Dean's goal - not until Sam trapped and tried to force a cure he didn't want on him. In fact he did his best to stay away from Sam. IMO it was cut short because they didn't have the guts to keep Sam and Dean apart for long. And I don't think it would've been all that hard to write a scenario where they end up working together. They have certainly worked with other demons, including the King of Hell.

BoxManLocke · April 22, 2018

Demon Dean was an unambitious mess from start to finish. It was nice for the reaction videos after the season 9 finale (and they sure took advantage of that), but after that you could just feel the writers' fear every time DD popped up on screen. Jensen might as well have appeared in all of his scenes holding a giant sign that read "I AM AFRAID I MIGHT UPSET SOME FANS".

So I can understand why some might be afraid to see history repeating itself, especially since they're teasing the hell out of it just like last time. Truly changing Dean into a different character for longer than a couple of episodes would really be a bold move and I'd love to see the result. But when was the last time SPN tried something bold and stuck with it ?

AwesomO4000 · April 22, 2018

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I disagree. Killing Sam was not Demon Dean's goal - not until Sam trapped and tried to force a cure he didn't want on him. In fact he did his best to stay away from Sam. IMO it was cut short because they didn't have the guts to keep Sam and Dean apart for long.

And that was the point of my "they couldn't have the two of them interacting if this was Demon Dean's goal" above. That if the two of them weren't going to be apart, then there was going to have to be some pretense for why they would be back together - much like there was for Soulless Sam to come back to hunting with Dean. And for me, that was one of the weaker points of season 6.

I got that Demon Dean wasn't actively trying to kill Sam at first, but that was because Sam didn't know Dean was a demon or where he was. Once Sam did, he wasn't going to stop looking for Dean, and Dean wasn't going to tolerate being near Sam - which was likely one of the reasons why Demon Dean left. As Demon Dean so vividly said in the bar - and this was before Sam started with the cure - it was all he could do not to go over there and rip Sam's throat out with his teeth. While likely hyperbole, some of that sentiment was also likely true.

And those two things are why I disagree with this:

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

And I don't think it would've been all that hard to write a scenario where they end up working together. They have certainly worked with other demons, including the King of Hell.

I think it would've been very difficult based on how they had set it up. And Sam worked with Crowley, but he still actively tried to kill him a lot. The reason why he couldn't kill him was because Crowley was a powerful demon. Sam also had no active reason to cure him - until he did, when Sam did almost cure him and still would've wanted Crowley dead. In the case of Dean, Sam was never going to not want to cure Dean the way he was, so the scenario for them working together would have either had Dean wanting to be cured or Dean as a watered down demon - not the way he was. That would mean no or at least subdued effects from the MoC where he had to kill, and a Demon Dean pretty much like regular Dean which based on his powers and need to kill would've been hard for me, personally, to swallow. Not to mention Sam - as he was then - accepting Dean that way. (Now Soulless Sam and Demon Dean... there you go: That I could go with, no problem, but that would be an entirely different show, and now we're talking more villains than heroes there.)

The main reasons why our opinion here varies is because you wouldn't have minded the story keeping Sam and Dean apart for longer, whereas as I said above I would've found that scenario a bit distressing (if Dean started killing innocent people), annoying, or both, and you could imagine a scenario that would have had them working together longterm with Dean still as a demon and I couldn't really - unless Dean lied about being cured, and then Sam would've had to be either somewhat naive (at best) or completely unobservant not to notice Dean was still a demon.

8 minutes ago, BoxManLocke said:

Demon Dean was an unambitious mess from start to finish. It was nice for the reaction videos after the season 9 finale (and they sure took advantage of that), but after that you could just feel the writers' fear every time DD popped up on screen. Jensen might as well have appeared in all of his scenes holding a giant sign that read "I AM AFRAID I MIGHT UPSET SOME FANS".

Yes. I compared it to the Angelus problem over on Angel: The Series. The writers there got all ambitious and created a scenario where they brought Angelus back... and then they wimped out on actually having Angelus do anything Angelus would actually do. At least here, Demon Dean did actually kill demons and at least one person, so I'll give the writers props for that, but a long term Demon Dean arc would have been a scary proposition and one that potentially some fans would not forgive or come back from.

14 minutes ago, BoxManLocke said:

So I can understand why some might be afraid to see history repeating itself, especially since they're teasing the hell out of it just like last time. Truly changing Dean into a different character for longer than a couple of episodes would really be a bold move and I'd love to see the result. But when was the last time SPN tried something bold and stuck with it ?

And this was what I was saying above. In my opinion, it's going to depend on what kind of character Dean is going to become this season as to whether or not it's going to be a long term proposition... and for the reasons you mentioned. Any character that requires Dean to willingly allow a takeover, for example, will then leave the question of culpability if it all goes wrong and innocent people get hurt, and the writers would have to be ready to accept that. It would be less sticky perhaps if Dean has no choice in the matter, but that would have the question of what kind of character would that be that we might have already seen previously and fits all of the other clues.

As for the last time they tried something bold and stuck with it for a while... in my opinion the Castiel / Crowley arc in season 6 and 7 and I think Gamble got a lot of flack for that one. I thought it was a great twist and a bold choice myself, but a lot of fans maybe didn't agree?

What I would like to see - but what almost definitely is not going to happen... Dick Roman Dean. Of course real Dean would either have to be held captive somewhere (and working from there to stop it) and Sam be separated from Dick Roman Dean a lot so as not to arouse suspicion, but I would love a Dick Roman Dean... who could then get as awful and bad as the writers would want, because it wouldn't be real Dean and Dean wouldn't have given consent.

But in a season where we have too many villains already, there's unfortunately no room for this. I would want a Dick Roman Dean to be the only villain - and no other - or just a few select other (Chet!) - leviathans. I would want more of a revenge scenario here rather than their original take over the world thing. (Maybe even George could show up as a mole for the good guys.)

I also realize, however, I'd either be alone or in a really small minority on this one. Heh.

SueB · April 23, 2018

I thought it was cut short so we could have ‘Fan Fiction’ and the while 250th celebration.

DeeDee79 · April 23, 2018

39 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

What I would like to see - but what almost definitely is not going to happen... Dick Roman Dean.

Oh please no!!!

1 minute ago, SueB said:

I thought it was cut short so we could have ‘Fan Fiction’ and the while 250th celebration.

That's what I thought also.

gonzosgirrl · April 23, 2018

40 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

And that was the point of my "they couldn't have the two of them interacting if this was Demon Dean's goal" above. That if the two of them weren't going to be apart, then there was going to have to be some pretense for why they would be back together - much like there was for Soulless Sam to come back to hunting with Dean. And for me, that was one of the weaker points of season 6.

I got that Demon Dean wasn't actively trying to kill Sam at first, but that was because Sam didn't know Dean was a demon or where he was. Once Sam did, he wasn't going to stop looking for Dean, and Dean wasn't going to tolerate being near Sam - which was likely one of the reasons why Demon Dean left. As Demon Dean so vividly said in the bar - and this was before Sam started with the cure - it was all he could do not to go over there and rip Sam's throat out with his teeth. While likely hyperbole, some of that sentiment was also likely true.

And those two things are why I disagree with this:

I think it would've been very difficult based on how they had set it up. And Sam worked with Crowley, but he still actively tried to kill him a lot. The reason why he couldn't kill him was because Crowley was a powerful demon. Sam also had no active reason to cure him - until he did, when Sam did almost cure him and still would've wanted Crowley dead. In the case of Dean, Sam was never going to not want to cure Dean the way he was, so the scenario for them working together would have either had Dean wanting to be cured or Dean as a watered down demon - not the way he was. That would mean no or at least subdued effects from the MoC where he had to kill, and a Demon Dean pretty much like regular Dean which based on his powers and need to kill would've been hard for me, personally, to swallow. Not to mention Sam - as he was then - accepting Dean that way. (Now Soulless Sam and Demon Dean... there you go: That I could go with, no problem, but that would be an entirely different show, and now we're talking more villains than heroes there.)

The main reasons why our opinion here varies is because you wouldn't have minded the story keeping Sam and Dean apart for longer, whereas as I said above I would've found that scenario a bit distressing (if Dean started killing innocent people), annoying, or both, and you could imagine a scenario that would have had them working together longterm with Dean still as a demon and I couldn't really - unless Dean lied about being cured, and then Sam would've had to be either somewhat naive (at best) or completely unobservant not to notice Dean was still a demon.

Yes. I compared it to the Angelus problem over on Angel: The Series. The writers there got all ambitious and created a scenario where they brought Angelus back... and then they wimped out on actually having Angelus do anything Angelus would actually do. At least here, Demon Dean did actually kill demons and at least one person, so I'll give the writers props for that, but a long term Demon Dean arc would have been a scary proposition and one that potentially some fans would not forgive or come back from.

And this was what I was saying above. In my opinion, it's going to depend on what kind of character Dean is going to become this season as to whether or not it's going to be a long term proposition... and for the reasons you mentioned. Any character that requires Dean to willingly allow a takeover, for example, will then leave the question of culpability if it all goes wrong and innocent people get hurt, and the writers would have to be ready to accept that. It would be less sticky perhaps if Dean has no choice in the matter, but that would have the question of what kind of character would that be that we might have already seen previously and fits all of the other clues.

As for the last time they tried something bold and stuck with it for a while... in my opinion the Castiel / Crowley arc in season 6 and 7 and I think Gamble got a lot of flack for that one. I thought it was a great twist and a bold choice myself, but a lot of fans maybe didn't agree?

What I would like to see - but what almost definitely is not going to happen... Dick Roman Dean. Of course real Dean would either have to be held captive somewhere (and working from there to stop it) and Sam be separated from Dick Roman Dean a lot so as not to arouse suspicion, but I would love a Dick Roman Dean... who could then get as awful and bad as the writers would want, because it wouldn't be real Dean and Dean wouldn't have given consent.

But in a season where we have too many villains already, there's unfortunately no room for this. I would want a Dick Roman Dean to be the only villain - and no other - or just a few select other (Chet!) - leviathans. I would want more of a revenge scenario here rather than their original take over the world thing. (Maybe even George could show up as a mole for the good guys.)

I also realize, however, I'd either be alone or in a really small minority on this one. Heh.

Sorry, I was responding to what you wrote, which is that Demon Dean's goal was to kill Sam, which I still disagree with. Sure, he threatened him in the bar in an effort to get him to leave, but even after he was captured, he offered to live and let live, so to speak, if Sam let him go.

AwesomO4000 · April 23, 2018

30 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Sorry, I was responding to what you wrote, which is that Demon Dean's goal was to kill Sam, which I still disagree with.

Yes, I worded that first part badly, I agree. My apologies on that.

It was the rest of what I said there that was my main gist. Once Sam knew Dean was a demon, he would want to cure him, and Dean would be backed into killing him in defense once he knew that was Sam's goal*, and this would severely curtail them being together in any capacity for me. I understand that others see this differently though.

* And Demon Dean, to me, also seemed to warm up to the idea (of killing Sam) after going through the what appeared to be torture of the cure.

42 minutes ago, SueB said:

I thought it was cut short so we could have ‘Fan Fiction’ and the while 250th celebration.

This could've been the only reason. I don't know if we'll ever know if they would've done the same without that, because the problems I mentioned - maybe Demon Dean going too dark, the stalemate with Sam and Dean being in a holding pattern, Sam insisting on curing Dean - would have still been problems even without the 200th episode. And they had incorporated milestone episodes before into the plot without much difficulty ("Point of No Return" was the 100th episode.) So the question is, was the 200th episode a reason or a convenient excuse? That I don't know, but someone who follows the behind the scenes stuff more closely might be able to say.

The interesting thing here is that another milestone - the 300th episode - is coming up next season, but I think we have maybe more room in the season before this happens. So it will be interesting to see how long the Dean-is-someone-else plot goes without the same limitations of the upcoming special episode or if they will run into similar difficulties as they did with the Demon Dean storyline.

AwesomO4000 · April 23, 2018

1 hour ago, DeeDee79 said:

Oh please no!!!

Heh - which is pretty much how I feel about Michael Dean. I really, really dislike Michael... more than Lucifer even.

DeeDee79 · April 23, 2018

11 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Heh - which is pretty much how I feel about Michael Dean. I really, really dislike Michael... more than Lucifer even.

I can respect that. I don't mind the idea of Michael!Dean but the Lucifer plot is beyond stale IMO.

catrox14 · April 23, 2018

5 hours ago, SueB said:

I thought it was cut short so we could have ‘Fan Fiction’ and the while 250th celebration.

This is what I think.

devlin · April 23, 2018

I don’t understand the hate for Michael. We have only met him once (I am not including season 5 finale coz I personally thought that ep was a complete joke and hijacked by gamble in order to fulfill her idea of Sam as the only hero and also to set up her season). In the ep when he was played by Cohen, I found the performance riveting and the character magnetic and interesting.

And yeah Michael killed innocents in order to complete his mission, but how many innocents did Sam drain of their blood in order to achieve his own objective.

DeeDee79 · April 23, 2018

2 hours ago, devlin said:

In the ep when he was played by Cohen, I found the performance riveting and the character magnetic and interesting.

I just recently rewatched this ep and I completely agree with this. If anything he was the only angel that we met in seasons 4-5 that didn't whine all of the time ( Cas excluded).

ILoveReading · April 23, 2018

3 hours ago, devlin said:

I don’t understand the hate for Michael. We have only met him once (I am not including season 5 finale coz I personally thought that ep was a complete joke and hijacked by gamble in order to fulfill her idea of Sam as the only hero and also to set up her season). In the ep when he was played by Cohen, I found the performance riveting and the character magnetic and interesting.

And yeah Michael killed innocents in order to complete his mission, but how many innocents did Sam drain of their blood in order to achieve his own objective.

I agree. It became even more interesting when I found out he and Jensen worked together to try and keep the character consistent.

10 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Sorry, I was responding to what you wrote, which is that Demon Dean's goal was to kill Sam, which I still disagree with. Sure, he threatened him in the bar in an effort to get him to leave, but even after he was captured, he offered to live and let live, so to speak, if Sam let him go.

I agree with this. Demon's Dean's goal wasn't trying to kill Sam. He just wanted to be left alone for an endless party. If Sam started dating another demon or got another dog, Demon Dean wouldn't have came near him.

They could have used this to keep Dean as a demon a little longer, by having Demon Dean realized that Sam won't stop so he pretends to be cured and goes along with Sam. They could have had Dean struggling to control the demon, plus Dean living by the rules of a demon he'd have to avoid salt, and devils traps. Or since Dean's meatsuit was dead, so they could have had Sam not being able to complete the ritual because of this and Dean was a half human/half demon hybrid. The less he killed the more demon takes over.

There were so many different ways to take the story without separating Sam and Dean, or making Dean go full on evil.

This is why as much as I think Jensen would rock playing Death, I don't want it. Unless the show is going to completely buck the status quo, the storyline would be over before it started. If its a scenario like Michael refuses to leave, then it can be like the Gadreel storyline where he pops in and out. (I don't care if its a repeat since the show loves to repeat all of Dean's storylines.

Pondlass1 · April 23, 2018

Lets' face it. The writers have a difficult task ahead and to make matters worse they're not particularly imaginative or bold writers. Status quo is their middle name most of the time. Despite it all, Dean and Sam are an eclectic pair of characters. One of the most fascinating duos on TV in my opinion. Each brother has his own darkness and foibles. These brothers are not your average heroes. And then there's this noisy mass of fans constantly demanding the Winchesters remain joined at the hip for every episode.

Both actors excel in the role and chemistry abounds. But Jared has been given many opportunities. In all fairness it's Jensen's turn now. Plus here's an actor who can deliver gold and itching to be challenged before the series signs off for good (probably at the end of 14).

I'm assuming it will be the Archangel Michael. But whatever the character, I hope Jensen is allowed to fly and not have his wings clipped after an episode or two.

Demon Dean was never given a chance. I hope they give the Archangel Michael a chance if that's who the character is. And, I have to agree with those who oppose Dean being possessed. Whatever this is - I still want it to be Dean. Our Dean. Not Dean being controlled by an entity. The best part of DD was that it was our Dean. He wasn't possessed by a demon - he was Dean with a twisted soul, Dean relieved of guilt and responsibility - He didn't want glory.... he just wanna have fun!

But how they have Dean become Michael (or whoever) is a bit of a conundrum if it's not possession. But this show is called Supernatural and they've trampled over established canon and common sense many many times in the past. So it can be done.

Why Michael would be wearing 1920's garb is a mystery, tho?

Edited April 23, 2018 by Pondlass1

Myrelle · April 23, 2018

2 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

I agree with this. Demon's Dean's goal wasn't trying to kill Sam. He just wanted to be left alone for an endless party. If Sam started dating another demon or got another dog, Demon Dean wouldn't have came near him.

They could have used this to keep Dean as a demon a little longer, by having Demon Dean realized that Sam won't stop so he pretends to be cured and goes along with Sam. They could have had Dean struggling to control the demon, plus Dean living by the rules of a demon he'd have to avoid salt, and devils traps. Or since Dean's meatsuit was dead, so they could have had Sam not being able to complete the ritual because of this and Dean was a half human/half demon hybrid. The less he killed the more demon takes over.

There were so many different ways to take the story without separating Sam and Dean, or making Dean go full on evil.

This is why as much as I think Jensen would rock playing Death, I don't want it. Unless the show is going to completely buck the status quo, the storyline would be over before it started. If its a scenario like Michael refuses to leave, then it can be like the Gadreel storyline where he pops in and out. (I don't care if its a repeat since the show loves to repeat all of Dean's storylines.

I'm still on the Michael train first and foremost, for these same reasons, amongst others. The Gadreel possession just set a precedent, AFAIC. And I even love the thought that they might need each other's strength in order for both to heal fully. Not sure if they would go there with the redux, but even that wouldn't bother me, if they did. I don't think it would be another Winchester secrets and lies storyline, though. That would be too on the nose.

And Jensen has stated often and many times that he wished DemonDean had lasted longer, so perhaps, they'd aim to please him a little more in that regard with this new role. Hope springs eternal in this JA fan for that, too.

28 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

Both actors excel in the role and chemistry abounds. But Jared has been given many opportunities. In all fairness it's Jensen's turn now. Plus here's an actor who can deliver gold and itching to be challenged before the series signs off for good

IA so hard with the bolded part. And I honestly think that's why he's so psyched about what's coming-because he IS itching to be challenged(and he should be, IMO-especially after the Dean they wrote for him in S12). And I'm itching for the same thing right along with him, as are many who I know in his fandom.

And I can't believe how much I'm trying to noodle through who he might be playing. I'm checking the boards constantly for more clues, and I have to admit that the hints that they've given out at the cons and in interviews have fueled spec for the entire show like it hasn't been fueled in a very long time. Even now, I'm thinking it can't be God or Death because Jensen said that it's someone who we haven't seen in a very long time-and he emphasized long.

Although, maybe he didn't mean the character, per say, but more who the character was "wearing" at the time

gonzosgirrl · April 23, 2018

Both bitter and probably unpopular opinion, but as much as I love Dean (and I LOVE DEAN), I don't care if he's MIA for a while as long as Jensen gets a good, meaty role to play. I don't care if the character is good or evil, I just want it well written. As @Myrelle said above me, Jared has had many opportunities, both within an episode (Lucifer in The End and Swan Song) and long term, with Soulless Sam and Gadreel. It's Jensen's turn. He deserves it.

ILoveReading · April 23, 2018

6 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Both bitter and probably unpopular opinion, but as much as I love Dean (and I LOVE DEAN), I don't care if he's MIA for a while as long as Jensen gets a good, meaty role to play. I don't care if the character is good or evil, I just want it well written. As @Myrelle said above me, Jared has had many opportunities, both within an episode (Lucifer in The End and Swan Song) and long term, with Soulless Sam and Gadreel. It's Jensen's turn. He deserves it.

I feel the same way. I just want focus on the new character and not having to worry its going to be dropped or handed off to Sam.

AwesomO4000 · April 23, 2018

10 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

There were so many different ways to take the story without separating Sam and Dean, or making Dean go full on evil.

And for me this is what they did with the Mark of Cain arc. Dean wasn't a demon anymore - and so there wasn't the need for Sam to be either entirely unobservant that Dean was still a demon or be indifferent to Dean being a demon - but there was still conflict and Dean still wasn't exactly regular Dean. There also wasn't the need to keep Castiel away - like they had to with Sam / Gadreel - because unless there was some big Deus ex Machina, Castiel would be able to tell that Dean still had demon in him just by looking at him.

For me, the logistics just weren't there...

And this will likely also factor into whatever new character Dean will become. If it's a character that Castiel can recognize - like Michael or a demon - than either the rest of Team Free Will would either need to be aware of it, or there would have to be an excuse as to why Castiel was away or why he couldn't see who/what was really inside Dean if they were together. It would be even more difficult than Sam / Gadreel because of how tuned into Dean Castiel is.

DeeDee79 · April 24, 2018

After reading all of the specs and the pros and cons in regards to whatever character Jensen will take on I have to admit that I'm a bit confused at the pushback at the thought of him being Michael's vessel. The argument that Michael is a dick doesn't wash because every supernatural entity ( save one or two individuals ) on this show has been a dick ( especially the angels ) and the same goes for a lot of the humans that Sam and Dean have encountered. If it was ok for Sam to be Lucifer's vessel in order to jump into the pit ( and he's basically king of the dicks ) to save the world then why would it be wrong for Dean to take on Michael in order to save Mary, Jack or to stop AU!Michael? This isn't a BvJ post; I'm genuinely baffled here.

Edited April 24, 2018 by DeeDee79

AwesomO4000 · April 24, 2018

1 hour ago, DeeDee79 said:

If it was ok for Sam to be Lucifer's vessel in order to jump into the pit ( and he's basically king of the dicks ) to save the world then why would it be wrong for Dean to take on Michael in order to save Mary, Jack or to stop AU!Michael? This isn't a BvJ post; I'm genuinely baffled here.

If this question was rhetorical, then please ignore my response. If you're really interested in my reasoning then I will try to explain, but the answer isn't exactly straightforward, because there are a few "if this, then that" type things involved.

So the short answer is there isn't anything wrong with it ...and here comes the long answer: IF (and here's one of those "if"s) the same kind of reasoning and restrictions were going to be put on Michael as were put on Lucifer. For me it's the same kind of thing as the difference between Sam saying "yes" and Dean saying "yes" in season 5. Sam was saying "yes" with the goal of taking Lucifer off the board. Dean was considering saying "yes" with the goal of potentially letting Michael decide what was right for the world. (And since I wouldn't trust Michael as far as I could throw him, I didn't find that to be a necessarily good idea.)

So if the goal is save the world and make sure Michael isn't going to get out and do what he wanted to to begin with then that's one thing - I still wouldn't like it, because I really dislike Michael so I wouldn't want to wish him on Dean - but if Michael is allowed to have free reign to do what he wants afterwards? Then no, in my opinion, it isn't necessarily a good thing and is different from what Sam was trying to do when he said "yes" to Lucifer.

Edited April 24, 2018 by AwesomO4000

DeeDee79 · April 24, 2018

2 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

If this question was rhetorical, then please ignore my response. If you're really interested in my reasoning then I will try to explain, but the answer isn't exactly straightforward, because there are a few "if this, then that" type things involved.

So the short answer is there isn't anything wrong with it ...and here comes the long answer: IF (and here's one of those "if"s) the same kind of reasoning and restrictions were going to be put on Michael as were put on Lucifer. For me it's the same kind of thing as the difference between Sam saying "yes" and Dean saying "yes" in season 5. Sam was saying "yes" with the goal of taking Lucifer off the board. Dean was considering saying "yes" with the goal of potentially letting Michael decide what was right for the world. (And since I wouldn't trust Michael as far as I could throw him, I didn't find that to be a worthy goal.)

So if the goal is save the world and make sure Michael isn't going to get out and do what he wanted to to begin with then that's one thing - I still wouldn't like it, because I really dislike Michael so I wouldn't want to wish him on Dean - but if Michael is allowed to have free reign to do what he wants afterwards? Then no, in my opinion, it isn't necessarily a good thing and is different from what Sam was trying to do when he said "yes" to Lucifer.

But Michael and Lucifer are both powerful Archangels. Regardless of the end game they are cut from the same cloth with no guarantee that either brother would be able to take control. I guess I'm not getting why Lucifer is being seen as so much better than Michael since he's done much worse in the time that we've seen him on screen. You say that you wouldn't trust Michael from a few scenes within season 5 but Lucifer has done worse and we've seen him do worse from season 5 to the present season. It doesn't make sense to me but you don't have to explain your reasoning.

AwesomO4000 · April 24, 2018

I never said I trusted Lucifer at all. Lucifer has more chinks in his armor though.

I guess it partially comes down to the interpretation of the AU and what it represents. To some viewers, the AU is a completely separate universe that has no bearing or relationship with the universe proper. For me, my interpretation of the AU is that it's kind of like the AU they had in Buffy, the Vampire Slayer that was created due to a recklessly made wish - the players were exactly the same except for one difference that changed the whole course of the history.

Using that example, the AU in Supernatural would then have been created from the original universe with one difference: Mary didn't make the deal to save John, and so Dean and Sam were never born. Without Dean and Sam to stop the apocalypse then, Michael won and did what he wanted to do... and in this case it was pretty much what I thought he would've done in season 5 if he'd gotten his way and Dean had said "yes" and he'd killed Lucifer. That's why for me, I see AU Michael as exactly the same as our Michael... except that he won in the AU instead of getting pulled into the cage.

So basically the AU this year was pretty much exactly what I would have expected if Michael had gotten his way in season 5... no saving of half the planet, no "paradise" for the humans who survived. So it basically confirmed my previous impressions of Michael as a huge jerk and just as bad as Lucifer - except stronger and more righteous.

For those who think the AU is a completely different entity, then what I am saying makes a lot less sense, however.

DeeDee79 · April 24, 2018

5 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I never said I trusted Lucifer at all. Lucifer has more chinks in his armor though.

I know you didn't. I was going from this comment:

Quote

I really, really dislike Michael... more than Lucifer even.

Edited April 24, 2018 by DeeDee79

AwesomO4000 · April 24, 2018

Ah, I can explain that then...

I dislike Michael a little more than Lucifer, because I find Lucifer a little more complex. Mind you not much... he's delusional and has severe daddy issues, and he's cruel and awful, but in some ways he's more obvious with his evil.

For me, Michael is awful masquerading as being loyal and following orders. Somewhere along the line, he bought his own hype - maybe similar to Raphael.... except that Raphael at least was honest about it. For me, Michael is like the father who beats his kids and says it's for their own good, because he's showing discipline and teaching them to be better people, and maybe Michael even believes that somehow, but in reality what he's really doing is enforcing his own will and blaming it on Chuck / God.

So I guess for me, Michael is sort of like Lucifer except less delusional and more righteous... and more dull.

DeeDee79 · April 24, 2018

I get it. From what we've seen IMO Lucifer is gleefully sadistic and deplorable. Michael's potential to be worse doesn't compare to us actually seeing Lucifer being an asshole. I'd take dull over exciting and murderous. I think that Lucifer is the worst of the angels that we've seen but we can agree to disagree.

ahrtee · April 24, 2018

3 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Ah, I can explain that then...

I dislike Michael a little more than Lucifer, because I find Lucifer a little more complex. Mind you not much... he's delusional and has severe daddy issues, and he's cruel and awful, but in some ways he's more obvious with his evil.

For me, Michael is awful masquerading as being loyal and following orders. Somewhere along the line, he bought his own hype - maybe similar to Raphael.... except that Raphael at least was honest about it. For me, Michael is like the father who beats his kids and says it's for their own good, because he's showing discipline and teaching them to be better people, and maybe Michael even believes that somehow, but in reality what he's really doing is enforcing his own will and blaming it on Chuck / God.

So I guess for me, Michael is sort of like Lucifer except less delusional and more righteous... and more dull.

I might buy that, but it's not my impression of what you've been saying when you said leaving Michael to have free rein over the world would be worse than Lucifer.

IA Michael is a lot duller than Lucifer story-wise; and he comes across as the slightly stupid Good Soldier who follows orders without question and doesn't think for himself. He didn't think much of humans, except that Dad created them.

That's all we saw of him. Anything else is personal interpretation, including any bad intentions. IMO, he wasn't deliberately cruel, just indifferent to lesser beings he'd been told to watch over, kind of like pets his dad had left for him. YMMV.

Lucifer, OTOH, made no bones about his evil intentions towards mankind. He wanted to wipe everyone out to thumb his nose at his dad for making those insignificant little insects more important than he was.

So given the choice between Michael and Lucifer? No choice.

1 minute ago, DeeDee79 said:

I get it. From what we've seen IMO Lucifer is gleefully sadistic and deplorable. Michael's potential to be worse doesn't compare to us actually seeing Lucifer being an asshole. I'd take dull over exciting and murderous. I think that Lucifer is the worst of the angels that we've seen but we can agree to disagree.

Yes, this.

DeeDee79 · April 24, 2018

3 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

IA Michael is a lot duller than Lucifer story-wise; and he comes across as the slightly stupid Good Soldier who follows orders without question and doesn't think for himself. He didn't think much of humans, except that Dad created them.

That's all we saw of him. Anything else is personal interpretation, including any bad intentions. IMO, he wasn't deliberately cruel, just indifferent to lesser beings he'd been told to watch over, kind of like pets his dad had left for him. YMMV.

Lucifer, OTOH, made no bones about his evil intentions towards mankind. He wanted to wipe everyone out to thumb his nose at his dad for making those insignificant little insects more important than he was.

So given the choice between Michael and Lucifer? No choice.

Exactly my point.

AwesomO4000 · April 24, 2018

Just now, DeeDee79 said:

I think that Lucifer is the worst of the angels that we've seen

I agree - no doubt, but my enjoyment of a character doesn't necessarily have to do with whether or not I think they are better.

1 minute ago, ahrtee said:

I might buy that, but it's not my impression of what you've been saying when you said leaving Michael to have free rein over the world would be worse than Lucifer.

Because Lucifer can be defeated, and has been shown to be able to be defeated on more than one occasion. His flaws have weaknesses - the chinks in the armor I was talking about. Lucifer is only "better" in that he's defeatable. Michael - and especially Michael in a strong vessel - doesn't appear to be as defeatable if the AU is an example of Michael winning. And we have already seen that Michael is difficult to influence away from a course of action. Lucifer tried it. Dean tried it... and Dean's been able to sway a quite a few beings to consider his side including God even... but not Michael.

For me it has less to do with who wants to do what... it's who CAN do what. An evil Lucifer who wants to destroy the planet, but who can be defeated and has been defeated multiple times - to me - is strategically better than a Michael who maybe just wants to enslave everyone and make them miserable, but is absolutely capable of doing so if given the chance. (And a strong vessel to me = giving him a chance.)

But who knows. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Michael can now be swayed. It's just not what I've seen previously from the character, so I would have to see character growth before I would believe it.

AwesomO4000 · April 24, 2018

32 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

IMO, he wasn't deliberately cruel, just indifferent to lesser beings he'd been told to watch over, kind of like pets his dad had left for him.

I guess it's also up for interpretation as to what's more cruel: outright gleefully killing those pets or being indifferent to them if things you are doing cause them to be hungry, struggling, or hurting, resulting in potentially prolonged suffering. I think both are kind of cruel. One may be deliberate and more outright evil, but the other still results in suffering of sorts.

That said, for me, Lucifer is more outright evil... but Michael is more dangerous. Others' miles will vary.

ahrtee · April 24, 2018

2 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I agree - no doubt, but my enjoyment of a character doesn't necessarily have to do with whether or not I think they are better.

Because Lucifer can be defeated, and has been shown to be able to be defeated on more than one occasion. His flaws have weaknesses - the chinks in the armor I was talking about. Lucifer is only "better" in that he's defeatable. Michael - and especially Michael in a strong vessel - doesn't appear to be as defeatable if the AU is an example of Michael winning. And we have already seen that Michael is difficult to influence away from a course of action. Lucifer tried it. Dean tried it... and Dean's been able to sway a quite a few beings to consider his side including God even... but not Michael.

For me it has less to do with who wants to do what... it's who CAN do what. An evil Lucifer who wants to destroy the planet, but who can be defeated and has been defeated multiple times - to me - is strategically better than a Michael who maybe just wants to enslave everyone and make them miserable, but is absolutely capable of doing so if given the chance. (And a strong vessel to me = giving him a chance.)

Evil is generally much more interesting to watch than good. It makes a better TV show. But I didn't think that's what we were talking about.

"Our" Michael is a blank slate. We saw him for--what? Ten minutes in total, in two different episodes? Even Dean's legendary :) talent at swaying people takes longer than that. Hell, it took almost an entire season for Cas to switch to his side, and he was watching him pretty much 24/7 and not nearly as invested in following Chuck's orders.

We don't know if the way the AU Michael rules his world has anything to do with how ours would. We just don't have the information on what happened there to make that decision.

Your last statement seems to be solely your opinion, unsupported by canon: that Michael (even "maybe") wants to "enslave everybody and make them miserable." As I said before, there's *nothing* in any of the 10 minutes of onscreen Michael or even an overly cynical interpretation of his offscreen actions that indicates any of that. I realize that there's a faction that believes wholeheartedly that everything Zach did was under Michael's direct orders. There's also a faction (including me) that believes Michael just told Zach to get the job done and didn't pay any attention to how he went about it. It seems to me that if he were following them so closely, Zach wouldn't have had to call Michael to the "beautiful room" to get Dean's answer--he would have heard it himself with the "open line" between an angel and his vessel and showed up immediately.

But none of the angels--including Michael--deliberately harmed humans in season 5 (except for the men in the bar when Michael was talking to Zach, which...oopsie! ... didn't seem deliberate, just not understanding or caring how his voice would affect humans) . All the death, destruction, murders and natural disasters were the demons breaking seals. You might say it was "evil" for the angels to watch without helping, but those had been their orders for millennia: observe, don't interfere.

So what bad things did Michael himself do? Sent Zachariah to convince Dean to say yes. Whether or not he knew or approved how Zach was going about it, it was still just against one specific person, not mankind in general. He didn't even try to torture or coerce Dean into saying yes in The Song Remains the Same--because he was so sure of Destiny that he believed it would happen, because his Dad said it would. He didn't need torture--he had faith.

I think it's entirely possible that Dean, given more time and a more compelling reason, might be able to convince Michael to take our side. And I don't see any reason to think that our Michael is in any way as evil, cruel or anti-humanity as AU Michael seems to be.

JMO.

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I guess it's also up for interpretation as to what's more cruel: outright gleefully killing those pets or being indifferent to them if things you are doing cause them to be hungry, struggling, or hurting, resulting in potentially prolonged suffering. I think both are kind of cruel. One may be deliberate and more outright evil, but the other still results in suffering of sorts.

That said, for me, Lucifer is more outright evil... but Michael is more dangerous. Others' miles will vary.

To me, deliberate cruelty (especially if it's gleeful!) is always worse than neglect, even if the end result winds up the same. Also, remember Death comparing humans to bacteria? That's the view most angels had at the time. Wouldn't you use antibiotics if your goal is to cure the body, without any concern for the poor bacteria being killed? :)

Edited April 24, 2018 by ahrtee

Bergamot · April 24, 2018

56 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

For me it's the same kind of thing as the difference between Sam saying "yes" and Dean saying "yes" in season 5. Sam was saying "yes" with the goal of taking Lucifer off the board. Dean was considering saying "yes" with the goal of potentially letting Michael decide what was right for the world. (And since I wouldn't trust Michael as far as I could throw him, I didn't find that to be a necessarily good idea.)

This is a side issue, I know, but I wanted to point out that is a misrepresentation to present those two "goals" as if they were two sides of a disagreement with Dean on one side and Sam on the other. When Dean was considering saying "yes", it was not because his goal was just to let Michael decide what was right to do, as opposed to Sam's goal of taking Lucifer off the board instead. At that point in time, there WAS no way to take Lucifer off the board. They (Dean as well as Sam) had tried and tried to find a way, and failed, and had nothing left to try. As in zilch, nada, nothing. The only apparent choice at that time was between letting Lucifer destroy the whole earth, or letting Michael stop him, and in the process of the battle between them destroy perhaps only half the earth.

Everything changed completely when Gabriel informed them that the Cage to hold Lucifer was still in existence, and that the Horsemen's rings were the key to the Cage. It was then, and only then, that Sam decided that he was going to say yes to Lucifer in order to force him to jump back into the Cage. Interestingly, there was never any mention of taking Michael out somehow during the big fight or forcing him into the Cage as well. What to do about Michael was never discussed; as far as I remember, the implication was that if Lucifer went back in the Cage, the problem was solved. If I recall, Sam had his eyes closed and was standing at the edge of the big hole, starting to fall back into it -- it was only because Michael lunged forward and grabbed at him, allowing Sam to grab him back and pull him along, that Michael went in as well.

So I guess if you believe that all Michael really wanted to do was destroy the world, it was fortuitous he was so absolutely determined to fight Lucifer to the death -- to be, in his view, a good son -- that he tried to prevent Lucifer from falling in the hole and went in himself. Otherwise our world have been as much at the mercy of Michael as the one in the alternate universe.

55 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

IA Michael is a lot duller than Lucifer story-wise; and he comes across as the slightly stupid Good Soldier who follows orders without question and doesn't think for himself. He didn't think much of humans, except that Dad created them.

That's all we saw of him. Anything else is personal interpretation, including any bad intentions. IMO, he wasn't deliberately cruel, just indifferent to lesser beings he'd been told to watch over, kind of like pets his dad had left for him. YMMV.

The AU Michael is just a thug, from what we've seen of him. The Michael of our world, the one we briefly saw in "The Song Remains the Same", was more interesting to me. Maybe he would have turned out to be exactly like AU Michael, or maybe not. No way to tell as far as I can see. Dean and Sam were never born in the AU, and so obviously things turned out differently, but it's not the only thing that was different. For example, the AU Mary made totally different choices (which is why there was no Dean and Sam in the first place), and led a totally different life. So AU Mary was not identical to our Mary -- she was a different person. Who knows how many others in the AU made different choices and went down different paths, changing other things in turn, whether from a Butterfly Effect or some other reason? The idea of alternate realities is an interesting one, although I don't have confidence that the show will ever dig very deeply into the implications.

1 hour ago, ahrtee said:

I think that Lucifer is the worst of the angels

He certainly is the angel I have the least interest in continuing to have on the show. Far from somehow being more complex and less dull as a character, I find him to be extremely tedious and more tiresome to watch the longer he is around.

AwesomO4000 · April 24, 2018

2 hours ago, ahrtee said:

As I said before, there's *nothing* in any of the 10 minutes of onscreen Michael or even an overly cynical interpretation of his offscreen actions that indicates any of that.

I'm not sure of that, because I got that impression from somewhere. Enough so that when I saw the AU world and we learned that Michael was in charge and had killed Lucifer, I wasn't at all surprised. It made perfect sense to me that this would have been the world had Dean and Sam not been there to stop it, and if Michael's preferred vessel in that universe had said "yes," because I'd been arguing that same thing for years. Way back when I was watching season 5 - and ever since - it had been my argument as to why I thought it would've been a bad idea for Dean to have said "yes" to Michael - in other words Michael's (as described by Zach) idea of "paradise" didn't sound all that much like paradise to me for humans. It sounded like the angels taking back earth for themselves - much like the AU now. So I must have gotten that impression from something Michael said or did... I didn't just grab it out of nowhere... and then when I saw the AU this season, I was "yup, just as I thought" rather than surprised.

And see below for some more reasoning as to how I came to this conclusion. For me Michael didn't have to be onscreen that much for me to get his motivation. "The Song Remains the Same" gave me all the supporting evidence I needed to go along with Zachariah, and the cupid, and Anna, and everything else we saw in season 4. Just the way Michael told Dean "obviously" when Dean objected that if Michael wiped Mary's memory, she would have Sam and would die and that would mean the apocalypse would happen told me that this is what Michael wanted and had been working towards all along. But that's okay, they had Sam to blame it on, so it was fine if Michael ensured that it happened.

2 hours ago, ahrtee said:

Also, remember Death comparing humans to bacteria? That's the view most angels had at the time.

Except as far as Lucifer said, that wasn't what God / Chuck had directed. The angels were supposed to love and watch over the humans, not see them as inferior and just eggs to be broken while making an omelet. So this is why for me Michael was being pretty selective in what he was choosing to supposedly do because it was what "Dad told him to." In order to kill Lucifer, Michael orchestrated it so that Sam and Dean would be born (the cupid who explained that a cupid got Mary and John together due to orders from "way up high" - and not Chuck, because Chuck had been MIA for 100s if not 1000s of years). Cupids were making matches of bloodlines on orders so angels would have hosts (presumably for the coming apocalypse) - the cupid in "My Bloody Valentine" pretty much described it as that.

If angels were supposed to love and cherish humans according to God, why was Michael insisting on killing a billion or two of them in order to kill Lucifer - who he helped ensure would get out? Don't those two things conflict? And why would he choose one directive - kill Lucifer - over the other one - cherish humans? Where did this "prophecy" come from, and why did the angels decide to fulfill it then except that they said they were bored / tired of waiting / would rather have the earth for themselves than the humans (all were given as reasons at one point or another by various angels)?

So my conclusion was that the main reason Michael was going to kill Lucifer was to bring on this apocalypse, but he had chosen when to do it for whatever reason. Michael wasn't trying to save the world from Lucifer... who had been safely in the box until he (Michael) helped spring him. He was subjecting the world to Lucifer and the apocalypse just so he could kill him and bring on Revelation. Otherwise Michael could have stopped the entire thing at multiple points in the narrative - not have Castiel let Sam out, smite Ruby, not let Zach hold Dean until it was too late, not wipe Mary's memory, etc.

And that's where I got the idea from.

1 hour ago, Bergamot said:

This is a side issue, I know, but I wanted to point out that is a misrepresentation to present those two "goals" as if they were two sides of a disagreement with Dean on one side and Sam on the other. When Dean was considering saying "yes", it was not because his goal was just to let Michael decide what was right to do, as opposed to Sam's goal of taking Lucifer off the board instead. At that point in time, there WAS no way to take Lucifer off the board. They (Dean as well as Sam) had tried and tried to find a way, and failed, and had nothing left to try. As in zilch, nada, nothing. The only apparent choice at that time was between letting Lucifer destroy the whole earth, or letting Michael stop him, and in the process of the battle between them destroy perhaps only half the earth.

I didn't mean to compare these two as happening at the same time. I realize there was a difference in timing. I was directly answering the question as to why if it was okay for Sam to say "yes" to Lucifer, why was it different for Dean to say "yes" to Michael now or then. And in my opinion, it's in the tactics. One was taking the player off the board - relatively quick and dirty and hopefully ending it right there - while the other depends on relying on a questionable, very powerful being - potentially long term - to hopefully do the right thing.

And no, I agree, there was no way to take Lucifer off the board at that point, but it was also important in my opinion as to who helped put Lucifer on the board... and it wasn't just Sam or the demons either. Michael and the angels had a part in that. Saying yes to Michael and letting him kill Lucifer would be giving him just what he (supposedly) wanted... and I say supposedly, because even after he got Adam as a host, he still waited until he went after Lucifer.

1 hour ago, Bergamot said:

Interestingly, there was never any mention of taking Michael out somehow during the big fight or forcing him into the Cage as well. What to do about Michael was never discussed; as far as I remember, the implication was that if Lucifer went back in the Cage, the problem was solved.

That's because it would be returning things to status quo. Before everything was manipulated to spring Lucifer, he was in the cage and Michael was out. The only way for Michael to fulfill the prophecy and start Revelation was for him to kill Lucifer. So not letting him kill Lucifer would mean no "booom!" and no start of Revelation. everything would theoretically return to status quo. The reason why Michael got pulled in was because he was insisting that Sam couldn't take away his chance to kill Lucifer and start revelation.

1 hour ago, Bergamot said:

So I guess if you believe that all Michael really wanted to do was destroy the world, it was fortuitous he was so absolutely determined to fight Lucifer to the death -- to be, in his view, a good son -- that he tried to prevent Lucifer from falling in the hole and went in himself. Otherwise our world have been as much at the mercy of Michael as the one in the alternate universe.

That depends on if the prophecy was necessary. I'm guessing that it was. I think that Michael had to kill Lucifer - probably taking his power - in order for him to be in that position of power. It's probably why he killed all of the other archangels, so he'd be the only one with the power. And considering that the regular world didn't have Michael problems before Lucifer got sprung, I'm guessing springing and killing Lucifer was crucial to everything that happened.

I also never really understood the "good son" argument about killing Lucifer... So Michael is claiming that he had to start an apocalypse to spring Lucifer from the cage that he had previously safely locked Lucifer in on God's orders, causing death and destruction and potentially killing half the population of the human beings God supposedly wanted Michael to cherish in order to kill Lucifer, and this was somehow being a "good son?" With the people Lucifer had supposedly killed and disrespected to defy God that got him locked up in the cage in the first place, Michael would potentially be killing many more because "oh well *shrug* collateral damage" in order to be "a good son," and he would think that this would be what God wanted? The logic escapes me. I mean maybe he did believe this, but the logic seems pretty shaky... especially as to why then. Who told Michael that now was the time?

Edited to add: Please let me know if I need to move this. For me this is part of the reasoning as to why I think Michael / Dean is a really bad idea for anyone to consider, and I wouldn't get why Dean would trust him at all, but if it's too much background, I can move it elsewhere.

Edited April 24, 2018 by AwesomO4000

ahrtee · April 24, 2018

6 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I'm not sure of that, because I got that impression from somewhere. Enough so that when I saw the AU world and we learned that Michael was in charge and had killed Lucifer, I wasn't at all surprised. It made perfect sense to me that this would have been the world had Dean and Sam not been there to stop it, and if Michael's preferred vessel in that universe had said "yes," because I'd been arguing that same thing for years. Way back when I was watching season 5 - and ever since - it had been my argument as to why I thought it would've been a bad idea for Dean to have said "yes" to Michael - in other words Michael's (as described by Zach) idea of "paradise" didn't sound all that much like paradise to me for humans. It sounded like the angels taking back earth for themselves - much like the AU now. So I must have gotten that impression from something Michael said or did... I didn't just grab it out of nowhere... and then when I saw the AU this season, I was "yup, just as I thought" rather than surprised.

And see below for some more reasoning as to how I came to this conclusion. For me Michael didn't have to be onscreen that much for me to get his motivation. "The Song Remains the Same" gave me all the supporting evidence I needed to go along with Zachariah, and the cupid, and Anna, and everything else we saw in season 4. Just the way Michael told Dean "obviously" when Dean objected that if Michael wiped Mary's memory, she would have Sam and would die and that would mean the apocalypse would happen told me that this is what Michael wanted and had been working towards all along. But that's okay, they had Sam to blame it on, so it was fine if Michael ensured that it happened.

Except as far as Lucifer said, that wasn't what God / Chuck had directed. The angels were supposed to love and watch over the humans, not see them as inferior and just eggs to be broken while making an omelet. So this is why for me Michael was being pretty selective in what he was choosing to supposedly do because it was what "Dad told him to." In order to kill Lucifer, Michael orchestrated it so that Sam and Dean would be born (the cupid who explained that a cupid got Mary and John together due to orders from "way up high" - and not Chuck, because Chuck had been MIA for 100s if not 1000s of years). Cupids were making matches of bloodlines on orders so angels would have hosts (presumably for the coming apocalypse) - the cupid in "My Bloody Valentine" pretty much described it as that.

If angels were supposed to love and cherish humans according to God, why was Michael insisting on killing a billion or two of them in order to kill Lucifer - who he helped ensure would get out? Don't those two things conflict? And why would he choose one directive - kill Lucifer - over the other one - cherish humans? Where did this "prophecy" come from, and why did the angels decide to fulfill it then except that they said they were bored / tired of waiting / would rather have the earth for themselves than the humans (all were given as reasons at one point or another by various angels)?

So my conclusion was that the main reason Michael was going to kill Lucifer was to bring on this apocalypse, but he had chosen when to do it for whatever reason. Michael wasn't trying to save the world from Lucifer... who had been safely in the box until he (Michael) helped spring him. He was subjecting the world to Lucifer and the apocalypse just so he could kill him and bring on Revelation. Otherwise Michael could have stopped the entire thing at multiple points in the narrative - not have Castiel let Sam out, smite Ruby, not let Zach hold Dean until it was too late, not wipe Mary's memory, etc.

And that's where I got the idea from.

I didn't mean to compare these two as happening at the same time. I realize there was a difference in timing. I was directly answering the question as to why if it was okay for Sam to say "yes" to Lucifer, why was it different for Dean to say "yes" to Michael now or then. And in my opinion, it's in the tactics. One was taking the player off the board - relatively quick and dirty and hopefully ending it right there - while the other depends on relying on a questionable, very powerful being - potentially long term - to hopefully do the right thing.

And no, I agree, there was no way to take Lucifer off the board at that point, but it was also important in my opinion as to who helped put Lucifer on the board... and it wasn't just Sam or the demons either. Michael and the angels had a part in that. Saying yes to Michael and letting him kill Lucifer would be giving him just what he (supposedly) wanted... and I say supposedly, because even after he got Adam as a host, he still waited until he went after Lucifer.

That's because it would be returning things to status quo. Before everything was manipulated to spring Lucifer, he was in the cage and Michael was out. The only way for Michael to fulfill the prophecy and start Revelation was for him to kill Lucifer. So not letting him kill Lucifer would mean no "booom!" and no start of Revelation. everything would theoretically return to status quo. The reason why Michael got pulled in was because he was insisting that Sam couldn't take away his chance to kill Lucifer and start revelation.

That depends on if the prophecy was necessary. I'm guessing that it was. I think that Michael had to kill Lucifer - probably taking his power - in order for him to be in that position of power. It's probably why he killed all of the other archangels, so he'd be the only one with the power. And considering that the regular world didn't have Michael problems before Lucifer got sprung, I'm guessing springing and killing Lucifer was crucial to everything that happened.

I also never really understood the "good son" argument about killing Lucifer... So Michael is claiming that he had to start an apocalypse to spring Lucifer from the cage that he had previously safely locked Lucifer in on God's orders, causing death and destruction and potentially killing half the population of the human beings God supposedly wanted Michael to cherish in order to kill Lucifer, and this was somehow being a "good son?" With the people Lucifer had supposedly killed and disrespected to defy God that got him locked up in the cage in the first place, Michael would potentially be killing many more because "oh well *shrug* collateral damage" in order to be "a good son," and he would think that this would be what God wanted? The logic escapes me. I mean maybe he did believe this, but the logic seems pretty shaky... especially as to why then. Who told Michael that now was the time?

Whoa...you took the show I've been watching for 10 years and made something *entirely* different from it. Quite frankly, I didn't see *any* of what you're saying here; but since we're getting way too far from spoilers and I don't feel like going into a point-by-point discussion of 14 seasons, I'm just going to say Agree to Disagree and bow out.

catrox14 · April 24, 2018

4 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I agree - no doubt, but my enjoyment of a character doesn't necessarily have to do with whether or not I think they are better.

Is it that you don't enjoy Michael because he isn't as entertaining as Lucifer? I can understand that. What confuses me is that you think it would be bad for Jensen to play an uninteresting character? I'm just not quite following.

companionenvy · April 24, 2018

46 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Is it that you don't enjoy Michael because he isn't as entertaining as Lucifer? I can understand that. What confuses me is that you think it would be bad for Jensen to play an uninteresting character? I'm just not quite following.

Can't speak for AwesomeO, but for me, its that Michael simply isn't as well developed as Lucifer. I wish Lucifer were long gone from the show, but even in S5, and certainly now, Lucifer was much, much more of a presence than Michael ever was. Michael's AU-incarnation, where he's simply a pretty generic baddie, doesn't help. Which is why, though I'm still looking forward to Michael!Dean, if that's what we're getting, it rings a little hollower than it would if Michael had been a more significant presence in the show. Like, it isn't going to happen and wouldn't make any sense if it did, but a scenario in which Dean wound up possessed by Alistair would have had a ton more intrinsic dramatic potential, given the history between those two characters.

AwesomO4000 · April 24, 2018

2 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Is it that you don't enjoy Michael because he isn't as entertaining as Lucifer? I can understand that. What confuses me is that you think it would be bad for Jensen to play an uninteresting character? I'm just not quite following.

Yes, that is part of it - that Jensen would be playing an uninteresting character, but for me it's more than that. As @companionenvy says, Michael just isn't that well developed... and from what I do know about him - at least in my interpretation of him as I outlined above - he's not only a jerk, but a dangerous one that I would hate to see Dean say "yes" to. In my my mind three main things could happen in that scenario, none of them good (for different reasons): 1) Michael lies or misrepresents himself and hijacks Dean and things go terribly wrong or 2) A Gadreel-type situation where Michael becomes important and Dean is unnecessary (even worse if as with Gadreel, they separate before the heroics begin)... or 3) things go hunky dory and all is well.

Number 1's badness is fairly self-evident with the added potential badness of fan backlash on Sam if Sam and Castiel have to somehow save Dean or save the world from MichaelDean or don't notice Dean's in trouble, or don't support him enough (so many things could go wrong or be interpreted wrong here). With #2, I didn't like it for Sam, and I wouldn't want it for Dean either. As for #3, you're probably wondering why I would consider that "bad"... well, because character-wise it wouldn't make sense for me right now. Since I don't consider Michael to be a "good" or cooperative character, if Dean does something somewhat rash when he says "yes" and nothing bad happens because of it with no explanation, for me, it will be following the same kind of tropes the writers often follow for Dean... that he does impulsive things and there aren't really many consequences. And I've kind of had my fill of those lately. It makes it too easy to predict what's going to happen.

So in the most likely scenarios I see there's either: a potentially boring character, a Gadreel-like scenario where Michael's story completely overshadows Dean's like Gadreel's did with Sam, badness with potential negative Sam backlash, a predictable nothing-bad-happens scenario***, or some combination of those... So basically unless there is some serious character work that I can buy from Michael - if it is Michael - it's potentially a negative scenario for me almost any way it goes... which is why I hate the idea of MichaelDean.

Did that explanation help make any more sense out of my misgivings?

*** Or the variation where something bad happens, but it only happens to Dean.

Bergamot · April 24, 2018

2 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Jensen would be playing an uninteresting character

I still don't actually believe that Michael is coming back, although I am not sure why. But if the writers do bring him back, and make any effort at all, the last thing I think the character would be is uninteresting. Just look at the discussion here, and the different views. Why did he want the Apocalypse? Was he a "good son"? Why did he have such faith that things would work out as they should? Was he actually the greatest evil mastermind in the history of the universe (although it kind of boggles my mind that someone who believes that about Michael could find him "less complex" and "more dull" than Lucifer the whiny toddler.) The show's absolute determination to keep such a powerful, central character completely out of the story has only made the idea of him coming back more intriguing. Let's crack him out of the Cage and let him speak for himself! To me he is a mysterious figure whose character development could go in unexpected ways, and I think that could be a good thing for the show.

DeeDee79 · April 24, 2018

6 minutes ago, Bergamot said:

I still don't actually believe that Michael is coming back, although I am not sure why. But if the writers do bring him back, and make any effort at all, the last thing I think the character would be is uninteresting. Just look at the discussion here, and the different views. Why did he want the Apocalypse? Was he a "good son"? Why did he have such faith that things would work out as they should? Was he actually the greatest evil mastermind in the history of the universe (although it kind of boggles my mind that someone who believes that about Michael could find him "less complex" and "more dull" than Lucifer the whiny toddler.) The show's absolute determination to keep such a powerful, central character completely out of the story has only made the idea of him coming back more intriguing. Let's crack him out of the Cage and let him speak for himself! To me he is a mysterious figure whose character development could go in unexpected ways, and I think that could be a good thing for the show.

Co-sign. I'm actually fully in support of Michael!Dean now if only to see Lucifer get smacked down for good. Lucifer is certainly not interesting IMO and he hasn't been for many seasons now.

companionenvy · April 24, 2018

27 minutes ago, Bergamot said:

(although it kind of boggles my mind that someone who believes that about Michael could find him "less complex" and "more dull" than Lucifer the whiny toddler.)

I'm not saying Lucifer is a brilliantly drawn character, but it is undeniable that he now has a distinct identity and history with Sam, Dean and Cas. I'd also add that a lot of the worst of whiny Lucifer came well after S5 and his possession of Sam. Yes, the parallel between Michael/Lucifer/God and Dean/Sam/John was always a little anvilicious, as these parallels tend to be, but S5 Lucifer had some real gravitas, especially in The End. It was only when Lucifer returned in later seasons that the writers basically made him identical to Hellucifer, and then doubled down on the whiny brat with Daddy issues thing when Chuck came back.

catrox14 · April 24, 2018

I always thought Michael was pretty fascinating because he was so....IMO, different in his attitude. I thought since he promised to not leave Dean a drooling mess, that he had some kind of compassion.
@AwesomO4000, thanks for that explanation.

I think back to Kripke saying he always wanted good!Dean vs evil!Sam, at this point I think he's the only writer who deigned to make Sam bad borderline evil. And given how I think Dabb views Dean, I wouldn't put it past Dabb to decide that Michael is actually the evil one and we'll end up with Evil!Dean vs Good!Sam, which is the only reason I wouldn't want Michael!Dean.

Sign In

These Spoilers Suck: Bitter Speculation About SPN Spoilers

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Casseiopeia

gonzosgirrl

ahrtee

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment