S13.E02: The Rising Son

[Aeryn13]

I find it hilarious that we went from last Season`s BMOL with the "hey, we have ray-guns and are so efficient we plan to take out every monster and demon ever" with Sam going "sounds good, sign me up" and Dean going "those guys are weirdos" to what amounts to half a Season later and Sam going "everyone is an individual and monsters can be saved by nurture" for plot convenience.

[companionenvy]

57 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

I find it hilarious that we went from last Season`s BMOL with the "hey, we have ray-guns and are so efficient we plan to take out every monster and demon ever" with Sam going "sounds good, sign me up" and Dean going "those guys are weirdos" to what amounts to half a Season later and Sam going "everyone is an individual and monsters can be saved by nurture" for plot convenience.

Not to reopen a can of worms from last season, but I don't see it as inconsistent. I don't actually think Sam (or Dean, when he signed on) were ever committing to a 100 % zero tolerance policy (for one, they weren't planning on offing Crowley or Rowena anytime soon, not to mention Cas). But even Sam has more or less always taken a "guilty until proven innocent" approach with species populated by known killers like vampires, demons, etc. If they find out that there's some nuance to the situation, they'll re-evaluate on a case by case basis, but they couldn't function in their jobs if they had to read every monster their Miranda rights. Once they were actually working with the BMOL, Sam and Dean refused to go along with them any time the "code" conflicted with their own sense of ethics. So, at worst, Sam didn't ask enough questions. He never actually endorsed a policy of "if it is supernatural, it is evil," which would have been incomprehensible, given his background. The Winchesters and the BMOL both wanted to kill all monsters; they just differed over the definition of monster -- and again, only in a small minority of cases. Again, I think they (and especially Sam) needed to ask more questions, but they hadn't essentially changed their philosophy.

Also, Jack is complicated, because he's not a demon. He is half human, and half angel. Yes, the angel in question is Lucifer, but that shouldn't make him genetically bound to be evil - and as we've seen, even the occasional vampire or werewolf can choose to be "good."

[catrox14]

IMO Dabb is mining s1/s2 dynamics  without a solid basis to regress both boys to that past dynamic all to setup a plot with Lucifer and his son. It's especially frustrating on the Dean front because just last season, Dean told Mick

Quote

DEAN You had a choice.

MICK Did I? Killing monsters is what we do. Or maybe palling around with demons and

DEAN Don't tell me how to do my job.

MICK Well, then do it.

DEAN You think it's that simple, huh?

MICKI really do.

DEAN Yeah? I used to think the same thing. Well, here's a little tip. Things aren't just black and white out here. All you have is a case in front of you, like Hayden. A few months ago, there was this kid, this psychic.

(Flashback to Magda flailing herself as her mother watches. Magda grunts in pain)

She was killing people, but she didn't mean to hurt anyone.

She was being abused.

So we gave her a second chance because it was the right thing to do.

MICK Well... (Grunts) that's your luxury. We have a code.

This was presented as character progression for Dean when it was really just Dean stating to Mick that he had gone past that point which is supported by Dean's evolving position on monsters. It  could even be shown that whilst yes Dean does think it's not black and white, Lucifer's son presents a conundrum and a challenge to that position because he is the Devil's Spawn which is a valid position but the show is not making it a nuanced argument for Dean.

Jack is not a toddler. He's more like a confused 13 year old with God power. He's pretty quick on the uptake about things and IMO is fully capable of comprehending that Dean is worried because of the extent to which Jack's father harmed humanity and Dean's own family and friends. Sure,  it's a big concept but Sam and Dean could present it as "He hurt our friends and family and Dean is worried that you might do the same thing.". 

It could even motivate Jack to be like "OMG. I'm sorry my Dad did those things but I'm going to do everything I can to not be like him". That doesn't take Dean's valid concerns off the table but it makes Dean's position more clear to JACK instead of it being "Dean hates me because I exist"  or "Dean gets his wires crossed" which IMO are both a terribly regressive characterization for Dean, that ignores his evolution.

It seems like they haven't told Jack that Lucifer, his actual father, murdered his adopted father. It also doesn't seem like anyone told Dean that Jack thought Castiel was his father. I know Dean said, "He's not Cas" but IMO that's because he sees him behaving like Castiel vs knowing that Jack saw Castiel as his father and protector. Or did I miss that?

I mean both of those seem like pretty important things that might help Jack and Dean understand each other better.

I'm frustrated that once more this show makes these huge concepts and treats them with less depth than an After School Special. Irksome.

Edited October 21, 2017 by catrox14

[Lemuria]

A lot of my feelings about this ep have already been covered, so some random stuff:

=How stupid was that sleeping arrangement?  Shouldn't there have been one brother in each room?  You know, an experienced hunter?  To protect Jack and Donatello (and/or to protect Donatello and the world from Jack, depending on the POV).  

=Speaking of Jack, why did Jack seem more knowledgeable and mature before he was born than after?  His "communications."  His vision of the future.  Etc.  

=Faces:  shouldn't Lucifer have been able to see Michael's true face behind his vessel?  Shouldn't Jack have been able to pick up something from Asmodeus?

=When did Kelly practically become a saint?  The last decision we know for sure that she made on her own, without outside (or inside, as in Jack), influence was choosing to sleep with the President.  After that, we have no clue how much was Kelly and how much was Jack.  Besides, I'm not sure I consider deciding the risk the entire world on the "word" of a fetus that could be completely evil to be a really noble decision.

=I don't agree that the show has shown us that being without a soul=being without morals, either with Donatello or with season 6 Sam.  I also don't agree with that generally.  If the soul were the seat of morality, then children would be born inherently moral.  They aren't.  They have to taught morality.  They've shown that even young children can display empathy but they'll still think it's OK to just take what they want until they are taught otherwise.  For me, morality is more complex and intellectual.  (Even the soulless babysitter was doing what she considered to be moral: protecting a child from what she now saw as abuse.  She just took it to extremes.)

=As other posters have said, I'm really tired of seeing the show keep claiming that Dean has this black-and-white attitude toward "monsters."  He definitely starting shifting his feelings on this in season 2 (and possibly even earlier.  See, Faith.).  And Sam has shown that he's not always kumbaya with non-humans.  They've sort of met in the middle.

=Put me in with those who really hated the "crossed wires" comment.  I've read, here and elsewhere, posts that attempt to hand-wave it but "having wires crossed" is an expression in real life, and it doesn't refer to someone who masks his fear or grief with anger.  "Having wires crossed" means there's something wrong in a defective sense.  It's a problem that requires a fix or whatever it is that has the crossed wires will not work. You can't just say, "Buck up" and move on.  Not to mention, I don't think that Dean was wrong for being wary and suspicious or for disagreeing with other opinions on the subject, including Sam's.  In the end (as I'm pretty sure will happen), it may turn out that his concerns were unfounded but he does have reasons for feeling that way that have nothing to do with any alleged problem with expressing his emotions.

=The problem with saying that it's on the writers, for me, is that, while it's true that it's the writers who put the words or actions into the script, once it's onscreen, it basically becomes part of the character even though the dialogue or behavior in question totally contradicts what we've seen before--and that's infuriating to me.  I don't think I've ever seen showrunners and writers who care so little for consistency and their own canon.

=Shedim (it's a plural noun in Hebrew) are demons.  There are differing stories about how they came to be:  e.g. one version is that they are the offspring of Adam and Lilith, the Mother of Demons.  Another is that they were supposed to be humans also but God did not finish them because He rested on the Sabbath and He decided to leave them incomplete to underscore that all work was to be completed by the Sabbath.  Sometimes it was believed that they could actually be helpful to humans and that some could even live in accordance with the Torah, such as--wait for it--Asmodeus.  (How's that for coincidence--since I'll never believe these guys do any real research!)

Quote

I've always considered most of the out-of-character dialogue to be just bad writing, lack of attention to canon, etc., but I'm starting to wonder if it's by design.  Are the writers actually clever enough to deliberately keep some of the Sam vs. Dean shit going, or am I giving them too much credit?

I do think they do this sort of thing to cause a rift between the brothers.  Which worked initially but by now is an annoyance.  I also think that a lot of times, based on what they're saying in interviews, that they have no clue how badly they are making the characters look.

Edited October 22, 2017 by Lemuria

[legendinmyownmind]

Dean: "Do I ever want you to drive?"  That was an annoying, stupid line.  He used to a lot more often.  What's wrong with letting Sam drive now?  Cripes, what is he de-aged back to Season One?

[ahrtee]

7 minutes ago, legendinmyownmind said:

Dean: "Do I ever want you to drive?"  That was an annoying, stupid line.  He used to a lot more often.  What's wrong with letting Sam drive now?  Cripes, what is he de-aged back to Season One?

Must be farther back than that.  Season 1, ep. 2, Wendigo:  at the end Sam declares "I'm driving," and Dean tosses him the keys without even blinking.  

[mertensia]

2 hours ago, legendinmyownmind said:

Dean: "Do I ever want you to drive?"  That was an annoying, stupid line.  He used to a lot more often.  What's wrong with letting Sam drive now?  Cripes, what is he de-aged back to Season One?

I took it as standard sibling sniping.  Like when even though someone has learned to cook well, when their sibling is irritated out comes the comment about the inedible meat loaf from 1996.

[Wayward Son]

3 hours ago, legendinmyownmind said:

Dean: "Do I ever want you to drive?"  That was an annoying, stupid line.  He used to a lot more often.  What's wrong with letting Sam drive now?  Cripes, what is he de-aged back to Season One?

Agreed! What makes it even worse is that initially Dean was in a rush to get back to the bunker and then he’d prefer to sleep in a motel rather than just let Sam drive for a few hours LOL 

[AwesomO4000]

27 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Agreed! What makes it even worse is that initially Dean was in a rush to get back to the bunker and then he’d prefer to sleep in a motel rather than just let Sam drive for a few hours LOL 

Well, actually Sam talked Dean into it. Dean wanted to keep going, but Sam made Dean stop when Dean apparently (paraphrase) "saw imaginary sheep on the road" - now whether that was a metaphor or Dean actually thought he saw sheep - which is funnier, so I wish it was that - I can't say.

After thinking about it, my big gripe is Sam talking about Lucifer. The writers had Sam talking about him as if he had no connection to him at all, never mind being stuck with him for about 180 years or so. Talk about ignoring past connections between characters.

[DittyDotDot]

8 hours ago, Lemuria said:

=I don't agree that the show has shown us that being without a soul=being without morals, either with Donatello or with season 6 Sam.  I also don't agree with that generally.  If the soul were the seat of morality, then children would be born inherently moral.  They aren't.  They have to taught morality.  They've shown that even young children can display empathy but they'll still think it's OK to just take what they want until they are taught otherwise.  For me, morality is more complex and intellectual.  (Even the soulless babysitter was doing what she considered to be moral: protecting a child from what she now saw as abuse.  She just took it to extremes.)

I don't think the show has ever said soullessness is equivalent to a lack of morals, but that the soul is our conscience. Soulless Sam knew what was right and wrong, he just had no empathy or guilt to counterbalance what he thought was right or wrong. I think that's the same here with Donatello. It's not that he doesn't know that there is a right or wrong, but without his soul, he doesn't feel what is right or wrong.

8 hours ago, Lemuria said:

=As other posters have said, I'm really tired of seeing the show keep claiming that Dean has this black-and-white attitude toward "monsters."  He definitely starting shifting his feelings on this in season 2 (and possibly even earlier.  See, Faith.).  And Sam has shown that he's not always kumbaya with non-humans.  They've sort of met in the middle.

I don't think the show was claiming that Dean has a black-and-white attitude, but that Dean is in a bad place right now and is preparing himself for when things get even worse. I think they just did it really, really poorly this week and was better balanced last week.

8 hours ago, Lemuria said:

=How stupid was that sleeping arrangement?  Shouldn't there have been one brother in each room?  You know, an experienced hunter?  To protect Jack and Donatello (and/or to protect Donatello and the world from Jack, depending on the POV).  

No kidding. Plus, I thought they were just stopping to get some sleep for a couple hours,,, .

8 hours ago, Lemuria said:

=Speaking of Jack, why did Jack seem more knowledgeable and mature before he was born than after?  His "communications."  His vision of the future.  Etc.

I don't know that he was more knowledgeable in fetus. I'd guess he was just reacting like his is now and had no more control over what he showed Cass than he does over his outbursts now.

8 hours ago, Lemuria said:

=Faces:  shouldn't Lucifer have been able to see Michael's true face behind his vessel?  Shouldn't Jack have been able to pick up something from Asmodeus?

I thought the same thing. I guess Micheal literally looks different in the Alternate... . 

2 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

After thinking about it, my big gripe is Sam talking about Lucifer. The writers had Sam talking about him as if he had no connection to him at all, never mind being stuck with him for about 180 years or so. Talk about ignoring past connections between characters.

I don't know that he had no connection to it but that he was trying to walk a very fine line and try not to give too many details until Jack is "old" enough to understand and process them. So, Sam getting all emotional would've been counterproductive to what Sam was trying to do.

Edited October 22, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Reganne]

9 hours ago, Lemuria said:

 

=Put me in with those who really hated the "crossed wires" comment.  I've read, here and elsewhere, posts that attempt to hand-wave it but "having wires crossed" is an expression in real life, and it doesn't refer to someone who masks his fear or grief with anger.  "Having wires crossed" means there's something wrong in a defective sense.  It's a problem that requires a fix or whatever it is that has the crossed wires will not work. You can't just say, "Buck up" and move on.  Not to mention, I don't think that Dean was wrong for being wary and suspicious or for disagreeing with other opinions on the subject, including Sam's.  In the end (as I'm pretty sure will happen), it may turn out that his concerns were unfounded but he does have reasons for feeling that way that have nothing to do with any alleged problem with expressing his emotions.

 

Personally, I had never heard of the term "Having wires crossed" before so I actually googled it yesterday and that's not the definition that came up.  This is what I found......

 

"get your wires crossed

When people get their wires crossed, they have a different understanding of the same situation:

Somehow we got our wires crossed because I'd written the 23rd in my diary and Jen had the 16th."

To me that makes sense in the situation they're in.  Sam and Dean do have a different understanding of Jack at this point.  I think this might be the definition or meaning the writers might have been going for.  I didn't see anything said about something being defective or require fixing in the term when referencing people in the term crossed wires but it could be somewhere out there.  I don't think that was the meaning the writers were going for in this situation though.

[DeeDee79]

8 hours ago, legendinmyownmind said:

Dean: "Do I ever want you to drive?"  That was an annoying, stupid line.  He used to a lot more often.  What's wrong with letting Sam drive now?  Cripes, what is he de-aged back to Season One?

And another example of bad writing because Sam has driven on more than one occasion and Dean has never made a fuss about him doing so.

[gonzosgirrl]

2 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

And another example of bad writing because Sam has driven on more than one occasion and Dean has never made a fuss about him doing so.

I took this as typical tired/grumpy sniping between brothers.  For me this is far more in character than most of the caricatures these lazy writers foist on him, ie sloppy eating, clumsy oaf, etc. He's always protective/possessive of the Impala - even last season when Sam took her to chase down the Hellhound. So falling back on that when he's already low isn't OOC in my opinion. 

[DeeDee79]

5 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I took this as typical tired/grumpy sniping between brothers.  For me this is far more in character than most of the caricatures these lazy writers foist on him, ie sloppy eating, clumsy oaf, etc. He's always protective/possessive of the Impala - even last season when Sam took her to chase down the Hellhound. So falling back on that when he's already low isn't OOC in my opinion. 

Responding in Bitch vs. Jerk :)

[DittyDotDot]

2 hours ago, Reganne said:

Personally, I had never heard of the term "Having wires crossed" before so I actually googled it yesterday and that's not the definition that came up.  This is what I found......

 

"get your wires crossed

When people get their wires crossed, they have a different understanding of the same situation:

Somehow we got our wires crossed because I'd written the 23rd in my diary and Jen had the 16th."

To me that makes sense in the situation they're in.  Sam and Dean do have a different understanding of Jack at this point.  I think this might be the definition or meaning the writers might have been going for.  I didn't see anything said about something being defective or require fixing in the term when referencing people in the term crossed wires but it could be somewhere out there.  I don't think that was the meaning the writers were going for in this situation though.

It depends on the usage; there's a difference between getting one's wires crossed--meaning one person is very confused--and two or more people getting their wires crossed--meaning a misunderstanding or a different understanding of the same situation.

In this case, it appears Sam was saying Dean tends to not think clearly when he's in a certain emotional place. I don't think Sam was saying Dean does feelings wrong, but was just explaining to Jack that not everything Dean says or does is true to who Dean generally is right now because he's in a bad place. I think he was basically telling Jack not to judge Dean harshly right now. I just think it would've better served Sam's argument to if he'd tied it back to Jack. I mean, Jack just lost his own mother and potential best friend too, I think that would've made more of an impact on Jack and helped him to understand Dean better too.

But, leave it to the Horrible Duo to always find the slightly off-putting way to write it when there are probably nine-hundred-thousand-two-hundred-and-twenty-three better ways to write it. ::shrugs::

Edited October 22, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[ahrtee]

12 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

In this case, it appears Sam was saying Dean tends to not think clearly when he's in a certain emotional place. I don't think Sam was saying Dean does feelings wrong, but was just explaining to Jack that not everything Dean says or does is true to who Dean generally is right now because he's in a bad place. I think he was basically telling Jack not to judge Dean harshly right now. I just think it would've better served Sam's argument to if he'd tied it back to Jack. I mean, Jack just lost his own mother and potential best friend too, I think that would've made more of an impact on Jack and helped him to understand Dean better too.

But, leave it to the Horrible Duo to always find the slightly off-putting way to write it when there are probably nine-hundred-thousand-two-hundred-and-twenty-three better ways to write it. ::shrugs::

As I said before, it's not *what* Sam was saying that I disagree with, it's the way he put it.  It's not "slightly off-putting," it comes across as insulting (whether intended or not) and completely unnecessary, because they could have just given a simple explanation ("Sometimes when Dean is worried or grieving, it comes out seeming like anger.")  That's something that says precisely what (I think) was intended, is clear enough that even a 2-day-old like Jack would understand it (without having to Google it) and it wouldn't seem insulting.  

These are experienced writers (whether you like them or not).  I can't believe they didn't know how it would sound to others.

[AwesomO4000]

4 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

I don't know that he had no connection to it but that he was trying to walk a very fine line and try not to give too many details until Jack is "old" enough to understand and process them. So, Sam getting all emotional would've been counterproductive to what Sam was trying to do.

This makes sense. I just wish I got more of that feeling from the scene than a "we aren't really considering that Sam should know Lucifer fairly well and he's just skirting the issues for Jack" kind of vibe. Maybe when I rewatch the episode, I'll see if I see something differently.

[Jynnan tonnix]

Just as a aside, because so many big issues are being discussed, I had to wonder, after they tried to get Jack the tattoo and it disintegrated, whether they could try again with a sharpie? I doubt his body would see that as an injury it had to heal. 

[DittyDotDot]

9 minutes ago, Jynnan tonnix said:

Just as a aside, because so many big issues are being discussed, I had to wonder, after they tried to get Jack the tattoo and it disintegrated, whether they could try again with a sharpie? I doubt his body would see that as an injury it had to heal. 

Or just have him wear a charm or a hex bag?

[catrox14]

5 hours ago, Reganne said:

Personally, I had never heard of the term "Having wires crossed" before so I actually googled it yesterday and that's not the definition that came up.  This is what I found......

 

"get your wires crossed

When people get their wires crossed, they have a different understanding of the same situation:

Somehow we got our wires crossed because I'd written the 23rd in my diary and Jen had the 16th."

To me that makes sense in the situation they're in.  Sam and Dean do have a different understanding of Jack at this point.  I think this might be the definition or meaning the writers might have been going for.  I didn't see anything said about something being defective or require fixing in the term when referencing people in the term crossed wires but it could be somewhere out there.  I don't think that was the meaning the writers were going for in this situation though

The examples you provided are referencing communication between people.

That's not what BL had Sam say. From the closed captioning and my transcription since I can't find a transcipt on line yet. I'm pretty sure this is accurate:

"No, Dean doesn't hate you.

Sometimes the wires in Dean's head get crossed.

And he gets frustrated and then he mixes frustration with anger...and fear."

Sam is saying that Dean's wires are crossed in his mind. That's different than miscommunication or misunderstanding between two people.  So I am left asking myself what is the purpose of this writing. Are they intending to tell us something about both Dean and Sam? If so, what are they trying to say?

My conclusion at this point is that they are saying that this is how Sam perceives Dean.

[legendinmyownmind]

10 hours ago, ahrtee said:

These are experienced writers (whether you like them or not).  I can't believe they didn't know how it would sound to others.

I believe it.  Have you ever watched an interview with them?  They have an insufferable (unreasonable, lol) superiority complex. 

[Whimsy]

Just because we lock a thread it doesn't mean you can then take the conversation to another thread. Tons of posts have been removed due to being "bitch vs jerk". 

[SueB]

I think Dean is the ‘Dad’ in the new relationship with Jack in terms of whose approval Jack will want the most.  Thinking back on the conversation with Bartender!Asmodeus, Dean’s got the ‘Old Man vibe. And I don’t mean an age thing.  I mean he’s the leader and Jack senses that.  Jack has his own doubts so someone supporting him, like Sam, is essential but he won’t believe in himself until Dean believes in him.  That’s my guess.  

[shang yiet]

Jack has four dads - the Winchesters, Cas and Lucifer. Whose approval he will want the most, we shall see. But I'm sure Dean's opinion is important to him. Dean's opinion has been important in many plotlines.

I wish the writers would leave Dean's wires (crossed or not) alone and focus more on Sam's wires. Maybe Sam can lend Dean some of his tranquilizers and maybe Dean can show Sam how to punch a wall.

But seriously, I don't think the 'crossed wires' comment is insulting in any way. Getting wires crossed is pretty much the human way of coping with things. We feel fear and grief but it comes out as something else. Sam feels the same fear and grief but he is pushing it down and pinning his hopes on Jack being good. That's another example of crossed wires. I actually thought it was quite a gentle and thoughtful way to explain human emotions to Jack.

In fact, I wish Jack had questioned not Dean's feelings but Sam's feelings. Like, why do you (Sam) trust me so much when you should want to end me? Why are you giving me the benefit of the doubt?

I didn't like the 'Do I ever want you to drive' comment by Dean. Sure, I can accept it as sibling banter but still the car is Sam's home too.  Sam begged Bobby to rebuild it after the car crash in Devil's Trap. Dean gave the car to Sam before he went to hell. It has been Sam's car too.

Edited October 24, 2017 by shang yiet

[Diane]

5 minutes ago, shang yiet said:

Jack has four dads - the Winchesters, Cas and Lucifer. Whose approval he will want the most, we shall see. But I'm sure Dean's opinion is important to him.

I wish the writers would leave Dean's wires (crossed or not) alone and focus more on Sam's wires. Maybe Sam can lend Dean some of his tranquilizers and maybe Dean can show Sam how to punch a wall.

But seriously, I don't think the 'crossed wires' comment is insulting in any way. Getting wires crossed is pretty much the human way of coping with things. We feel fear and grief but it comes out as something else. Sam feels the same fear and grief but he is pushing it down and pinning his hopes on Jack being good. That's another example of crossed wires. I actually thought it was quite a gentle and thoughtful way to explain human emotions to Jack.

I didn't like the 'Do I ever want you to drive' comment by Dean. Sure, I can accept it as sibling banter but still the car is Sam's home too.  Sam begged Bobby to rebuild it after the car crash in Devil's Trap. Dean gave the car to Sam before he went to hell. It has been Sam's car too.

Actually Sam begged Bobby to tow the car back to his salvage yard.  It was in the 1st episode of the 2nd season In My Time of Dying.  

Sam and Dean are pretty much acting as they always have,  Sam has hope and Dean pushes his anger and grief into more work. 

[shang yiet]

I thought Bobby wanted to write off the car as a wreck but Sam wanted him to save it.

Quote

Dean pushes his anger and grief into more work.

I think they both have this habit only Sam tends not to punch things. I do want him too. It would be the first time.

Edited October 24, 2017 by shang yiet

[Diane]

2 minutes ago, shang yiet said:

I thought Bobby wanted to write off the car as a wreck but Sam wanted him to save it.

I think they both have this habit only Sam tends not to punch things. I do want him too. It would be the first time.

He did he begged Bobby to tow the car back to Bobby's salvage yard so Dean could fix it. 

[gonzosgirrl]

14 minutes ago, shang yiet said:

I thought Bobby wanted to write off the car as a wreck but Sam wanted him to save it.

I think they both have this habit only Sam tends not to punch things. I do want him too. It would be the first time.

I think the car was a metaphor for Dean in 2x01. Sam didn't want to write the car off as it equated to writing Dean off. Even though Dean 'gave' the car to Sam in 3x16, he said 'take care of my wheels'. I agree completely that the Impala is/was their 'home', but it's Dean's car.

Edited October 24, 2017 by gonzosgirrl

[catrox14]

Quote

Actually Sam begged Bobby to tow the car back to his salvage yard.  It was in the 1st episode of the 2nd season In My Time of Dying.  

9 minutes ago, shang yiet said:

I thought Bobby wanted to write off the car as a wreck but Sam wanted him to save it.

The Impala was shown in Bobby's yard but its not shown how it got there. Bobby advised Sam to total it. IMO.  Sam didn't beg Bobby, but was adamant that it be kept so Dean could fix it himself when he recovered.

From the 2.1 transcirpt

Quote

SAM
Oh man, Dean is gonna be pissed.

BOBBY
Look, Sam. This... this just ain't worth a tow. I say we empty the trunk, sell the rest for scrap.

SAM
No. Dean would kill me if we did that. When he gets better he's gonna want to fix this.

BOBBY
There's nothing to fix. The frame's a pretzel, and the engine's ruined. There's barely any parts worth salvaging.

SAM
Listen to me, Bobby. If there's only one working part, that's enough. We're not just going to give up on...
BOBBY
(quietly)
Okay. You got it.

[Diane]

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

The Impala was shown in Bobby's yard but its not shown how it got there. Bobby advised Sam to total it. IMO.  Sam didn't beg Bobby, but was adamant that it be kept so Dean could fix it himself when he recovered.

From the 2.1 transcirpt

I am pretty sure the car didn't magically transport to the salvage yard, so yes he insisted, same difference in my eyes. YMMV

[gonzosgirrl]

5 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

The Impala was shown in Bobby's yard but its not shown how it got there. Bobby advised Sam to total it. IMO.  Sam didn't beg Bobby, but was adamant that it be kept so Dean could fix it himself when he recovered.

From the 2.1 transcirpt

IIRC Sam told John that he'd called Bobby to tow the car back to his place.

ETA:

Sam: I already called Bobby. He's like an hour out, he's gonna tow the Impala back to his place.

Edited October 24, 2017 by gonzosgirrl

[catrox14]

Rant about the Dean driving thing. 

I was re-watching that sequence.  My gods, it's worse upon rewatch. It's so typical of Buck Lemming's hack lazy writing to sacrifice character for plot. Dean was  thrown under the wheels of the Impala by Buck Lemming all to set up Jack being kidnapped by Asmodeus from a motel.

Heretical comments ahead. IMO,  J2 were not good in that scene. And IMO they were bad because it was shit writing and IMO they both acted what was on the page. They couldn't play it as comedy because it wasn't really a funny situation. IMO, J2 would have been like "um this doesn't seem like what they would do or say" when Dean is too tired to drive.  Dean is a reasonable person about driving. He has never risked other lives because he's too tired to drive. They also will sleep in the car rather than get a motel when they are both too tired to drive.

BLemming sacrifices character for plot no matter what even if they make them caricatures and idiots to do it.

And here's the thing that makes it all the more stupid.

Apparently, Dean still drove to the motel, FFS.  Was it just conveniently close enough that Dean driving another couple of miles didn't endanger them even though he was apparently hallucinating sheep?? WTF? If Dean didn't drive the rest of the way to the motel, then that means he gave the keys to Sam and why wouldn't they have just continued on to the bunker because Sam didn't say he was too tired to drive. 

OH MY GODS.

 

[Diane]

Pretty sure he wasn't actually hallucinating sheep.  It was a metaphor, they were all really tired, so they stopped to get some rest.   I didn't see it as bad writing, or Dean being thrown under the impala.  On long trips we have stopped too, when I couldn't drive anymore and the passenger was exhausted too. It happens. 

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, Diane said:

I am pretty sure the car didn't magically transport to the salvage yard, so yes he insisted, same difference in my eyes. YMMV

? I wasn't suggesting it had been magically transported back.

As Gonzo reminded, Sam called Bobby to get the car. IMO, Sam wouldn't have needed to beg Bobby to get the car from the crash site since Bobby's business is auto salvage. IMO, he would pick it up to sell it for scrap if nothing else,  which is the conversation they had on screen wherein Sam was insisting on not scrapping it so Dean could fix it. That's what I was talking about. 

[MysteryGuest]

I honestly didn't find that scene to be out of character at all.  I think it's been established from the beginning that Baby is Dean's car, and while Sam has certainly driven it in the past, Dean is the one who drives the majority of the time.  Dean doesn't ever "want" Sam to drive, but he allows it to happen on occasion.  But when Sam does drive, Dean sleeps.  He doesn't ever act as navigator like Sam does.  Dean doesn't read in the car, or use the computer, or anything else really.  He either drives, or sleeps.  My guess is he really didn't feel comfortable falling asleep in the car with Satan's son sitting in the backseat, consequently, he kept driving.

Having them stop at the motel was certainly a plot device, but I didn't have an issue with it.  What was absurd (and someone pointed this out earlier in this thread, but I can't remember who, so credit to whomever!) was having Jack stay in Donatello's room.  That part was laughable.  No way in hell are they leaving this 3 day old Son of Satan on his own with someone as bumbling as Donatello while they catch a few z's in another room.  That would never have happened.  So I agree there was a huge plot contrivance, but I don't think the car scene was it.

[catrox14]

12 minutes ago, Diane said:

Pretty sure he wasn't actually hallucinating sheep.  It was a metaphor, they were all really tired, so they stopped to get some rest.   I didn't see it as bad writing, or Dean being thrown under the impala.  On long trips we have stopped too, when I couldn't drive anymore and the passenger was exhausted too. It happens. 

The thing is that people DO hallucinate when they are overly tired.  So I am taking it at face value that Sam saying, "Dude, you were hallucinating sheep on the road" was not a metaphor but was factual given his concern over Dean driving whilst overly tired.  IMO, either Dean was hallucinating sheep before Sam offered to drive...or that Dean kept driving and started hallucinating sheep so Sam insisted on a motel and Dean kept driving. 

Dean was shown to be stubborn about driving when he's never been stubborn about not driving tired in the past, and that put them all at risk, is Dean being thrown under the Impala IMO. And FTR, I would be saying the same thing if Sam had been the one driving, so it's not about Sam v Dean here.  Neither of them insist on continuing to drive when they are overly tired. They will stop on the side of the road if a motel is not nearby or they don't have the money for it.

Anyway, beyond the plot contrivance to get them into the hotel, Jack was going to sleep on the couch in a shared room IIRC. They didn't have two rooms to start out but then they did. When did they give Jack a separate room?  Why did they leave Jack alone at all? So much PLOTONIUM in this episode.

[DittyDotDot]

As usual, I don't think the scene was meant to be taken so literal, as though Dean NEVER wants Sam to drive or Dean was being a jerk. Dean's just on edge right now and Sam is walking on egg shells around him--which is only annoying Dean more, as it would I if I were in Dean's shoes--so Dean throws Sam a "Stop it Sam" sort of line.

You'd think, after 13 years, Sam would know to let Dean be when he's feeling his feelings. And, you'd think Dean would know to just flat-out tell Sam to back off.

[gonzosgirrl]

32 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

As usual, I don't think the scene was meant to be taken so literal, as though Dean NEVER wants Sam to drive or Dean was being a jerk. Dean's just on edge right now and Sam is walking on egg shells around him--which is only annoying Dean more, as it would I if I were in Dean's shoes--so Dean throws Sam a "Stop it Sam" sort of line.

You'd think, after 13 years, Sam would know to let Dean be when he's feeling his feelings. And, you'd think Dean would know to just flat-out tell Sam to back off.

+1

[shang yiet]

Both of them were on edge so Dean should try the eggshell approach himself and not crack that sarcastic car joke. Just saying. They both were struggling with their feelings and coping their own way. No I dont like that car remark but I never said Dean was being a jerk. Just that the writers should remember it is Sam's home and Sam has driven the car many times.

Edited October 24, 2017 by shang yiet

[Diane]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

The thing is that people DO hallucinate when they are overly tired.  So I am taking it at face value that Sam saying, "Dude, you were hallucinating sheep on the road" was not a metaphor but was factual given his concern over Dean driving whilst overly tired.  IMO, either Dean was hallucinating sheep before Sam offered to drive...or that Dean kept driving and started hallucinating sheep so Sam insisted on a motel and Dean kept driving. 

Dean was shown to be stubborn about driving when he's never been stubborn about not driving tired in the past, and that put them all at risk, is Dean being thrown under the Impala IMO. And FTR, I would be saying the same thing if Sam had been the one driving, so it's not about Sam v Dean here.  Neither of them insist on continuing to drive when they are overly tired. They will stop on the side of the road if a motel is not nearby or they don't have the money for it.

Anyway, beyond the plot contrivance to get them into the hotel, Jack was going to sleep on the couch in a shared room IIRC. They didn't have two rooms to start out but then they did. When did they give Jack a separate room?  Why did they leave Jack alone at all? So much PLOTONIUM in this episode.

I disagree completely, in no way did I see it being literal. OYMMV.

1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:

As usual, I don't think the scene was meant to be taken so literal, as though Dean NEVER wants Sam to drive or Dean was being a jerk. Dean's just on edge right now and Sam is walking on egg shells around him--which is only annoying Dean more, as it would I if I were in Dean's shoes--so Dean throws Sam a "Stop it Sam" sort of line.

You'd think, after 13 years, Sam would know to let Dean be when he's feeling his feelings. And, you'd think Dean would know to just flat-out tell Sam to back off.

Yep, I agree.

[Diane]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

The thing is that people DO hallucinate when they are overly tired.  So I am taking it at face value that Sam saying, "Dude, you were hallucinating sheep on the road" was not a metaphor but was factual given his concern over Dean driving whilst overly tired.  IMO, either Dean was hallucinating sheep before Sam offered to drive...or that Dean kept driving and started hallucinating sheep so Sam insisted on a motel and Dean kept driving. 

Dean was shown to be stubborn about driving when he's never been stubborn about not driving tired in the past, and that put them all at risk, is Dean being thrown under the Impala IMO. And FTR, I would be saying the same thing if Sam had been the one driving, so it's not about Sam v Dean here.  Neither of them insist on continuing to drive when they are overly tired. They will stop on the side of the road if a motel is not nearby or they don't have the money for it.

Anyway, beyond the plot contrivance to get them into the hotel, Jack was going to sleep on the couch in a shared room IIRC. They didn't have two rooms to start out but then they did. When did they give Jack a separate room?  Why did they leave Jack alone at all? So much PLOTONIUM in this episode.

I disagree completely, in no way did I see it being literal. OYMMV.

[Aeryn13]

Honestly, I didn`t have much of a problem with the comment. It was a quick piece of dialogue to exposition why they were checking in to the hotel. 

The entire "crossed wires" thing bugged the crap out of me but the driving, I found inconsequential. 

[MysteryGuest]

Jack was going to sleep on the couch until Donatello came.  Then because things were "strained" in Dean and Sam's room, they sent Jack in to bunk with Donatello in his room.  It makes perfect sense...not.

[gonzosgirrl]

1 minute ago, MysteryGuest said:

Jack was going to sleep on the couch until Donatello came.  Then because things were "strained" in Dean and Sam's room, they sent Jack in to bunk with Donatello in his room.  It makes perfect sense...not.

Not to mention Soulless Sam didn't need sleep, but Donatello does? And if Jack's body regenerates to the extent that he can stab himself repeatedly and barely even bleed, does he need to sleep?

[companionenvy]

About as much sense as Charlie leaving the bunker with the Book of the Damned because Rowena was annoying her. 

Still bitter. 

[Katy M]

1 minute ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Not to mention Soulless Sam didn't need sleep, but Donatello does? And if Jack's body regenerates to the extent that he can stab himself repeatedly and barely even bleed, does he need to sleep?

Crazy theory.  Maybe Amara did put back all the souls she sucked out (of those still alive), but they were depleted.  And, Donatello didn't realize that.  So, what he thinks is soullessness is actually just reduced soul.  So, he does need to sleep, and his conscience is basically intact, he just feels a bit off.  And, since he was only soulless for a day or so, maybe, before Amara left, he doesn't really realize that full soullessness feels different. That's my story and until it can be disproven, I'm sticking to it.  Or a slight alteration that he got the wrong soul back.  I'm sure that could make you feel a bit off, also.

[MysteryGuest]

I know this is wandering off topic, but why would losing your soul make you no longer require sleep?  I know Sam didn't sleep while soulless, but it never really made sense to me.  He was still human and his physical body would still require rest.  I don't remember any other soulless characters going without sleep, but maybe I didn't pay attention closely enough.  Just one more happy WTF of the Supernatural world.

[auntvi]

Castiel doesn't have a soul and didn't sleep, until he lost his grace & became almost human. He didn't have his grace but he also had no soul, because angels don't have souls. What about the guy from the Lizzie Borden episode, after Amara sucked his soul did he sleep?

Yeah, WTF.

[Katy M]

14 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

I know this is wandering off topic, but why would losing your soul make you no longer require sleep?  I know Sam didn't sleep while soulless, but it never really made sense to me.  He was still human and his physical body would still require rest.  I don't remember any other soulless characters going without sleep, but maybe I didn't pay attention closely enough.  Just one more happy WTF of the Supernatural world.

Mind you, I'm not saying this makes sense, but maybe the theory is that what makes us tired is our humanity.  If you have no emotions or conscience, you don't get worn out with warring with it and therefore don't need sleep.  But, I would think by that token babies wouldn't need sleep. Not saying babies are soulless, but I don't think wrestle with right or wrong until they're at least 3 months old.

[catrox14]

Making Donatello soulless was just stupid. IMO that's because he was likely supposed to be dead but then someone probably wanted Keith Smardjza (?) back so they said, 'Not dead, just soulless!" and didn't think one minute about the implications because as usual with the BLemming they give fuck all about continuity, character or anything that challenges the plot direction they want.