Supernatural Bitterness & Unpopular Opinions: You All Suck

[7kstar]

On 7/30/2016 at 10:02 AM, DittyDotDot said:

Like I said, IMO, storylines should be done for character reasons, not actor reasons and, IMO, the show has relied on the actors to make the story work, rather than coming up with a compelling story for the actors to work with, for far too long.

Oh how I agree.  I want them to start working on compelling story-lines for both.  I get frustrated with oh that looks so promising only to have it fizzle and turn into a meh moment.  Even though Jensen can deliver some powerful emotions, if it becomes to common to see it, then it no longer has a powerful impact.  Kevin's death scene comes to mind for me.  I might could watch it now and see a powerful scene but back then in real time I just wanted to hit the writers with come on, how many times are you going to do this for nothing.

17 hours ago, Demented Daisy said:

(Same with Gabriel -- Chuck confirmed that he is, indeed, dead.  Boo!)

Boo indeed.  However, he did give us a chance, he said he couldn't do it then because he didn't have the time, now that he is off whereever, he could somehow get the time if he wanted.  That's my wish anyway.  :)

9 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

My unpopular opinion is that I liked Jared's portrayal of soulless Sam, especially later on when we found out what was wrong with him. He was genuinely creepy for me when he gave that smile while watching Dean get bitten and when he gave that bloody-toothed smile after biting his arm.

I think it was one of Jared's best moments.  He has a few where he has hit the nail on the head.  Lucifer/Sam in "The End" is another brilliant moment for Jared and also a great character moment.  But it is the old less is more.  It is short and sweet and that is when Jared shines.  When he has to draw it out and do it for a long time, that's when it starts to fail for me.  JMO.

39 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

That's it for me to. I don't want Dean to disappear for a bunch of episodes. Same with Cass/Lucifer, I didn't want them to revisit Lucifer in the first place, but really hated how they used it to make Cass disappear but keep Misha on the show. 

I would be fine with Lucifer not coming back.  I want a real reason for Cas to be around as his character.  I also want him to be a bad-ass.  For me the time for Demon Dean has passed.  My upset was that since they went there and I didn't really want that to begin with, I wanted them to make it count.  The time they gave was stupid, so I really wish they hadn't.

I think the issue Jensen doesn't like and has said several times never again, is when he has to play himself against himself.  Once in season 3 and then in "the End" come to mind.  He's brilliant so I wouldn't mind that issue again, but Jensen will scream about not wanting to do it again, and I think they respect him so they don't.  Now if the storyline really needs it, I think they would do it again, but I think they know how he feels so they don't.

At this point I don't want Sam to go back to having powers.  I want the brothers to being human and outsmarting the bad guys who think they can't possibly win since they have the power. 

As far as Michael coming back, the actor is now on General Hospital and has a major story-line, so I doubt he can come back at least at this time.  I think that is the one thing that Supernatural has done, helped many actors get noticed so they get a chance to have a long career.  At least that's my story, that Supernatural is the reason they got noticed.  :)

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I think the issue Jensen doesn't like and has said several times never again, is when he has to play himself against himself.  Once in season 3 and then in "the End" come to mind.  He's brilliant so I wouldn't mind that issue again, but Jensen will scream about not wanting to do it again, and I think they respect him so they don't.  Now if the storyline really needs it, I think they would do it again, but I think they know how he feels so they don't.

Not for a millisecond do I believe that they do not give Dean good storylines because that is Jensen`s wish. If he had to play a "different" character, that is not the same as playing multiple roles within one episode. For some reason they do not give him the opportunity and IMO the show suffers for it. 

Personally, I don`t care if the character himself is missing for a few eps. It`s been 11 years, that`s roughly 3-4 more years than I normally see of characters in a TV show. And since they hit the same few beats anyway, the character being on means same old, same old. Like, is there seriously any way to make Dean fretting about Sam a scene that we haven`t seen a thousand times before? Even if I still got invested in those scenes, the repetition alone would numb me to it. Not caring for the relationship makes it all that much harder. So if the choice is between this and something not yet seen, hell yeah, give me the second. It`s not like the character won`t come back and at least afterwards they have something new to deal with too.    

Heck, characters "dying" has gotten to the point where I outright laugh at it and the other character`s reaction because "death" has become such a joke.  At this point, the characters should be as blasé about dying as the viewers. It`s worse than South Park`s Kenny.

Quote

Sam was supposed to have supernatural powers in the very beginning. Dean, in contrast, was the 'human' one. That was Kripke's vision from the start, like it or not. Why should there be this 'both or nothing' rule?

We`re on the fourth showrunner by now and "Kripke`s vision" or version of the show is long over. He seemed more into the whole horror and road movie vibe anyway. Which it hasn`t been in ages. So I do not buy that things have to be static till the end of time. 

Now like I said, I do not believe the show will actually bring in much of what I like, four showrunners = four busts in the end but at least I hope it won`t actively be offensive again. Season 11 very often crossed over into that territory. The majority of each Season are still the MOTW episodes so if they suck, the ratio for the Season is not looking good.   

[auntvi]

13 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

My unpopular opinion is that I liked Jared's portrayal of soulless Sam,

Then I'm unpopular, too. I think he does sociopath very well - in Born Under a Bad Sign, Sam possessed by Meg was very, very creepy.

Quote

Also weirdly, and unpopularly - and don't shoot me - I sometimes find Jensen's emotional scenes too much.

For me, it's the volume that takes me out of the scene. It may be my own afraid of my father issues, but from the beginning, angry, yelling Dean was too much. However, I must say that in s.10 Dark Dynasty, after Dean finds out that the book couldn't be burned, Jensen made Dean truly menacing.

[SueB]

7 hours ago, auntvi said:

....Jensen made Dean truly menacing.

He legit scares the shit out of sometimes.  And where the hell does THAT COME FROM?!?!?!  What evil example does he channel?  I literally don't want to know. 

[catrox14]

I think one of his most menacing moments was in the Hunger Games when he got in Metadouche's face with the "Slugger" comment.  I was like HOLY SHIT. Or when he got in the face of the DA in the episode wherein Charlie returns.  It's so great.

[Boopsahoy]

15 hours ago, auntvi said:

For me, it's the volume that takes me out of the scene. It may be my own afraid of my father issues, but from the beginning, angry, yelling Dean was too much. However, I must say that in s.10 Dark Dynasty, after Dean finds out that the book couldn't be burned, Jensen made Dean truly menacing

He was so scary! I was actually afraid for Sam!

[AwesomO4000]

On 7/30/2016 at 10:25 AM, ahrtee said:

On a separate note, as a dedicated Dean h/c junkie, I'm a little sad that it always seems to be Sam who's tied down and tortured.  I don't think it's the "Samsel/must be rescued" part, because often it's done to cure instead of hurt (like pulling out Gadreel or putting back his soul), and often Sam gets himself out.  Maybe it's because Jared screams so well... 

Hee. I meant to comment on this earlier. I think I mentioned this very thing myself somewhere on this board. Jared really does do the screaming thing well, in my opinion.

My favorite Jensen/Dean moment of this was when he was being cured from being a demon... and those were as much (scary) growls as they were screams.

[AwesomO4000]

Brought over from the "Do You Believe in Miracles" episode thread:

1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

• I wish Sam wouldn't have said "I get it" and "I know" so much this episode.  Because I don't get it and I don't know - and I'd like to know what Sam thinks he knows in regards to Dean, because none of that made sense to me.  Was that supposed to be making up for his 'we're not brothers' speech?  Cause it didn't do it for me.  Neither did the "I lied" or the summoning Crowley.  After all the time he spent acting all pissy toward Dean about Gadreel (who turns out wasn't so bad after all...) (and Season 8), it might very well be a case of too little too late, imo.  Damn, I hate that.  I don't want want to not like Sam, but that's where the show keeps pushing me.  

Welcome to the Carver years. During those first seasons I pretty much thought that it was Carver's goal to turn Sam into a wimpy jerk. Sam pretty much was useless in the hunting department for much of season 8 and 9, and instead seemed to pout and moan a lot.

And of course Gadreel turned out to be mostly good. Can't have Dean be really wrong about something, can we? *sarcasm* ^^

Gadreel turning out to be good kind of bugged me truthfully for exactly the reason you pointed out. Sam gets pissy about Benny, Dean says he's good - Benny turns out to be good. Naomi all season is pretty much a bitch, manipulating Castiel 9 ways from Sunday (or however that expression goes) and causing him to kill innocent, good beings, but Dean says trust her... and she turns out to be telling the truth that time and everyone should have trusted her. Sam is pissy about Gadreel, Gadreel turns out to be good, because Dean said he (Ezekiel) was, and the only bad thing that happens is Kevin dies, but that's over balanced by Gadreel helping to save the world from Metatron (who coincidentally happened because Dean was right and Castiel was wrong.) So Gadreel gets redemption and Sam gets too little, too late, and fails to save Dean (because we can't have Sam actually succeed at something, can we?)

I don't know. I can't help but think that if Sam had manipulated Dean into accepting an angel to fix him, he/she would turn out to be the most effectively evil angel that ever was (if not Lucifer himself) and would start an apocalypse after killing a town full of innocent people, because that seems to be how Carver rolls.

^^ I adore Dean, but I sometimes find it annoying that he's right about nearly everything in the Carver years while poor Castiel and Sam turn out always to be very, very wrong. I can't think of one major thing that Dean has turned out to be wrong about yet in these last 4 seasons, but the list for Sam and Castiel would take at least two hands of fingers to count.

I don't want it to, but Supernatural is starting to remind me of House (which I watched a few episodes of, because a family member liked it.) I hated House, the character, and the show and hate-watched a few episodes more just to see if House was ever wrong... he wasn't, while the characters I liked were almost always wrong about everything. I hated the show even more.

Fortunately, I don't hate Dean, or I would've given up on this show after season 8, but watching Sam and Castiel mess up all of the time while hardly, if ever, having a win (especially Sam - Castiel did get one win in "Do You Believe...") is becoming very, very tiresome for me. And if the trend continues, I may start resenting Dean for it, and I don't want to do that.

[companionenvy]

Great post! I love Dean -- and find him more interesting than Sam, as a character -- but I'm also not fond of the "Dean is always right" thing the show has going. 

It isn't even so much that Dean doesn't make mistakes, but that his mistakes are generally presented as more justifiable, tend not to have immediately devastating consequences, and don't get repeatedly brought up by everyone from God to the Devil. Dean may feel guilty about them, but since Dean feels guilty about almost everything, that is less consequential than the repeated judgments that people pass on Sam.

Kevin's death is Dean's fault, for instance, but even in the most uncharitable view of his actions in letting Gadreel possess Sam, it wasn't a foreseeable consequence of his decision. And as far as motivations go, "saving my beloved brother from death" is a pretty darn sympathetic one.

By comparison, Charlie's death is Sam's fault -- but that IS a pretty foreseeable result of getting a neophyte hunter involved in a colossally dangerous mission. What is more, while as Dean's decision to let Gadreel possess Sam -- like his decision to take the mark -- is a quick decision made before he even has time to reflect, Sam's decision to keep going with the Book of the Damned is something he does over the course of months after being specifically warned against it on numerous occasions. And the result isn't just Charlie's death, awful as it is -- it is apocalypse mark 2. Granted, Sam is doing it to save Dean, but unlikely the superficially parallel case in season 8, Dean isn't lying comatose in a hospital bed. He's showing some signs of darkness, yes, but nothing that would justify invoking the nuclear option ASAP. 

While this may have intensified under Carver, the trend began in season 4. Dean broke the first seal, but unknowingly and only after enduring torture so unimaginable that only Dean could blame himself for breaking. Sam broke the last seal, releasing Lucifer -- and after getting loads of warnings. While I happen to still fin his actions in season 4 pretty understandable, the show pretty  obviously doesn't agree with me.

And, of course, Dean gets tons of hero moments to make up for his mistakes. Sam gets to be heroic at various points during the season, but rarely kills the Big Bad. And when he does, it is a catastrophic mistake. 

[ahrtee]

15 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Brought over from the "Do You Believe in Miracles" episode thread:

 

^^ I adore Dean, but I sometimes find it annoying that he's right about nearly everything in the Carver years while poor Castiel and Sam turn out always to be very, very wrong. I can't think of one major thing that Dean has turned out to be wrong about yet in these last 4 seasons, but the list for Sam and Castiel would take at least two hands of fingers to count.

 

I don't know...maybe the problem is not that Sam is always wrong, but that he never seems to learn?  I mean, if someone is *always* right and you're *always* wrong, maybe the next time he says something you disagree with, you maybe should go along with it?  But Sam is always convinced that he's right, no matter how many times he's proven wrong...maybe you're upset about the wrong plot point?  (oops...don't want to make anyone mad.  But I'm semi-serious here.)  

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, ahrtee said:

I don't know...maybe the problem is not that Sam is always wrong, but that he never seems to learn?  I mean, if someone is *always* right and you're *always* wrong, maybe the next time he says something you disagree with, you maybe should go along with it?  But Sam is always convinced that he's right, no matter how many times he's proven wrong...maybe you're upset about the wrong plot point?  (oops...don't want to make anyone mad.  But I'm semi-serious here.)

Oh, no making me mad. I get what you're saying, but for me it's not as simple as that. I might agree if there was something for Sam to learn, but it's not an even playing field. Look at season 9 and 10 for example... Dean doesn't want Sam to die, so he talks Sam into saying yes to Gadreel, and then lies about it, repeatedly. Sam goes through emotional crap, because he thinks something is wrong with him. Now theoretically this should be a bad thing. Dean lied, Sam got emotionally hurt, so we're going to see some fallout, right? Well, sort of. Kevin does die, but Sam is turned into a bitch (even though theoretically he should be angry, but he's not allowed to have a sympathetic argument) and then Gadreel is redeemed and is heroic. Sam learns that Dean is right: you always save family, because Dean turns out to be right about everything: Gadreel was helpful and good, Sam would save Dean under the same circumstances, just like Dean said, and the world was saved from Metatron through Gadreel's help. Sam learns his lesson - you're supposed to save your brother even if he may not want it - this is even what Dean wanted to hear. He was crushed when Sam said he wouldn't.

So... here comes season 10 and now the situation is reversed, Sam finds himself in the same situation, and decides to save Dean just like Dean saved him and told him was the right thing to do. This is what he's supposed to do, right? Well, apparently not, because Sam is berated for doing everything he could to save Dean and lying about it, and the narrative doesn't really show that Dean needed saving, since he came up with a plan all on his own. Sam is told by Dean that he (Sam) should've been the one dead instead of Charlie, and oh by the way, saving Dean causes an apocalypse rather than helps to stop one.

So to sum up:

• Dean saves Sam in questionable ways and lies about it = some minor fallout (Kevin), Sam agreeing Dean was right after all, Gadreel helping to save Sam (again), Charlie, Castiel... and the world. Dean's decision to save his brother is vindicated, and Sam learns his lesson.
• Sam saves Dean in questionable ways and lies about it = a bit more fallout (Charlie, Oscar), no verbal assessment that Sam was right from anyone, and Sam starts an apocalypse. Oh, and later a whole town of innocents is killed as a result... in case we weren't clear that Sam's decision to save his brother was completely wrong and crappy.

Interestingly even as Sam rashly saves Dean and starts an apocalypse, etc, Dean kills Death to save Sam, making yet another rash decision to save Sam. Surely there will be repercussions for this rash decision, right? Well, no, because even though Billie the Reaper threatens to send them into the empty when they die because they killed Death, she apparently has a change of heart and helps them to save the world instead. What are the odds? Apparently good, because it was Dean's rash decision.

So I'm truthfully not sure what Sam is supposed to be learning from this. He did do what he was supposedly supposed to do after "learning his lesson" in season 9. He "went along with" Dean's way of thinking even though he didn't originally agree with it as you suggested above - save your brother at all costs.... and it still went wrong. Well, for Sam it did anyway. Dean doing the same thing, at the exact same time (when he killed Death) had a positive result. (The funny thing is that I predicted this way back near the season 10 finale - it's probably in this thread somewhere. It wasn't as direct as I thought it would be, but Dean killing Death did end up saving the world - just like I said it would - because if Dean hadn't killed Death, Billie never would have contacted them.)

See what I mean about the "uneven playing field."

There are other examples. Sam learned from his Ruby experience "don't trust the demon/monster" ... except when the "monster" is a vampire named Benny, because of course that monster is good (because Dean said he was). Don't get high on power, because it leads to disaster and starting an apocalypse... well unless it's Dean, because then the power (the mark of Cain) helps you to kill the bad guys and after a short foray as a demon, everything is manageable until your stupid brother takes that mark/power away and he starts an apocalypse.

So, I'm truthfully asking what "lesson" is Sam supposed to learn when the lesson keeps changing? "You don't trust monsters, Sam" ...except when you do. "That kind of power is bad, Sam" ...except when it isn't. "You always save family, Sam" ...except when you shouldn't.

And if the "lesson" is supposed to just be "Always do the thing Dean says you should do no matter if it was wrong last time or contradicts everything he said previously, because Dean said so," that's not the show I signed up for. I signed up for a show with a semi-equal partnership between brothers (Like we had in the pre-Carver era) not a John/Dean type relationship where Sam always agrees with everything Dean says, or he'll be taught another lesson.

[DittyDotDot]

7 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Gadreel turning out to be good kind of bugged me truthfully for exactly the reason you pointed out. Sam gets pissy about Benny, Dean says he's good - Benny turns out to be good. Naomi all season is pretty much a bitch, manipulating Castiel 9 ways from Sunday (or however that expression goes) and causing him to kill innocent, good beings, but Dean says trust her... and she turns out to be telling the truth that time and everyone should have trusted her. Sam is pissy about Gadreel, Gadreel turns out to be good, because Dean said he (Ezekiel) was, and the only bad thing that happens is Kevin dies, but that's over balanced by Gadreel helping to save the world from Metatron (who coincidentally happened because Dean was right and Castiel was wrong.) So Gadreel gets redemption and Sam gets too little, too late, and fails to save Dean (because we can't have Sam actually succeed at something, can we?)

I do agree with you that Dean's instincts tend to be more spot on than Sam's, but that's a character thing, if you ask me. Sam's instincts, when it comes to monsters, are colored by the fact that he himself feels like a monster. He used to be hopeful that every monster wasn't a monster, which would mean he isn't a monster. But, after Ruby, Sam stopped trusting his instincts and started trying to apply the lessons he learned from a similar situation as a rule. So, Benny seems like Ruby, Benny is bad, plain and simple. Unfortunately, there really isn't a hard and fast rule to apply to these situations, so it doesn't always go well for Sam while Dean tends to take each situation as it comes and go with his gut.

I don't think it makes Sam unlikeable, though, it's just part of who he is and without it, he wouldn't be Sam. I think what makes Sam unlikeable, at times, is he's whiny and bitchy when I'd just rather he just shut up. But, IMO, that too is part of who Sam is. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of things that annoy me about Dean too, but if he wasn't a self-righeous ass at times, he wouldn't be Dean. I guess my point is, same with real people, I don't always have to like a character to like them. 

However, I do disagree that Dean's rash decisions are any more right than Sam's. Benny may have turned out not be what Sam thought he was, but he was still a monster and Dean set him loose on the world. I think it was a very foolish thing for Dean to do and nothing Benny did can change my mind on that. And, even if Gadreel turned out to be a "good guy"--which, IMO, he wan't despite him changing loyalties at the 11th hour--nothing he did would make Dean trusting Gadreel and going along with the possession without Sam's knowledge right in my mind. I don't care if Gadreel hadn't killed Kevin, Dean should've known better than to just trust an angel like that. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

8 hours ago, ahrtee said:

I don't know...maybe the problem is not that Sam is always wrong, but that he never seems to learn?  I mean, if someone is *always* right and you're *always* wrong, maybe the next time he says something you disagree with, you maybe should go along with it?  But Sam is always convinced that he's right, no matter how many times he's proven wrong...maybe you're upset about the wrong plot point?

Well, I could be totally wrong about this (and it wouldn't be the first time, nor will it be the last!  :) ) but...what I got out of @AwesomO4000 and @companionenvy's posts was that the plot itself was the problem.  So I'm not sure how that's the wrong point?  I mean, the plot, the story, the writers are the ones who make every decision Sam makes turn out wrong, even if he 'learns' his lesson like Awesomo pointed out above.  They could just as easily have Sam be right half the time, or 'learn his lesson' and then be do the right thing - you know, like in the early seasons - but if the writers don't allow him to, then he won't.  

5 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

And if the "lesson" is supposed to just be "Always do the thing Dean says you should do no matter if it was wrong last time or contradicts everything he said previously, because Dean said so," that's not the show I signed up for. I signed up for a show with a semi-equal partnership between brothers (Like we had in the pre-Carver era) not a John/Dean type relationship where Sam always agrees with everything Dean says, or he'll be taught another lesson.

^^This right here.  Thank you so very much.  I don't want one brother to be always, or even mostly, right over the other brother.  In fact, I don't understand why the show has to make one brother out to be 'bad' or 'wrong' or whiny or annoying or bitchy or a self-righteous jackass in order to build the other one up.  It's not an either or situation.  I choose both.

[Bessie]

I'm sort of okay with Dean always being right.  I wish it weren't showcased against the other characters always being wrong, but it is what it is and I think it's too late in the game for that to change.  But it's become such a reliable indicator of how storylines, new characters etc. are going to turn out that it annoys me.  Castiel, Crowley, Benny, Ruby, Charlie, Gadreel - their storylines, motivations, trustworthiness - it's all utterly predictable as soon as we're shown Dean's feelings about them.  So as soon as we know what Dean thinks, we know the general direction of any new character or storyline.  That is annoying.  

Mary and ladywhateverhernameis are two new characters for the upcoming season.  And I get excited and think of all the directions they could explore with these two, but as soon as the season starts and I'm shown Dean interacting with them and how he feels about them, then I'll know where the show is going with them.  It's a letdown.  And I find it to be a serious weakness in the writing because it telegraphs outcomes so damn early.

[companionenvy]

Giving a character a personality flaw is a writing choice. But it isn't good writing to have two characters make substantively similar decisions, and then have one's choices be consistently validated by the narrative -- or, at the very worst, not dwelt upon -- and the other's be consistently invalidated and condemned.

Spending your whole paycheck on lottery tickets is a bad decision. If one character plays the lottery and the other doesn't, then fine. That tells us something about them. But if both characters play the lottery each month, and one repeatedly wins and the other repeatedly loses, that's simply a contrivance. 

If Sam and Dean played the lottery, Dean would win ten million dollars, and Sam would lose the shirt off his back -- and accidentally run over a pedestrian on the way to the convenience store to buy the tickets. 

[Bessie]

Quote

If Sam and Dean played the lottery, Dean would win ten million dollars, and Sam would lose the shirt off his back -- and accidentally run over a pedestrian on the way to the convenience store to buy the tickets. 

That's hilarious because it's so true.  For me, it's at the level of such ridiculousness that it's become farce. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 hour ago, companionenvy said:

If Sam and Dean played the lottery, Dean would win ten million dollars, and Sam would lose the shirt off his back -- and accidentally run over a pedestrian on the way to the convenience store to buy the tickets. 

Aaaand I think we have the plot for a new Mystery Spot episode!

[Bessie]

Do you mean Bad Day at Black Rock?  Because that was immediately what came to my mind.  Sam has the rabbits foot, loses it in a stupid way and becomes a bumbling idiot.  Dean gets it, is smart about it and is a ninja/James Bond hybrid who saves the day!  Don't get me wrong, it's one of my favorite episodes, but it does sort of encapsulate the dynamic. 

Edited August 16, 2016 by Bessie

[ahrtee]

1 minute ago, Bessie said:

Do you mean Bad Day at Black Rock?  Because that was immediately what came to my mind.  Sam has the rabbits foot and becomes a bumbling idiot.  Dean gets it and is a ninja/James Bond hybrid who saves the day!  Don't get me wrong, it's one of my favorite episodes, but it does sort of encapsulate the dynamic. 

Actually, no.  Sam didn't become a bumbling idiot until after he *lost* the rabbit's foot (like the bad guys with falling-over-themselves fights and Rube Goldberg-esq death scene because they lost it.)  When Sam was in possession of the foot, he won the free food at Biggerson's.  They just didn't know the whole ramifications of the good luck till after he lost it.  When Dean had the foot, he already *knew* he could do no wrong, so he knew he could be ninja/Batman.  No hidden meanings here.

[Bessie]

You must've posted while I was editing.  Sorry bout that! And I agree that there were no hidden meanings, but I didn't say there were. I should've been more explicit that, in my view, that episode encapsulates the dynamic I believe exists in the show. 

[AwesomO4000]

12 hours ago, companionenvy said:

What is more, while as Dean's decision to let Gadreel possess Sam -- like his decision to take the mark -- is a quick decision made before he even has time to reflect, Sam's decision to keep going with the Book of the Damned is something he does over the course of months after being specifically warned against it on numerous occasions. And the result isn't just Charlie's death, awful as it is -- it is apocalypse mark 2. Granted, Sam is doing it to save Dean, but unlikely the superficially parallel case in season 8, Dean isn't lying comatose in a hospital bed. He's showing some signs of darkness, yes, but nothing that would justify invoking the nuclear option ASAP.

I agree that Sam's decision to save Dean from the mark wasn't as quick as Dean's to save Sam, but my beef is why should the "quick decision" be rewarded all the time anyway? Isn't it, in a different way, just as irresponsible as stubbornly going along with a plan? Dean didn't do this only once in Carver's tenure with Gadreel, but twice with killing Death, and both times the narrative rewards him with good results.

And I think your scenario above with the lottery tickets describes this very well. Hee.

12 hours ago, companionenvy said:

While this may have intensified under Carver, the trend began in season 4. Dean broke the first seal, but unknowingly and only after enduring torture so unimaginable that only Dean could blame himself for breaking. Sam broke the last seal, releasing Lucifer -- and after getting loads of warnings. While I happen to still fin his actions in season 4 pretty understandable, the show pretty  obviously doesn't agree with me.

Agreed, especially about the bolded part - because look who Sam was getting most of the warnings from. The angels weren't exactly the most trustworthy - and turned out to be lying to boot.

But in the pre-Carver era, things were at least a little more balanced out. Sometimes Dean did make the wrong choice - trusting Gordon, trusting the angels, wanting to say "yes" to Michael - or Sam made a right one - trusting Lenore, his plan to put Lucifer back into the box. So Carver did more than intensify the trend for me. He changed the playing field.

4 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

However, I do disagree that Dean's rash decisions are any more right than Sam's. Benny may have turned out not be what Sam thought he was, but he was still a monster and Dean set him loose on the world. I think it was a very foolish thing for Dean to do and nothing Benny did can change my mind on that. And, even if Gadreel turned out to be a "good guy"--which, IMO, he wan't despite him changing loyalties at the 11th hour--nothing he did would make Dean trusting Gadreel and going along with the possession without Sam's knowledge right in my mind. I don't care if Gadreel hadn't killed Kevin, Dean should've known better than to just trust an angel like that. 

But in the Carver era, Dean's rash decisions are almost always rewarded - Benny does turn out to be good, and helps save Sam. Gadreel does turn out to be helpful and help save Sam, Charlie, Castiel, and the world. Killing Death does turn out to be helpful in the end and there are no real earth shattering consequences for killing Death. Stopping the gates of hell from being closed doesn't cause any earth-shattering effects or repercussions (except Sam, but that all gets sorted out also). Even taking on the mark of Cain rashly turns out to have helpful consequences and the problems that come from it are pretty much shifted over to being Sam's fault.

In the pre-Carver era, sometimes Dean's rash decisions would have bad consequences - like making the deal or becoming Death for a day. But that no longer seems to be the case, and they even killed off the character who pointed out that Dean's rash decisions could have ramifications (You doubt Dean's rash decisions? Take that, Death!) I'm not sure what the message seems to be there, but it's sort of annoying for me, because as @Bessie says, it makes everything fairly predictable.

13 hours ago, companionenvy said:

...that is less consequential than the repeated judgments that people pass on Sam.

That's why I liked the Xana episode last season so much. They actually had a character who didn't point out all of Sam's faults or pass judgement and who tried to understand Sam's point of view and help him with his emotional struggles. I loved that episode.

[ahrtee]

Oops...accidentally hit the wrong button and need to rewrite.  Nothing to see here...

Edited August 16, 2016 by ahrtee

[Bessie]

Quote

In the pre-Carver era, sometimes Dean's rash decisions would have bad consequences - like making the deal or becoming Death for a day

You know, Awesom04000, I think the writers handled Dean making the deal with a lot of sympathy.  And I'm glad that they did.  I want to root for the hero. But I do think this dynamic where Dean is generally right, and even when he's wrong it's handled in a very sympathetic way, was established earlier than Carver's era.

To my mind, that's a good thing. I just wish they would extend the same courtesy to the other characters. And that the sympathy I feel toward one character didn't come at the expense of making the other characters look like jackasses. 

Edited August 16, 2016 by Bessie

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Sometimes Dean did make the wrong choice - trusting Gordon, trusting the angels, wanting to say "yes" to Michael - or Sam made a right one - trusting Lenore, his plan to put Lucifer back into the box. 

I actually thought the saying yes to Michael vs. saying yes to Lucifer was an example of ridiculous Sam-bias. Dean`s decision was only framed as weak and pathetic and giving up. No valid tactical or pragmatical views were even considered there. Meanwhile Sam decides to say yes and Dean just needs to fall in line for Sam is the Chosen One and so brave and wonderful and wrongfully belittled. Bobby points out how they have been oh-so-hard on him all the time. Death tells Dean to step aside and make room for Sam. And noone even questions if Sam will be strong enough to easily wrangle an archangel. Which, of course, he is. By sheer power of his will while no-purpose-in-the-story-Dean kneels before him in awe. 

And the Zanna episode? How freaking horrible are these creatures because traumatized little child!Dean certainly never got one. Guess he wasn`t worthy enough? He gets berated for not being there enough - guess it`s really a flaw being a kid yourself and not being able to be in two places at once - and Sully in the flashbacks clearly thinks he is trash and tells Sam back then how superior he is. Subtle, show, real subtle. 

As for being right or wrong, since IMO Dean is blamed anyway for when others are wrong and not really acknowledged for being right, it`s not actually a big boon in my eyes. The narrative varies in blaming him for a) being too clingy/weak/pathetic or b) being too boorish/bossy/controlling/overbearing. Like in Season 4 he was seen as weak and belittled. And after the fact Sam bemoaned how his controlling nature drove him to Ruby. Gee, I wonder how he bullied someone so much stronger, smarter, better. Was it the boohoo-whining that controlled you? But of course, the narrative very much agreed with that shifted viewpoint since Kripke himself said Dean needed to learn the lesson.

And being right? Sure, they may not have shown him getting all that dark with the Mark so the stupid urgency with the book seemed out of place but the tell was hammering it home how monstrous Dean was and ready to snap at a moment`s notice. He butchered all those rapists in self-defense. Cas and Sam called it a freaking massacre. He once slammed a guy`s head on a bar and everyone freaked out. Sam and Cas both did the same in other episodes and noone gave a peep. 

The show worked REALLY hard to paint Dean as a monster with the Mark which must be stopped at all costs right now. It is just their general incompetence, it wasn`t really shown. They almost always rely on the tell anyway. If they could, they would have three characters in an episode loudly claim the sky is yellow and still show it as blue. And quite frankly, I think for the most part it would work, too. Much repeated tell stays more with casual viewers than show.

Which is why Sam could do stupid things in every episode for the rest of the show and would still be seen as a near genius. Whereas Dean could do smart stuff and even intellectual stuff all over and he`d still be regarded as the "brawn" or "not the smart one".    

[Bessie]

Quote

The show worked REALLY hard to paint Dean as a monster with the Mark which must be stopped at all costs right now. It is just their general incompetence, it wasn`t really shown.

Agreed.  But I'm not convinced that it was incompetence. Tell you the truth, I'm not sure why they didn't go  there.  Between demondean and MarkofCainDean they had every chance if they wanted to.  Clearly, they never wanted Dean to be truly dark. I suspect it goes back to the origins of the show, which is Sam has demon-tainted blood and Dean doesn't, he's human.  And everything that comes after is derived from this initial premise. And it's extended to whichever character and storylines are introduced.  

So his judgements on people and situations are representative of humans, whereas other characters are tainted in some way.

[Diane]

Having read everyone's post about Dean & Sam do you think some of the Dean is right and Sam is wrong (Dean's actions justified, Sam's not) is the show (writers) going with the older (wiser) brother is always right?  Now I am not saying this is what I believe, I agree with most posters that it is way disproportionate and unfair to Sam.  Just curious about what you think the reasoning behind it is?

[DittyDotDot]

40 minutes ago, Diane said:

Having read everyone's post about Dean & Sam do you think some of the Dean is right and Sam is wrong (Dean's actions justified, Sam's not) is the show (writers) going with the older (wiser) brother is always right?  Now I am not saying this is what I believe, I agree with most posters that it is way disproportionate and unfair to Sam.  Just curious about what you think the reasoning behind it is?

Personally, I'm not sure there really is a bias coming from the show one way or the other, but it's probably down to viewers own biases on how they perceive these things. I've always believed they've both screwed up and both have gotten some wins. I certainly don't believe either brother's rash and foolish decisions were painted as good compared to the other, but can understand why others might feel differently. To me, whether Benny or Gadreel or whoever turned out to be good or helpful doesn't negate the original decision as being the wrong thing to do.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 hour ago, Diane said:

do you think some of the Dean is right and Sam is wrong (Dean's actions justified, Sam's not) is the show (writers) going with the older (wiser) brother is always right? 

When it happened in the early seasons, especially Season 1, I kind of got that vibe, to be honest.  But after 11+ seasons in, if the show is still writing the characters based on that dynamic, that's just sad.  Then they haven't allowed either brother to grow and mature past their 20-something selves.  

And having said that, I don't recall watching Season 3 in particular and having that feeling at all.  The relationship felt much more balanced.  So..

1 hour ago, Diane said:

Just curious about what you think the reasoning behind it is?

[shrugs] I have no idea.  Maybe it's just writer's biases for one character over another?  Maybe they don't even realize they are doing it.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

4 hours ago, Bessie said:

Do you mean Bad Day at Black Rock?  Because that was immediately what came to my mind.  Sam has the rabbits foot, loses it in a stupid way and becomes a bumbling idiot.  Dean gets it, is smart about it and is a ninja/James Bond hybrid who saves the day!  Don't get me wrong, it's one of my favorite episodes, but it does sort of encapsulate the dynamic. 

Well, I was going to go with Bad Day, but I thought if it was a Mystery Spot type thing, Sam's bad luck/choices couldn't be blamed on an external object.  ;/

[SueB]

Quote

some minor fallout (Kevin)

It wasn't minor to me.  Like, not at all.  And I think the Charlie fallout was equally horrific. 

[AwesomO4000]

3 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

I actually thought the saying yes to Michael vs. saying yes to Lucifer was an example of ridiculous Sam-bias. Dean`s decision was only framed as weak and pathetic and giving up. No valid tactical or pragmatical views were even considered there.

I didn't see this at all, and it wasn't to me what the show showed - or told - either. It was made very clear that Dean saying yes to Michael would mean that potentially half the people on the planet would be killed in the fallout. If I remember correctly Dean's response was better half the people than all. It was also made clear that Dean thought it was all on his shoulders - "if I have the chance to save half the planet, it's on me if I don't. You're not in my shoes." What about that isn't showing the tactical or pragmatical or giving Dean's side or is even showing Dean unsympathetically?

As for valid tactically and Sam saying yes supposedly being ridiculous - I argue it was very much in step with what we'd seen in the past, just reversed. In "Jus In Bello" it was Dean who gave the "nope, we save everybody or die trying" argument - not even accepting killing one person to save the rest as an option to even be considered. And it was very much presented as the right thing to do. So now because it's Dean's idea to sacrifice some to save the rest, it's suddenly the way to go? Well, maybe now in the Carver era, but back then no. It's tactically the same thing just on a grander scale, and Sam learned his lesson from Dean - we save everybody or die trying.

To me that didn't belittle Dean one bit - it actually showed that Sam listened and learned from Dean and honored Dean's ideals even when Dean was having a crisis of guilt.

3 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Meanwhile Sam decides to say yes and Dean just needs to fall in line for Sam is the Chosen One and so brave and wonderful and wrongfully belittled.

One time Sam gets to do something major, and it somehow makes Dean the lesser? How about all of the times Sam spent on the ground (season 2), knocked out (Season 9), or not even present (season 7, 8, and 11) when Dean was doing something major, or downright screwing up and/or failing (season 3, 4, 8, 9, and 10)? But Sam is begrudged that one, single time he actually succeeded at something? Okay, sure.

3 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

And noone even questions if Sam will be strong enough to easily wrangle an archangel. Which, of course, he is. By sheer power of his will while no-purpose-in-the-story-Dean kneels before him in awe.

Not that I think it happened that way, but for the sake of argument, okay. But then how is this different from Dean being able to defeat a whole nest of powerful vampires or fight his way through purgatory by his sheer power of will or defeat the mother of all monsters, or kill a powerful angel. Or go to save the world by carrying the power of hundreds of thousands of souls inside him... and no one even questions if Dean will be powerful enough to do it or if he'll be able to succeed, because they of course believe he will? And of course Dean does. I'm not really seeing a difference here, myself, except that one time it just happened to be Sam.

4 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

And the Zanna episode? How freaking horrible are these creatures because traumatized little child!Dean certainly never got one. Guess he wasn`t worthy enough? He gets berated for not being there enough - guess it`s really a flaw being a kid yourself and not being able to be in two places at once - and Sully in the flashbacks clearly thinks he is trash and tells Sam back then how superior he is.

Dean was strong enough he didn't need one? And no one berated Dean for not being there enough - except maybe Dean and he doesn't count. And Sully actually praised Dean for taking such good care of Sam and being there for Sam when he (Sully) couldn't. I never got once out of that episode that Dean was being blamed for anything.

4 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Much repeated tell stays more with casual viewers than show.

Which is why Sam could do stupid things in every episode for the rest of the show and would still be seen as a near genius.

Except all of those times on the show where characters tell us how Sam started the apocalypse and makes bad choices, even years and years later. Casual one off characters, angels, demons, God, Lucifer - they all tell us. Even characters like Castiel who made similar bad choices remind us about Sam's "bad choices."

And that's not even including the "Sam hit a dog" thing which the show hasn't given up on either, and Sam had to apologize for two and a half seasons later or something.

So for me, I'm not seeing Sam getting excused for all that much myself, and other characters are definitely telling me about it. A lot and repeatedly. When random hunters of the week are popping up telling me about it  5 seasons later, I'm pretty sure that the writers are sending a message, and it's not "Sam is a genius" as far as I can tell.

1 minute ago, SueB said:

Quote

some minor fallout (Kevin)

It wasn't minor to me.  Like, not at all.  And I think the Charlie fallout was equally horrific. 

Okay point taken. I guess it only seems like minor fallout when compared to Charlie, starting an apocalypse, and an entire town getting killed. But then Kevin was a ghost and got to go home with his mom for a while and then got to go to heaven, so I think there was even an attempt to make that fallout not so bad.

[SueB]

Quote

Okay point taken. I guess it only seems like minor fallout when compared to Charlie, starting an apocalypse, and an entire town getting killed. But then Kevin was a ghost and got to go home with his mom for a while and then got to go to heaven, so I think there was even an attempt to make that fallout not so bad.

1) Didn't work for me, he's still dead and I miss him.

2) Charlie could get similar treatment. In fact, I'd be shocked if she didn't.

3) If Dean has accepted Sam's death in S2 then a) No Apocalypse, b) No calling of Kevin (because there would have been no Leviathans because there would have been no need for Cas to grab power), c) No involvement of Charlie in the Supernatural life (same reason as Kevin's involvement), d) No consequences of anything Sam did after S2.

Just sayin'...

But seriously, the narrative since S2 (and maybe earlier) is that our heroes screw up and then have to fix it.  S2: Dean's deal, S3: Dean's death sets conditions to jumpstart the Apocalypse, S4: Sam raises Lucifer, S5: Boys leave a power vacuum in Heaven, S6: Cas misbehaves, S7: actually... that one ended with Dean just dead S8: They tried to pull a lever they shouldn't have, S9: Dean turned into a demon, S10: Sam removes the Mark, S11: well... they technically didn't make anything worse so... that's a good start to S12.

Who did "worse" is, IMO, not really one or the other. Same way with who did "best" in the hero department. "Worst" and "Best" come up as a function of individual value system and viewing perspective IMO. 

[catrox14]

I have a long winded reply to the general conversation.

Yes it goes back to s1 but some things are who people are in their basic nature and IMO that is not necessarily something we can easily alter, especially if we are just born with certain traits.

As to Sam either not learning or being purposefully written to fail or not succeed or be wrong, I'm not sure it's that simple. I do think Sam and Dean both have failed miserably in different ways and succeeded spectacularly if often with pain and suffering in ways that IMO suit their ongoing characterizations.

I think Sam is obsessive and stubborn/determined and a planner. IMO he makes plans because it gives him some kind of control over his life. He makes long term plans that might only stay in his head until he starts to enact his plans and  I think it takes a major traumatic event to move Sam from his goals once he gets his mind set to a purpose.  That's been true since he was a kid IMO. I think that is just who he is. That's not to say he hasn't grown or changed in some ways because he has.  Is it obsessive behavior he can't control or is it will to determine his own?  Both? Both is good for me. Maybe he was just born with an obsessive brain.

Sam was obsessive/determined enough to excel in school despite living a weird life and the result was a full ride to Stanford. That had to take a fuckton of commitment, planning, and stubbornness/determination to not be swayed from that path  It's not a wrong thing for him to take that path (maybe the leaving in the middle of the night was a bit dramatic). 

So his first big plan was getting to college and that worked out quite well for him until Jessica is killed. He loses Jessica to Azazel so he makes a plan  in his head to go after Azazel. He and Dean together complete that plan eventually. He had a plan in his head to save Dean from going to Hell. Even in Mystery Spot he stuck to his plan to find The Trickster to make him bring Dean back. He made a plan to get Dean OUT of hell. When that didn't work he made a plan to kill Lilith in vengeance. He eventually made a plan say yes to Lucifer and it worked out for the world if not for Sam personally.  He made a plan to save Dean from the Mark of Cain. He made a plan to cure demon!Dean. 

IMO for Sam, it's the end goal he cares about and everything else is details to be dealt with to achieving the end goal. During a hunt he'll adjust his tactics when something new is thrown at him but it's always in the context of meeting whatever the goal of the hunt happens to be, All that changes is how he accomplishes that goal.  Even as Sam Wesson, when he was trying to convince Dean Smith they were supposed to be hunters, Dean's rebuttal was "How are we supposed to survive?  What about our jobs? Where do we get money to live on? We can't hunt without health insurance!" Sam Wesson's answer was "Those are just details".  That is how I think Sam views everything IMO, at times Sam seeing everything as details to get to the end goal, means he might not give enough weight to a particular detail that might be his undoing. He's so focused on the forest that he misses the odd tree that is out of place. Or the demon that is using Sam's goals for his/her purposes because he so believes in his goal that well surely others believe it too. That's why he could rally Cas and Charlie. He does inspire IMO.  

That's a tough thing IMO for Sam to change because that same determination/obsessiveness has actually served him well under the most normal part of his life, going off to college and even in the most NOT normal part of his life which was saying yes to Lucifer thus saving the world.

To me, Sam isn't interested in controlling people but controlling situations so he doesn't feel out of control of his life as much as he can.  But when those situations bring him and Dean into conflict it looks like Sam is trying to control Dean himself which might be the case soem of the time but not all the time.  Dean is just as stubborn as Sam but in a different way.  Dean won't give up on the people he loves and values, even when it's best for him to do exactly that. So I think PEOPLE are Dean's goal. Having a makeshift family be it blood or not. I think Dean NEEDS people to survive and Sam needs goals which is really more of objects of  hope for him. I think Dean sees people as hope. Sam sees goals as hope.

So to me whenever Sam gets his teeth into something related to vengeance or balancing the scales as he put it in s9, then he isn't going to change course readily because he thinks his course is going to lead to somewhere better. Sometimes he's right and sometimes he's wrong.  For all I know, Sam's obsessive/stubborn thinking is how he survived in the Cage for as long as he did and why he had the strength to go through with saying yes and saying no in s11. 

I know that was kind of a wandering stream of consciousness but I think Sam having the trait of planning, sticking to the plan to solve the problem is within character from the beginning. He can revise the details in his plans but IMO he'll never nor should he stop being a planner.

Edited August 16, 2016 by catrox14

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, SueB said:

2) Charlie could get similar treatment. In fact, I'd be shocked if she didn't.

Oh, @SueB, don't scare me. It would be great if they did something like this as closure for Charlie, but I'm equally as afraid that we'll find out Charlie is in the empty, or in limbo, or somehow ended up somewhere horrible - like purgatory - because of her dark self from Oz or her having possessed the Book of the Damned for a while or something. You know, for angst.

2 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I know that was kind of a wandering stream of consciousness but I think Sam having the trait of planning, sticking to the plan to solve the problem is within character from the beginning. He can revise the details in his plans but IMO he'll never nor should he stop being a planner.

@catrox14, I agree with all of that thoughtful analysis, and have no problem with Sam being that way and having that kind of goal orientated characteristic. I only sigh when it goes from being a sometimes helpful, sometimes not strategy to somehow always being the worst strategy ever. For me, it's kind of disheartening to see something like that, someone who has goals and almost needs them to make him feel like he's in some sort of control of his life, get such awful results so often. I don't know, it just seems kind of cruel. It's like Sam is Charlie Brown, and I don't want to feel sorry for Sam. I want to feel happy for him, proud of him, etc.

Now if Sam could get a win... oh who am I kidding, there's little chance he's coming out of his current situation with a win on his own. I'll be shocked if the current writers let him.

2 hours ago, SueB said:

3) If Dean has accepted Sam's death in S2 then a) No Apocalypse, b) No calling of Kevin (because there would have been no Leviathans because there would have been no need for Cas to grab power), c) No involvement of Charlie in the Supernatural life (same reason as Kevin's involvement), d) No consequences of anything Sam did after S2.

Just sayin'...

I don't disagree. However as @companionenvy said, the show seems to disagree, since it generally doesn't miss a chance to point out that the apocalypse is Sam's fault - we even ended last season with another character blaming Sam for everything - just in case we forgot or something, I guess. Dean's deal, on the other hand, hasn't been mentioned even tangentially since early season 5 - and that was by Dean.

I thought that that would be explored in season 4, but it wasn't.

[catrox14]

16 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Oh, @SueB, don't scare me. It would be great if they did something like this as closure for Charlie, but I'm equally as afraid that we'll find out Charlie is in the empty, or in limbo, or somehow ended up somewhere horrible - like purgatory - because of her dark self from Oz or her having possessed the Book of the Damned for a while or something. You know, for angst.

@catrox14, I agree with all of that thoughtful analysis, and have no problem with Sam being that way and having that kind of goal orientated characteristic. I only sigh when it goes from being a sometimes helpful, sometimes not strategy to somehow always being the worst strategy ever. For me, it's kind of disheartening to see something like that, someone who has goals and almost needs them to make him feel like he's in some sort of control of his life, get such awful results so often. I don't know, it just seems kind of cruel. It's like Sam is Charlie Brown, and I don't want to feel sorry for Sam. I want to feel happy for him, proud of him, etc.

Now if Sam could get a win... oh who am I kidding, there's little chance he's coming out of his current situation with a win on his own. I'll be shocked if the current writers let him.

I don't disagree. However as @companionenvy said, the show seems to disagree, since it generally doesn't miss a chance to point out that the apocalypse is Sam's fault - we even ended last season with another character blaming Sam for everything - just in case we forgot or something, I guess. Dean's deal, on the other hand, hasn't been mentioned even tangentially since early season 5 - and that was by Dean.

I thought that that would be explored in season 4, but it wasn't.

 

I think it matters who is still talking about about Sam having a hand in starting the Apocalpyse.   It's Lucifer, the EVMoL, some shitty angels. For me that says that it's just a manipulation to try and break Sam again. Not that we, the audience should still hold it against Sam.  Yes, it happened. It's part of Sam's story. Just like it's part of Dean's. There is no undoing that he did it. But he made up for it but it's still a painful thing for Sam so it's a way to mess with him.

[AwesomO4000]

I agree, but it's not just the bad guys... it's also Dean, random not evil hunters, Charlie (if I remember correctly), maybe Gadreel (or maybe he was harping on something else Sam did wrong? And I'm also not sure if he counts as a "shitty angel," and hee to that), even God (though maybe that was for the most recent one, I think?)*

My response: Again with starting the apocalypse? I get it. And Sam paid for that already with a 100 + years of torture. Time to let it go already, Show.

* I guess if I want to look on the bright side? At least now they won't be talking as much about Sam starting that apocalypse... because they have a new one to talk about instead! *headdesk*

I know I don't seem it, but I really am hopeful for next season. Hope springs eternal?

[catrox14]

When was the last time regular!Dean (unaffected by the Mark or being a demon) brought up the Apocalpyse to Sam in a demeaning way, (weaponized if you like) Random hunters? I don't remember Charlie talking about it but I believe you that she did.

I think the context of the mentions makes all the difference as to how I perceive it whether it's more like exposition to keep mentioning his arc or to bash him.

[AwesomO4000]

You're likely right - the Carver years seem to  bleed together for me and so maybe not as recent as I thought, though still 4 seasons + after the fact.

For Dean - non-demon or mark of Cain version - it was the end of season 8 I'm thinking of.

The hunter, she was in season 9. There was a whole story about how her parents were slaughtered because a demon was celebrating Sam having started the apocalypse.. in other words it was extraneous to the story and so seemed there only to mention that Sam started the apocalypse and innocent people were killed because of it.

Charlie's mention if I'm remembering correctly wasn't a bad one per se. It was her commenting on her reading Sam and Dean's Chuck stories online.

Season 10 might've actually been pretty clean except for demon Dean or mark of Cain Dean. Still though, the mentions - from good and bad - kept it going up until Sam started his second one and beyond.

I think it's time to let it go completely or maybe a rare mention at best... I'm guessing with evil Men of Letters lady in the picture though, that's not too realistic a hope.

[ahrtee]

I think it's fascinating how so many people can watch the same episodes, quote the same lines, describe the *very same* scenes and come to completely opposite conclusions about what went on.  That's what makes the show interesting, but it often seems that fans are way too sensitive to what they perceive as insults to their favorite character.   

The main point is that everyone interprets what they see through their own feelings and biases.  Am I happy with how my favorite brother is written?  Hell no.  But I can see from all the posts that what I perceive as black others see as white, and vice versa, whereas they're all different shades of gray.  (Sorry if that came out confusing or pretentious, but I couldn't think of a better way to say it in one sentence or less.)

 Anyway, my UO is that I don't think anyone in charge has one "favorite" character or even one viewpoint...if they did, the show would be a lot more cohesive and have a lot fewer WTF moments.  The showrunner may shape where the season is going, but I don't think has a real hands-on effect on individual stories.  Each writer has an idea of how they want the characters to behave or react, which is not always consistent with the other writers.  I think they start with a  story and don't always recognize (or admit) that it goes against the way the character has been written before. That's why some points or behaviors that had been settled or not mentioned for years are sometimes brought up again out of the blue.   They're going for the easy laugh or the dramatic/angsty moment, not an ongoing statement.  I'd call that bad writing, not a conspiracy against any particular character.  *Both* characters have been thrown under the bus, time and again.  Both have been heroes, both have been reviled.  Didn't someone (Demented Daisy, I think?) do a statistical analysis a while ago of various things (who got the kill/who apologized more often, etc.) that seemed to most of the readers to be very unbalanced, and, on analysis, every one of them turned out to be pretty equal?  So, obviously those who are looking for insult to one character or another will see it, because we all view the show through our own personal biases, but that doesn't mean that it was intentional or even really there.  

[Diane]

12 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

I think it's fascinating how so many people can watch the same episodes, quote the same lines, describe the *very same* scenes and come to completely opposite conclusions about what went on.  That's what makes the show interesting, but it often seems that fans are way too sensitive to what they perceive as insults to their favorite character.   

The main point is that everyone interprets what they see through their own feelings and biases.  Am I happy with how my favorite brother is written?  Hell no.  But I can see from all the posts that what I perceive as black others see as white, and vice versa, whereas they're all different shades of gray.  (Sorry if that came out confusing or pretentious, but I couldn't think of a better way to say it in one sentence or less.)

 Anyway, my UO is that I don't think anyone in charge has one "favorite" character or even one viewpoint...if they did, the show would be a lot more cohesive and have a lot fewer WTF moments.  The showrunner may shape where the season is going, but I don't think has a real hands-on effect on individual stories.  Each writer has an idea of how they want the characters to behave or react, which is not always consistent with the other writers.  I think they start with a  story and don't always recognize (or admit) that it goes against the way the character has been written before. That's why some points or behaviors that had been settled or not mentioned for years are sometimes brought up again out of the blue.   They're going for the easy laugh or the dramatic/angsty moment, not an ongoing statement.  I'd call that bad writing, not a conspiracy against any particular character.  *Both* characters have been thrown under the bus, time and again.  Both have been heroes, both have been reviled.  Didn't someone (Demented Daisy, I think?) do a statistical analysis a while ago of various things (who got the kill/who apologized more often, etc.) that seemed to most of the readers to be very unbalanced, and, on analysis, every one of them turned out to be pretty equal?  So, obviously those who are looking for insult to one character or another will see it, because we all view the show through our own personal biases, but that doesn't mean that it was intentional or even really there.  

This also is so interesting to me, that we are all watching the same show and come to such different conclusions. I really enjoy the back and forth and hearing the different takes on the same episodes. 

[Demented Daisy]

On January 25, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Demented Daisy said:

Okie dokie, so here's my definitions, first.

 

Made the plan -- Sam gets credit if he does the research; Dean gets credit if he uses his experience; no one gets credit if they have to change their plans or don't come up with a plan at all.  Or we don't see them come up with a plan.

Saved the people in peril -- a direct save, not indirect.  Whoever gets the kill could also get credit for the save, but I wanted to keep it simpler.  I also counted if Sam or Dean saved the other.

Got the kill -- pretty self-explanatory, I think.  ;-)

Who's ready for the season 11 numbers?  Well, you'll have to wait because I just started my analysis today.  I'll post the season 11 numbers, then a new tally for the series as a whole.

If you're fairly new around here and unfamiliar with my season analysis, I direct you to page 23 of this very thread.

[DittyDotDot]

12 minutes ago, Demented Daisy said:

Who's ready for the season 11 numbers?  Well, you'll have to wait because I just started my analysis today.  I'll post the season 11 numbers, then a new tally for the series as a whole.

If you're fairly new around here and unfamiliar with my season analysis, I direct you to page 23 of this very thread.

I'll do you one better and provide a link to that post with the first round of numbers: 

Interesting to note, we were having a similar discussion, but slightly different. ;)

[Demented Daisy]

Indeed.  Indeed we were.

The numbers, for those new to my process, reflect the number of episodes Sam/Dean made the plan/saved a Person in Peril/killed the baddie.  So when I say that Sam saved 4 and Dean killed 8 in season 1, I don't mean that Sam saved 4 people and Dean killed 8 monsters.  I mean that Sam saved people in 4 episodes (singlehandedly) and Dean killed the monster in 8 episodes (also singlehandedly).

Any questions?

[Diane]

41 minutes ago, Demented Daisy said:

Who's ready for the season 11 numbers?  Well, you'll have to wait because I just started my analysis today.  I'll post the season 11 numbers, then a new tally for the series as a whole.

If you're fairly new around here and unfamiliar with my season analysis, I direct you to page 23 of this very thread.

Yay, Demented Daisy is doing her analysis again, can't wait to see the numbers!

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Not that I think it happened that way, but for the sake of argument, okay. But then how is this different from Dean being able to defeat a whole nest of powerful vampires or fight his way through purgatory by his sheer power of will or defeat the mother of all monsters, or kill a powerful angel. Or go to save the world by carrying the power of hundreds of thousands of souls inside him

Noone said having the souls inside you required a lot of internal strength or something. Or that it would be difficult to hold them. Killing an angel has become dime, a dozen these days. Successfully physically fighting multiple opponents is also something other character have done. Sam hop-skipped through Purgatory easily while on Death`s door, even got a kill in. That alone belittled Purgatory. Just as John supposedly never breaking belittled Dean breaking after a "measly 30 years". 

The show made a specific point about the hardship of overcoming possession. Towards the end of Season 5 Cas even talked about angelic "possession", that it was like being chained to a comet. They established that archangels were the biggest, baddest of them all. They established that Lucifer was the big kahuna. So defeating him by force of will is a feat unprecedented and unparalled in the show. They made it that way and they kept it that way. They have not given Dean anything in all 200+ episodes that can compare to that. On the contrary, even the successes or accomplishments he had in terms of strength, they have done their best to make them look small or belittle them afterwards. 

That is why that still rankles and makes me so bitter about this show. For me, being strong is the most valuable trait or accomplishment a character can get. Conversely being weak is the worst insult you can bestow on one.  

I guess that means John on his deathbed gave Dean the most valuable compliment any character in the show ever gave him when he acknowledged that Dean was strong growing up. Bobby never remotely said something like this. Cas, IMO was often sympathetic, back in the day especially, but I can`t recall right now if he ever said something in that vein. Benny was a good friend and in a way it was implied, not sure if he verbalized it. I think Sam tries to convince himself sometimes he believes Dean is strong but the truth comes under every spell or too much anger. 

Well, I guess God did imply Dean being also strong in his final statement to him. I liked that.

[Bessie]

Regardless of how anyone feels about one brother over the other, I still maintain that I can figure out storylines and characters based on Dean's reactions to them.  And I expect this trend to continue with Mary and ladywhateverhernameis.  I don't like it and I wish the writers would stop telegraphing where they're going so early. 

[Aeryn13]

Well, does Mary really have the potential for a big surprise? I mean, does anyone think she will secretely turn out to be evil or something like that? Even Dean and Sam`s reactions TO her will be predictable. So I don`t see how his reactions will undermine some otherwise potentially surprising narrative. Dean loves her and he will be conflicted and somewhat pleased and somewhat disappointed and somewhat at a loss how to interact with her now. That is utterly predictable anyway. Sam will also be pleased and conflicted and more curious about her. Equally as predictable. 

The show by its very nature of running so long and being so godamn repetitive is predictable. 

As for Lady Deadeyes. Given what she did so far and what they said about her at Comic Con, Dean will not be friendly with her upon first meeting. That`s a given. The situation is such that it would be ridiculous for him to be. That doesn`t tell me if the writers want to keep her "evol" or give her some half-assed "redemption" story later on. That will be determined by their whims, their need to pad out the story and the reception the character gets.

Personally, since I don`t like what the actress brings to the screen - over on Vampire Diaries she had exactly that kind of arc, starting out as a villain and then getting a love-dovey good-guy arc and she didn`t convince me in either role - and these writers are especially crap at writing female guest star stints and then fandom is not especially welcoming to those either way so my best guess is: the reception will be very meh. But that is all stuff that I would believe to be true if she never interacted with Dean in all her time on the show.

Amelia never had a single freaking scene with Dean. And yet everyone could see where the character would be going - or not going - after her first appearance.      

Edited August 17, 2016 by Aeryn13

[Demented Daisy]

Finally done.  What a chore that was.  Figuring out who came up with the plan is always the hardest one.  Anyway, here are my findings:

Sam Plans -- 5
Sam Saves -- 1
Sam Kills -- 2

Dean Plans -- 1
Dean Saves -- 2
Dean Kills -- 3

Joint Plans -- 8
Joint Saves -- 10
Joint Kills -- 3

No Plans -- 9
No Saves -- 10
No Kills -- 15

A concerted team effort this year, I'd say!  

 

Which brings our new tallies, for all 11 seasons, to:

Sam Plans -- 51
Sam Saves -- 36
Sam Kills -- 42

Dean Plans -- 33
Dean Saves -- 40
Dean Kills -- 58 (plus 4 in Purgatory)

Joint Plans -- 56
Joint Saves -- 64
Joint Kills -- 28

No Plan -- 99
No Save -- 101
No Kill -- 114

 

Really, to me, things are about even.  Sam has the lead in plans, while Dean has a slight lead in saves and a larger lead in kills (again, thank you, Mark of Cain -- take those kills out and Sam and Dean are essentially tied in that category).

Oh, and even more importantly: more often than not, they have a plan, they save people, and they kill the baddie.  Though that no kill number is getting awfully close (128 kills vs 114 no kills).

Edited August 17, 2016 by Demented Daisy

[Diane]

8 minutes ago, Demented Daisy said:

Finally done.  What a chore that was.  Figuring out who came up with the plan is always the hardest one.  Anyway, here are my findings:

Sam Plans -- 5
Sam Saves -- 1
Sam Kills -- 2

Dean Plans -- 1
Dean Saves -- 2
Dean Kills -- 3

Joint Plans -- 8
Joint Saves -- 10
Joint Kills -- 3

No Plans -- 9
No Saves -- 10
No Kills -- 15

A concerted team effort this year, I'd say!  

 

Which brings our new tallies, for all 11 seasons, to:

Sam Plans -- 51
Sam Saves -- 36
Sam Kills -- 42

Dean Plans -- 33
Dean Saves -- 40
Dean Kills -- 58 (plus 4 in Purgatory)

Joint Plans -- 56
Joint Saves -- 64
Joint Kills -- 28

No Plan -- 99
No Save -- 101
No Kill -- 114

 

Really, to me, things are about even.  Sam has the lead in plans, while Dean has a slight lead in saves and a larger lead in kills (again, thank you, Mark of Cain -- take those kills out and Sam and Dean are essentially tied in that category).

Oh, and even more importantly: more often than not, they have a plan, they save people, and they kill the baddie.  Though that no kill number is getting awfully close (128 kills vs 114 no kills).

Thank you so much for taking the time and doing this for us!

[Demented Daisy]

2 minutes ago, Diane said:

Thank you so much for taking the time and doing this for us!

Not a problem.  Today was my day off from Pokémon hunting, so I had to do something to fill my time.  ;-)