Supernatural Bitterness & Unpopular Opinions: You All Suck

[rue721]

39 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Frank is in the business of keeping people off the grid. If they want to be off the grid badly enough and in the most complete manner, they will pay what he's asking.  Seems pretty reasonable to me. :)

OK so I guess I have two UO's about Frank:

1. He was creepy.

2. He was WAY overpriced. $15K is ridiculous for the services he provided (or claimed to). ;)

[Aeryn13]

I can barely rememeber Frank. Like, I recall that such a character existed other than that nothing really.  

[Myrelle]

Yeah, I had to think about who he was too. And then I remembered that he was annoying beyond all words to me. Likely why I'd forgotten him, too.

[companionenvy]

Changing the topic a little here, but based on other threads, this is definitely an Unpopular Opinion:

While I think the BMOL are bad news and that Mary is wrong for working with them, I don't see it as a major betrayal - and don't think the fact that Lady Toni tortured Sam changes that.

First of all, Sam and Dean have worked with sketchy and beyond sketchy people in the past, including the KING OF HELL, who they practically (and probably literally) have on speed dial at this point. The King of Hell who, by the way, came very close to killing Jodi and has killed people they care about. On the subject of "people who have tortured Sam," we also have Cole, who the boys subsequently took on a pretty companionable hunt with. In addition, Sam himself called the BMOL during LOTUS, and Sam and Dean presumably aren't complaining that Mary and Cas worked with the BMOL to get them out of the black site. 

That's leaving out the fact that none of the people Mary is currently working with, as far as the characters know, tortured Sam, approved of torturing Sam, or had any involvement in that plan. Some skepticism may be called for, but it isn't like she's buddy-buddy with Lady Toni, which I agree would be a different story.

Second - and I've made this point in other contexts before - making a different decision from a loved one, even on matters of fundamental import, does not constitute betrayal. It is wrong of Mary not to have told her sons she was working with the BMOL, but the fact that she has decided to work with them should not be taken as a personal betrayal of Sam and Dean. Mary has made a calculation that working with the BMOL is the best option, and the best way of achieving their mutual goals. That's a choice the boys may have any number of valid objections to. What it is not is a personal betrayal. I'll add that if one brother ultimately sides with Mary over the objections of the other, that won't be a personal betrayal either. It will be making a decision. 

I will add that I think Mary did betray the boys by not telling them the whole story (or, as much of it as she knew) when they took on the yellow-eyed demon. But Sam and Dean don't know that she did that, so it isn't currently what they're angry about.  In any case, the betrayal is, again, lying to her sons, not working with the BMOL. 

[Wayward Son]

4 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

Changing the topic a little here, but based on other threads, this is definitely an Unpopular Opinion:

While I think the BMOL are bad news and that Mary is wrong for working with them, I don't see it as a major betrayal - and don't think the fact that Lady Toni tortured Sam changes that.

First of all, Sam and Dean have worked with sketchy and beyond sketchy people in the past, including the KING OF HELL, who they practically (and probably literally) have on speed dial at this point. The King of Hell who, by the way, came very close to killing Jodi and has killed people they care about. On the subject of "people who have tortured Sam," we also have Cole, who the boys subsequently took on a pretty companionable hunt with. In addition, Sam himself called the BMOL during LOTUS, and Sam and Dean presumably aren't complaining that Mary and Cas worked with the BMOL to get them out of the black site. 

That's leaving out the fact that none of the people Mary is currently working with, as far as the characters know, tortured Sam, approved of torturing Sam, or had any involvement in that plan. Some skepticism may be called for, but it isn't like she's buddy-buddy with Lady Toni, which I agree would be a different story.

Second - and I've made this point in other contexts before - making a different decision from a loved one, even on matters of fundamental import, does not constitute betrayal. It is wrong of Mary not to have told her sons she was working with the BMOL, but the fact that she has decided to work with them should not be taken as a personal betrayal of Sam and Dean. Mary has made a calculation that working with the BMOL is the best option, and the best way of achieving their mutual goals. That's a choice the boys may have any number of valid objections to. What it is not is a personal betrayal. I'll add that if one brother ultimately sides with Mary over the objections of the other, that won't be a personal betrayal either. It will be making a decision. 

I will add that I think Mary did betray the boys by not telling them the whole story (or, as much of it as she knew) when they took on the yellow-eyed demon. But Sam and Dean don't know that she did that, so it isn't currently what they're angry about.  In any case, the betrayal is, again, lying to her sons, not working with the BMOL. 

I pretty much agree with all of this! Especially in regards to tonight's episode. Provided he doesn't sneak around and lie to Dean Sam working with the BMoL is not a betrayal. He is not a dog who has to display unconditional loyalty to his master. If Sam wants to go to keep their mum safe (which I think will be his motivation) and he doesn't want to shut her out long term then that's his decision to make. 

[catrox14]

20 minutes ago, rue721 said:

2. He was WAY overpriced. $15K is ridiculous for the services he provided (or claimed to). ;)

But whose to say he's overpriced.

Frank's biggest selling point is that erased them from the interwebz. That is no small feat. It's incredibly hard to erase one's digital footprint from EVERYTHING. We're talking 37 years of history for Dean and 33 for Sam at the time. 

New ids, passports, etc are pricey already. Once Frank erases someone's footprint he has to erase HIS erasure of their footprint. IMO, that is definitely worth at least 10K.  Take it a step further with guys who are wanted for murder then yup, take on another 5 K.  I think it's actually pretty cheap.

[Katy M]

41 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

While I think the BMOL are bad news and that Mary is wrong for working with them, I don't see it as a major betrayal - and don't think the fact that Lady Toni tortured Sam changes that.

First of all, Sam and Dean have worked with sketchy and beyond sketchy people in the past, including the KING OF HELL, who they practically (and probably literally) have on speed dial at this point. The King of Hell who, by the way, came very close to killing Jodi and has killed people they care about. On the subject of "people who have tortured Sam," we also have Cole, who the boys subsequently took on a pretty companionable hunt with. In addition, Sam himself called the BMOL during LOTUS, and Sam and Dean presumably aren't complaining that Mary and Cas worked with the BMOL to get them out of the black site. 

I see it as a betrayal only because she didn't tell them the true purpose of the job they were working.  If Mary had just decided to work with the BMOLs, then that would have been her business.  But, as soon as it directly affects them and she says nothing, it becomes betrayal.

 

43 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

Second - and I've made this point in other contexts before - making a different decision from a loved one, even on matters of fundamental import, does not constitute betrayal. It is wrong of Mary not to have told her sons she was working with the BMOL, but the fact that she has decided to work with them should not be taken as a personal betrayal of Sam and Dean. Mary has made a calculation that working with the BMOL is the best option, and the best way of achieving their mutual goals. That's a choice the boys may have any number of valid objections to. What it is not is a personal betrayal. I'll add that if one brother ultimately sides with Mary over the objections of the other, that won't be a personal betrayal either. It will be making a decision. 

I completely agree with this.  The only other thing I would add is that Sam and Dean don't have to like it or support this decision in any way, shape, or form.

[rue721]

2 hours ago, catrox14 said:

But whose to say he's overpriced.

Frank's biggest selling point is that erased them from the interwebz. That is no small feat. It's incredibly hard to erase one's digital footprint from EVERYTHING. We're talking 37 years of history for Dean and 33 for Sam at the time. 

New ids, passports, etc are pricey already. Once Frank erases someone's footprint he has to erase HIS erasure of their footprint. IMO, that is definitely worth at least 10K.  Take it a step further with guys who are wanted for murder then yup, take on another 5 K.  I think it's actually pretty cheap.

I guess. And if someone has you over a barrel, I guess they can charge you whatever they want.

But $15,000 is a lot of money in the real world. When was the last time you spent $15K all at once? If you ever have (I haven't), I would bet it's for a major life event -- wedding, funeral, buying a car, giving birth, etc. Because that's not the kind of money most people just throw around like it's nothing.

What also stood out to me was that, before they put a dollar amount out there, I had thought that the relationship between Frank and Dean was, you know, mostly friendly. But then Dean said "$15K" and I realized that Dean was Frank's Client-with-a-capital-C, and I was like, WAIT WHAT this relationship is different than what I had thought. Reframing it as Dean hiring a consultant for $15K made me think the relationship between him and Frank was fundamentally transactional after all. That gave me a different perspective than I would have had otherwise. If they had thrown out a more modest dollar amount, like maybe $1,500 instead of $15,000, maybe I wouldn't have been so taken aback or written off the relationship as transactional so fast though. YMMV.

2 hours ago, companionenvy said:

It is wrong of Mary not to have told her sons she was working with the BMOL, but the fact that she has decided to work with them should not be taken as a personal betrayal of Sam and Dean. Mary has made a calculation that working with the BMOL is the best option, and the best way of achieving their mutual goals. That's a choice the boys may have any number of valid objections to. What it is not is a personal betrayal.

When Mary told them she was in cahoots with the BMOL, Sam said he was shocked because they had "a history" with the BMOL. YMMV but I took that as Sam saying that their issue with the BMOL isn't just abstract or a difference of philosophies -- it *is* personal, at least to him. In his perspective, there is bad blood.

I just can't really understand where Mary is coming from with this. I don't have kids, but if someone were to torture my mother or father, my friends, my cat ffs, I could never trust them again. There is definitely no way that I would be able to entertain the idea of trusting them to the point of working with them.

Not even just out of simple loyalty....also out of fear TBH. If they could do that to someone you love, they could do that to you. The whole thing is just so crazy.

I also can't wrap my head around Mary expecting Sam to just deal with it that she's working with the people who tortured him. I don't know, I'm having trouble understanding how that could be anything but a betrayal?

Edited March 2, 2017 by rue721

[catrox14]

32 minutes ago, rue721 said:

But $15,000 is a lot of money in the real world. When was the last time you spent $15K all at once? If you ever have (I haven't), I would bet it's for a major life event -- wedding, funeral, buying a car, giving birth, etc. Because that's not the kind of money most people just throw around like it's nothing.

Well, yeah but this isn't a normal thing. But if someone is trying to go so far underground as to not be found, you'll find 15k. somehow.

[SueB]

1 hour ago, rue721 said:

I guess. And if someone has you over a barrel, I guess they can charge you whatever they want.

But $15,000 is a lot of money in the real world. When was the last time you spent $15K all at once? If you ever have (I haven't), I would bet it's for a major life event -- wedding, funeral, buying a car, giving birth, etc. Because that's not the kind of money most people just throw around like it's nothing.

What also stood out to me was that, before they put a dollar amount out there, I had thought that the relationship between Frank and Dean was, you know, mostly friendly. But then Dean said "$15K" and I realized that Dean was Frank's Client-with-a-capital-C, and I was like, WAIT WHAT this relationship is different than what I had thought. Reframing it as Dean hiring a consultant for $15K made me think the relationship between him and Frank was fundamentally transactional after all. That gave me a different perspective than I would have had otherwise. If they had thrown out a more modest dollar amount, like maybe $1,500 instead of $15,000, maybe I wouldn't have been so taken aback or written off the relationship as transactional so fast though. YMMV.

For IT expertise at Frank's level?  $15K was cheap.  And because of them, he had to take his show on the road in an RV.  In the technology and (honestly) criminal world, I think the $15K is realistic.

[rue721]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

Well, yeah but this isn't a normal thing. But if someone is trying to go so far underground as to not be found, you'll find 15k. somehow.

 

15 minutes ago, SueB said:

For IT expertise at Frank's level?  $15K was cheap.  And because of them, he had to take his show on the road in an RV.  In the technology and (honestly) criminal world, I think the $15K is realistic.

I mean OK, I have no idea. My experience with identity theft is not very extensive ;)

My point is that I disliked Frank. Something about his vibe made my skin crawl. But I also didn't know why Dean *or the audience* was supposed to care about this random consultant that Dean had thrown a bunch of money at. Basically, why would I care about this transaction that Dean is carrying out for IT help?

I ALREADY didn't warm up to Bobby until after his death, more or less, and didn't like that Dean (and then the show) forced Bobby into a pseudo-father-figure role. So it was extremely weird to me that, after Bobby died, the show introduced an EVEN MORE transactual, hollow relationship for Dean with a new curmudgeon, apparently as a "replacement" for Dean's previous relationship with Bobby. It was like a copy of a copy. 

It was strange enough to go from John to Bobby -- but then to go from Bobby to FRANK? The IT guy that Dean hired? I dunno, so much about that confuses me...and also makes me wonder about Dean as a character.

Edited March 2, 2017 by rue721

[AwesomO4000]

3 hours ago, catrox14 said:

But whose to say he's overpriced.

Frank's biggest selling point is that erased them from the interwebz. That is no small feat. It's incredibly hard to erase one's digital footprint from EVERYTHING. We're talking 37 years of history for Dean and 33 for Sam at the time. 

New ids, passports, etc are pricey already. Once Frank erases someone's footprint he has to erase HIS erasure of their footprint. IMO, that is definitely worth at least 10K.  Take it a step further with guys who are wanted for murder then yup, take on another 5 K.  I think it's actually pretty cheap.

Also that wasn't the only service that Frank was providing. Frank was also researching the numbers that Bobby wrote down and finding out all of the intricacies of what Dick Roman was doing, including getting past firewalls and such. Add to that, that even though Frank didn't know at first it was Leviathans - in his theory, it was the government that had cloned Sam and Dean and were doing things to mess them up - he still knew that something potentially dangerous was going on and that Sam and Dean were caught up in it. In other words, not only was Frank's service valuable, Frank knew it was dangerous, and that he was likely in danger working on it. Frank was confident for the most part that his equipment and being off the grid would protect him, but the technology to do that likely wasn't cheap (I don't know much bout that kind of stuff, but I can't imagine it would be.) And Frank continued researching for Dean for months. Maybe he had other clients also, but I can imagine how much months of work from a lawyer might cost, and I agree with you, that Frank's services were fairly cheap considering.

2 minutes ago, SueB said:

For IT expertise at Frank's level?  $15K was cheap.  And because of them, he had to take his show on the road in an RV.  In the technology and (honestly) criminal world, I think the $15K is realistic.

Yup agreed.

My hubby's work messed up and lost a big bunch of his files (it was supposed to be a cloud-like back up thing, but human error caused at least 2 years of his work files to be lost). They tried a professional data recovery service. If the recovery had been successful in recovering his files, it would've cost $10,000 for the service. IT expertise ain't cheap.

Not to mention as you said, he had to go on the road, and, in the end, Frank ended up dead. So not only was he providing his IT expertise, it was a dangerous gig to boot.

1 minute ago, rue721 said:

My point is that I disliked Frank. Something about his vibe made my skin crawl. But I also didn't know why Dean *or the audience* was supposed to care about this random consultant that Dean had thrown a bunch of money at. Basically, why would I care about this transaction that Dean is carrying out for IT help?

...It was strange enough to go from John to Bobby -- but then to go from Bobby to FRANK? The IT guy that Dean hired? I dunno, so much about that confuses me...and also makes me wonder about Dean as a character.

I get this, I do, but I still found Frank interesting and sympathetic. Yes, he was a little weird and not quite right, but he was damaged due to terrible tragedy, something that I think Dean maybe could somehow sense and relate to. In the end, they both kept going even though their personal losses sometimes seemed too high. Frank channeled his personal loss and need to lash out into something semi-productive and a way to "help" others through technology, and Dean channeled his into hunting for Dick Roman.

But I think in the end they understood each other. As for what that said about Dean as a person, I think maybe it just said that Dean can understand and relate to people - like how he even managed to figure out how fit in with convicts in the jail and even related to some of their circumstances. And I think that because both Dean and Frank shared the tragic loss of members of their family, maybe Dean could understand that Frank was damaged and coping as best as he could - even if that coping mechanism was obsessively searching the internet for real or imagined injustices.

[SueB]

What made me like Frank was 1) he was truly off his rocker (March of Dimes??) but still effective, 2) I thought he gave Dean good advice about quit or 'go professional' to survive.  Note, I didn't say Frank's advice was mentally healthy.  Not remotely.  But if Dean is actively hunting and hasn't come up with a way to deal with his grief, he was going to get himself killed.  He DID fall for the Amazonian pregnancy trap.  So Frank's advice, to go week-to-week and fake it till you make it was fairly sensible from a 'don't get killed' perspective.  And I liked that.

I must admit, I like eccentric characters.  Frank kind of had me at "March of Dimes." 

Note: I'm not trying to sway your opinion of Frank.  I was just trying to be polite and respond.  Feel free to ignore.  

Edited March 2, 2017 by SueB

[MysteryGuest]

I loved Frank and was sorry to see him go so soon.  That $15,000 went a long way.  Not only did they get their identities wiped, but Frank was providing constant intel on the Leviathans.  Without the info on Frank's hard drive, that planet-wide Happy Meal would be well underway.

As for Mary's behavior, had she come to the boys and just said, "hey, I'm going to work with the BMOL", they'd have been pissed and would have probably felt betrayed even then for obvious reasons.  But when you lie about what you're doing, involve someone else just to cover up your lie, get that person killed and almost everyone else, and then even when you sort of come clean, you still lie about the real reason for that mission, I'm sorry, I call that big-time betrayal. 

Her sons aren't civilians or children who need to be protected by her.  They are talented, well-respected hunters who have saved the entire world a number of times.  Unless Mary really doesn't know any of that, which I highly doubt, her whole reason for working with the BMOL seems contrived to me.

[rue721]

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

As for what that said about Dean as a person, I think maybe it just said that Dean can understand and relate to people - like how he even managed to figure out how fit in with convicts in the jail and even related to some of their circumstances. And I think that because both Dean and Frank shared the tragic loss of members of their family, maybe Dean could understand that Frank was damaged and coping as best as he could - even if that coping mechanism was obsessively searching the internet for real or imagined injustices.

OK, that's very sweet. I can buy that :)

1 hour ago, SueB said:

What made me like Frank was 1) he was truly off his rocker (March of Dimes??) but still effective, 2) I thought he gave Dean good advice about quit or 'go professional' to survive.  Note, I didn't say Frank's advice was mentally healthy.  Not remotely.  But if Dean is actively hunting and hasn't come up with a way to deal with his grief, he was going to get himself killed.  He DID fall for the Amazonian pregnancy trap.  So Frank's advice, to go week-to-week and fake it till you make it was fairly sensible from a 'don't get killed' perspective.  And I liked that.

I must admit, I like eccentric characters.  Frank kind of had me at "March of Dimes." 

Note: I'm not trying to sway your opinion of Frank.  I was just trying to be polite and respond.  Feel free to ignore.  

I dunno, I didn't take Frank's advice seriously, because I figured that he didn't give an actual shit and was just trying to make Dean easier to deal with AND because he was crazy anyway. He had no credibility IMO, so I didn't give his advice much thought. YMMV.

I guess I never got the memo that he was supposed to be trustworthy or likable. He wasn't in the "friends" camp, because he was a hired gun. And he wasn't in the "allies" camp really, because he was a mess and couldn't necessarily be counted on. So what WAS he meant to be? All I could see in terms of his role was that he was a Bobby replacement...

And the idea of him being a Bobby replacement for Dean creeped me out. Bobby had not died that long before, and Bobby was ALREADY a replacement (for John) -- so having this new replacement character/relationship spring up right away after Bobby's death created this strange implication that Dean just...I dunno, was constantly cycling through replacement loved ones and replacement lives. Which I found off-putting and also kind of just sad.

Eh dunno why I'm being so harsh on the character. Should probably rewatch at some point and see if I still feel the same way.

[7kstar]

14 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

Her sons aren't civilians or children who need to be protected by her.  They are talented, well-respected hunters who have saved the entire world a number of times.  Unless Mary really doesn't know any of that, which I highly doubt, her whole reason for working with the BMOL seems contrived to me.

This is the BIG fail with Mary.  They should have made us care about her.  Instead it is easy to say let her go back to heaven already.  The problem is, it should have been interesting and we should be invested into her, but they've gone too black and white, instead of creating a very complex character.  I blame the writing.  I just hope I don't end up wishing she had never come back.

 

I liked Frank, but he wasn't a good replacement for Bobby.  I'm not sure they really intended to use him as much as they did.  But I'm still not ready to go into season 7.  I hated the big bad.  It started off interesting but became a bore for  me really fast.

[catrox14]

14 minutes ago, rue721 said:

I guess I never got the memo that he was supposed to be trustworthy or likable. He wasn't in the "friends" camp, because he was a hired gun. And he wasn't in the "allies" camp really, because he was a mess and couldn't necessarily be counted on. So what WAS he meant to be? All I could see in terms of his role was that he was a Bobby replacement...

He wasn't necessarily a "friend" but he was an ally.  It was Bobby who sent the boys to Frank because Frank owed him from a prior thing. He was lunatic and a jackass. But he was good at his job.

I dunno. I really enjoyed Frank myself.

[auntvi]

20 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I really enjoyed Frank myself.

Me too! I also liked the advice he gave Dean to fake it, just to smile. It was cool seeing Dean, driving the car late at night and practicing the smile.

[Katy M]

I'm not really all that upset that the alpha vamp is dead. He's only really been in two episodes, and the last one was end of season 7, so 5 years ago.  And, he's a monster.  Killing monsters is what they do.  It's not like he was a nice monster that they were sparing.  He kidnapped kids.  Yeah, Sam and Dean returned that one kid, but considering he had a kidnapped kid in the first place, there's no reason to assume he didn't go out and replace him.

[Aeryn13]

So, after this debacle, I`m certainly not expecting anything out of Berens episodes anymore. 

We got the "Dean apologizes for his feelings because they are never valid" trope. We got him being written out of the action in a very lackluster manner. I get reduced screentime but this arriving after everything is finished with a "hey, what did I miss?" just looks stupid.

The way killing the Alpha Vamp was shot was very reminiscent of the way Dean killed Azazel. He doesn`t have that many more big kills that Sam can play out this Season but there is still a couple more eps to go. 

And of course another Super!Sam ep. Necessitated by everyone around him being incompetent. Guess the BMOL switched their "we got the best Winchester" thinking from Mary around to Sam now. And now they only think Dean is incompetent? 

I hope the next Glynn or Yockey ep gives something good for the character. It`s really a hopeless wasteland otherwise. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

n 3/1/2017 at 8:58 PM, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Based on the latest clip, here's my prediction.  (wish I could be as optimistic as @SueB, but I'm more of a realist. )  

• Hunt goes bad.  Personally, I hope Sam can pull it out without Dean coming to rescue them.  Not going to hold my breath for that though.  And, oh if by some miracle he manages to save himself and Mary, I'm sure there will be plenty of disparaging "SuperSam comments to take the shine off the moment.

Called it.  

[Aeryn13]

Well, it is an ongoing source of bitterness for me. And I`m beyond ready for my Super!Dean ep. Just one would be nice.

[ILoveReading]

UO- I really don't think Perez did himself any favors with that interview.  He basically said the writers are keeping score.  When they do you really can't blame fans if they do it too.

[companionenvy]

I think there is a difference between keeping score, in terms of "I'd like there to be some general parity in terms of focus/hero moments/goat moments" and commenting on every episode, scene, and interaction from the sole perspective of "how central was Dean's role/to what extent are his feelings being validated/is he being presented in the most positive light possible." 

It is your prerogative if you want to watch the show that way, but it is a recipe for disappointment. Even if there were scrupulous parity between the two brothers, on a show with two leads and a number of supporting characters who can also get the hero role in any given episode, there are going to be a lot of episodes - maybe even the majority -- where Dean doesn't get the major action role, or is shown to be wrong in the argument of the hour, or is the character learning a lesson. 

[Wayward Son]

8 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

I think there is a difference between keeping score, in terms of "I'd like there to be some general parity in terms of focus/hero moments/goat moments" and commenting on every episode, scene, and interaction from the sole perspective of "how central was Dean's role/to what extent are his feelings being validated/is he being presented in the most positive light possible." 

It is your prerogative if you want to watch the show that way, but it is a recipe for disappointment. Even if there were scrupulous parity between the two brothers, on a show with two leads and a number of supporting characters who can also get the hero role in any given episode, there are going to be a lot of episodes - maybe even the majority -- where Dean doesn't get the major action role, or is shown to be wrong in the argument of the hour, or is the character learning a lesson. 

I agree with all of this @companionenvy! Very well said. 

[Aeryn13]

I didn`t start out watching the show this way. There were always disappointments but also good stuff to balance it out. And that`s what is largely missing for me, the good stuff. Dean got one good episode this Season in Regarding Dean. He got decent material in the hunter funeral and the Hitler one. And the Lily Sunder ep was okay on its own, despite Dean not really playing much of a role. Compared to now 4 episodes I really, really hated. That`s a bad ratio.     

As far as the Dean-apologies and pretty much always being wrong in that his feelings are never valid, yes, it only led to me hating the characters he has to crawl to and apologize. Like Mary here. If they want to build characters by trashing my favourite one, obviously, nothing is going to stop them but that does not endear those characters to me.

[Geordiegirl1967]

9 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I agree with all of this @companionenvy! Very well said. 

Me too!

[Katy M]

I think that most times in life, and so therefore hopefully on TV, one person isn't 100% right, while the other is 100% wrong.  This is how I feel with Dean and Mary.  I think Dean is certainly justified in feeling a bit abandoned and he's certainly right that the BMOLs are bad news.  But, I don't think Mary is wrong in not feeling like a mother to these people that are supposedly older than her, and in case, older than they were when she was used to being their mother.  Nobody, including herself, can force her to feel feelings she's just not feeling.  It's not her fault she was dead for 30 years, (and there's a sentence I didn't think I'd ever be typing), nor is it Sam or Dean's fault.  They each get to feel the way they feel, and none of them should probably be calling the others out on that part of it.

[Aeryn13]

Which would be fine but then she doesn`t get to pull the Mom card or use it to manipulate her sons into behaviour and validation she wants. Or use it as justifaction for her current actions. And I don`t want to see her moping on some cot because Dean hurt her Mommy-feelings. If she doesn`t have them, it should be no problem for her that he isn`t okay with her. 

[catrox14]

I think Dean's absences or role reduction stand out more this season because the absences are not written gracefully IMO. Berens did a better job with Dean lite in The Raid but he kind of fucked it up by  throwing in that non-sense in the final scene.  But at least Dean wasn't gone for an entire 20 minutes without explanation...so...yay?  (And yes I would say the same thing if Sam's absences were written similarly terribly).

[Guest]

A new topic has been created as a standalone place to contain the Screen Time War discussions.

This thread is now for general bitterness and unpopular opinions about the show and no longer the place for any Sam Vs. Dean comments.

[AwesomO4000]

14 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Well, it is an ongoing source of bitterness for me. And I`m beyond ready for my Super!Dean ep. Just one would be nice.

Even though my response isn't Sam vs Dean, I don't think, I think I'll move this to the new thread just in case. Or in case anyone wants to make it that via any discussion that might come from it.

[millennium]

I really like Sam and Dean.  Jared and Jensen have done a fantastic job of bringing them to life.   Sometimes I think what a hoot it would be to have one or both of them as friends.

That said, it is with much dismay that I report the show lost me this season.   I just stopped watching.  It was the episode where Lucifer possessed the President.   It was so boring that I didn't care what was happening on the screen.  Even the snark couldn't save it.   I turned off the DVR and went to bed.   I haven't looked back.

The show hasn't been the same for years now.   Every now and then an episode will break through -- the high school musical episode, for example (which would have been a great place to end the series) -- but I can  no longer mire myself in tedium waiting for the magic moment when somebody remembers how to get the lightning back in the bottle.  Besides, even if they do, the bottle is always empty again by the following week.

The Heaven vs. Hell storyline killed this show.   It's been on life support since the Leviathans.   I would pull the plug if I could.   It's painful to see it like this. 

[Katy M]

8 hours ago, millennium said:

That said, it is with much dismay that I report the show lost me this season.   I just stopped watching.  It was the episode where Lucifer possessed the President.   It was so boring that I didn't care what was happening on the screen.  Even the snark couldn't save it.   I turned off the DVR and went to bed.   I haven't looked back.

That episode was definitely wrought with stupidity.

[SueB]

@millennium I get it. I'm sorry this show has become painful.  IF you decide to ever try again, I strongly encourage the binge-method.  It makes the rough moments (or episodes) less of an issue. You just move on.  After at least a 5 year hiatus from Smallville, I did that and the show was much more palatable. I was able to get "closure".  But .. it took some serious distance from the show before I could approach it again.  

[Wayward Son]

My UO: I don't consider the Winchester's (or Castiel for that matter) as heroes. I'd consider them anti-heroes at best. 

[ahrtee]

15 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

My UO: I don't consider the Winchester's (or Castiel for that matter) as heroes. I'd consider them anti-heroes at best. 

Just my definition, but I think heroes (aside from the boring ones who are squeaky-clean and never wrong) do the wrong thing for the right reasons.  Anti-heroes do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

To put it another way, heroes have good intentions (and good hearts).  Anti-heroes are usually out for themselves but often wind up doing the right thing anyway.  JMO, and YMMV.

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, Wayward Son said:

My UO: I don't consider the Winchester's (or Castiel for that matter) as heroes. I'd consider them anti-heroes at best. 

I think they are Big Damn Heroes with a side of anti-hero.

[Wayward Son]

19 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I think they are Big Damn Heroes with a side of anti-hero.

We'll have to disagree :) . I think they've selfishly put themselves and the other above others (and the world in general) too many times to be considered heroes. 

I don't think they're bad men, far from it, but I don't consider them heroic either. 

2 hours ago, ahrtee said:

Just my definition, but I think heroes (aside from the boring ones who are squeaky-clean and never wrong) do the wrong thing for the right reasons.  Anti-heroes do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

To put it another way, heroes have good intentions (and good hearts).  Anti-heroes are usually out for themselves but often wind up doing the right thing anyway.  JMO, and YMMV.

Ah perhaps I've misused the word anti-hero. I still stand by my belief that they don't qualify as actual heroes. 

[Katy M]

On the hero discussion, I'll weigh in with saying I think they're just human.  I think sometimes they do heroic things, and in that case they're heroes.  I think sometimes they've done some outright evil things (such as letting the darkness out, starting the Apocalypse, etc) and then they're villains.  I think their hero moments outnumber their villain moments, but in the end, they're just men sometimes trying to do the right thing, and sometimes doing selfish things.

[catrox14]

2 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

We'll have to disagree :) . I think they've selfishly put themselves and the other above others (and the world in general) too many times to be considered heroes. 

I don't quite understand this. Not trying to change your mind, just trying understand. 

To me if they were anti-heroes they would never have put "Saving People, Hunting Things" as their life motto. They started out saving people, hunting things. They were hey messed up things, course corrected and saved the world again. They still save people and hunt things.  They make mistakes but IMO ultimately they are still trying to do the right thing even as they fail. I dunno that's pretty classic Heroes journey tropes to me.

Dean was closer to anti-hero with the MoC because he was killing dudes that were rapists and murderers but again he was trying to do the right things but went about it in the wrong ways.

I can go with Byronic heroes :)

[Wayward Son]

19 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I don't quite understand this. Not trying to change your mind, just trying understand. 

To me if they were anti-heroes they would never have put "Saving People, Hunting Things" as their life motto. They started out saving people, hunting things. They were hey messed up things, course corrected and saved the world again. They still save people and hunt things.  They make mistakes but IMO ultimately they are still trying to do the right thing even as they fail. I dunno that's pretty classic Heroes journey tropes to me.

Dean was closer to anti-hero with the MoC because he was killing dudes that were rapists and murderers but again he was trying to do the right things but went about it in the wrong ways.

I can go with Byronic heroes :)

In my opinion a true hero, in the most classical sense of the word, is the one who will make the hard decisions for the greater good! They are the ones who will make the heart wrenching decision simply because they know it's the right thing to do. Buffy Summers for instance was a hero at the end of season two when she refused to put Angel (the love of her life's) life before the rest of the world. 

Some examples of when the Winchesters failed to match up to that heroism include; Sam's decision to put himself and Dean before bettering the world by refusing to close the gates of hell at the end of season eight, or Dean's decision to kill Death rather than allow himself to be isolated for the sake of the greater good at the end of season 10. 

Overall, the Winchester's may speak of doing the heroic thing, but most of the time when it comes to dying to save the world they won't do it. They'll do it for each other, but the greater good... Not so much. The Winchester's are good men I'm not saying otherwise, but ultimately unlike like a true hero they'll often place themselves before others when push comes to shove. They haven't been heroes in the truest sense of the word since season five. 

Again just My UO

Edited March 4, 2017 by Wayward Son

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

Dean's decision to kill Death rather than allow himself to be isolated for the sake of the greater good at the end of season 10. 

I don't think that Dean killed Death to avoid isolation. I believe it was because Death told him to kill Sam or he would.

[catrox14]

25 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Overall, the Winchester's may speak of doing the heroic thing, but most of the time when it comes to dying to save the world they won't do it. They'll do it for each other, but the greater good... Not so much. The Winchester's are good men I'm not saying otherwise, but ultimately unlike like a true hero they'll often place themselves before others when push comes to shove. They haven't been heroes in the truest sense of the word since season five. 

Every time they put themselves in harm's way to save someone from a monster they are sacrificing for the greater good.  They saved 250 people on a flight by going after the demon. Dean was going to get blown up to stop Amara from destroying the world in s11. Even with the Mark, Dean was willing to  to be shot into space to make sure no one else had to be what he was. Death put an impossible choice on Dean to kill Sam before he'd do it. IMO, if Death had not put Sam on the table, different story. But then again the Darkness being released would have happened weather Dean killed Sam or not since the spell was already under way.  But I guess that choice to not kill Sam was selfish.

I dunno to me everytime they save one person at their own peril that is sacrificing for the greater good. They run into that haunted building when no one else does.

Edited March 5, 2017 by catrox14

[catrox14]

8 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

I don't think that Dean killed Death to avoid isolation. I believe it was because Death told him to kill Sam or he would.

I agree. Dean was willing to be sent into isolation before Death threw Sam into the conversation. And I agree that Death threatening Sam pushed Dean a little bit further IMO.

[Wayward Son]

10 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

I don't think that Dean killed Death to avoid isolation. I believe it was because Death told him to kill Sam or he would.

 

9 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Every time they put themselves in harm's way to save someone from a monster they are sacrificing for the greater good.  They saved 250 people on a flight by going after the demon. Dean was going to get blown up to stop Amara from destroying the world in s11. Even with the Mark, Dean was willing to  to be shot into space to make sure no one else had to be what he was. Death put an impossible choice on Dean to kill Sam before he'd do it. IMO, if Death had not put Sam on the table, different story. But then again the Darkness being released would have happened weather Dean killed Sam or not since the spell was already under way.  But I guess that choice to not kill Sam was selfish. .

Ah yes, I remembered that scene wrongly, but my point remains that his decision to put Sam before the world was a selfish and unheroic one. 

I do want to clarify that I don't hate Sam, Dean, and Cas (who I also mentioned as lacking true heroism). My favourite characters are the nuanced and complex ones I can really earn to admire. So I do think they're good people. I'm not saying they're major villains. I just don't think they're heroes. They've put themselves and the other (especially the other brother) before the world one too many times for that. 

This is all just my opinion. I'm not looking to convert anyone to my way of thinking :)

Edited March 5, 2017 by Wayward Son

[catrox14]

Just now, Wayward Son said:

I do want to clarify that I don't hate Sam, Dean, and Cas (who I also mentioned as lacking true heroism). My favourite characters are the nuanced and complex ones I can really earn to admire. So I do think they're good people. I'm not saying they're major villains. I just don't think they're heroes. 

So how do you classify these men who are willing to die for a person who's house is haunted when they aren't doing it for any reason other than to keep that person from dying by ghost?

[Wayward Son]

11 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

So how do you classify these men who are willing to die for a person who's house is haunted when they aren't doing it for any reason other than to keep that person from dying by ghost?

I would say probably overall anti-heroes would be the way I'd class the Winchesters. I'm not sure if you've ever seen the Buffyverse, but of it's two leads I'd class Buffy as a hero and Angel as an anti-hero. The Winchesters in my eyes are more similar to him than her hence anti-heroes. 

[MysteryGuest]

I think Sam and Dean definitely qualify as heroic.  They have fought this fight against the supernatural from the time they were children.  They didn't get to join a police force, or the military to aid in fighting the bad guys with a team of other like-minded individuals.  They've had to do it themselves, against evil that most people couldn't imagine in their wildest dreams.  They have had the literal survival of the world on their shoulders multiple times and always fought to save everyone, not just some of the people.  The problem is that they're human, with very little guidance as to how to go about doing this job they've taken on.  And they've been manipulated by Heaven and Hell the entire time.  Considering they possess no superpowers, I think they've done pretty well.  They've made mistakes along the way, but never for selfish reasons.  I don't consider them trying to save each other as selfish when they are the only ones each other can rely on.  Plus, if they opted to sacrifice each other each time they were threatened, this show would have been over, season one. 

[DittyDotDot]

How about we just agree that they're heroic except when they're not? ;)