Supernatural Bitterness & Unpopular Opinions: You All Suck

[Idahoforspn]

25 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Ironically, this episode had the effect of showing just how figuratively alone Dean was. 

A big part of why that episode didn't work for me was that it had the opposite effect.  It just left me feeling bad for Dean and highlighting how he really had no one looking out for him. 

Sam had Zanna, at least one teacher, John and Dean.  Who did Dean have?

I felt it also highlighted just why Dean probably feels like he was never good enough.  He had to be there for Sam and John.  If he stayed with Sam he would have been letting John down, and if he stays with John he lets Sam down.  He needed be able to be in two places at once.  No wonder he feels like he failed.

Plus, Sully's advice wasn't the best. You don't encourage a 9 year old to run away.  Also someone really needed to be the voice of reason in regards to the cage.  It wasn't about being courage it was about common sense.   Why did no one stop and point out that Lucifer hates humanity so why would he help them defeat Amara?  The whole rushing to Lucifer just made Sam look gullible. 

Given John and Dean's  dislike of all things supernatural, if Sam started talking to an imaginary friend, I don't just see Dean or John taking that in stride.  Or accepting it as a natural part of childhood since they didn't have natural childhoods. 

Even if the writers didn't intend to make Dean look neglectful, there was no way to avoid it with the whole concept of the episode.

This x ten

[DittyDotDot]

20 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

But if Dean wasn't neglectful and couldn't meet Sam's needs why did he need a Zanna in the first place?

It wasn't Dean's responsibility to meet Sam's needs; Dean was just a kid, himself. That was John's responsibility. However, the episode did show Dean checking in with Sam and trying to get John to include Sam. Neglect would suggest Dean walked out the door and never thought about Sam or what Sam needed. So, yeah, I didn't see Dean as neglectful at all.

18 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Can't it be both?  Literal and figurative?  I mean, sure he had Sully, so it wasn't quite so literal, but sometimes you can feel lonely even with other people around.  

Yes, and that's what I was saying.  The episode presented it as Sam was literally left alone which equaled loneliness. Previous to the episode, I felt like Sam's lonely childhood was due to him feeling like he was alone even when he was in a crowded room. To me, the episode was incredibly simplistic in it's approach to Sam, so I found it a failure.

[CluelessDrifter]

16 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Even if the writers didn't intend to make Dean look neglectful, there was no way to avoid it with the whole concept of the episode.

I agree with everything else you said, except this.  Dean kept working on John until John changed his mind and agreed to let Sam come.  Keep in mind that he was a kid too, so he had to work within the bounds of being a kid who had to do what John said.  His mind was on Sam, and he kept at it, which doesn't show neglect.  I think the problem is having Dean say, 'But when I wasn't there for my little brother, Sully was.'  

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

But if Dean wasn't neglectful and couldn't meet Sam's needs why did he need a Zanna in the first place?

Because as awesome as Dean is, he's not God.  Just because Sam needed something different that Dean couldn't, or wasn't, giving him, doesn't make Dean neglectful.  Not even a little.  Especially since Dean is only a few years older than Sam.  It's not Dean's job, or even possible, to be everything that Sam needs.

[ILoveReading]

42 minutes ago, CluelessDrifter said:

I agree with everything else you said, except this.  Dean kept working on John until John changed his mind and agreed to let Sam come.  Keep in mind that he was a kid too, so he had to work within the bounds of being a kid who had to do what John said.  His mind was on Sam, and he kept at it, which doesn't show neglect.  I think the problem is having Dean say, 'But when I wasn't there for my little brother, Sully was.'  

I guess neglectful is the wrong word because I don't disagree.  Dean was in a position that made it impossible for him to succeed.   I forget which ep it was, but when Dean told the story of Sam falling off the roof and breaking his arm, it made me shudder because all I could think of was what happened to Dean when Dad came home.  Sam got hurt on his watch. 

Dean should never have been responsible for Sam, but he was.  John put that responsibility on Dean's shoulder and held him liable when something happened to Sam.   There was no way he could be in two places at once.  But according to his ep he needed to be.

So, Sully showing up can only make Dean feel like he wasn't enough for Sam.  That he was failing to meet Sam's needs.   It just feels like this would have been another blow to Dean's self esteem. 

That was the problem with the episode concept.  Dean did the best he could, but for the episode concept to work, the show basically had to say that it wasn't enough.

Quote

Because as awesome as Dean is, he's not God.  Just because Sam needed something different that Dean couldn't, or wasn't, giving him, doesn't make Dean neglectful.  Not even a little.  Especially since Dean is only a few years older than Sam.  It's not Dean's job, or even possible, to be everything that Sam needs.

This is precisely why this episode left me feeling bad for Dean.

Edited June 1, 2017 by ILoveReading

[RulerofallIsurvey]

2 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

 The episode presented it as Sam was literally left alone which equaled loneliness. Previous to the episode, I felt like Sam's lonely childhood was due to him feeling like he was alone even when he was in a crowded room.

Except that once Sam was literally left alone, Sully popped in - which meant that he wasn't literally alone and possibly or probably shouldn't have felt loneliness at that point.  I think that even with Sully there, Sam still felt alone.  Besides, by the end of the ep, Sam tells Sully to get lost, which he did.  So there's plenty of Sam's childhood left for him to still feel alone in a crowded room (or impala), I think.  

[DittyDotDot]

41 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Except that once Sam was literally left alone, Sully popped in - which meant that he wasn't literally alone and possibly or probably shouldn't have felt loneliness at that point.  I think that even with Sully there, Sam still felt alone.  Besides, by the end of the ep, Sam tells Sully to get lost, which he did.  So there's plenty of Sam's childhood left for him to still feel alone in a crowded room (or impala), I think.  

You're missing my actual point: IMO, the reason Sam needed Sully in the first place was incredibly simplistic in this episode. That's why I don't like the episode. I just prefer a more nuanced approach to my characters.

Edited June 1, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[RulerofallIsurvey]

6 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Your missing my entire point: IMO, the reason Sam needed Sully in the first place was incredibly simplistic in this episode. That's why I don't like the episode. I just prefer a more nuanced approach to my characters.

Nah, I think I get it.  I just disagree.  :)

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

That was the problem with the episode concept.  Dean did the best he could, but for the episode concept to work, the show basically had to say that it wasn't enough.

I don't know, I think what was "wrong" with Sam just wasn't about Dean. But then again, I don't feel like the episode was really about Sam either.

I actually think the Zanna would've been more interesting if they had been created by the kids they helped somehow. As much as I enjoyed Sully, he just didn't feel personal enough to Sam for me to buy into the concept. Probably didn't help that Sam was waaaay too old to have an imaginary friend. And Sam having the knowledge that he did of the supernatural, you'd think he would've called John and Dean freaked out about an imaginary friend suddenly appearing.

Edited June 1, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Aeryn13]

Quote

 I think the problem is having Dean say, 'But when I wasn't there for my little brother, Sully was.'  

For me it was that and Richard Speight`s interview where he said something about accepting and acknowledging your past failures or something like that re: Dean. That made me so mad. Failure to what? Be in two places at once? Failure to being the perfect parent while only a kid yourself? According to the director of the episode that was a real failure though for which the character feel guilty and ashamed then? Either he got that from the script himself or there were directional remarks in it that implied that WAS the writer`s intent. 

Lets not even acknowledge that Dean was a kid who was being brought along on a job so physically dangerous, it is considered unwise for combat-trained adults to do alone. I don`t care if Dean wanted to go or may have found it cool, I thought it was callous as fuck for the episode to not only ignore that but blame the kid for it.    

Fuck you and covfefe, show. Seriously. 

[Airmid]

58 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Lets not even acknowledge that Dean was a kid who was being brought along on a job so physically dangerous, it is considered unwise for combat-trained adults to do alone. I don`t care if Dean wanted to go or may have found it cool, I thought it was callous as fuck for the episode to not only ignore that but blame the kid for it.  

The fact that it's just some accepted part of Dean's life and barely seen in a bad light ticks me off. Dean was just a child who was ditched with a another kid not much younger than him and expected to somehow make sure they had enough food/shelter/parenting when John wandered off. Then, later on when he's not much older he's on hunts himself like it's normal. Well, it was 'normal' for John but I honestly don't care what kind of training John managed to impart and force on them when he was actually around - that's beyond terrible. What disregard for children you supposedly love and cherish.

What makes that even worse is Dean's complete love, idolization and devotion to his father who had so little regard for him. The whole thing is just sickening in many ways and when John dies it palatable how all of Dean's world just breaks and he sees it for what it is finally, probably fully for the first time.

Sam got screwed over too, don't get me wrong. It's obvious and the way John treated him even up to the end (sends him to get coffee without even telling him goodbye when he knows he has minutes is just ugh) is terrible and did a lot to help further Sam along his path, ironically. But at the end of the day, no matter how much Sam hated Dean, or yelled at him, or did stupid things he still had his older brother watching out for him. He still got a lot of things Dean didn't because Dean wanted him to have them because God knows John wasn't around to do it.

And Dean, well still nobody. The fact that John talks about how Dean cared for him during their talk in In My Time of Dying is so telling. That one statement shows so much of Dean's life and probably why he would actually feel betrayed that Sam left him for college. I think as a character it's something Dean would be able to understand later on but not at the moment it was happening. Then John ditched him, and then did the unthinkable by damning his own soul while giving Dean the charge of maybe having to kill the one thing he loved most in the world and had been commanded to protect at all costs throughout almost his entire life.

John Winchester, you deserve so much worse even if you did love your sons in your own, screwed up way.

So Sam feeling like an outsider no matter what his brother did? Understandable and it's understandable why a Zanna would take interest in him. But Dean gets nothing? Not even an aside about how a Zanna attempted to appear to him but John had already royally fucked him up so he took a shoot at it instead of believing that not all the supernatural things out there were coming to kill him?

[AwesomO4000]

6 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

I've always felt like Sam was a lonely kid because he always felt there was something wrong with him; he felt like he was figuratively alone.. Just My Imagination presented it as Sam was lonely because he was literally alone, IMO. I just find the literal approach far less complex and interesting. 

I agree that this is why Sam felt lonely, and "Just My Imagination" didn't affect that opinion for me. As I said, I liked that the episode showed that Sam actually did want to be part of and tried to fit in with his family at some point, but that somewhere along the line, it just didn't work out. I remember Dean saying to Sam at some point that Sam never wanted to be part of their family and tried to get away and find something better as soon as he could, so I was happy that this episode dispelled that, and showed that it was maybe something else - like Sam feeling like he wasn't right somehow - that kept him from feeling like he belonged.

6 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Sorry, I didn't see that Dean was neglectful at all. 

Me either.

7 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I haven't read your other posts in the thread yet, so I don't know if you might have addressed this elsewhere.  My (probably UO) on this is - I don't think Sam wants to get out of hunting anymore.  (He said to Mary in Mamma Mia, "This is my family.  We hunt" or something like that.) But I do think he still wants something more in addition to hunting.  When Dean made the comment in Asa Fox about how going out on the job was the best way to go, Sam questioned that. 

The discussion was concerning Sam saying in "What Is..." that he was glad that he and Dean were together and close after Dean described the djinn's world. To me this meant that Sam wasn't sorry that he gave up going back to college, because being close to Dean even if that meant hunting meant more to Sam. The question was if what Sam said in "What Is..." was actually sincere if Sam later expressed a desire that he wished he could give up hunting and go back to a normal life.

My point was that until season 8, I couldn't recall Sam saying that he'd rather have a normal life. I remember him instead expressing that apple pie life was actually stressful and that he and Dean weren't missing anything by not having it ("Swap Meat"). It wasn't until season 8 - over 5 seasons later - that I remember Sam even mentioning wanting normal again. So for me, what Sam said in "What Is..." was sincere and remained so until Carver decided to change Sam in season 8.

[companionenvy]

58 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

It wasn't until season 8 - over 5 seasons later - that I remember Sam even mentioning wanting normal again. So for me, what Sam said in "What Is..." was sincere and remained so until Carver decided to change Sam in season 8.

Lord knows I have plenty of problems with the writing for Sam in season 8, but I don't actually think Sam (or, to a lesser extent Dean!) sometimes expressing a desire for a normal life and sometimes embracing hunting is inconsistent.

People are complicated. As kids, it seems clear to me that Sam generally responded to his dysfunctional childhood by wanting to define himself against his family, which he did by throwing himself into non-hunting pursuits. But it also makes sense to me that he sometimes wanted to be included in the bond that John and Dean shared through hunting - and, in a family in which an invitation to hunt would have been a major sign of acceptance and initiation into adulthood, it would have been frankly unbelievable if a pre-teen Sam had never sought that experience, especially once the alternative was being left alone. As an adult, the more mature Sam can see the value in what he and Dean do and the relationship they have, but even now it isn't inconsistent, IMO, to have him sometimes have desires beyond the hunting world

Similarly, it seems clear to me that Dean generally responded to his dysfunctional childhood by convincing himself that the hunting life was the best life ever - and, in some respects, Dean's personality (more than Sam's), was naturally suited to aspects of the hunting life. But it also makes sense to me that there were times in which young Dean (or at least a suppressed part of him) did gravitate toward more normal experiences and harbor a certain resentment toward John for denying him the stability and opportunities of civilian life. Hence "Bad Boys," or "What is and What Should Never Be."

The more unpopular opinion, I would guess, is that I think the same is true of Mary, and it confuses me when people say her desire to hunt in S12, or the fact that she hunted at least once when Dean was a baby, is inconsistent with her desire as a teenager to leave hunting behind. 

[Airmid]

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

My point was that until season 8, I couldn't recall Sam saying that he'd rather have a normal life. I remember him instead expressing that apple pie life was actually stressful and that he and Dean weren't missing anything by not having it ("Swap Meat"). It wasn't until season 8 - over 5 seasons later - that I remember Sam even mentioning wanting normal again. So for me, what Sam said in "What Is..." was sincere and remained so until Carver decided to change Sam in season 8.

I always thought that Sam idealized normal life, far more so than Dean. While I never embraced the whole 'Sam abandoned us for college' shtick the show had going on for far, far too long, Sam does seem to have an idea of what he wants for normal. Which means cutting himself off totally from the supernatural, barely admitting his family exists and sticking his head in the ground. I always got the impression that the promise he elicits from Dean in season five has to do more with his ideas than Dean's. He didn't just make his brother promise that he wont do stupid things to get him back.

While season eight did Sam no favors, you do have Ben Edlund episode following when they first got the Bunker. It's Dean who is nesting, Dean who is wearing robes and cooking. Even later on in the series it is Dean who taking care of ironing albeit with beer, but still more domesticated.

Dean had to do a lot while raising Sam and it natural for him to fall into certain patterns. His normal isn't the rest of the world's but there's still pieces that resemble it. Sam, on the other hand, was under the thumb of his father and later brother. He tried to get free, to go collect a life that wasn't what he was raised in and pays dearly for it. He got a brief glimpse of that normal, had a girlfriend who loved him for who she thought he was, not for what he was. Even in that terrible season eight, he was trying for something but chose a woman with more issues than him. Some might argue that he was looking for Dean without looking for him but I digress.

When Sam talks about how awful it was in Swap Meat I'm not sure he meant it. Or at least not in desiring normal. And normal to Sam is not knowing monsters, or Satan or world breaking problems. I think normal to Sam is being blind to all the things that go bump in the night and he can never have that. Sam was the youngest and while Dean tried to make a safety net for him, the way John treated him and viewed him pretty much made that impossible. Sam was always tainted, always carried that low key threat of becoming dangerous just due to Mary's deal. 

Dean on the other hand, while his childhood was shit, at least got to learn to be comfortable in his own skin. He wasn't looked down on for the same reasons Sam was. 

They both view normal differently, I just always felt Sam's was unachievable. 

Edited June 1, 2017 by Airmid

[SueB]

This episode is IMO a classic reason why interpretation is so important. 

Dean clearly feels guilty -- but to me that shows the continued DAMAGE done to Dean by John.  

So... WITHOUT the Speight quote, my interpretation was:
1) Dean is defensive because he did his best and feels like the existence of the imaginary friend was an indictment on hiim
2) Dean tried to get Sammy on the hunt and eventually did.  It just took some convincing with John.  And John was an asshole, so Dean must have been pretty persuasive.
3) 9 years old is too young to leave alone in a motel (Sam's circumstance). 9 years old and leaving him alone with a 5 year old is also too young (when Dean was that age).  In terms of what was "worse", I think Dean's situation was much more dangerous/harmful (responsible for a 5 year old). In terms of loneliness, I think Sam's was.  But NONE of that was Dean's fault.  
4) John taking a 13 year old on a hunt for backup is, again, pretty unconscionable.  Letting Sam join them may have made Sam less lonely but it certainly put him more at risk.
Bottom Line: My take: Sam was lonely, Dean was doing the best he could, and John was an asshole.

WITH the Speight interview (from Variety):

Quote

It sounds like Sam has a chance to confide in Sully in a way he can’t necessarily confide in his brother, so how does Dean handle that?

I think Dean is slower to trust, slower to open up, and really has to check his own reaction to this, because though he may not truly understand it, what he has to understand is that he and Sam are different, and that (1) maybe Dean can’t fill every emotional gap that his brother needs filling. Maybe they require more, (2) maybe sometimes he hasn’t been the best brother, (3) maybe sometimes they haven’t been there for each other in the way that they should’ve been or wish they had been, and (4) sometimes realizing that is to realize one’s own faults and fallibility, and that can be a difficult thing, and that’s where Dean finds himself.

First off, Rich is a bit all-over the map.  Breaking it down:
(1) Reasonable that one person can't fill all the gaps. Dean MIGHT blame himself for this, but that's Dean being too hard on himself IMO.
(2) That's a bit harsh. There IS canon about the whole "Plucky's" thing, but Dean was just a kid too.  It's not like Dean beat up on Sam or acted in some cruel way with him.  So, this seems like Rich is stretching IMO.
(3) Now he's saying "they" and offering up both a "should" and a "wish". Implying both brothers may have actually fallen short or THINK they've fallen short. Those are two different concepts. And why go for the "they"?  This phrase seems wishy-washy to me.
(4) He's saying Dean had faults and could have done better.  I think that's expecting too much from a 13 year old.  

So... my interpretation of Speight's interview is that Speight intended  us to see:
-Dean feels guilt but Sam's need for an imaginary friend is a combination of natural shortfall (a big brother can only fill so much of the gap in Sam's life) and Dean not taking more steps to make Sam feel less lonely.

And I flat out disagree with Speight's interpretation regarding Dean's guilt.  The natural shortfall is a reasonable viewpoint, but Dean should NOT be carrying guilt around for not being able to make Sam's life less lonely.  That guilt belongs to John, not a 13 year old kid.  MORE importantly, just because the director and (theoretically) the writer felt that way, doesn't mean I have to accept that authorial intent as the only 'correct' interpretation.  This is ONE interview for ONE episode.  I'd need a PATTERN of actual selfish behavior on Dean's part to believe that Dean could have done more.  I saw nothing in the episode that showed Dean being selfish.  Two examples in previous episodes (going to play video games at age 9 and leaving Sam repeatedly at Plucky's) of self-indulgence does not remotely stack up to all the other selfless acts we've seen Dean do for Sam IMO.  

So, the Speight interview is insufficient for me to change my mind about Dean being a good big brother.  The existence of the Zanna is insufficient for me to think Dean should have been a better brother.  I chalk the Zanna's existence to Sam's imagination (at least he had the imagination of a child!) and Sam's natural loneliness.  But that loneliness lays at John's feet IMO, not Dean's (regardless of what Speight said). 

[AwesomO4000]

6 hours ago, companionenvy said:

Lord knows I have plenty of problems with the writing for Sam in season 8, but I don't actually think Sam (or, to a lesser extent Dean!) sometimes expressing a desire for a normal life and sometimes embracing hunting is inconsistent.

I agree with you here. I should have been more specific. Even in "What Is..." I don't think Sam is embracing the hunting life exactly, but more his life together with Dean and the bond that they now share again, and I think that's what Sam wouldn't give up to go back to school anymore. Hunting just happens to be a part of that. At least that was my interpretation of what he said to Dean at the end of the episode.

However that being said, I actually do think that - whether it was conceit on his part or just the feeling he gets and the chance to redeem himself (I tend to lean towards the latter) - in my opinion, Sam did appreciate hunting more as the seasons went on. Unlike @Airmid, I did believe Sam in "Swap Meat," and mostly because Sam continued to show this attitude towards hunting in season 6 and 7. "The French Mistake" was a good example. In the middle of the episode Dean remarks that for Sam, it must be tempting to stay in the alternate reality with no monsters or demons and as Dean puts it, quoting John Lennon: "no hell below us. Above us only sky." But Sam quickly and in my opinion convincingly tells Dean that they have friends at home and "we just don't mean the same thing here." Sam likes making a difference, and hunting is how he can do that. He'd said something similar just in the previous episode also.

What I thought was out of character in season 8 was less Sam considering a normal life, but Sam dismissing hunting entirely, seeming to declare it wasn't his problem, and then settling down to be a handyman (of all the jobs? Really? Does Sam even know how to fix stuff?). What happened to wanting to "mean something?" and wanting to be there for his friends? (I still won't forgive Carver for having Sam shrug his shoulders at Kevin being taken by Crowley. Am I'm supposed to believe Sam didn't even try to summon Crowley and negotiate? Not tell another hunter(s) maybe and have them look into Kevin's disappearance at least? Or how about maybe even just pick up his phone and listen to his messages once in a while?) I could've seen Sam breaking down and maybe just losing it for a while and turning to a normal life to run away for a while, but the shrugging his shoulders way the show presented Sam's turn to normal just seemed out of character to me.

6 hours ago, Airmid said:

And normal to Sam is not knowing monsters, or Satan or world breaking problems. I think normal to Sam is being blind to all the things that go bump in the night and he can never have that.

I can see this in a way, and it's one of the reasons I don't think Sam really wanted normal anymore - or during season 6.5 and 7 at least - since Sam didn't even seem to be considering it in "The French Mistake" - an instance where Sam actually could have had his version of normal. But at the end of that episode, it was Sam who was most happy to be home back in Bobby's house, despite all of the potential problems ahead of them.

Edited June 2, 2017 by AwesomO4000

[auntvi]

3 hours ago, SueB said:

So... my interpretation of Speight's interview is that Speight intended  us to see:
-Dean feels guilt but Sam's need for an imaginary friend is a combination of natural shortfall (a big brother can only fill so much of the gap in Sam's life) and Dean not taking more steps to make Sam feel less lonely.

I can see Dean reacting to the Zanna defensively - and he was kind of a dick at the beginning of the episode-  because he feels guilty, regardless if he actually did anything he should feel guilty about.

Edited June 2, 2017 by auntvi
clarity

[RulerofallIsurvey]

11 hours ago, SueB said:

MORE importantly, just because the director and (theoretically) the writer felt that way, doesn't mean I have to accept that authorial intent as the only 'correct' interpretation. 

Personally, I think this is the part of your post that should have been in bold.  :)  I see this argument a lot, as support for both 'positive' views and 'negative' views, and you know what?  It doesn't matter!

[DittyDotDot]

11 hours ago, SueB said:

MORE importantly, just because the director and (theoretically) the writer felt that way, doesn't mean I have to accept that authorial intent as the only 'correct' interpretation.

I'm with you there. I sometimes find it interesting to hear what the writer or director was thinking about, but that doesn't mean that's what I see or that it actually worked out the way they wanted. Art is in the eye of the beholder, not necessarily the creator.

[SueB]

1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Personally, I think this is the part of your post that should have been in bold.  :)  I see this argument a lot, as support for both 'positive' views and 'negative' views, and you know what?  It doesn't matter!

Ha! Think twice, bold once... I'll have to remember this.

Please note, I don't believe in the "death of the author". But I DO think that when you have multiple authors (and four show-runners), actual authorial intent is not a single, unified concept.  We are too diverse on Supernatural.  So that's why I think the pattern of behavior is more important to character assessment than a single line or singe episode.

I don't relate at all to those who cannot get over a single poorly written piece of dialog or single poorly written episode.  We're at 260 episodes now.  The body of work is what informs my opinion.  

Edited June 2, 2017 by SueB
ETA: more thoughts

[Aeryn13]

If I do judge the entire body of work the things have tipped dramatically after Season 4 so now approximately 70 % of it is bad in my eyes. That is the bulk of it. For me this show had three good Seasons:  1, 2 and 4. Other Seasons have good episodes here and there but overall rate poorly. Or lately, I can get a good scene here and there but hardly a good episode. 

And that Speight interview annoyed me because it is shows the attitude I see from a lot of PTB towards the character so it is no wonder there is a writing pattern reflecting that attitude. If it was only the random annoying writer or director giving a shit interview, it`s no big deal, Happens with the best of shows.

Even my aforementioned good Seasons of 1, 2 and 4 have several episodes each that I can`t stand. They just have a lot more good.    

[SueB]

11 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

If I do judge the entire body of work the things have tipped dramatically after Season 4 so now approximately 70 % of it is bad in my eyes. That is the bulk of it. For me this show had three good Seasons:  1, 2 and 4. Other Seasons have good episodes here and there but overall rate poorly. Or lately, I can get a good scene here and there but hardly a good episode. 

And that Speight interview annoyed me because it is shows the attitude I see from a lot of PTB towards the character so it is no wonder there is a writing pattern reflecting that attitude. If it was only the random annoying writer or director giving a shit interview, it`s no big deal, Happens with the best of shows.

Even my aforementioned good Seasons of 1, 2 and 4 have several episodes each that I can`t stand. They just have a lot more good.    

So.... to clarify...for you the body of work is bad. Poorly written, with an occasional good scene? 

[Aeryn13]

After the first four Seasons it was good with occasional badness. But they have since added a lot more to the body of work so the sum of it now is mainly bad with an occasional good scene or if I`m very lucky a good episodes, yes.

And I lay the blame for that at the feet of the writers because the production itself and acting hasn`t had that sharp of a decline. Some, yes, which is to be expected after so many years but nowhere near the way the quality of the writing has gone down.  

So for my UO:  I consider it legitimately a bad show at this point.  

[Katy M]

My apparently unpopular opinion is that I love this show. The only season I was sorely disappointed with was season 9.  Have other seasons have episodes I didn't like?  Of course.  And, the last quarter of season 7 and first half of season 8 kind of bugged me, but I loved the first part of season7 and the second half of season 8 went a long way to redeeming itself.   And I did hate the whole God's sister/Chuck is God/let's all just love another ending to season 11, but I enjoyed most of the episodes getting up to that point, so as a whole, the season was a win for me.

[Diane]

Just now, Katy M said:

My apparently unpopular opinion is that I love this show. The only season I was sorely disappointed with was season 9.  Have other seasons have episodes I didn't like?  Of course.  And, the last quarter of season 7 and first half of season 8 kind of bugged me, but I loved the first part of season7 and the second half of season 8 went a long way to redeeming itself.   And I did hate the whole God's sister/Chuck is God/let's all just love another ending to season 11, but I enjoyed most of the episodes getting up to that point, so as a whole, the season was a win for me.

Not a UO, I think most of us love the show, we are just not as vocal. I can't imagine spending this much time on a show that I don't enjoy watching, but that is just me.

[gonzosgirrl]

16 minutes ago, Katy M said:

My apparently unpopular opinion is that I love this show. The only season I was sorely disappointed with was season 9.  Have other seasons have episodes I didn't like?  Of course.  And, the last quarter of season 7 and first half of season 8 kind of bugged me, but I loved the first part of season7 and the second half of season 8 went a long way to redeeming itself.   And I did hate the whole God's sister/Chuck is God/let's all just love another ending to season 11, but I enjoyed most of the episodes getting up to that point, so as a whole, the season was a win for me.

I love the show too, though I disagree about S9. I don't think I really have an 'un' favorite season, prior to this one. Full disclosure: I only 'discovered' the show a little over two years ago and binge watched from 1x01 up to 10x12. Halt & Catch Fire (10x13) was my first live episode. I really do think watching that way as opposed to seeing the show unfold over years is a different experience and gives a different perspective. I purposely avoided message/discussion boards until I was well into S10, and when I did go on, I was honestly shocked to discover the reactions to some story lines, S5 in particular. Without the background knowledge of how S3 and S5 were (reportedly) originally supposed to go down, I had no idea I wasn't supposed to enjoy it, lol. Here's my UO - by the time I got to Swan Song, I felt (and still feel) like if that were it, and if I didn't watch the last 30 seconds of the episode, then I was told a complete and satisfying story. At the same time, I was stupidly happy to know that I still had five more seasons to watch. With some exceptions, seasons 6-10 didn't disappoint.

Then came S11 and what was for me, an unsatisfying journey that lead to an unsatisfying conclusion (even if the Dean!girl in me reveled in him being able to sway the Darkness to forgiveness). And my again UO is that S12 has had some of the worst writing of any show I've watched - in particular for the scenes with Crowley and Lucifer. I literally cringed, hard and often. Sometimes the stupid was so glaring, it hurt. And the handling of the finale was the capper. I don't know yet if all the deaths were necessary, but I do know that the way they played out was off-putting to say the least, for this fan.

[Airmid]

7 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

So for my UO:  I consider it legitimately a bad show at this point.  

This is something I always never wanted to say but I agree with you. The whole finale that just aired was kind of it, well, like they were out of ideas so why not murder/banish everything possible and sort it out later. Like just having character deaths will some how make it more gripping.

Season seven had a finale that had a desperate feel to it still without all the deaths and pointless 'lets be on another plane of existence for a while' for a couple characters. The Levi were from Purgatory, it made sense for them to take bystanders as a consequence for killing something so big as the leader. The whole set up was blown at the start of season eight but you wanted to know what happened to Sam, what he did. Why Dean was alone in monster heaven. If Kevin was safe or if he was going to die. 

This one well, it's just nothing. They kill off side characters and resurrect everyone to the point where death just feels like a pointless revolving door now. And Lucifer being barely more threatening than an angry spirit just doesn't do it for me. Let alone the whole Sproutifer storyline that I just don't care about because the writing has done so little to make me care.

They desperately need new writers who go off, binge watch the show, take notes and write everyone with some modicum of sense. And then take those characters and put them in a story arc that invests the viewer because right now - it's all sort of meaningless and as I said in the spoiler/spec thread, I can see where this road is going and I'm not sure I want to keep traveling down it. 

[DJG1122]

28 minutes ago, Airmid said:

This is something I always never wanted to say but I agree with you. The whole finale that just aired was kind of it, well, like they were out of ideas so why not murder/banish everything possible and sort it out later. Like just having character deaths will some how make it more gripping.

Season seven had a finale that had a desperate feel to it still without all the deaths and pointless 'lets be on another plane of existence for a while' for a couple characters. The Levi were from Purgatory, it made sense for them to take bystanders as a consequence for killing something so big as the leader. The whole set up was blown at the start of season eight but you wanted to know what happened to Sam, what he did. Why Dean was alone in monster heaven. If Kevin was safe or if he was going to die. 

This one well, it's just nothing. They kill off side characters and resurrect everyone to the point where death just feels like a pointless revolving door now. And Lucifer being barely more threatening than an angry spirit just doesn't do it for me. Let alone the whole Sproutifer storyline that I just don't care about because the writing has done so little to make me care.

They desperately need new writers who go off, binge watch the show, take notes and write everyone with some modicum of sense. And then take those characters and put them in a story arc that invests the viewer because right now - it's all sort of meaningless and as I said in the spoiler/spec thread, I can see where this road is going and I'm not sure I want to keep traveling down it. 

Bolding mine. Dabb and his writers haven't written anything to make me care. Lucifer? Same song, second verse, a little bit louder and a whole lot worse. British Men of Letters? Bah, Humbug.  Kill off Crowley, Rowena and Cas, but not really except for Crowley and maybe Rowena? WTF?  I've been a Super fan for a long time but now? I'm sorry Jim Michaels, Andrew Dabb and company, but I'm...........bored. 

[MysteryGuest]

I'm still a fan of the show.  If I weren't, I wouldn't be here.  While I've had issues with certain storylines in the past, or certain episodes I wasn't crazy about, this is the first season I really struggled with as a whole.  At the end of season 11, when we learned there was going to be an influx of new writers, I actually thought that it might be a good thing...new blood, and all that.  But I can't say that I got what I was hoping for.

It seemed to me that some pretty important scenes throughout the season took place off screen, and I really would have liked to have seen them.  I watch for the emotional moments, and with Mary being back, I figured it was a given that we'd get plenty of that as the boys re-introduced her back into their lives.  But we didn't get that.  The writing was uneven, and the characterizations were hit and miss.  Add in Jared and Jensen's desire for less screen time, and it just didn't feel cohesive to me.  

The amount of time spent on Lucifer was a major disappointment for me.  I've been watching some of season 12 on Netflix, and at least I can skip past his scenes, but I resent that so much of the show I love is taken up with his boring story.  And obviously, there's no end in sight.

The upside of the season is that I think they did a pretty good job with the last two episodes.  Had it not been for the last 5 minutes of the finale when everyone died, I'd have been really happy with how things progressed with the writers.  But killing off characters the way they did was just bad, IMO.  If they felt Crowley's story had come to an end, then at least let his death have some meaning.  Mark deserved that.  By following it immediately with Cas' non-death, it took the power out of Crowley's sacrifice, and there was no need for that. And Rowena deserved better than an off-screen death after being absent for almost the entire 2nd half of the season.  Again, if they felt she needed to go, then have her killed earlier in the season.  It wasn't shocking, and it's not keeping me on the edge of my seat for next season, it's just pissed me off.  I'll be there in October to see where we go from here, but I'm going to have a bit of a bad taste in my mouth for how they ended things with characters I liked quite a bit.

[Airmid]

2 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

 If they felt Crowley's story had come to an end, then at least let his death have some meaning.  Mark deserved that.  By following it immediately with Cas' non-death, it took the power out of Crowley's sacrifice, and there was no need for that.

This, so much this. I don't mind that Crowley bit it and as much as I like Mark S. they may free themselves up by not having that character around after all these years. Crowley making sure Lucifer was screwed over and couldn't even take revenge - classic Crowley. 

But then -

• Cas runs in the portal for reasons unknown. Maybe, because the spell was taking so long (and why was that again?) he wanted to injure him enough to make him not able to escape. Okay, fair enough but why leave his damn sword there to be impaled with? Cause I'm fairly certain he got it with his own weapon. To bad he didn't learn anything from Gabriel on that one
• Then Mary shows up, punches Lucifer and they both end up stuck completely negating Crowley's sacrifice because now they have to go open the damn thing back up.

Seriously disappointed that the final scenes of a long term cast member were so muted and undone minutes after they happened.

6 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

And Rowena deserved better than an off-screen death after being absent for almost the entire 2nd half of the season.

Definitely. While the character had a rocky start, fans really started to gravitate towards the actress herself which is ideal given the bad writing. She has been around long enough and played a central role in many things that her death should be something more than what we got or a better reasoning behind it. 

Killing characters or otherwise indisposing of them when their parts are done is good. It's necessary and holding on to long to them can make them stale and dull what they did before. But you don't do what that finale did.

8 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

I'm still a fan of the show.  If I weren't, I wouldn't be here.  While I've had issues with certain storylines in the past, or certain episodes I wasn't crazy about, this is the first season I really struggled with as a whole.  At the end of season 11, when we learned there was going to be an influx of new writers, I actually thought that it might be a good thing...new blood, and all that.  But I can't say that I got what I was hoping for.

While I've struggled with previous seasons this one takes the cake in how little I wanted to pay attention. A few episodes I was reading reviews/posts here long before I ever bothered to watch them. Not that all the episodes were bad, it was simply a huge lack of interest on the whole for me. 

I would say in fairness I am still a fan of the show as a whole. I do enjoy watching older seasons and discussing plots/themes/ideas with those here and with friends. The show in it's current state? Not so much. 

[ahrtee]

Sheesh.  Just when I thought it was safe to dip my toes into the "UO" thread again, because I assumed all the Sam-vs-Dean/who had it worse/who was badly treated/misjudged/badly written was now confined to the Bitch/Jerk thread, I see I was wrong.

So...backing out again quietly.  

[catrox14]

9 hours ago, SueB said:

I don't relate at all to those who cannot get over a single poorly written piece of dialog or single poorly written episode.  We're at 260 episodes now.  The body of work is what informs my opinion.

For me, it all comes down to how the poorly written line of dialogue or OOC behavior for a character alters the trajectory of the character. I am harsh on shows about dialogue, because without dialogue, it's a silent film. (Of course, maybe that would be better than some of the crap that's come down the pike from time to time).

So yeah, I have a hard time getting over shit dialogue. Because dialogue matters. Character matters. YMMV

ETA: Screenwriters get paid to write words for characters. If IMO they put terrible, OOC words into a character's mouth that the actor must say, then to me the writer is making a conscious decision to alter that character via dialogue or they are too lazy to really understand a character and write words that sound reasonable from the character, whilst putting that character on a new path in the SL which will over time organically provide character development. 

Edited June 3, 2017 by catrox14

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 hour ago, MysteryGuest said:

I'll be there in October to see where we go from here, but I'm going to have a bit of a bad taste in my mouth for how they ended things with characters I liked quite a bit.

I still love the show.  But I do agree with this.  

On the other hand - I guess it's not the first time this has happened in the history of the show.  (Charlie?)  It's just that I wasn't watching 'live' at that time and so wasn't privy to all the backlash.  

[MysteryGuest]

3 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I still love the show.  But I do agree with this.  

On the other hand - I guess it's not the first time this has happened in the history of the show.  (Charlie?)  It's just that I wasn't watching 'live' at that time and so wasn't privy to all the backlash.  

I hated when they killed Charlie, or at least the way they killed her, but she was just a guest star.  Crowley was a regular, so I just think he deserved better.  There have been plenty of other deaths that were very emotional, but done in a way that was at least respectful of the characters...Bobby, Ellen and Jo, etc.  They just should have handled it better this season, IMO.

[Katy M]

11 hours ago, MysteryGuest said:

I hated when they killed Charlie, or at least the way they killed her, but she was just a guest star.  Crowley was a regular, so I just think he deserved better.  There have been plenty of other deaths that were very emotional, but done in a way that was at least respectful of the characters...Bobby, Ellen and Jo, etc.  They just should have handled it better this season, IMO.

who exactly was supposed to get emotional over Crowley's death, though?  Sam and Dean who hated him? Cas who hated him?  His mother who hated him?  When you have a character universally hated by all the other regular characters, it's going to be hard to give him an emotional farewell.

[DittyDotDot]

I think they did the best they could with Crowley, myself. I'm not sure why they felt they needed to cram in three other deaths into the same episode, but I don't think it takes anything away from Crowley's death. I think the best tribute they can give to Crowley next season isn't that they "mourn" him as a friend--because he wasn't--but for them to acknowledge they don't have the King of Hell to run to when they need a spell or information anymore. Crowley's value and worth was knowing how to make himself useful in order to further his own interests.

[MysteryGuest]

19 minutes ago, Katy M said:

who exactly was supposed to get emotional over Crowley's death, though?  Sam and Dean who hated him? Cas who hated him?  His mother who hated him?  When you have a character universally hated by all the other regular characters, it's going to be hard to give him an emotional farewell.

I disagree.  They actually did give him a great farewell by allowing him to once again show up to support TFW with the ultimate sacrifice...his life.  Obviously, his reasons weren't altogether selfless, but still, it would have been a great way for a popular character to go out.  But they immediately took the focus off his death by pretending to kill Castiel.  I personally don't think that Sam and Dean "hated" Crowley at this point, but I doubt they'd have mourned him too much.  But the character of Crowley and Mark Sheppard were very popular with the fans, and they deserved a better ending for their favorite.

[Katy M]

5 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

But they immediately took the focus off his death by pretending to kill Castiel.

Please don't say pretend.  I still have hope.

[Airmid]

16 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I think they did the best they could with Crowley, myself. I'm not sure why they felt they needed to cram in three other deaths into the same episode, but I don't think it takes anything away from Crowley's death

It wasn't the other deaths for me that took away from it. It was that Cas "died" minutes later in an apparent fake out and everything that Crowley had set up with his death was almost null if Mary hadn't punched Satan in the face.

That's the issue I had going on with it. YMMV but it really detracted just how they lined all the other stuff up for me. It would have set better if Satan just hadn't popped back out at all and Cas either one wasn't killed or two, if they just had to go that route...well no. Not then. I think if Cas was going to die they shouldn't put it in a season finale. Penultimate, yes, finale, no unless there is a firm, irrevocable reason for that kind of character death and it was the last episode ever. But that's JMO.

[catrox14]

26 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Please don't say pretend.  I still have hope.

Wait, so you are hoping Castiel is really most sincerely dead?

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 hour ago, MysteryGuest said:

But they immediately took the focus off his death by pretending to kill Castiel.

I don't think Cas' death (real or not) is what took the impact out of Crowley's death.  It was that his sacrifice seems to have ultimately meant nothing since I'm left unsure whether it was his spell and death that closed the rift or Jack's birth.  That's what I don't like about it.  

[Katy M]

56 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Wait, so you are hoping Castiel is really most sincerely dead?

Yes, that's my unpopular opinion.  I would be OK with alt Cas as long as alt Cas is not an angel.  I hate them having an angel making life so easy for them, and I always have.  I have nothing against Cas personally.  I just hate his power.  And, then it comes and goes as necessary to the plot which seems ridiculously contrived.  If he's dead, or permanently powerless, you lose the problem.  That's why I started out Season 9 so hopeful, but they ruined it for me.

 

28 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I don't think Cas' death (real or not) is what took the impact out of Crowley's death.  It was that his sacrifice seems to have ultimately meant nothing since I'm left unsure whether it was his spell and death that closed the rift or Jack's birth.  That's what I don't like about it.  

I just walked to the farmer's market and back which gave me time to think about this.  I decided that what I don't like about Crowley's death was that it was so uncharacteristic.  I can handle that he decided that power was not all that it was cracked up to be and he was over being king of Hell.  But Crowley has always been a conniving survivor.  There's no way he would sacrifice himself just to screw over Lucifer when he wouldn't be around to enjoy the fruits of it.  That thought led me to another thought.  Was locking Lucifer into that other realm screwing him over or really doing anything good?  Yeah, that universe was a mess.  But, Lucifer might actually enjoy that. He may be able to take over and reign completely.  Sending him over there, might help  people over here, but it may bring more harm to the people on the other side.  They're still people.  Do Sam and Dean not care about them because they don't belong to this reality?  The answer to that may be yes and that may not even be wrong.  I guess the farmer's market needs to be slightly further away so I can come up with all the answers:)

[DittyDotDot]

16 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I decided that what I don't like about Crowley's death was that it was so uncharacteristic.  I can handle that he decided that power was not all that it was cracked up to be and he was over being king of Hell.  But Crowley has always been a conniving survivor.  There's no way he would sacrifice himself just to screw over Lucifer when he wouldn't be around to enjoy the fruits of it. 

Yeah, that's my issue with it too. Crowley always has an ace up his sleeve. That's why I wasn't convinced he was really truly dead at first. However, I think they did it just to give Crowley a good death in the end. For good or bad, I think they were attempting to give both Crowley and Mark Sheppard their due.

19 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Was locking Lucifer into that other realm screwing him over or really doing anything good?  Yeah, that universe was a mess.  But, Lucifer might actually enjoy that. He may be able to take over and reign completely.  Sending him over there, might help  people over here, but it may bring more harm to the people on the other side.  They're still people.  Do Sam and Dean not care about them because they don't belong to this reality? 

That's what my question was in the episode thread. Why wouldn't Bobby be raising his hand to this plan. I mean, his universe is screwed up and all, but you'd think he'd be against these yahoos showing up and making it worse. And, you'd think Sam and Dean would've also wondered why it was okay to do this to another universe. TBH, I think the entire plan was whacked and not very well thought out.

[catrox14]

9 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Yes, that's my unpopular opinion.  I would be OK with alt Cas as long as alt Cas is not an angel.  I hate them having an angel making life so easy for them, and I always have.  I have nothing against Cas personally.  I just hate his power.  And, then it comes and goes as necessary to the plot which seems ridiculously contrived.  If he's dead, or permanently powerless, you lose the problem.  That's why I started out Season 9 so hopeful, but they ruined it for me.

An alt Castiel is not our Castiel though. He wouldn't be a fallen Castiel, a human Castiel or any Castiel. He's not OUR Castiel at all.  Just like alt!Bobby is not OUR Bobby. They can't be substituted.  

Even a powered up Castiel didn't make life easy for them because there were angels more powerful than Castiel. And now there are demons more powerful than a seraph.  A human Castiel was always at risk to die. But he's not anymore at risk to stay dead as a human than anyone else. 

I guess now we'll find out if Chuck/Amara/nephelim/Dean will try and make a deal of some kind with someone to save him or not.

[catrox14]

ETA: IMO, Lucifer won't care about having power in the AU because he wants his son. And he wants to raise his son to follow in his footsteps and take over the world.  He can't do that now in the AU. That was why he was screaming NOOOOOOOO.

Crowley adapted to his situations but he also never took hes eyes off the prize which in this case was Sproutifer as the means to destroy Lucifer.  He might have to course correct along the way, and he might not even be 100% sure of the outcomes, but he knows enough to make a plan and put it into play, like when he lead Dean down the path to the Mark of Cain. He knew it was possible that Dean could end up as a demon. So he took the risk and it paid off.

Crowley said that Lucifer  would be trapped in that meatsuit forever so even if Lucifer could reverse the polarity and escape the chains that bound him, he still might never be able to leave the Nicksuit.  Maybe Lucifer and his Nicksuit are bound in such a way that if the Nicksuit starts to fall apart again in the AU, it takes Lucifer with it. Maybe the Nicksuit is infertile and suffers from erectile dysfunction so he can't get it up and if he could he can't pass his angel DNA to a human so he can't have another Spoutifer in the AU even if he tried.  Maybe he couldn't have done it on Earth1 either.

Also, Crowley was in cahoots with the BMOL. Mrs NotUmbridge asked about a portal. I'm thinking maybe Crowley knew a little bit more about where those portals went and maybe he knew about Earth2 and why he knew about the spell to close the rift.  So maybe Crowley's sacrifice wasn't to save the world but simply to keep Lucifer from getting to his child. Crowley IMO took the chance that the rift would close in time.  

[MysteryGuest]

I think Crowley truly felt that by killing himself, Lucifer would be permanently trapped in the AU, without his son, and in a world not worth destroying.  It's the writers that turned that whole idea to shit when they kept the portal open as long as they did, and when they had Cas race in with his tiny angel blade, thinking that was actually going to work.  It was a ridiculous scene and made zero sense.  

If they wanted Mary to be stuck in the AU with Lucifer and alt Bobby to start next season, then she could have gone along with them to help with the plan of trapping Lucifer.  Right before the portal closed for good, Lucifer could have grabbed a hold of her and kept her on the other side with him.  We'd have gotten the same result, but it wouldn't have been so contrived.

Cas didn't need to be "killed" at all.  They had already killed Crowley and Rowena, and trapped Mary and Lucifer in the AU.  If they wanted to shake up Cas' character a bit for next season, then have him affected by the Nephilim somehow.  The time they spent having Cas run in and out of the portal, and having Mary beat up Lucifer could have been spent giving us at least a glimpse of Rowena before they killed her off.  Having the season end with Mary trapped with Lucifer and the Nephilim already a grown man would have been a sufficient cliffhanger, IMO.  

Edited June 3, 2017 by MysteryGuest

[catrox14]

12 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

Cas didn't need to be "killed" at all.  They had already killed Crowley and Rowena, and trapped Mary and Lucifer in the AU.  If they wanted to shake up Cas' character a bit for next season, then have him affected by the Nephilim somehow.  The time they spent having Cas run in and out of the portal, and having Mary beat up Lucifer could have been spent giving us at least a glimpse of Rowena before they killed her off.  Having the season end with Mary trapped with Lucifer and the Nephilim already a grown man would have been a sufficient cliffhanger, IMO.  

The only reason I can see for killing Crowley, Cas, Rowena, Eileen, Death, Billie, Mick and putting Lucifer and Mary in the AU, is to take everything away from Dean and Sam. I can only see this working if the intention is to take them back to just the boys and back on the road to end the show at s13.  They didn't have to kill off all these people to reset it back to that dynamci. They could have had Cas take the Nephilim to Heaven or elsewhere, busy Crowley with some crisis in Hell or just taking a vacation and leaving Hell to his minions. Actually put Lucifer in the Cage that he can't get out of with the effort that it took to get him out in s4 and s5.   Mary goes off with Mick to restart a good chapter of Persons of Letters after they kill Ketch and Not MrsUmbridge.  I truly don't see why they would leave the boys without allies, frienemies and family. IMO, it's too cruel.

[Res]

20 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

The only reason I can see for killing Crowley, Cas, Rowena, Eileen, Death, Billie, Mick and putting Lucifer and Mary in the AU, is to take everything away from Dean and Sam. I can only see this working if the intention is to take them back to just the boys and back on the road to end the show at s13. 

Taking my response to the UO thread. Nvmd. Forgot where I was.

My UO: I for one do NOT want them to go back to "just the brothers". I don't mind them being back on the road but I also like them having a home to come back to in order to recoup and have some downtime. But I'm tired of the dynamic of "just Sam and Dean". I feel they have gone beyond that and I cannot care about the supposed "brother bond" when more is swept under the rug or completely ignored than is dealt with. Yes, I'm one of the ones who did not "interpret" "I lied" as an apology to the Purge speech. I saw it as just a response to Sam saying he was okay with Dean dying.

I also hate, really HATE the fact that the writers/"story" make things to be so big, bad, and epic for everything to be resolved in a season or 2-3 episodes, if not a single episode. 

For instance: The MoC cannot be removed which is why Cain is still living with it thousands of years but is removed within a season and a half by Sam.

The demon cure working on a MoC demon by using makeshift blood and not completing it but it cures Dean in time for the IMO stupidity of "FanFiction" which IMO is the worst insult to series fans they could have done.

Killing Death - ugh I cannot even . . . NO REPERCUSSIONS AT ALL!

Releasing the Darkness who was just upset that her brother didn't pay enough attention to her because he was playing with his toys? Ugh! Sounds like an after school special. We need to pay attention and love our family better.

The Firewall thing? Never to be mentioned again. No, there is absolutely no evidence it was ever discuss or anything that happened at the end of season 11 other than "Mom's back".

This is why I have a hard time caring at all about anything big or dangerous to any character on the show. And if it's just the brothers, they will go back to manufactured angst for drama because they don't care enough to actually know the characters much less put forth the effort to actually write something decent for them. It's all rinse, rephrase and repeat. 

So, BL, I do NOT want it to be just the brothers. I've actually enjoyed Dean and Crowley's interaction the most in recent seasons since they keep messing up Cas.

Edited June 3, 2017 by Res
Forgot where I was.

[Wayward Son]

9 minutes ago, Res said:

Taking my response to the UO thread.

Isn't this the UO thread? LOL 

[Res]

6 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Isn't this the UO thread? LOL 

Only on my first cup of coffee. Not sure where I was. Ugh! Need more coffee . . .