Supernatural Bitterness & Unpopular Opinions: You All Suck

[catrox14]

14 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

That's why I assume @Katy M said that Mary might have thought the danger was already past, since Azazel said what he wanted was something she'd never miss.  She thought he'd already been and gone.  

Azazel didn't say it was something she'd never miss.  He never said what it was that he wanted, just her permission to come into her home and as long as he wasn't interrupted no one would get hurt. 

[ahrtee]

Just now, trxr4kids said:

I do.

Except there was no angel tap to the forehead and demons and angels at that point in time had separate powers.

Agree to disagree.  Considering the number of retcons, rewrites and handwaves that have been going on, I wouldn't point  fingers at anything that changed over the years. :)

[MysteryGuest]

I'd have to watch the pilot again to be sure exactly what Mary says, but even if she didn't remember anything about her deal, I think her reaction to a strange man being in her son's nursery would have been the same.  Once she discovers it's not John, she freaks out, as would any parent.

This is why I hate retcons so much.  I don't like to have to go back over episodes I've watched 10 years before and have to now side-eye everything I thought was true.  It happened with Chuck and with Mary, and I wasn't happy with either choice.  They could have brought Mary back without the need to completely change her character.  

[Katy M]

7 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Azazel didn't say it was something she'd never miss.  He never said what it was that he wanted, just her permission to come into her home and as long as he wasn't interrupted no one would get hurt. 

We didn't hear him tell Mary that it was something she'd never miss, but he did tell Liddy that.  And they cut away for a bit before the kiss, so we don't know that he didn't add a bit to what he said.  But, whether he specifically said that or not, if the date that she thought the deal was coming due came and went (and the fam was out of the house, Mary and JOhn would have been at the hospital, dean at a friend's maybe), she wouldn't worry about it any more.

7 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

I'd have to watch the pilot again to be sure exactly what Mary says, but even if she didn't remember anything about her deal, I think her reaction to a strange man being in her son's nursery would have been the same.  Once she discovers it's not John, she freaks out, as would any parent.

She didn't say anything in the Pilot.  In All Hell BReaks Loose, she just said, "it's you."  So, that's definite recognition, not fear of a stranger.

[catrox14]

8 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

I'd have to watch the pilot again to be sure exactly what Mary says, but even if she didn't remember anything about her deal, I think her reaction to a strange man being in her son's nursery would have been the same.  Once she discovers it's not John, she freaks out, as would any parent.

This is why I hate retcons so much.  I don't like to have to go back over episodes I've watched 10 years before and have to now side-eye everything I thought was true.  It happened with Chuck and with Mary, and I wasn't happy with either choice.  They could have brought Mary back without the need to completely change her character.  

It wasn't in the pilot. It was in AHBL.  Mary recognized Azazel and IMO that was setting up the long game to "In The Beginning" that Mary made a deal. 

4 minutes ago, Katy M said:

We didn't hear him tell Mary that it was something she'd never miss, but he did tell Liddy that.  And they cut away for a bit before the kiss, so we don't know that he didn't add a bit to what he said.  But, whether he specifically said that or not, if the date that she thought the deal was coming due came and went (and the fam was out of the house, Mary and JOhn would have been at the hospital, dean at a friend's maybe), she wouldn't worry about it any more.

IMO if it was intended that Mary thought the deal had expired, during that AHBL flashback, she would have pointed out something like "but the deal expired" instead of a resigned "It's you".  

[Katy M]

4 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

IMO if it was intended that Mary thought the deal had expired, during that AHBL flashback, she would have pointed out something like "but the deal expired" instead of a resigned "It's you".  

Not expired.  Already fulfilled. And, when she saw him, she would have known that she was wrong.

[catrox14]

Just now, Katy M said:

Not expired.  Already fulfilled. And, when she saw him, she would have known that she was wrong.

Same difference. IMO regardless if Mary thought the deal was fulfilled in that intervening time she took no steps to make sure there was protection.  That's why her being a hunter after Dean was born makes that a bigger problem in the narrative. She made the deal long before Dean was born.  She still hunted and she still didn't take any precautions to keep Azazel away from her. If her memory wasn't erased then I still go back to her just not wanting to believe that deal was real and that Azazel was going to come after her.

I could forgive her that lack of judgment if during s12, she had said straight up to Dean, besides the "this is all my fault", but followed it with...."it's my fault because I wouldn't believe that it was real. I couldn't face my choices, so I didn't do anything to protect you and Sam.  And I'm sorry for that"  but that's not what happened so for me, Mary remains in the poop pile.  

[DeeDee79]

1 hour ago, ahrtee said:

Well,  considering everything we learned about Mary then (and especially now) it makes more logical sense to me (for the reasons I stated in the Mary thread) that Mary was made to forget, rather than SuperMary, badass hunter extraordinaire, who'd been hunting all through Dean's childhood and was raised in a family of hunters going back to the Mayflower, just wouldn't bother to ward her house, especially since she knew there was a threat.   And as you said, she had all the Campbell resources to pull from.  Even their family "safe house" in TSRTS was heavily warded and filled with various protections, so there's no reason that Mary's own home--where her "civilian" and therefore totally vulnerable children and husband were--shouldn't be even more carefully protected, even if they were hidden so John wouldn't question them.   So I guess it all comes down to if you believe that Mary was really that stupid, blind and/or arrogant.  I don't. Not when it was her family at risk.  If she hadn't been hunting at all I might have accepted the "head in the sand" attitude (though I'd still think she's have warded the house just on general principle), but since she was apparently hunting werewolves in Canada I think she'd have taken some time to at least worry about the deal.

I'm sticking with "outside influence in order to achieve the angel's goals."  *shrugs* 

 

I totally agree and this:

Quote

About Mary's "instant" reaction to Azazel--how about Zachariah touching Dean Smith's forehead in It's a Wonderful Life and in one blink he was Dean Winchester again?  (I think he actually did say something like "You...you're an angel, aren't you?" immediately, which seems to equate to the blink and "It's you!") :) 

is an excellent point.

[companionenvy]

I think something like Mary's memory being erased to the point where she had no idea she had made the deal until she saw Azazel again is too big a leap to read it into the story without some pretty strong onscreen evidence. It also doesn't seem like we need to go there. As much as it might be disappointing that Mary didn't make some attempt to stop the deal in the intervening years, there's no indication she had done so during "The Song Remains the Same," and for most of the episode, her memories of everything that had happened in "In the Beginning" were intact.  If she apparently hadn't tried to take precautions in the 5-ish years between those two episodes, we don't need the added explanation of a total memory wipe to justify her not taking precautions in the five years after it. 

[ahrtee]

15 hours ago, companionenvy said:

I think something like Mary's memory being erased to the point where she had no idea she had made the deal until she saw Azazel again is too big a leap to read it into the story without some pretty strong onscreen evidence. It also doesn't seem like we need to go there. As much as it might be disappointing that Mary didn't make some attempt to stop the deal in the intervening years, there's no indication she had done so during "The Song Remains the Same," and for most of the episode, her memories of everything that had happened in "In the Beginning" were intact.  If she apparently hadn't tried to take precautions in the 5-ish years between those two episodes, we don't need the added explanation of a total memory wipe to justify her not taking precautions in the five years after it. 

Well, we didn't *not* see her doing anything, either.  Not everything is shown onscreen, and she certainly kept her fighting skills up during those 5 years, because she was ready to jump into battle, had the safe house ready and took on angels without blinking (and would have won her fight against Anna if she'd been anything *but* an angel). 

In In the Beginning we saw John waking up on the ground next to Samuel's (stabbed) body, but when we saw him again in TSRtS he apparently believed that Samuel died of a heart attack (I personally don't think that that John was very good at lying.) :)  So there was IMO something fishy going on from the very beginning, because there was no way Mary could have hidden the stab wounds and blood or explained her dead parents without some outside help (which was never shown either.)  Maybe Mary called all the Campbell relatives who swooped in before the bodies were cold and cleaned everything (though that doesn't explain how that would stop John from remembering what happened that night).   Maybe angels (or Azazel) cleaned things up and made the deaths look like heart attacks so that Mary (or John) wouldn't be arrested and unavailable to have kids.   *Shrugs*  All guesses are equally legimate, since nothing was shown.  I also think it's curious that no one ever mentioned Deanna's death at all. 

in TSRtS, we did see Michael say he'd wipe their memories and they'd be happy.  We saw Mary patting her pregnant belly and telling it (without any irony and with what seemed to be giving comfort) that "angels are watching over you."  We *didn't* see her deciding not to bother with wards or shrug at any precautions, or any sign whatsoever that she thought there was danger anywhere around.  We didn't see any sign that she knew anything about hunting at that point, either.  *The writers didn't show anything because they didn't think they needed to,* not until they retconned enough that people started questioning other things. 

I'm not trying to defend Mary herself.  I dislike who they made her into.  But if I want to keep liking who she used to be in ItB and TSRtS I'm looking for logical--not completely WAG--reasons why, and,with the lack of any evidence either way, I'm choosing to give her a motivation that fits her character at the time.  We've certainly done that (with less justification) for *all* the other recurrent characters (even John, to some extent).  It's just that it seems that the one thing all fans can agree on is how much they dislike Mary and are, therefore, less willing to give her any benefit of the doubt.  :)  

Edited August 1, 2018 by ahrtee
Typo

[DeeDee79]

11 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Well, we didn't *not* see her doing anything, either.  Not everything is shown onscreen, and she certainly kept her fighting skills up during those 5 years, because she was ready to jump into battle, had the safe house ready and took on angels without blinking (and would have won her fight against Anna if she'd been anything *but* an angel). 

In In the Beginning we saw John waking up on the ground next to Samuel's (stabbed) body, but when we saw him again in TSRtS he apparently believed that Samuel died of a heart attack (I personally don't think that that John was very good at lying.) :)  So there was IMO something fishy going on from the very beginning, because there was no way Mary could have hidden the stab wounds and blood or explained her dead parents without some outside help (which was never shown either.)  Maybe Mary called all the Campbell relatives who swooped in before the bodies were cold and cleaned everything (though that doesn't explain how that would stop John from remembering what happened that night).   Maybe angels (or Azazel) cleaned things up and made the deaths look like heart attacks so that Mary (or John) wouldn't be arrested and unavailable to have kids.   *Shrugs*  All guesses are equally legimate, since nothing was shown.  I also think it's curious that no one ever mentioned Deanna's death at all. 

in TSRtS, we did see Michael say he'd wipe their memories and they'd be happy.  We saw Mary patting her pregnant belly and telling it (without any irony and with what seemed to be giving comfort) that "angels are watching over you."  We *didn't* see her deciding not to bother with wards or shrug at any precautions, or any sign whatsoever that she thought there was danger anywhere around.  We didn't see any sign that she knew anything about hunting at that point, either.  *The writers didn't show anything because they didn't think they needed to,* not until they retconned enough that people started questioning other things. 

I'm not trying to defend Mary herself.  I dislike who they made her into.  But if I want to keep liking who she used to be in ItB and TSRtS I'm looking for logical--not completely WAG--reasons why, and, in light of any evidence either way, I'm choosing to give her a motivation that fits her character at the time.  We've certainly done that (with less justification) for *all* the other recurrent characters (even John, to some extent).  It's just that it seems that the one thing all fans can agree on is how much they dislike Mary and are, therefore, less willing to give her any benefit of the doubt.  :)  

All good points and I find the part that I bolded to be especially puzzling. It's almost as annoying as the fact that Henry Winchester was introduced and his abandonment was discussed but there was no mention of his wife and her role in John's life. Nor was there any mention of her in the 70's. 

Edited August 1, 2018 by DeeDee79

[Hana Chan]

This is seriously going to get rocks thrown at me, but.... I just don't care about Michael/Dean. There... I said it.

It's not only repetitive since we've had Lucifer/Sam and Lucifer/Castiel (not to mention DemonDean) but I'm so over the whole crisis in Heaven nonsense that anything having to do with angels is going to get me to yawn. I'm glad for Jensen since this is something that he wanted to do, but I really wish that the show would put Heaven and Hell on the back burner and give us something really meaty to enjoy.

(*ducking rocks*)

[DittyDotDot]

5 minutes ago, Hana Chan said:

This is seriously going to get rocks thrown at me, but.... I just don't care about Michael/Dean. There... I said it.

It's not only repetitive since we've had Lucifer/Sam and Lucifer/Castiel (not to mention DemonDean) but I'm so over the whole crisis in Heaven nonsense that anything having to do with angels is going to get me to yawn. I'm glad for Jensen since this is something that he wanted to do, but I really wish that the show would put Heaven and Hell on the back burner and give us something really meaty to enjoy.

(*ducking rocks*)

Hey, I have a shield we can both hide behind! ;)

[Casseiopeia]

13 minutes ago, Hana Chan said:

This is seriously going to get rocks thrown at me, but.... I just don't care about Michael/Dean. There... I said it.

It's not only repetitive since we've had Lucifer/Sam and Lucifer/Castiel (not to mention DemonDean) but I'm so over the whole crisis in Heaven nonsense that anything having to do with angels is going to get me to yawn. I'm glad for Jensen since this is something that he wanted to do, but I really wish that the show would put Heaven and Hell on the back burner and give us something really meaty to enjoy.

(*ducking rocks*)

Well I am looking forward to Jensens portrayal but I couldn't agree with you more about angels and heaven.  Who knows maybe Michael/Dean will finally blow it up or fix it or whatever it takes to close that story forever.

[gonzosgirrl]

15 minutes ago, Hana Chan said:

This is seriously going to get rocks thrown at me, but.... I just don't care about Michael/Dean. There... I said it.

It's not only repetitive since we've had Lucifer/Sam and Lucifer/Castiel (not to mention DemonDean) but I'm so over the whole crisis in Heaven nonsense that anything having to do with angels is going to get me to yawn. I'm glad for Jensen since this is something that he wanted to do, but I really wish that the show would put Heaven and Hell on the back burner and give us something really meaty to enjoy.

(*ducking rocks*)

This isn't necessarily about Heaven or Hell. It's about another uber-powerful big bad who wants to end/remake the world - that he's an archangel is besides the point. There always has to be a villain (since there always has been one, and they are never going to be strictly a MOTW show). So why not let Jensen have his turn? At least it will be well acted.

[Pondlass1]

They don't have the budget for heaven and hell stories. It all ends up cheap looking and no one really cares anyway. Angels and demons are just miscellaneous suits and indistinguishable from one other.  The only interesting scene was Billie and Dean in the library of deaths.  Now that was something. Someone had some imagination to design that set.

But I care about Michael/Dean and am more excited than I've been about a new season since forever. It's going to be far from repetitive... We've never ever had Jensen portraying another character beside Dean.  And he's going to rock it. So the thrill is back (for me)

[DeeDee79]

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

This isn't necessarily about Heaven or Hell. It's about another uber-powerful big bad who wants to end/remake the world - that he's an archangel is besides the point. There always has to be a villain (since there always has been one, and they are never going to be strictly a MOTW show). So why not let Jensen have his turn? At least it will be well acted.

Exactly! Especially since Jensen seems so excited about the chance to do something new. Let him have this! We've had to sit through how many Lucifer vessels? I think Michael/Dean will be refreshing.

[Bobcatkitten]

I'm sooo over the heaven/hell stuff. I miss the show's focus on ghosts and creatures and demons. But I'm stoked to see what Jensen does with Michael. And I'm trying to think of it less as heaven/hell and more just one badass entity they have to take down. 

[devlin]

I personally think that heaven/hell/angels became mundane partially because of the actors and not being rude but I don’t think a lot of them had the ability to play them convincingly. I mean lucifer was portrayed  as a one note bratty teenager with daddy issues, this was a character that was supposed to destroy the world once he was unleashed. I personally think that Jensen is one of the few actors on this show with the ability, gravitas and magnetism to give the presence that Michael deserves and I for one am looking forward to it.

[BabySpinach]

5 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

This isn't necessarily about Heaven or Hell. It's about another uber-powerful big bad who wants to end/remake the world - that he's an archangel is besides the point. There always has to be a villain (since there always has been one, and they are never going to be strictly a MOTW show). So why not let Jensen have his turn? At least it will be well acted.

The only real difference between this Big Bad and many of the others is that, this time, a main character is directly in danger from him in a very personal and invasive way. Michael!Dean as a story is certainly more interesting than the BMoL, who sprang from a morass of one-dimensional, borderline offensive stereotypes, or Lucifer's baby mama drama, which would have turned out exactly the same without the Winchesters' involvement at all.

I'd prefer a story that directly involves our protagonists and doesn't relegate them to inconsequential witnesses constantly trailing after the true active agents of the narrative (Lucifer/Kelly/Cas/Mary).

[Pondlass1]

10 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

him being Michael is at least something fresh.

I think this ^ is what many of us are clinging onto.  I agree with much of @Hana Chan's post.  Stories are rinse and repeat.   Dean does make rash decisions.  It's kind of his MO and one that I hope doesn't change.  Dean runs on instinct and gut not research.  His never moving on from 'I'm 90% crap' is another built-in trait.  Dean's kind of 50% I'm crap and 50% I'm the confident leader.  He is prone to depression yes, but on the other hand he is a definite leader who has full confidence in his own ability to lead and to organize others to follow.  Dean is a complex and fascinating man.  I'd follow him into the depths... Sam, not so much.

I just wish they'd get small again. When angels and demons were not just miscellaneous red shirts.  When heaven and hell were scary unknowns and not run like corporations. When we didn't yawn 'oh he died again?' and went back to filing our nails.

Those early seasons had magic.  There is still magic but it's spread pretty thin nowadays.

But Michael/Dean is something completely different. Dean has never not been Dean.  Even Demon Dean was still Dean.  Jensen gets a chance to flex his acting muscles before the show ends.  So at least there's that.  Most of us are not getting our hopes up too high that it will last or even be well written, but I'll be watching for Jensen's performance.  

[BabySpinach]

1 hour ago, Hana Chan said:

How many times now have we seen him make an impulsive and poorly considered decision (usually based on his poor self-worth) that ends up leading to a much bigger problem to solve. We went through this already with the MOC, where he had to be saved from the Mark's influence, which ended up releasing the Darkness. What is it going to cost to get rid of Michael?

That is not fair or accurate. If Dean hadn't said yes to Michael, Lucifer would have killed Sam and Jack and then moved onto the rest of the human race. No, Dean saying yes didn't create a bigger problem. Michael and Lucifer were going to be in their world regardless. What Dean did was take the worse of those troublesome archangels off the board, and the world will be better off because of it, no matter what Michael gets up to. 

Blaming Dean for the Darkness disregards the free will and motivation of every other character. The fact that Dean practically BEGGED everyone else to stop doing these terrible things in his name, which resulted in numerous innocent, civilian casualties, proves that he did everything possible with the knowledge he had to stop them from using the Book of the Damned. That was NOT on him, it was on Sam and Cas' reckless bullheadedness and apparent lack of remorse.

[catrox14]

When Demon!Dean came around, I was pissed because I didn't really think Dean deserved to be turned into his literal worst nightmare.  Then, once I saw him on screen, I was sold. It was Dean but a different type of Dean. Similar desires but the complete lack of empathy or caring for anyone was completely un-Dean. 

Dean, IMO, shows genuine empathy for most people and some monsters. Is he harsh and an asshole at times? Stubborn? Yes. But he cares deeply and profoundly for other people, and not for what they can do for him.  He doesn't need to relate to them to care if they live or die.  He can be judgmental about monsters and those that are threats to his loved ones, yet he will still throw his body into the breach to save the world,  and his loved ones.   Is that reckless or heroic?  I think it's both.  I've never actually thought that Dean has acted all that recklessly other than the MoC, but that comes down to how one defines reckless behavior, especially in their world. 

IMO, Dean doesn't have low self worth nor low self esteem.  IMO he is guilt ridden, both earned and put on him unnecessarily by those around him, which causes him to think he has failed his loved one, even at times when he hasn't.  I think when he sold his soul for Sam it wasn't necessarily because he had low self worth, regardless of what Bobby, who at that time, wasn't anything more than a family friend, judged him to be.  It wasn't known in s2 that Bobby apparently had been Uncle Bobby all along. That didn't come out until s7 during Death's Door as a retcon. I'm disinclined to go back and say, "Oh, Dean has always had low self worth so that's  why he did it".  Nah, Dean did it because he felt he had failed at his job which was protecting Sam. He felt he failed his father and his brother.  That's why he said his life could have some meaning.  

The difference between Dean and demon!Dean is lack of guilt and the inability of demon!Dean to have caring for anyone or anything. Yet, he was still empty and depressed with Ann Marie because of that lack of caring.  He didn't care whether Sam lived or died.  That's what made demon!Dean fundamentally different than Dean.

That's why I am really excited for Jensen's turn as Michael.  And it's not repeating a SL either because Dean didn't say yes to OG Michael and he didn't say yes because of his destiny.  No matter if the SHOW tries to sell it by inserting inapt flashbacks,  Dean did not do it to stop the Apocalypse.  The context for this is totally changed and context matters.  He did it, because Lucifer was the biggest threat in the universe now, and not solely because he took Jack and Sam.  He did for all three reasons.   So to me there is no repetition.

And frankly if there was, I still wouldn't care.  Jensen deserves a chance to do this work. 

Edited August 3, 2018 by catrox14

[gonzosgirrl]

2 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

That is not fair or accurate. If Dean hadn't said yes to Michael, Lucifer would have killed Sam and Jack and then moved onto the rest of the human race. No, Dean saying yes didn't create a bigger problem. Michael and Lucifer were going to be in their world regardless. What Dean did was take the worse of those troublesome archangels off the board, and the world will be better off because of it, no matter what Michael gets up to. 

Blaming Dean for the Darkness disregards the free will and motivation of every other character. The fact that Dean practically BEGGED everyone else to stop doing these terrible things in his name, which resulted in numerous innocent, civilian casualties, proves that he did everything possible with the knowledge he had to stop them from using the Book of the Damned. That was NOT on him, it was on Sam and Cas' reckless bullheadedness and apparent lack of remorse.

Hear, hear!!

Dean did literally the only thing he could do withing the confines of the writing. I can't wait to see what Jensen does with it. If the show can survive half a season of Soulless!Sam and endless iterations of addicted/addled/mopey/dying Sam, it can handle a few freaking episodes of Michael!Dean.

Edited August 3, 2018 by gonzosgirrl
Remove a d. Heheh.

[trxr4kids]

The angels and specifically Michael would still be here even if Dean hadn't said yes, unless of course Lucifer had killed him (no way they were actually killing Dean, Sam and Jack). Either way we'd still have an archangel running around and I for one am sick to death of Lucifer. Talk about repetitious, Lucifer's been here, there and everywhere more times/often than I care to remember. 

I'm cautiously invested for the first time in quite a while in what will happen next since... 

a) Dean in the past has typically been a monkey wrench in the works according to many that changed the outcome of several events.

b) Regardless of how well Jensen emotes and layers his performance as Dean, one can only portray grieving, angry and angsty ( don't even get me started on comedic sidekick @tm Aeryn13) so many times before I nod off or FFWD.

c) Michael is a somewhat/mostly unknown character IMO and it's not preordained ( in my mind not TPTB, I understand they like to crush my hopes ) how this SL may/will play out as opposed to Lucifer ( I get he wants to to smite us all).

d) At the very least Jensen has something he found challenging as an actor based on interviews which he's earned and deserves after 13 yrs.

[AwesomO4000]

5 hours ago, Pondlass1 said:

Dean's kind of 50% I'm crap and 50% I'm the confident leader.  He is prone to depression yes, but on the other hand he is a definite leader who has full confidence in his own ability to lead and to organize others to follow.  Dean is a complex and fascinating man.  I'd follow him into the depths... Sam, not so much.

My unpopular opinion is that I've never been able to mesh these two things in my head. As much as I like Dean as a character, these two things never made sense to me together in one person, so I don't find him complex as much as I find him too much of an enigma. I can't relate.

Sam makes mistakes, but to me, I can relate more. I may not necessarily follow Sam to the depths - because Sam would be uncomfortable being the leader, and I get that and wouldn't want to put him in that position - but I wouldn't be following Dean alone without Sam there to consider other options and be a second opinion from "we're all going to get through this or die trying" if needed. Then again, maybe I would go with Sam into the depths as equal partners if we could sneak through and do it stealthily rather than guns blazing. *shrug*

4 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Nah, Dean did it because he felt he had failed at his job which was protecting Sam. He felt he failed his father and his brother.  That's why he said his life could have some meaning.  

My only dilemma with this would be that it would then seem that Dean would be putting his need to do the job above Sam's happiness, and that seems awful cold. It wouldn't be as bad if Dean hadn't recently gone through something similar with John, but he had, so there was no excuse that he wouldn't know how Sam would feel. So this goes back to why would Dean think that Sam would be just fine knowing that he was in hell in order to save Sam - when Dean himself was so clearly not when John did the same for him - and that's where low self-worth comes in for me. The alternatives: that Dean either just didn't think Sam would care that much that Dean was gone and could carry on with the knowledge of knowing how Dean was suffering for him to be alive or that or that Dean thought that his not feeling guilty about not saving Sam was worth the pain Sam would feel later both seem pretty cold and/or contradictory with how Dean supposedly sees Sam. If Dean supposedly thinks Sam is so awesome, for example, why would he think Sam wouldn't be so affected by his (Dean's) being gone... and for me, if the answer isn't that Dean just doesn't think he's worth being upset over (low self-esteem) then it's that Dean thinks Sam just wouldn't care (which ouch, and not in the "Sam is awesome" category in my opinion).

So again this all goes back to the fact that I have never been able to mesh all of the things supposedly Dean Winchester into one character - without me doing some Mary Sue adjacent*** gymnastics anyway - I generally have to pick and choose.

** And note that I said "adjacent." I don't think that Dean fits a strict definition of a Mary Sue character, but some of his characteristics for me don't fit together and so it seems to me like the writers are sometimes trying to have a bunch of "positive" characteristics that don't always mesh. Like "he's a charismatic leader who is confident enough to lead people and get things done!" but "he's also still humble enough to think that he's full of shit." Me: "Okay? Maybe? Ehn, sorry, not entirely convinced on that one." Obviously I realize that that is not a popular opinion and that others' opinions will vary... and I'm okay with that.

[Katy M]

3 hours ago, trxr4kids said:

The angels and specifically Michael would still be here even if Dean hadn't said yes, unless of course Lucifer had killed him (no way they were actually killing Dean, Sam and Jack). Either way we'd still have an archangel running around and I for one am sick to death of Lucifer. Talk about repetitious, Lucifer's been here, there and everywhere more times/often than I care to remember. 

Maybe M&L could have gotten into a epic fight and stabbed each other at the same time.

[BabySpinach]

7 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Maybe M&L could have gotten into a epic fight and stabbed each other at the same time.

Which means Dean would be dead, too. Unless it's regular vessel Michael? In the original deal, Lucifer was just supposed to leave and let Michael be. They wouldn't have fought.

Edited August 3, 2018 by BabySpinach

[DeeDee79]

4 hours ago, trxr4kids said:

The angels and specifically Michael would still be here even if Dean hadn't said yes, unless of course Lucifer had killed him (no way they were actually killing Dean, Sam and Jack). Either way we'd still have an archangel running around and I for one am sick to death of Lucifer. Talk about repetitious, Lucifer's been here, there and everywhere more times/often than I care to remember. 

I'm cautiously invested for the first time in quite a while in what will happen next since... 

a) Dean in the past has typically been a monkey wrench in the works according to many that changed the outcome of several events.

b) Regardless of how well Jensen emotes and layers his performance as Dean, one can only portray grieving, angry and angsty ( don't even get me started on comedic sidekick @tm Aeryn13) so many times before I nod off or FFWD.

c) Michael is a somewhat/mostly unknown character IMO and it's not preordained ( in my mind not TPTB, I understand they like to crush my hopes ) how this SL may/will play out as opposed to Lucifer ( I get he wants to to smite us all).

d) At the very least Jensen has something he found challenging as an actor based on interviews which he's earned and deserves after 13 yrs.

Co-sign this entire post!

 

6 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Dean did literally the only thing he could do withing the confines of the writing. I can't wait to see what Jensen does with it. If the show can survive half a season of Soulless!Sam and endless iterations of addicted/addled/mopey/dying Sam, it can handle a few freaking episodes of Michael!Dean.

And this!

 

8 hours ago, catrox14 said:

That's why I am really excited for Jensen's turn as Michael.  And it's not repeating a SL either because Dean didn't say yes to OG Michael and he didn't say yes because of his destiny.  No matter if the SHOW tries to sell it by inserting inapt flashbacks,  Dean did not do it to stop the Apocalypse.  The context for this is totally changed and context matters.  He did it, because Lucifer was the biggest threat in the universe now, and not solely because he took Jack and Sam.  He did for all three reasons.   So to me there is no repetition.

And frankly if there was, I still wouldn't care.  Jensen deserves a chance to do this work. 

And most definitely this! Hell yeah!!

[BabySpinach]

7 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

So again this all goes back to the fact that I have never been able to mesh all of the things supposedly Dean Winchester into one character - without me doing some Mary Sue adjacent*** gymnastics anyway - I generally have to pick and choose.

** And note that I said "adjacent." I don't think that Dean fits a strict definition of a Mary Sue character, but some of his characteristics for me don't fit together and so it seems to me like the writers are sometimes trying to have a bunch of "positive" characteristics that don't always mesh. Like "he's a charismatic leader who is confident enough to lead people and get things done!" but "he's also still humble enough to think that he's full of shit." Me: "Okay? Maybe? Ehn, sorry, not entirely convinced on that one." Obviously I realize that that is not a popular opinion and that others' opinions will vary... and I'm okay with that.

For me, a Mary Sue is defined more by their role in the narrative than the traits they exhibit. I consider Jack and Charlie to be Mary Sues because they were specifically written to elicit a particular response from the viewers ie. they were built from the outside-in, rather than the inside-out. Neither of them have core motivations that drive them; they exist to be fawned over and nothing else. Hence, they come across as flat and one-note. I can't imagine these characters ever surprising me because there's nothing underneath to drive any potential unpredictability. 

Dean is an entirely different beast altogether. We know of his past, we know what drives him, and we understand why he makes the choices he does, even if they're unexpected or surprising. I find it plenty plausible for Dean to be an instinctively great leader but unaware of it on a conscious level; lord knows he barely ever gets praised for anything. I also find Dean's natural magnetism a lot more plausible than Charlie's or Jack's, though that may be completely Jensen's doing.

Even so, Dean has never been woobiefied, showered with undeserved praise every five seconds, or coddled by 3+ doting father figures. Nor has the reality of the SPNVerse warped around him to cater to his awesomeness. He loses and fails plenty of times, but he's worth rooting for because he's actually earned the viewers' sympathy without cute, quirky writer's shortcuts. Basically, he was a character built from the inside-out. He wasn't written to just be cool and awesome; those came about naturally alongside everything else we've learned about him, including his flaws and weaknesses.

Edited August 4, 2018 by BabySpinach

[gonzosgirrl]

@BabySpinach I want to be you when I grow up. Great observations. 

[Katy M]

12 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

Which means Dean would be dead, too. Unless it's regular vessel Michael? In the original deal, Lucifer was just supposed to leave and let Michael be. They wouldn't have fought.

I meant before Dean said yes.  And, since when does Lucifer keep his word?  Or, probably Michael for that matter?

[AwesomO4000]

7 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

For me, a Mary Sue is defined more by their role in the narrative than the traits they exhibit. I consider Jack and Charlie to be Mary Sues because they were specifically written to elicit a particular response from the viewers ie. they were built from the outside-in, rather than the inside-out. Neither of them have core motivations that drive them; they exist to be fawned over and nothing else. Hence, they come across as flat and one-note. I can't imagine these characters ever surprising me because there's nothing underneath to drive any potential unpredictability. 

Ah, okay... I more look at this kind of character as a woobie type... a character that the viewer is supposed to have a sort of "awwww response to.

For me a Mary Sue is more of a character that always saves the day and has few flaws that are actually flaws. Like his/her flaw might be that he/she just cares too much about others to the detriment of his/herself. And for me, whereas Dean isn't a Mary Sue - since he doesn't always save the day - his flaws are more Mary Sue adjacent than Sam's are. Dean also tends to get the Angel/Angelus treatment more in that his screw ups don't have the same heavy consequences that the other characters do - except for himself, but that also goes to his taking the world on his shoulders kind of thing. Even when he was Demon Dean the writers were too chicken to have Dean actually do anything awful. Apparently Dean being 'bad" was Dean actually taking some time to enjoy himself ... how awful of him. *sarcasm* ...And maybe being a little bit rude and rowdy.

8 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

Dean is an entirely different beast altogether. We know of his past, we know what drives him, and we understand why he makes the choices he does, even if they're unexpected or surprising.

I agree with this.

8 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

I find it plenty plausible for Dean to be an instinctively great leader but unaware of it on a conscious level; lord knows he barely ever gets praised for anything.

This I disagree with on both parts. I do think Dean gets praised. That's been happening since season 1.

And Dean's aware of his influence on others too. If he wasn't conscious of his affects on others, he wouldn't be so good at getting women. That's why I have a hard time meshing the two. The opposite I understand - in other words someone having self worth, but not being comfortable as a leader - but not the other way around. I just can't reconcile someone who thinks they are are crap believing that anyone would - or should - follow their lead. And if Dean has confidence in his skill and ability to lead people and to save people, I'm not exactly sure what about himself he thinks is 90% crap. It's not like he kicks puppies or is crappy to women or really does anything that's awful, so his insistence that he's crap to me just becomes a bit annoying... like the pretty girl who insists that her ankles are soooo fat so she must just look horrible. Even if she somehow does think it's true, after a while it can still be annoying having to keep reassuring her that she isn't ugly. Just my opinion on that one.

[BabySpinach]

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Ah, okay... I more look at this kind of character as a woobie type... a character that the viewer is supposed to have a sort of "awwww response to.

For me a Mary Sue is more of a character that always saves the day and has few flaws that are actually flaws. Like his/her flaw might be that he/she just cares too much about others to the detriment of his/herself. And for me, whereas Dean isn't a Mary Sue - since he doesn't always save the day - his flaws are more Mary Sue adjacent than Sam's are. Dean also tends to get the Angel/Angelus treatment more in that his screw ups don't have the same heavy consequences that the other characters do - except for himself, but that also goes to his taking the world on his shoulders kind of thing. Even when he was Demon Dean the writers were too chicken to have Dean actually do anything awful. Apparently Dean being 'bad" was Dean actually taking some time to enjoy himself ... how awful of him. *sarcasm* ...And maybe being a little bit rude and rowdy.

I agree with this.

This I disagree with on both parts. I do think Dean gets praised. That's been happening since season 1.

And Dean's aware of his influence on others too. If he wasn't conscious of his affects on others, he wouldn't be so good at getting women. That's why I have a hard time meshing the two. The opposite I understand - in other words someone having self worth, but not being comfortable as a leader - but not the other way around. I just can't reconcile someone who thinks they are are crap believing that anyone would - or should - follow their lead. And if Dean has confidence in his skill and ability to lead people and to save people, I'm not exactly sure what about himself he thinks is 90% crap. It's not like he kicks puppies or is crappy to women or really does anything that's awful, so his insistence that he's crap to me just becomes a bit annoying... like the pretty girl who insists that her ankles are soooo fat so she must just look horrible. Even if she somehow does think it's true, after a while it can still be annoying having to keep reassuring her that she isn't ugly. Just my opinion on that one.

Those things you mentioned about Dean being "perfect", and his flaws not really being flaws, or him never going too far, are all potential symptoms of Mary Sues but not necessarily indicative of them.

I don't believe that a character has to genuinely screw up epically, with heavy consequences, in order to NOT be a Mary Sue. I think that it's enough for the character to own up to their mistakes, whatever they are, and try to make amends for it. That keeps them sympathetic in an organic way. What's more Mary Sue-like would be to do terrible shit and then have everyone (including the writing) excuse and handwave it eg. everything Jack does/the collateral damage caused by just the releasing of the Darkness (Oskar, Suzie, who?). I generally prefer the former.

Similarly, I don't feel that a character needs glaring flaws in order to be organically likable and authentic. What's more Mary Sue-like is to give a character those glaring flaws and never acknowledge or address them as flaws in the first place. I found Charlie gratingly arrogant, unrepentant, and self-satisfied in many of her episodes, but hell would sooner than freeze over than her being called out on it by the writing or other characters. Jack fares better because he's not smug or arrogant and does get smacked down when he toots his own horn and gets ahead of himself. His problem is that he literally has no flaws at all, and any terrible things he does are almost always accidental, which adds nothing to his character and forces everyone else to coddle and reassure him. Mary Sues come in multiple flavors.

As for Dean's screw-ups not leading to dire consequences, the simple fact is that Dean just hasn't screwed up on the epic scale that others have. I also feel that Demon Dean was never about making Dean do the worst shit possible. It was about him letting loose his baggage for once and finally feeling free enough to not care about anyone or anything. Turning him into a bloodthirsty rage monster would have been boring, entirely unrelated to Dean's established character, and achieved nothing substantial. What we got-- a cold, twisted, quietly sadistic (but not entirely amoral) version of Dean, was far more engaging than a straight-up evil MUAHAHA bad guy whom we could easily separate from Dean as a completely different character. And Dean did say and do some pretty wretched things in 10.03, but they were connected to his existing past and personality, making it harsher and more personal. I'm fine with him not eating babies or raping anyone, especially since it'd be nearly impossible for him to realistically come back from that (either in-story or in the audience's eyes).

Self-loathing is also typically not logical. It's not uncommon for someone to only fixate on their failures and chalk up their victories to luck or others' involvement. Dean as a child was only ever praised when he was useful, so it makes sense for current Dean to stake his self-worth on his failures ie. whenever he's not been "useful". Jensen himself, in that notorious podcast interview, also expressed that he doesn't believe that Dean stops and analyzes himself or his actions; he just goes with his gut and doesn't think too hard about it. It would make sense for Dean to instinctively take the lead but not think too hard about why people are always willing to follow him. He only focuses on getting the job done however he can, without pausing to consider this supernatural ability to influence those around him.

We, the audience, may see Dean as a character with wonderful virtues and maybe excessively low self-worth, but that's an outsider's perspective. Dean sees himself very differently. It's like with celebrities suffering from depression. From the outside, it looks like they have it all. How could they possibly be depressed and suicidal with their talent, money, and droves of people who love them? Well, it turns out that it's often very easy. Nothing can logically explain why a depressed person who's very well off feels that way, it's just how it is. That's how I see Dean as well.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

What's more Mary Sue-like is to give a character those glaring flaws and never acknowledge or address them as flaws in the first place. I found Charlie gratingly arrogant, unrepentant, and self-satisfied in many of her episodes, but hell would sooner than freeze over than her being called out on it by the writing or other characters. 

Even the episode where she had a literal darkside-self didn`t call her out on anything but still veered between "awww" and "she is so amazing". I think the character had overall some likeable sides to her but Robbie Thompson`s utter infatuation with this character did her no favours as he was the one monopolozing the writing for her. And hell would freeze over before HE called her character out on anything. It was one of the worst cases of writer`s pet I`ve ever seen this side of Smallville`s Lana where the infatuation was more with the actress.   

Quote

Jack fares better because he's not smug or arrogant and does get smacked down when he toots his own horn and gets ahead of himself. His problem is that he literally has no flaws at all, and any terrible things he does are almost always accidental, which adds nothing to his character and forces everyone else to coddle and reassure him. 

Yes, Jack`s defining characteristic is that he is utterly pure. Which they unfortunately retconned Kelly Kline into "purest soul" and played on that as Jack inheriting it. He got his father`s power (and then some) and his mother`s purity. And all his angst came from mishaps with his powers due to his purity. Ultimately that made him too milquetoast for my liking. He didn`t need to be evil to show that he has basically the "two wolves in his soul" from that Native American story. 

With Dean it is more than clear he has both wolves and that makes him a much richer character IMO.   

[BabySpinach]

5 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Even the episode where she had a literal darkside-self didn`t call her out on anything but still veered between "awww" and "she is so amazing". I think the character had overall some likeable sides to her but Robbie Thompson`s utter infatuation with this character did her no favours as he was the one monopolozing the writing for her. And hell would freeze over before HE called her character out on anything. It was one of the worst cases of writer`s pet I`ve ever seen this side of Smallville`s Lana where the infatuation was more with the actress.  

Ha, I could probably write a whole essay on what a shockingly blatant writer's pet Charlie was. Her darkside episode 10.11 may have been the worst offender of all of them. The whole mess (involving multiple innocent deaths) is Charlie's fault, yet she's the one magnanimously forgiving Dean for daring to defend himself and incapacitate Dark Charlie. She shows no real guilt for the people she's killed, and even she can't resist praising her dark self for being "awesome". The fact that Charlie is a one-note, quirky, cutesy little genius just makes the whole Dark Charlie stuff even more embarrassing (which in itself was clearly just an excuse to get Charlie into leather and make her "sexy and badass" without those pesky moral strings). THERE WAS NEVER ANY DARK SIDE TO HER. She's as thin as a graham cracker. Compare Dark Charlie to Demon!Dean. Now THAT'S hilarious.

I also love how Dark Charlie's all high on her own fumes for winning the Oz war singlehandedly, and then Dean breaks her arm and knocks her out within thirty seconds of him finally deciding to not hold back. I guess if Dean had been in Oz, the whole thing would have been won within an afternoon. Of course, I couldn't enjoy her finally paying in some way for her arrogance and self-satisfaction for too long, since Dean then had to apologize profusely for it. 

Quote

Yes, Jack`s defining characteristic is that he is utterly pure. Which they unfortunately retconned Kelly Kline into "purest soul" and played on that as Jack inheriting it. He got his father`s power (and then some) and his mother`s purity. And all his angst came from mishaps with his powers due to his purity. Ultimately that made him too milquetoast for my liking. He didn`t need to be evil to show that he has basically the "two wolves in his soul" from that Native American story. 

With Dean it is more than clear he has both wolves and that makes him a much richer character IMO.   

I find Jack way more tolerable than Charlie, and on an episode-by-episode basis he's a fairly likable watch. Too bad he's nothing but milquetoast, as you said. I'm not exactly sure how his character can be improved, as he began his presence on the show as a bland, flawless woobie and therefore had nothing meaty to work with. We learned some interesting stuff about him in 13.04 about how he actually doesn't feel remorse and is only pretending, but that never went anywhere for some reason. I'd say that Jack isn't a lost cause just yet, but I gave up on Charlie years ago. Not looking forward to her AU version returning.

[ukgirl71]

I never liked Charlie - there, I've said it, what a relief!!  While we're at it, I actually liked the Stynes as villians and would have liked to see them hang around a bit longer, I hated the Leviathans as the "Big Bads" and wish Metratron had been 'offed' much sooner than he was.

[catrox14]

5 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

And Dean's aware of his influence on others too. If he wasn't conscious of his affects on others, he wouldn't be so good at getting women. That's why I have a hard time meshing the two. The opposite

Dean has humility. That's why he can be a good leader and still think he is make not a great person. He knows he's good looking but he doesn't run around talking about it all the time. Just because he makes time with the ladies doesn't t mean he thinks he's great. And he gets turned down a lot.  And when he does the show makes a big deal of it. The dialogue calls for Dean to be called a  dick in Yellow Fever. Dean called his future self a dick in  The End. Mary Sues are not ***treated that way.

  Similarly, Dean could kick anyone's ass who isn't supernaturally powered. And yet he's taken down in eps because he does something not in his usual manner, see also dumbed down for plot. To me that removed him from Mary Sue right away.

Has he ever been told by anyone how great he is? Sam said once during a speech at the same time the show usurped the trials for Sam. If IMO Dean were a Mary Sue he would be fawned over clearly and without ambiguity by all who meet him.

Just having an "aww, poor XYZ charcter" because of a specific thing or incident doesn't make them a woobie nor a Mary Sue IMO. It becomes that when it's a consistent pattern of those things. I don't see that with Dean.

Mary Sues are universally loved by all they meet. Dean is most certainly not loved and respected by all he meets.  That they occasionally are shown the error of their  ways if he begs for his own life or another in the process, like John  possessed by Azazel, or the confrontation with Amara, IMO is not really a Mary Sue quality because it's  generally not a long term situation and it's never brought up again in the narrative.  Cas loves Dean and supports him but he isn't particularly forthcoming with much praise for Dean on screen. It's usually a variation  on Cas loving him /humanity and that's about it. 

IMO Dean being humliated by having sold his soul, been to Hell and tortured others in hell after experiencing his own torture changed him. There was little sympathy nor much discussions in the narrative about it save one ep. In fandom, yes, but not on screen. 

IMO, the only reason there is anything about his suffering is because Jensen is such a good and smart actor that he puts the weight of that into Dean and it has infused the character from S4 on,  even if it's not in the page. And it is a sensible choice for the character if not in the dialogue or storylines.

Dean may have not wanted to talk about his Hell time but it changed him completely. He was brash, a little arrogant in season 1 at times and he had a zest for life. He slept around a lot more and was more snarky. That snarky edge comes out occasionally still but has more guilt from torturing until numbers in Hell. He said then that he would never be able to make up for that and I think that is why he thinks he's a piece of crap, yet still fights and still leads in his own way. To me that's not a Mary Sue but a well crafted character and without Jensen IMO Dean would be a caricature.

Edited August 4, 2018 by catrox14
freaking mobile posting.

[gonzosgirrl]

33 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Similarly, Dean could kick anyone's ass who isn't supernaturally powered. And yet he's taken down in eps because he does something not in his usual manner, see also dumbed down for plot.

I am in agreement with your whole post (and again, I wish someone who sees things this way could have Dabb/Singer's ear for just one day), but this called to mind a scene I saw just yesterday. To wit, in 13x06 Tombstone, marksman and weapons expert extraordinaire Dean Winchester completely missing his target (Dave, The Outlaw Ghoul) from feet away with a freaking shotgun. 

[catrox14]

5 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

(Dave, The Outlaw Ghoul)

Non Sequitur moment: I would totally watch a show called "Dave Mathers:  Outlaw Ghoul" and would be happy for it to be set in the Old West with a hunter named Samuel Colt played by Dean Winchester trying to catch him.  LOL

[Casseiopeia]

1 hour ago, ukgirl71 said:

I never liked Charlie - there, I've said it, what a relief!!  While we're at it, I actually liked the Stynes as villians and would have liked to see them hang around a bit longer, I hated the Leviathans as the "Big Bads" and wish Metratron had been 'offed' much sooner than he was.

I thought Jacob Stein was awesome.  

27 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Non Sequitur moment: I would totally watch a show called "Dave Mathers:  Outlaw Ghoul" and would be happy for it to be set in the Old West with a hunter named Samuel Colt played by Dean Winchester trying to catch him.  LOL

My dream spinoff.

[DeeDee79]

15 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

I thought Jacob Stein was awesome.  

He was my favorite and definitely the most menacing one. 

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

Those things you mentioned about Dean being "perfect", and his flaws not really being flaws, or him never going too far, are all potential symptoms of Mary Sues but not necessarily indicative of them.

This is true which is why I said that Dean wasn't a Mary Sue, but that I thought his personality characteristic were "Mary Sue adjacent." I don't think that I said that Dean was perfect though. I said he had a lot of noble character traits and that, in a way, his flaws were somewhat noble - or benign - too... which is why the "Mary Sue adjacent" rather than actual Mary Sue and only in reference to his character traits and how they are portrayed.

2 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

Similarly, I don't feel that a character needs glaring flaws in order to be organically likable and authentic. What's more Mary Sue-like is to give a character those glaring flaws and never acknowledge or address them as flaws in the first place. I found Charlie gratingly arrogant, unrepentant, and self-satisfied in many of her episodes, but hell would sooner than freeze over than her being called out on it by the writing or other characters. Jack fares better because he's not smug or arrogant and does get smacked down when he toots his own horn and gets ahead of himself. His problem is that he literally has no flaws at all, and any terrible things he does are almost always accidental, which adds nothing to his character and forces everyone else to coddle and reassure him. Mary Sues come in multiple flavors.

I agree with you here for the most part, especially about Charlie.

2 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

As for Dean's screw-ups not leading to dire consequences, the simple fact is that Dean just hasn't screwed up on the epic scale that others have. I also feel that Demon Dean was never about making Dean do the worst shit possible. It was about him letting loose his baggage for once and finally feeling free enough to not care about anyone or anything. Turning him into a bloodthirsty rage monster would have been boring, entirely unrelated to Dean's established character, and achieved nothing substantial. What we got-- a cold, twisted, quietly sadistic (but not entirely amoral) version of Dean, was far more engaging than a straight-up evil MUAHAHA bad guy whom we could easily separate from Dean as a completely different character. And Dean did say and do some pretty wretched things in 10.03, but they were connected to his existing past and personality, making it harsher and more personal. I'm fine with him not eating babies or raping anyone, especially since it'd be nearly impossible for him to realistically come back from that (either in-story or in the audience's eyes).

I'm taking this to the "Bitch vs Jerk" thread just in case. And later on when I have more time... But main points: I agree that Muahaha Demon Dean would have been cliche and how it was done was likely better, That wasn't my problem with how Demon Dean was presented: it was how Sam was presented narratively in contrast to Demon Dean.

And as for Dean not screwing up on an epic scale, that's maybe relative. For example, I thought Dean killing Death could have / should have been a huge screw up myself.

2 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

Self-loathing is also typically not logical. It's not uncommon for someone to only fixate on their failures and chalk up their victories to luck or others' involvement.

I don't disagree, which is why I gave the example of the pretty girl fixating only on her flaws. But just because it's true doesn't necessarily mean it's not sometimes frustrating or annoying. Heh for me it's like Dawn on Buffy. So many people complained about what an annoying character she was... but she was a teenager. She was supposed to be annoying.

And no, I'm NOT comparing Dean to Dawn Summers. She was sometimes annoying in an entirely different way (Oh, and despite some annoyance, I loved her relationship with Spike: together they made each other better people, in my opinion. I kind of regret that the narrative destroyed that in the end, but again it was realistic, so there you go). Now Xander... that's another story. He bordered on Mary Sue for me. But that's another topic.

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

Has he ever been told by anyone how great he is? Sam said once during a speech at the same time the show usurped the trials for Sam. If IMO Dean were a Mary Sue he would be fawned over clearly and without ambiguity by all who meet him.

Many, many times. Sam didn't just once tell Dean in that one speech. He also told Dean that Dean saved lots of people and made a huge difference (What Is...) and how Dean sacrificed to take care of him (All Hell...), and how the world is a better place because of him (don't remember which ep that is off hand). There was "You're one hell of a P.A." Barnes and Damian (The Real Ghostbusters) told him... and those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are plenty more.

But none of that matters, because Dean isn't going to listen to or believe any of that anyway... because he's going to fixate on what he does wrong instead. Because that's what Dean does apparently.

2 hours ago, ukgirl71 said:

While we're at it, I actually liked the Stynes as villians and would have liked to see them hang around a bit longer, I hated the Leviathans as the "Big Bads" and wish Metratron had been 'offed' much sooner than he was.

Heh, whereas I'm the opposite. Except for the youngest one, I thought that Stynes were somewhat typical whereas I loved most of the Leviathans - especially Chet, Dick Roman, and Susan, the "real estate agent" and George, the assistant - and I  loved to hate Metatron. And Metatron was awesome in "Don't Call Me Shurely." For me, Metatron had layers despite being a villain.

[companionenvy]

I think Dean's combination of confidence and self-loathing actually makes a lot of sense - although, like basically every other character beat on this show, it is one that is somewhat played out and should probably be retired at this point.

For me, the key to Dean's character at the beginning of the series is that he's someone who has been essentially forced by his childhood into defining himself as this macho badass outsider, when actually, his natural desires are far more conventional and domestic. Dean remembers an ordinary, middle-class early childhood with two parents who loved him and made him feel safe. And I think we see a lot of evidence throughout the show that there's a level on which he never stops wanting that - What is and What Should Never Be being only the most obvious example -- but believes (with a lot of help from John) that he can't have it, to the point where he defensively adopts the posture of someone who holds "normal" life in utter contempt. Secretly, however, he realizes that his way of life is totally dysfunctional and does feel like he himself is less than people who don't have to spend their time digging up graves and wiping werewolf blood out of the backseat of their car. 

Now here's the part that I know is going to be unpopular: while I think it is understandable in context, young adult Dean is actually a dick sometimes, and has some actual reason to feel bad about himself over it. In the Pilot, he's pretty gross to Jessica, and I don't think we have any reason to believe that's the only time he ever acted in such a way, and some reason to believe it wasn't. More generally, while there's not necessarily anything wrong with one-night stands, Deans' relationships with both Cassie and Lisa suggest to me that he wants more than that and is defaulting to meaningless encounters starting with crass, alcohol-filled flirtations because again, he doesn't think anything more is in the cards for him. But that doesn't mean he actually likes being a functional alcoholic with a girl in every port; in fact, its another way that he falls short of the ideal of John and Mary he still harbors from his childhood. 

In terms of hunting, Dean, at least when he begins hunting on his own, does develop merited confidence in his abilities, and is proud of being able to save people. Even so, I think there's a kind of Dark Knight element to it, where Dean knows he's doing necessary work ,and doing it well, but that the price is that he's become someone who has to do the dirty work that "good" people shouldn't be doing. Hunting involves incredible levels of violence, including vigilante justice and committing brutal, execution style murders against sentient beings on a regular basis. So, there's a sense that Dean is saving a world that he feels that he himself doesn't deserve to live in.

This may be even more true as the show has gone on, because Dean has made mistakes and gotten people killed. And - and I think this is the really interesting part about Dean - even when he knows that he would act the exact same way again given the same choice, he still believes that in any just universe, he deserves to burn for it, which he says in almost those words when he addresses Kevin's death. Dean doesn't regret saving Sam via Gadreel, but he can still hate himself for what it leads to. Even when he kills Amy Pond, something else he feels was justified, he sincerely believes that her son would be justified in coming back and taking revenge on Dean someday; he did what he "had" to do, as a hunter, but he doesn't feel good about it. 

So Dean knows that he's a great hunter and leader. But he knows that being a great leader as a hunter comes at a considerable moral cost.

[trxr4kids]

16 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Many, many times.

But how many more times was the counter argument given often by the same characters?

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Now here's the part that I know is going to be unpopular: while I think it is understandable in context, young adult Dean is actually a dick sometimes

I actually have no problem acknowledging that he shows dickish behaviour on occassion. Where I get defensive over the character is when the show over-calls him out on it, especially in such mean-spirited "haha, it`s because you are a dick" way like in Yellow Fever. Or when he is grieving not to the liking of other people and they badger him about it to the point where he snaps - only to then lean back (and for the narrative to back that up) with a wounded "you are such a dick" sentiment. Which Dean then agrees to and apologizes over.

The adjacent problem with that is the show under-calling other characters out on their dickishness because they might show it in other ways or when they do it, they are supposed to be lauded for it.   

In short, I don`t like when the show is just calling Dean a dick and others get off scot-free for behaviour I find equally or more dickish than he sometimes shows.

As time went on and the show went more and more into saintifying Bobby (and making him more unlikeable in the process) that actually drove me bonkers. Bobby being a dick was supposed to be wise and awesome and not deserving to be called out on his crap. Maybe Rufus should have been around more for that and that was a missed dynamic but it was seriously grating IMO.

Quote

Now Xander... that's another story. He bordered on Mary Sue for me. 

Hee. I`m kind of the oppsite. To me the character often bordered too much on comedy relief loser and I had second-hand embarassment for the character. He is one of the farthest ones for me from a Mary Sue I can think of. 

Edited August 4, 2018 by Aeryn13

[DeeDee79]

15 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

As time went on and the show went more and more into saintifying Bobby (and making him more unlikeable in the process) that actually drove me bonkers. Bobby being a dick was supposed to be wise and awesome and not deserving to be called out on his crap. Maybe Rufus should have been around more for that and that was a missed dynamic but it was seriously grating IMO.

This along with a few other reasons is why I believe that Bobby is the true Mary Sue of the show. He's pretty neck in neck with Charlie IMO.

[trxr4kids]

14 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

I think Dean's combination of confidence and self-loathing actually makes a lot of sense - although, like basically every other character beat on this show, it is one that is somewhat played out and should probably be retired at this point.

ITA, I think the reason the show keeps mining that tired well is lack of motivation or desire to deviate from that norm by TPTB  is because they believe it works.

 

22 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

For me, the key to Dean's character at the beginning of the series is that he's someone who has been essentially forced by his childhood into defining himself as this macho badass outsider, when actually, his natural desires are far more conventional and domestic. Dean remembers an ordinary, middle-class early childhood with two parents who loved him and made him feel safe.

For me, the key to his character is someone whose natural desires are to love and protect family that morphed into protecting his family as well as the the societal norms of a domestic lifestyle. I think he perceived that as unattainable and undesirable for himself because the veil had been lifted from his eyes so to speak.

 

44 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

More generally, while there's not necessarily anything wrong with one-night stands, Deans' relationships with both Cassie and Lisa suggest to me that he wants more than that and is defaulting to meaningless encounters starting with crass, alcohol-filled flirtations because again, he doesn't think anything more is in the cards for him.

I think it suggests he's able to make connections with people but is pragmatic enough to know it can't last without causing/bringing harm to those he's connected with.

 

52 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

So Dean knows that he's a great hunter and leader. But he knows that being a great leader as a hunter comes at a considerable moral cost.

I disagree with the first part but agree to the parts I bolded with the exception of the words I excluded.

[trxr4kids]

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I kind of regret that the narrative destroyed that in the end, but again it was realistic, so there you go). Now Xander... that's another story. He bordered on Mary Sue for me. But that's another topic.

For me Willow and Tara were worse, so much worse, the outfits alone. I frequently thought the wardrobe dept skinned muppets and/or hired depressed toddlers to create their clothing.

[companionenvy]

On the Mary Sue conversation: For me, the two main types of Sues (though they often overlap) are

a) a character whose sole function on the show seems to be to be perfect and awesome, generally including the possession of abilities that far exceed what that person should realistically possess. If he or she has flaws, they will be noble or endearing ones that don't ultimately stop him or her from doing what needs to be done. All of the other characters spend lots of their shared screen-time talking about how awesome the Sue is. 

b) a character who, despite not initially being the main focus of the story, starts receiving such disproportionate attention that the narrative and other characters will drop everything out of concern for that character or in deference to his and her needs, even when it makes zero sense for the story and/or their own characters. So, an entire city might be in danger, including several close loved ones of our ostensible main character, but the first question out of their mouth is "Is Sue OK?"

To me, Charlie is the only character who really fits in SPN, under my category A. She's clearly being created to be a fannish wish-fulfillment, everyone (including Dick Roman!) adores her and talks about how great she is, and she is apparently super good at everything, even though nothing in her background really explains how she became such a skilled super-hacker that she can get into any government database and change identities at the drop of a hat. The show is slightly more realistic in portraying her hunting abilities, but overall, she's still an improbable badass who garners absurd amounts of love and respect from everyone around her. 

Having a character without definable flaws isn't necessarily a problem, per se, as long as the character doesn't have skills he or she shouldn't and isn't given an inflated role in the narrative. The wise mentor figure is frequently someone depicted as a fairly uniformly positive figure, so while Bobby's role in Sam and Dean's childhood is retroactively increased, I don't think he ever really flirts with Sue-dom. Crucially, the skills he has (aside for the throwaway joke where he speaks Japanese) are consistent with his spending years and years studying lore, and while other characters rightly respect him as a resource to the community of hunters, he doesn't have legions of fawning admirers. 

Jack may be too goody-goody to be really interesting, and has tons of powers (or, at least he did), but I don't think his raison detre, so to speak, is to be awesome, and the show is actually careful to show his powers not allowing him to solve every problem, and in fact causing real harm. Many other people are understandably suspicious of him, and even people who like him a lot, like Mary, show concern that he's liable to bite off more than he can chew, rather than trusting to his supreme cool and competence.

Mary herself is the other person I'd call closest to a Sue in that she is depicted as way more skilled than she should be, and even given those skills, the people in the BMOL and the AU seem way too ready to vastly overestimate her importance and capabilities. But there's at least a logical reason why Sam and Dean are so invested in what happens to her, and like Jack, she at least seems to have functions beyond "being really awesome."