Supernatural Bitterness & Unpopular Opinions: You All Suck

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Tbh, in my personal head!canon, there is no such thing as "hell years." YMMV. I think they stole the idea from Quor'toth or something, but Angel needed to do that so they could age-up Conner, soap opera style. On SPN, it was just for shits and giggles and/or for a one-scene ~reveal~. So I've decided to just do the show a favor and discretely avert my eyes from the mistake, and then go on as though it didn't happen at all. :P

 

*points at icon*

 

Years before Connor disappeared into Quartoth, then returned as a teenager/young adult, Angel himself went to hell, and when he came back it was stated that he basically spent a hundred years being tortured, which is why he was half-rabid when he returned and unable to care for himself. If Dean's time in hell operated the same way, he should have been in much worse shape when he got spat back out.

[SueB]

Someone else who likes Connor Angel!!!!! *runs around flailing wildly*  I thought I was all alone!

[catrox14]

Oh hell no! I loved Connor. That kid got a bad rap!

[AwesomO4000]

Party of four, please.

 

I thought Conner was a fascinating character. I was not happy with what they did to him with respect to possessed Cordelia, but fortunately they redeemed him for me in the end. I wrote Buffy fanfic, and the unfinished sequel to my one somewhat popular fic has Conner in there - being the badass he should have been rather than the insane person he became - it helps that it was set before he went insane and the timeline went differently. Of course at the time, I considered having him have a thing with Dawn, and not sure if I'd still do that part or not, though they'd at least have to get along since they both had close ties to Spike (that's a long weird story. *) Though I heard in the comics, that part happened - the close ties with Spike part that is - and I would definitely approve.

 

* Spike still has a soul - it just happens to be Angel (again long story) - because I don't think Conner would've gotten along with a non-souled Spike.

Edited April 13, 2015 by AwesomO4000

[catrox14]

I was partial to Wesley, Connor and then Angel. I just loved Wesley's entire arc. Connor was a little shit but dear Gods who wouldn't be.  And I just adored that Vincent Kartheiser just owned that part...just like he owns Peter.

 

Kartheiser has that rare thing of making really unlikeable characters likeable. Jensen does the same thing with Dean. Because really so much of Dean is dislikeable but I just love all 3 of those characters.

Edited April 13, 2015 by catrox14

[SueB]

AwesomeO, I literally never read fanfic but I must read yours.....link please?

 

And Connor WINS in the comics. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I was partial to Wesley, Connor and then Angel. I just loved Wesley's entire arc. Connor was a little shit but dear Gods who wouldn't be.  And I just adored that Vincent Kartheiser just owned that part...just like he owns Peter.

 

Kartheiser has that rare thing of making really unlikeable characters likeable. Jensen does the same thing with Dean. Because really so much of Dean is dislikeable but I just love all 3 of those characters.

 

Me liking Connor so much is why I will always take such strong issue with the Gadreel thing. (See, topic!) Dean completely violated Sam's free will when he allowed him to pick up a hitch-hiker without either his knowledge or permission, much the way Angel violated Connor's free will when he erased his memories, to say nothing of his other friends'. Would Sam have decided he'd rather live after all, with or without the manipulation? Would Connor have come back from the rings of Saturn without Angel removing everything that essentially made him who he was, which nearly gets him killed later? Like Angel, Dean thought he was doing the best thing, but like Angel he also believed that he was right to do it, and you could either agree with him or get out of his way.

[catrox14]

Sorry I don't know what you are talking about with Connor and the rings of Saturn, unless you mean the do over.  If you are referring to the comics I did not read those.

Edited April 13, 2015 by catrox14

[SueB]

I think he means the do over.  Saturn not involved in the comics.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Sorry I don't know what you are talking about with Connor and the rings of Saturn, unless you mean the do over.  If you are referring to the comics I did not read those.

 

Apologies for not being clear, catrox14, I did mean the mindwipe/do-over. My question was, would Connor have returned to sanity if Angel hadn't more or less stripped him of his identity. Sorry for not making myself clearer. :-)

[AwesomO4000]

AwesomeO, I literally never read fanfic but I must read yours.....link please?

 

And Connor WINS in the comics. 

 

I'll put it in the fanfic thread for you SueB, with appropriate links and warnings.

[rue721]

I really liked Connor in S3/S4. He was trying his best to make sense of things and to be OK, and I respected him for that. But it just made me sad when he showed up again after the mind-wipe. That wasn't really Connor, that was some other person with Connor's face imo. The only time I connected with him in S5 was when he "decided" not to remember his old life.

 

Anyway, I guess how that connects with SPN for me is that I just honestly don't mind when the characters make mistakes, as long as I understand what's driving them to make them. It wasn't at all a problem for me when Connor was sleeping with Cordelia and trying to "make a family" with her, or when he wouldn't let go of Jasmine even to the point that he was trying to hunt down Team Angel for her, because I understood emotionally why he felt driven to do those things (even against his own/everyone's better judgment). Likewise, it also wasn't at all a problem for me when Dean sold his soul so he wouldn't be alone/a failure, or when Sam kept drinking demon blood so he wouldn't feel helpless. Those weren't the "smartest" choices, but I understood why they felt driven to do those things, so it felt more tragic than irritating when they faced horrible consequences for them. 

 

My "bitter" opinion is that I'd vastly prefer to see characters make mistakes because they're driven by emotions/needs I can understand and even empathize with, than to see characters "overcome" their emotions/needs and *not* make those mistakes. I don't watch television (or read books, etc) to see characters behave perfectly, I watch to see characters I care about and can empathize/sympathize with. But that's why I love TV characters like Connor, Lex Luthor, Klaus Mikaelson, Norma Bates, etc etc etc, but am bored to tears by virtually all "superhero movies." YMMV, of course.

[catrox14]

My favorite characters have shades to them, be it moral ambiguity, or fucks up that try to  do the right things and be heroes like Dean and Sam. Some are accidental heroes too like Gaius Frakking Baltar who is in my top 5 to 10 fav characters along with Jack Harkness, D(ean Winchester, Wesley Wyndham Price, Kara Thrace and Arrow's Oliver Queen

[Cobalt Stargazer]

My "bitter" opinion is that I'd vastly prefer to see characters make mistakes because they're driven by emotions/needs I can understand and even empathize with, than to see characters "overcome" their emotions/needs and *not* make those mistakes. I don't watch television (or read books, etc) to see characters behave perfectly, I watch to see characters I care about and can empathize/sympathize with. But that's why I love TV characters like Connor, Lex Luthor, Klaus Mikaelson, Norma Bates, etc etc etc, but am bored to tears by virtually all "superhero movies." YMMV, of course.

 

This is a fandom thing in general, but I would be more okay with characters who make mistakes if whatever subset of fans were less, shall we say, eager to rush to excuse their behavior, not to mention less eager to rake another character over the coals for doing something they'd excuse if it was one of their favorites. I'm also a big Xander Harris fan, and, well, if ya'll watched BTVS at all you know that he can/could barely take a breath without someone finding a reason to criticize him. Hell, the reason I prefer Sam to Dean has less to do with Sam than it does with the fact that I cannot abide the 'Dean Girls' who jump all over everything Sam says and does, usually when he's disagreeing with Dean. I mean, we like who we like and that's fine, but if you're that involved, step back from your TVs.

[Aeryn13]

 

I mean, we like who we like and that's fine, but if you're that involved, step back from your TVs.

 

Well, I think everyone`s involvement is different and it`s not really something you can help. Sometimes a character/show/ship/theme really grabs you and at other times it doesn`t. Yet I also get fan response can sully a character for you. Even if I`m having an okay response to Sam in any given episode, ten minutes on tumblr and am asked to worship at the feet of Sam Saintly McJesus, the true saviour of mankind and denounce Dean Devil Winchester, the worst abuser in history, feelings shift as well.   

 

 

My "bitter" opinion is that I'd vastly prefer to see characters make mistakes because they're driven by emotions/needs I can understand and even empathize with, than to see characters "overcome" their emotions/needs and *not* make those mistakes.

 

I think making mistakes is fine as long as the characters don`t become stagnant or go in circles. When a show starts out and a character has several rough edges, even to the point of appearing unlikeable, I don`t mind so much because that is what the show is for. Their journey is just beginning and if they show potential to be better, then I`m interested to see when and how they can be.

 

However, if, in hindsight a character was more likeable and way more mature in the Pilot episode or a Season 1 of a show then in say Seasons 5 or 6 or so, then it is a real problem for me. And we`re not even talking about badly done face heel turns here where a character becomes a villain but the turning into shrews with little to no signs of all the good qualities the character once showed. 

 

Or on Supernatural, I thought Season 1 actually did a good job of showing two brothers who had been seriously estranged relearn each other as adults when previously their only reference point were their childhood experiences and preconceptions. Then they grew closer together, then too close in terms of codependence and as an outward sign of that the apocalypse almost happened (well, in theory, we didn`t see much onscreen). Then the lame, hateful conclusion to that happened.

 

And afterwards? They just became more codependent to the point where I wondered if this is the most toxic relationship onscreen in the guise of some wonderful bond. They backslid into not only making the same mistakes over and over but they even did stuff wrong, they would have done right before. They became worse people for the sake of dragging on whatever lam-o plot was supposed to happen, not because I could follow an organic emotional journey.  

[AwesomO4000]

My tastes can range all over the place with characters. Something has to click for me.

 

One main type of character I like tends to be damaged characters who somehow try in spite of their damage for whatever reasons and/or characters who do the "right" thing, but not necessarily for the right reasons. Maybe they are loyal to another character or cause, and are willing to go against their own "side" or instinct to achieve that goal. But I also prefer it if the characters know they are damaged and own that. Making other characters around them think about things also helps.

 

Good examples for this would be Elim Garak from Star Trek: Deep Space 9 and Spike from Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. I could go on for paragraphs about all the things I love about those two characters.

 

I don't have to say that about Sam and Dean, since we already know I go on for paragraphs about them, but I don't think either quite fit into my description above, so there is something else there that I relate to with them.

[shang yiet]

Hell, the reason I prefer Sam to Dean has less to do with Sam than it does with the fact that I cannot abide the 'Dean Girls' who jump all over everything Sam says and does, usually when he's disagreeing with Dean.

 

TWOP really put me off Saint Dean who could do no wrong over there. The only flaw they would allow Dean to have was the flaw of not realising how awesome he was. Everything was always Sam's fault.

[rue721]

I don't have to say that about Sam and Dean, since we already know I go on for paragraphs about them, but I don't think either quite fit into my description above, so there is something else there that I relate to with them.

 

I also find them bizarrely relatable. What could possible be relatable about a couple of lifelong demon hunters who are on their ninetieth life apiece? I don't know! But there it is.

 

Generally, characters who want the same things I want are (obviously) easy for me to empathize with and relate to. They're not necessarily the characters I *like* the best, but since I end up identifying with them pretty strongly, they're the characters I tend to root for the the hardest and care about the most.

 

But I'm not sure how that meshes with Sam and Dean in particular? Because, to be honest, I'm not all that sure what either of them want (at least not anymore). That's another "bitter" opinion, I guess.

[oliverwendell]

 

TWOP really put me off Saint Dean who could do no wrong over there. The only flaw they would allow Dean to have was the flaw of not realising how awesome he was. Everything was always Sam's fault.

I've been surfing this fandom for a long time.  I haven't dived too deeply -- no tumblr, no fanfic -- but I have watched the Sam Girl versus Dean Girl flame wars unfold across various internet fora from TWoP to supernatural.tv to Winchester Family Business to TVClub to Mark Watches and on and on.  Here's what I finally decided about it all.  There has been bad behavior on both sides of the Sam-v-Dean divide, to be sure.  People will relate more to one brother than to the other based on their own experiences and values.  But that's okay.  Because, somehow, a group of writers working out of a dingy office in a Hollywood strip mall and two actors whose previous credits included nothing but B- and C-rated television shows and movies have managed to create two deeply flawed yet relatable characters with strong points of view that still have people talking and debating and behaving badly after ten years.  That is good writing.  That is good character development.  And that is why we're getting Season 11.  So I'm okay with all of it.  

Edited April 14, 2015 by fourteenwords

[catrox14]

I really think all the credit for the relative relatability (?) for Sam and Dean goes to the actors. 

 

I really shouldn't find Dean relatable or likeabel at all because I am the younger sibling to an overly controlling elder sibling but in my case the elder sibling lacks compassion and kindness. IMO despite Dean's macho bullshit, there is an underlying vulnerability and kindness to Dean that IMO makes him likeable, who really IMO does mean well despite his total fuckups. I think it's the figurative layers to Dean that come from how much care Jensen puts into playing what is NOT on the page.

 

IMO for a character that is supposed to be the compassionate and empathetic one, I think Sam is written as  bit of a cold fish and humorless, but Jared makes Sam likeable because he gives him some real warmth and humor.  Again playing was is NOT on the page.  To me it's the actors choices beyond the script that make me want to watch them and makes them relatable.

[oliverwendell]

 

I really think all the credit for the relative relatability (?) for Sam and Dean goes to the actors.

 

I agree with everything catrox says in her post about the actors' ability to make the characters likable and rootable, but my unpopular opinion (at least I think it's unpopular) is that the writers, too, have contributed mightily to the complexity of these characters by what they are willing to have them do.  They've been more than willing to push both Sam and Dean to dark places that lead them to make morally ambiguous choices, from Sam consorting with Ruby to Dean allying with Gadreel/Elijah and Crowley.  It would be easy to write characters that do bad things for the right reasons, full stop.  But they don't.  Every single time, there's an element of selfishness or unsavoriness smudging up the character's motivation that make both characters more compelling to me.  Sam wanted to kill Lillith to stop the Apocalypse and avenge Dean, both noble motives, but it's also true that Ruby played on his pride -- that innate tendency to self-aggrandize and always think he knows best/is the smarter brother/etc. that define Sam as much as his better qualities, like his willingness to forgive and self-sacrifice.  Meanwhile Dean's decisions to save Sam by sending his soul to hell and by letting Gadreel possess Sam were strongly motivated by his loving desire to save and protect his little brother, which is a sweet quality, but there was also a strong current of selfishness there in that he wanted to keep Sam alive so he, Dean, wouldn't have to feel like he'd failed and wouldn't be alone.  

 

These are things the writers get full credit for, in my opinion, even though they are wonderfully and transparently portrayed by the actors.  And I think it's these delightfully complicated motivations, both good and bad, that make the characters worth debating and arguing over for so long.  

Edited April 14, 2015 by fourteenwords

[sarthaz]

I really think all the credit for the relative relatability (?) for Sam and Dean goes to the actors. 

 

I really shouldn't find Dean relatable or likeabel at all because I am the younger sibling to an overly controlling elder sibling but in my case the elder sibling lacks compassion and kindness. IMO despite Dean's macho bullshit, there is an underlying vulnerability and kindness to Dean that IMO makes him likeable, who really IMO does mean well despite his total fuckups. I think it's the figurative layers to Dean that come from how much care Jensen puts into playing what is NOT on the page.

 

IMO for a character that is supposed to be the compassionate and empathetic one, I think Sam is written as  bit of a cold fish and humorless, but Jared makes Sam likeable because he gives him some real warmth and humor.  Again playing was is NOT on the page.  To me it's the actors choices beyond the script that make me want to watch them and makes them relatable.

 

I agree with you on the quality of the acting, but I think in Dean's case, a lot of it is also written on the page.  It's why I've made a number of cracks on this board about it being Dean's show -- I just think they've written him better -- no disrespect to Jared.  I mean, they set the show up with Dean being this macho dick and Sam as the nerdy empathy guy; but it's Dean who makes all the Yoda jokes, it's Dean who's obsessed with movies and the old West, it's Dean who gives bad guys cool nicknames, it's Dean who is the closet Trekkie and has an affinity for busty Asians and pie.  Dean's sentimentality oozes with the amulet he wears, his attachment to Bobby's flask, his freakouts when Garth becomes the new Bobby ... and of course, his love for Baby.  Things happen to Sam -- he goes to Hell, loses his soul, Halucifers, falls in love with a dog -- but he doesn't get anywhere near the amount of subtle character moments that make Dean such a relatable individual.  No doubt, Jensen does an amazing job with the material -- his delivery of "But you didn't shoot the deputy" in "Jus in Bello" is probably the funniest moment in the entire series for me -- but Dean gets that line; and he almost always get the great lines.

[catrox14]

I agree that the writers have put the characters in some really challenging positions and it makes for interesting drama ...up to a point.

 

That's why for me the quality of the casting in this show overall matters even with supporting characters. IMO in the hands of lesser actors that bring out what isn't written in the characters actions, The Winchesters would be the worst people in the world.  I would hate both of these guys so much that I wouldn't even care what nutty things the writers do to them. 

 

As to the change in the writing of Dean, I think that came about precisely because of Jensen's abilities and the writers started writing to those strengths.

 

I'm also thinking about interviews with Jared and Jensen how Kim Manners reminded them to find the nuance and what wasn't on the page.  I think Jensen was kind of already doing that with Dean by Dead in the Water but Kim Manners pushed them to go further when they didn't think they could. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the writing has nothing to do with it, because that would be foolish but for me it's the acting keeps me connected to the characters.  I can't fathom anyone else ever being Dean between 18 and 60. It just wouldn't fly for me.  Same with Sam.

 

For me, Dean getting snarky lines or pop culture references or being flirty with whomever are character traits. Those things don't make the show about him IMO. I do agree that we see Dean's POV most of the times because that was how the show was written. We saw Sam from Dean's POV.

 

Jared is playing the 'normal' guy, which is kind of thankless. Sam is kind of boring on paper to me. But he is clearly the hero when we meet him. He's smarter and more mature than his big brother in the pilot. He's reserved but kind and empathetic or at least IMO that was the intention I think.  He suffered the loss of his girlfriend and he was going to do something about it.  I think Jared started getting to play not!Sam because IMO he plays a good villain. They started giving Sam some darker qualities to play with and personally I think the show was better for that.  Because I could not stand s1 Sam.

 

Dean was the snarky sidekick IMO.  And whatever made him appealing even past the pilot I still put to Jensen's efforts. Had there been no layers to Dean at all, he would have been totally boring after awhile because Dean would be the standard snarky Tough Guy with nothing more to him. His hitting on chicks would become stale and rote.  I don't think Kripke envisioned that Dean would be more than the snarky sidekick to the hero. 

Edited April 14, 2015 by catrox14

[GirlyGeek]

Nothing to see here :)

Edited April 26, 2015 by GirlyGeek

[amensisterfriend]

Warning: Highly unpopular opinions ahead! At least I'm in the right place :) 

 

1) After doing a random rewatch of a variety of episodes, I've come to the HIGHLY unpopular opinion---and one that contradicts a lot of my own formerly held opinions---that the earlier seasons of this show aren't as stellar as they're so often and nostalgically made out to be...but the happy flip side is that the later seasons aren't, IMO, nearly as awful as THEY'RE often made out to be either :) 

 

2) Season 2, once my clear cut pick for favorite season of the series, is now actually my least favorite of the first three seasons. 

 

3) I can't bring myself to care even the tiniest bit about Dean/Lisa or Sam/Jessica or, for that matter, ANY actual or would be romantic couples...and that VERY much includes 'Destiel.'

 

4) Dean bonding with kids, including Ben, feels more eye rolling than genuinely cute and touching to me.

 

5) They should never have made Dean's drinking such a 'thing.' It's enough that Bobby and John are alcoholics and that such a huge percentage of the hunters, victims etc on this already sufficiently bleak show are lushes to one degree or another---I wish they'd shown Dean dealing with his manpain in a different, more interesting way.

 

6) For some reason I don't think Sam's had any remote romantic chemistry with anyone---Jessica, Sara, Madison, Amelia, Ruby, etc. 

 

7) Donna is easily the mosy genuinely likable, remotely interesting female character ever to be on this show for me, and such a welcome break from the usual 'hot/cool/sassy/sexy/' type the show usually churns out by the dozen, though I also hold the UO of loving Bela. 

 

8) Dean's post-Hell voice is distractibgly ridiculous. Sam's hair is distractingly ridiculous. 

 

9) I feel like so many fans and critics name S4/S5 as the best seasons, but they're actually my very LEAST favorite seasons. Yup, even more so than anything we've gotten more recently! Objectively, I see why many love them, but I just derive so little enjoyment from S4/S5 and hate the story arcs and overall tone. 

 

10) S4 Ruby was no worse than S3 Ruby for me. Later Meg was no worse than Original Meg for me. 

 

11) Speaking (sort of!) of S3, I'll never get the hate for The Magnificent Seven. I actually think it's a really good episode!  

 

12) I sometimes enjoy Crowley even more than Sam or Dean. LOVE him!

 

13) I was fine with Bobby dying, though the aftermath of it was annoying to watch. I'd have been fine if he died even sooner.  

 

14) I'd rather rewatch even the lamer 'light' episodes than the higher quality angst-y ones at this point in my SPN viewing. There's a lot to like about SPN, but I'll never quite forgive their determination to make it one of the most relentlessly, unnecessarily depressing series EVER!  

Edited April 27, 2015 by amensisterfriend

[amensisterfriend]

ETA: And perhaps most shamefully of all...I kind of adore Garth :) 

[Goldmoon]

Yeah, Dean needs to reset his voice back to natural.  For all his splendid talent, that was a really bad acting choice, and IMO takes away from scenes.

[catrox14]

My unpopular opinion is that I never minded Dean's voice changes. I think it does suit his character even more now too. But it's also not quite as husky all the time and Jensen's voice has naturally gotten deeper has he's aged as has Jared's.  It was more jarring in s4 and s5 but after that it doesn't bother me. Never really has.

[millennium]

I like Bella and Ruby and Meg.   And Rowena.   Wish Abaddon had possessed more charisma.

 

Can't stand Charlie or Ellen or her daughter.

 

Oh, put me on the "Hate Conner from Angel" bus.  Almost never started watching Mad Men because I saw that VIncent Kartheiser was among the cast.

[GirlyGeek]

Some Unpopular Opinions...

I love John Winchester. And I like JDM. I don't know why the writers, after Johns death, continued to throw John under the bus, making him sound like more and more of a bastard, but from what I saw on screen he was a driven, tortured, passionate, sometimes mis-guided man, who loved his sons, and who in the end chose his sons over revenge.

I like original Meg (didn't like new Meg), loved original Ruby (not new Ruby), and I always liked Ellen and Jo

Bobby never bothered me, and I don't mind when he shows back up onscreen

LOVE Charlie, love Rowena (though at first I couldn't understand a word she said, lol)

Do not like Garth. Annoying

I loved the psychic kids storyline, and the special Sam storyline (and I'm a 'Dean girl')

And, since I'm watching the end of season 1 right now on TNT, I am vowing to never make fun of Sam's more current hair or to yell at my screen "get a haircut Sam" as long as it NEVER goes back to the cut in the late Season 1/ early season 2. Wow it's bad

...oh and since it was mentioned up thread for some reason, I LOVED Conner from Angel!

Edited May 4, 2015 by GirlyGeek

[Commando Cody]

Every time I watch season 1, I'm reminded of how much I hate Meg 1.  She just makes me cringe whenever she's on. I saw the actress on Cold Case and I couldn't stand her there either.  Awful.  Just Awful.  

 

I despised Bella. 

 

I liked Ellen.  I found Jo barely tolerable.  

 

Never liked Charlie.  Never will.  She seems to be showing up more frequently than before.  Somehow she seems to show up on every sci-fi show I watch.  My enjoyment of Eureka started going downhill with the more screen time she was given.  

 

Bobby good.  Garth bad.  

 

My opinion of kids on TV shows.  Other than they don't belong on these kinds of TV shows, I hate when they accelerate their aging.  One day they're a newborn, the next they are four years old.  Four years old seems standard age to transform them into anyway.  In Conner's case - teenager.  I only ran through the series once.  I couldn't stand it when they brought in Amy Acker.  Her Supernatural episode is kind of dull as well.  I couldn't stand Conner either.  Not that I think that kids belong on these kind of TV shows, but since the baby existed, I would have preferred to see how they dealt with having to fight while protecting the baby at the same time.  I like watching the kids grow up on TV.  Worf's son, Alexander, shouldn't have been that old either when he showed up.  I think he was the same kid who was accelerated on Family Ties... or one of those family shows that kids actually belong on. 

 

I hate Sam's current hair. 

 

I really hated the last Ruby.  I guess she would have been the the third Ruby or the second one was like Ruby one and a half since she had such a short time on TV.  I didn't like any of the Ruby's, but if had to choose one, it would definitely be the first Ruby.  

 

I learned to like Meg 2 more in reruns.  Which is interesting because I learned to hate Meg 1 more in reruns.  

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Oh, put me on the "Hate Connor from Angel" bus.  Almost never started watching Mad Men because I saw that VIncent Kartheiser was among the cast.

 

There. Fixed. Its off-topic, but Conner gets on my nerves almost as much as Shannon Doherty. Its. Not. Spelled. That. Way. :-)

 

Topic? I also really liked John, and I don't think its his fault Dean found himself "saddled" with Sam.

[AwesomO4000]

So sorry, Cobalt Stargazer: I figured out that I spelled it incorrectly also in my post despite liking the character and everyone else around me spelling it correctly. My post is no longer editable, so it must remain glaringly incorrect.

 

I suck and so does my spelling.

[millennium]

I didn't misspell it.   I just dislike him that much.   :)

[SueB]

I didn't misspell it.   I just dislike him that much.   :)

I applaud your commitment to your distaste.  Of course I wish you would use your powers for good (said as a Connor lover).  

 

Another unpopular opinion:

- I like Jeremy Carver.

[catrox14]

Another unpopular opinion:

- I like Jeremy Carver.

 

You like him as a showrunner or as a writer?

[millennium]

I applaud your commitment to your distaste.  Of course I wish you would use your powers for good (said as a Connor lover).  

 

Another unpopular opinion:

- I like Jeremy Carver.

 

The whole Conor - Cordelia - Jasmine arc left a really bad taste.   I was disliking Cordy by the end, too.  

 

Never understood the Fred love either.

[AwesomO4000]

Another unpopular opinion:

- I like Jeremy Carver.

 

You like him as a showrunner or as a writer?

 

Even though I'm butting in here, I'm going to answer this, because for me it illustrates my conflict with Carver: I really like him as a writer. "Mystery Spot" is not only one of my most favorite episodes of Supernatural, but would be in my top episodes of TV ever. It is also my favorite Sam episode. Carver seemed to know Sam so well there. How is it then that I hate so much what he's done to Sam's character as a showrunner? I mean really hate - especially the beginning of season 8 when I came close to hating Sam (who was one of my favorite characters ever before that.)

 

I still can't mesh those two things... it confuses the hell out of me.

 

Edited to add: Carver also wrote "Point of No Return" : another favorite Sam episode of mine.

Edited May 6, 2015 by AwesomO4000

[catrox14]

I think it shows that being a showrunner vs a writer are totally different schools of thought. 

 

I think poor Sera Gamble had that same problem. She has written some of the best episodes of SPN but her time as showrunner was ...problematic.  S6 was just a mess and it was like they were just throwing out what would stick. I do give her credit for sticking with a plan in s7 with the Leviathans even as it was a divisive arc with the audience. IMO you either loved it or hated it. 

 

So my unpopular opinion is that Sera Gamble was a pretty decent writer most of the time. 

 

Of course the only EP that has been with the show from the beginning is Robert Singer. So maybe my unpopular opinion is that I don't know whether I like Bob Singer or not.

[SueB]

You like him as a showrunner or as a writer?

Both.

His writing has generally been good. As for show runner I think he's done more good than bad.  I certainly think that he's made some BIG mistakes. His failure to explain Sam's choice at the start of S8, on or off screen, was a massive rookie error.  He thought he was being more clever but it did the character some damage.  And he could have recovered it later and yet still didn't. IMO Sam's choice was so EASILY explained (he panicked and he ran from hunting because he couldn're really deal) and yet he just left the character hanging to abuse in story from Dean and externally from fans.  I think his decision was based on a desire to set up the massive scene at the end where he said his greatest sin was disappointing Dean -- but it just fell flat and Sam has never recovered from that.  OTOH, I think his 3 year plan (which is now 4 years) is going to ultimately be a good thing.  Since I personally LIKE slow-burn character development, foreshadowin/payoffs, etc... I'm fine with his approach and feel like he's got a real plan.  I think he's been a bit too clever and the plan is not clear.  But I completely disagree with folks who suggest they just make shit up on the fly.  I don't see that at all.

[7kstar]

IA, I see Carver as I have a plan people and you'll love it when it becomes clear, but not really getting what drives a lot of fans.  I don't hate all of his work, usually half works...the other half that's my problem.  :)

[Aeryn13]

During his first tenure on the show I considered Carver a Sam-writer and was so-so on him. However, I was excited when he came on as showrunner because Gamble couldn`t leave fast enough for my tastes. Then the atrocious second half of Season 8 and the not-really-beter-first-half-of-Season 9 happened and I thought we had swapped out the plague for cholera, so to speak. These days, I think the show is bad but in ways I can live with it. 

 

However, I`m pretty convinced Carver writes the Premiere and the Finale and has NO idea what goes on in between. Neither does he care. I`m not sure what he actually does as a showrunner but every interview he gives makes it clear to me he isn`t really involved. He seems to live in some bubble where a show is happening only he knows about. Meanwhile the individiual writers do what they want, according to their personal preferences, with some very, very loosely skeleton story in the background.

 

Showrunner-wise, I guess my unpopular opinion would be that we never had a good one. Yeah, not even Kripke. What I think he did have was good advisors in the beginning and he was still green enough to listen to them, But neither he, nor Gamble nor Carver ever gave me the wow-factor in terms of overarching storytellers. They occassionally had good ideas but somehow the true potential was just never reached. I hated Dollhouse for example but after Buffy, Angel and Firefly I`d still put Whedon in the winning column.   

[DittyDotDot]

I only think of Jeremy Carver as a miss as showrunner because I don't think he's done a particularly good job of running the show. IMO, showrunning is managing more than anything. Carver can have all the long-range plans in the world and still make a mess of it--which I kinda think he has. I do believe Carver has a notion for where he wants to end up, but the ride to get there has been so bumpy and inconsistent that I have a hard time caring if I see what his plan was to begin with.

 

I believe Carver's plan is just as solid as Kripke's supposed five-year plan was--IMO, Kripke had an idea for an ending (Sam being possessed by the Devil) but had no idea how he was going to get there. If Kripke's plan all along was to have Sam and Dean stop the big angel showdown, then he was missing a key element--angels. (Kripke himself has stated many times he never imagined angels on Supernatural until they needed something to get Dean out of Hell.) So, I think it's a little of making stuff up on the fly and a little of having a plan. Which worked out for Kripke, IMO, only because he was better at managing the show than Gamble and Carver. And, IMO, because it was Kripke's baby; he cared about this world and these characters a great deal. I'm not saying Carver doesn't care at all, but it's not his creation, so I don't think he has the same reverence or excitement Kripke had..

 

I think that's what I'm most bitter about--well, maybe bitter is too strong a word--I miss the enthusiasm and excitement you could feel coming from the show under Kripke. I'm not saying everyone is phoning it in or they don't care--I think they do--but when I listen interviews and commentaries I get the general feeling of "if it works, fine; if not, fine." It seems like they feel like they have an endgame so missing a few episodes here and there really isn't that big of a deal to them. Whereas I used to get the feeling every episode mattered and was important to them even if it wasn't important to the endgame. I realize this show is really long in the tooth and it's hard to keep that level of excitement up over the long haul, but I think the general lack of excitement these days is showing up on-screen and makes it hard for me to get excited.

[AwesomO4000]

During his first tenure on the show I considered Carver a Sam-writer and was so-so on him. However, I was excited when he came on as showrunner because Gamble couldn`t leave fast enough for my tastes. Then the atrocious second half of Season 8 and the not-really-beter-first-half-of-Season 9 happened and I thought we had swapped out the plague for cholera, so to speak. These days, I think the show is bad but in ways I can live with it.

 

In his first tenure, Carver did write a few episodes which were more Sam-centric (Mystery Spot) or Sam-positive (A Very Supernatural Christmas, Free to Be You and Me), but he also wrote Sam and Dean balanced episodes (Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid, Changing Channels), and in my opinion, just as many Dean-centric episodes (Long-Distance Call and In the Beginning [sam was barely in that one at all]) or episodes where the focus/viewpoint was more on/with Dean and where there were Sam is "dark"/wrong leanings (Sin City, Death Takes A Holiday). And there was the Castiel/Jimmy episode (The Rapture) and I'm not sure what Family Remains was, though it, too, seemed to be more Dean-centric if I'm remembering correctly.

 

For me, I'm just not seeing the evidence that Carver in his first tenure was a Sam writer. His one main Sam-centric episode also had plenty of Dean in it. His Dean-centric episode had Sam in if for maybe 2 minutes total and was as much (if not more) about Azazel and Dean and confirming that Dean was just as influenced by and ironically influencing that connection and that Dean was the one to end it as it was about Dean finding out about the demon blood - which was also still about Dean's reaction and his interaction with Cas. I suppose miles vary.

 

Then there was "We Need to Talk About Kevin." The less said about what Carver did to Sam's character in that episode *, the better, I think, whereas Dean was the most determined, loyal, brave, and badass character ever.  So my unpopular opinion is that no matter how Carver started out writing-wise, he certainly didn't end up as a Sam writer.

 

Warning: major rant ahead. If you choose to proceed, please proceed with caution and keep hands securely within the protective barrier... Thank you..

 

* Carver even managed to take a character that might have at some point had a friendship with Sam - Kevin - and make sure that that relationship would forever be tainted before it even started, turning Sam into a unrepentant coward - which as you said is one of the worst things that could be done to a character - to do so. And then making a huge joke out of it while doing so. (To me, who liked Sam, Kevin's "Eeeat Me's" were much less funny and more of a slap in the face, especially in retrospect. "Isn't it amusing that the character you once loved is a huge coward and a complete jerk?" Actually, Carver, no it isn't. At all.) At least Carver never had Dean abandon the job and leave someone on the team to be tortured and killed without a second thought about it. What happened with Dean in the second half of season 8 - though admittedly I didn't think it was supposed to be bad character-wise ** and I didn't think it was myself - was no where near as bad as that in my opinion.

 

** I thought Carver was trying to show that in addition to being a badass - which Dean obviously was based on the purgatory arc - he was also a loyal brother who could be the "better brother" and help Sam no matter what. I thought it was more a comment on Sam by Carver myself. Not only is Dean the more brave and badass brother for living through purgatory, he's also the most forgiving and loyal for supporting Sam through the trials despite what a crappy brother he was. Especially since Yay family! has so often been the theme in this show - so to me - Dean's obviously yay family! vs Sam's "::shrug:: guess Dean's gone" attitude was supposed to be the better one. (And I wouldn't buy any supposed after-the-fact argument that not looking for Dean was supposed to be "mature." That's crap, considering abandoning Kevin would not be the "mature" thing to do - if not even for Kevin, Crowley had the demon tablet and the interpreter. How is letting him just take that and not trying to get it away from him the right thing to do? That's ridiculous, in my opinion. And then in story, multiple characters berated Sam for his actions, and he was given no defense, so, to me, there is no evidence that supposed "maturity" was what was even supposed to be being shown there at all. If anything it was an off the cuff excuse that was about as believable to me as Jon Lovitz's Compulsive Liar character (except infinitely less amusing). It was an in story trashing of Sam for the - I guess -  purpose of supposedly bringing him back up again... except they mostly forgot that part so far.) So obviously miles vary.

 

I'll take some of it back if as SueB says, there is some character development at the end - though as I've said previously I was happy with where Sam was at the end of season 7, so I saw no need to knock him down into the mud to rebuild him - but so far I'm not seeing it. Sam is now back to lying to Dean again - something he had given up entirely as of mid-season 7 - and I'm afraid it's only going to go badly from there, not get better.

Edited May 6, 2015 by AwesomO4000

[SueB]

Excellent rant. No poncho needed.

[Aeryn13]

 

In the Beginning [sam was barely in that one at all

 

I think In the Beginning had some good Dean moments in it and I liked the episode - the reveal about Mary and her family might have been a bit convenient but I dug it - but thematically it was all about setting up the backstory for Sam`s specialness. Like I said, I don`t care for quantity of screentime so much as mytharc relevancy. Which is why I prefer Dean`s story now even though it is shoddily executed.  

 

 

* Carver even managed to take a character that might have at some point had a friendship with Sam - Kevin - and make sure that that relationship would forever be tainted before it even started

 

To me, that was quickly forgotten and certainly completely usurped when it was Dean`s action that led to Kevin`s demise. Sam abandoning him wasn`t even a blip on the radar screen at this point.

 

 

** I thought Carver was trying to show that in addition to being a badass - which Dean obviously was based on the purgatory arc - he was also a loyal brother who could be the "better brother" and help Sam no matter what.

 

I saw it more as "oh, the unimportant one, he needs to be on screen sometimes, right? well, he has no role in the story so how about he cleans the kitchen and draws ice-baths, that sounds good, right?" Maybe, if you are writing Upstairs, Downstairs, dude. 

[Demented Daisy]

My unpopular opinion is that neither brother is intentionally written to make the other look better or worse.

[shang yiet]

Good one, Awesom. I don't understand why fans think all the showrunners from Kripe, Gamble and Carver are supposed to be Sam fans. They were just as focused on Dean, maybe even more so.

 

My unpopular opinion is that neither brother is intentionally written to make the other look better or worse.

 

 

I don't think they have the intent, I guess it just seems that way, a writing issue.

Edited May 6, 2015 by shang yiet

[catrox14]

My unpopular opinion is that the writers do intentionally write each brother in turns better and worse. I mean if they didn't where would the angst come from? I figure the writers main goal, is ALL the angst, no matter how stupid the plot is too make it happen.

[Demented Daisy]

I don't mean when Sam or Dean make mistakes with the best of intentions (Dean selling his soul, Sam killing Lillith).  I mean:

 

-- Sam didn't look for Dean because they wanted to make Sam look like a jerk while Dean looks awesome in comparison.

 

-- Dean made an angel possess Sam because they wanted Dean to look like a jerk while Sam looks awesome in comparison.

 

In other words, I don't think TPTB intentionally flame the Brother Wars.  I would be incredibly disappointed if I found out otherwise because it's an immensely stupid move to make half of your target audience hate half of your lead characters.