Supernatural Bitterness & Unpopular Opinions: You All Suck

[ILoveReading]

Quote

I cannot for the life of me understand why any 'hard core Dean fan' would want Dean to become Michael's vessel.

 

As a hard core Dean fan and I'd like to see this the same way I was excited for season 4 when Dean went to hell, when they first introduced the Cain and the Mark I wanted Dean to finish the episode with the mark.  I wanted to see more of Dean and Amara's connection and Demon Dean, and Dean in Purgatory.

None of those things were going to end well for Dean, but for me as a viewer it made for good television.  I could have watched an entire season of Demon Dean.  It sounds like Jensen was disappointed as well, despite it being something Dean never wanted.

If I watched hoping only good things would happen to characters, there wouldn't be much on TV to watch, other than sitcoms where all the problems are solved in a half hour.

For me personally watch Dean literally being reduced to bathing and feeding Sam and making burgers is not exciting to watch in the least.  There are still a few s8 episodes I haven't seen.  They managed to do something I never thought possible.  They made Dean boring. 

I'd take dark destinies and vessledom anytime because not only would it be exciting to watch also as much as I'm a hard core Dean gal, I'm an even harder core Jensen gal who loves to see him get to stretch his acting muscles. 

[Demented Daisy]

13 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

It sounds like Jensen was disappointed as well, despite it being something Dean never wanted.

I have seen this said over and over and over again, but have never actually seen Jensen say it.  Could someone please post/link to a video of Jensen saying they ended the Demon Dean storyline too soon?  Thanks in advance.

[ahrtee]

17 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

 

If I watched hoping only good things would happen to characters, there wouldn't be much on TV to watch, other than sitcoms where all the problems are solved in a half hour.

For me personally watch Dean literally being reduced to bathing and feeding Sam and making burgers is not exciting to watch in the least.  There are still a few s8 episodes I haven't seen.  They managed to do something I never thought possible.  They made Dean boring. 

I'd take dark destinies and vessledom anytime because not only would it be exciting to watch also as much as I'm a hard core Dean gal, I'm an even harder core Jensen gal who loves to see him get to stretch his acting muscles. 

I'd love to see more from and *about* Dean, and I'd love to have him be the center of the storyline, but (this being a bi-bro show) I'd settle for him having equal story time, equal wins, and equal interest.  As you said, I don't want him to be boring, and I especially don't want him to be comic relief (or at least, only when it is appropriate).  I'd like him to be the hero, but he doesn't have to be a superhero (or even the only one).  I'm pure Deangirl, wouldn't mind a Dean show with everyone else being hero support, but I know it's not going to happen.  I'm satisfied with well-written, interesting stories that fit the characters (without retconning or big glaring OOC moments) and (preferably) come to a satisfying conclusion, even if it's not a happy ending.  

Edited October 27, 2016 by ahrtee
left out a word

[ILoveReading]

7 minutes ago, Demented Daisy said:

I have seen this said over and over and over again, but have never actually seen Jensen say it.  Could someone please post/link to a video of Jensen saying they ended the Demon Dean storyline too soon?  Thanks in advance.

http://guardianlv.com/2014/11/supernatural-actors-were-not-happy-with-demon-dean-storyline/

I don't have exact links but he's said it at multiple cons and in interviews that he wished it had lasted longer.

[Demented Daisy]

There are no direct quotes in that article, only interpretations of an EW article.  However, this is the original:

http://www.ew.com/article/2014/11/18/supernatural-jared-padalecki-jensen-ackles-season-10

This is the passage in question:

Quote

EW: Were you all surprised at how quickly Dean became human again?
PADALECKI: Yes. I was disappointed.
ACKLES: Yeah, I thought they probably could’ve dragged that on a little longer. They wanted to get Dean back to Dean and get the brothers back to being brothers again. I like that. I’m thankful that, for the first time in several seasons, [Sam and Dean are] kind of back together as brothers. That being said, I wouldn’t have minded a handful of more episodes with that separation. That would’ve been fun.

Jared said he was disappointed, not Jensen.  I'm still looking for a direct quote from Jensen saying that he wanted the demon storyline to go on longer.

I'm not saying it's not out there.  In fact, I'm kind of saying it is out there and I want to see it.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

34 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

OTOH, if only one of them was to become a vessel, I think Michael/Dean would have been the better (though less dramatic) choice, if it hadn’t been for Sam’s “redemption arc” .  If we were talking pure logic,  wouldn’t it make more sense to think that Dean could control (or reason with) the “good” angel (at least enough to hold off the Apocalypse) rather than thinking that Sam could beat the devil?  And even if he couldn’t…Michael/Dean fighting Lucifer/Nick would be a lot surer/easier win than if both angels were in equally strong vessels.

I don't know - back then, imo, Michael was as stupidly stubborn as Lucifer about starting the apocalypse/ending their family feud.  So I doubt Dean could have reasoned with Michael.  I'm sure he could have overcome him, but not reasoned with him.  

Also - I don't know whether this has really been addressed point blank on the show: but once they were in the cage/pit, did/would the vessels really matter?  I mean, Sam got pulled out, and even after Death got his soul out, Lucifer and Michael were in the cage together.  If we are to believe the show narrative, basically Lucifer is still the same while Michael is not doing so well.  So, if in fact, Dean had agreed to be Michael's vessel - it probably wouldn't have turned out so well for him.  

38 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

I was particularly angry at Cas, while he was pounding the crap out of Dean, blaming him for the fact that he’d rebelled against heaven and lost everything.  You’d think with all those years of watching Earth that he’d have a better perspective on wars, wouldn’t you? 

I would think after so many millennia of watching humans, he'd have a better understanding of them altogether.  But no....

41 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

While I'd love to see a Dean-centric storyline that can come to a satisfying end (preferably with a BDH moment), I'd be happy with wins that are good for both, not at the expense of each other.  

I can absolutely agree with this!  (And I say that as a Sam-leaning bi-bro fan.)  (Boy, does that sound dirty.  ;) )

[ILoveReading]

5 minutes ago, Demented Daisy said:

There are no direct quotes in that article, only interpretations of an EW article.  However, this is the original:

http://www.ew.com/article/2014/11/18/supernatural-jared-padalecki-jensen-ackles-season-10

This is the passage in question:

Jared said he was disappointed, not Jensen.  I'm still looking for a direct quote from Jensen saying that he wanted the demon storyline to go on longer.

I'm not saying it's not out there.  In fact, I'm kind of saying it is out there and I want to see it.

Here is a write up of a meet and greet before creation banned them.

Quote

 

Someone asked about Demon!Dean (no, I will not say Deanmon). Jensen has said several times that he wished he got to play that version of Dean longer. Was there a particular storyline he wished he’d had a chance to play?

Jensen said no, nothing in particular, he just wished that Dean was a demon longer, and that they had to work harder to get him back. I think every person in the room nodded

 

.https://fangasmthebook.wordpress.com/2015/03/20/meet-and-greet-tidbits-jensen-and-jared-at-vegascon-2015/

They are very accurate in what they write.

[Demented Daisy]

Sorry, still not good enough.

[ahrtee]

6 minutes ago, Demented Daisy said:

Sorry, still not good enough.

Even law allows for circumstantial evidence (though hearsay is a little more problematic) but, this not being a court of law, I think there is enough hearsay evidence here to at least acknowledge that it's *probably* true.  IMO, Jensen is a good team player and won't say anything negative for the record, so we have to go with off-the-record word of mouth.  

ETA:  Not a lawyer, just watch them on TV.

Edited October 27, 2016 by ahrtee

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I just don't understand why someone claims to really like a character and wants to see them suffer horribly.  I guess my UO on this thread is: that's fucked up.  Talk about emo!

I don`t just claim to like the character, I do. Still reserve the right to decide which storylines I think are interesting and worthwhile and which ones are boring ass shit. And I happen to like BDH moments, those make for compelling stories to me. Don`t think that needs to be justified.   

Quote

That may be your perception - because you obviously are a Dean fan and not a Sam fan.  So every time Sam has a story line - any little story line - to you that's going to be like a slap across your face because it's taking screen time away from Dean.  However, the statistics compiled by Demented Daisy don't back you up.  Unless you have an issue with her data analysis also.  ::shrugs::

Screentime has never, ever been my problem. I`d always have the impression that Dean gets more of it. But a character can have 50 % less screentime than another (and the divide isn`t that big) and still have 100 % better material.

However, story-wise - and I`m counting supernatural plots centered around a character here - Sam had more than Dean. I would question any statistics that denied that. Sam played "other" multiple times for story-arcs, Dean didn`t really get that. And please, one-offs don`t count. I could maybe count the measly three Demon!Dean eps but he didn`t get angel possession or soulessness or actual onscreen powers spanning multiple episodes.

I will not justify in finding those things important but it is fact that Sam has gotten them and Dean has not. It`s a two-character show, the writers really couldn`t distribute them more evenly? Really? Good thing they aren`t writing Game of Thrones, no idea what that show would look like if only one character at all times could have a plotline is.

 

As for Jensen wishing for Demon!Dean to go on longer, I`m not gonna sift through youtube for various Con panels but it was an answer at least one time. And in a M&G but those aren`t allowed to be publicized in depth anymore so good luck finding them now.

I don`t understand how it is an unbelievable concept, though, that Jensen would have been interesting in continuing something centered on his character. Jared praises Sam plotlines a lot, is Jensen not allowed to have even a little bit of pride in his own work?

Edited October 27, 2016 by Aeryn13

[DittyDotDot]

12 minutes ago, Demented Daisy said:

Sorry, still not good enough.

I hate to say it, but I've seen videos of Jensen, more than once, saying he thought it would've been fun if Demon Dean had went on longer and there would've been more of a cat 'n mouse with him and Sam. However, that doesn't affect my being happy they wrapped it up quickly. IMO, TPTB never committed to the idea and only did it for a shock-value cliffhanger, so I think it's best they didn't drag it out, myself. Just because Jensen wanted it, doesn't mean it would've been well-written or interesting to watch.

I'll try and find a video for you when I get home. Probably shouldn't be trolling YouTube on company time? ;)

Edited October 27, 2016 by DittyDotDot

[Demented Daisy]

3 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

I think there is enough hearsay evidence here to at least acknowledge that it's *probably* true.  IMO, Jensen is a good team player and won't say anything negative for the record, so we have to go with off-the-record word of mouth.  

Jensen saying something negative, IMO, would be that he hated the storyline or that it was bad for the character, not that he wishes it went on longer.

For me, it's not good enough that others have said that he said it.  That's the definition of hearsay: the report of another person's words by a witness.

Why is it a problem that I want to see actual evidence that he said it?

[catrox14]

Kind of late to the party but I wanted to address the idea that s5 was all about Dean learning a lesson.

If the resolution to Dean's arc in s5 was really Dean's lesson of "learning to let go and that Dean was the one who had to change, IMO it took the most circuitous, tortured route to get there that I don't think is particularly supported by Dean's characterization through the first 4 and 3/4 seasons.  To me that sounds like spin to make Dean's arc being sidelined into something emotional since they couldn't figure out how to write compelling arcs for both characters. OR the arc was never going to be about Dean at all and they needed viewers that preferred Dean to stick along for the ride after they did nothing meaningful with Dean's Hell time. 

IMO, it's not that Dean can't live without Sam. It's that Dean can't tolerate Sam being DEAD because it goes against Dean's Prime Directive of Save Sammy, which was put in Dean's head when he was 4, reinforced when he was 9, as a teenager and then again when he was 26/27 when John extracted a deathbed promise from Dean to Save Sam or Kill Sam.  But that is not the same as Dean not being able to live without Sam, he's been shown to be able to live without him, if miserable and unhappy, but not suicidal over his death.

Going back to s1, Dean went to Sam because John disappeared. That's it. Maybe he missed his brother but he stayed away as it seems Sam wanted (IMO) but that is not why he went to Stanford. He asked for Sam's help.  Dean took Sam back to school and gave little argument about him going back to school. It was SOLELY Jessica's death that pushed Sam to join back up with Dean. It was a vengeance quest and hunting was secondary at best.

In Scarecrow, they parted ways because Sam wanted to go after John and Dean wanted to work the case John directed them towards. Dean called after re-considering and apologized and told him he had been wrong and to go with his life. It was not a manipulation. It was genuinely Dean LETTING GO. Sam opted to come back on his own accord.

In Shadow, Dean was upset and sad about Sam wanting to once again get out of the hunting life once they found YED and killed. Dean was emotional about having his family be apart again yet he accepted that is what Sam wanted to do. Did it break his heart? Absolutely, but he was LETTING GO.

Dean TRADED HIS OWN LIFE for Sam's. If he couldn't live without Sam, he would have killed himself and gone to be with him in the great beyond. But he didn't. He made a deal that put Sam's life ahead of his own.   He believed he failed Sam and he failed John.  He failed to do his job and making a deal brings Sam back to life. IMO, Dean did that because he thought it was the only way to not fail at his job which is pretty sad but that is how he valued himself at that time.  At the end of AHBLp2, Dean tells Sam, "Don't get mad at me. Don't you do that. I had to. I had to look out for you. That's my job."  Dean's Original Prime Directive of Save Sammy at work

IMO, Dean's choice to trade his life for Sam was born of a few things.  Going back to s1, Dean believes he should have died in Faith and has the guilt of knowing an innocent man died in his place because ironically Sam couldn't accept Dean dying. With Tessa in 2.1 he was not wanting to leave because he thought he still had to fight the war. When it seems he's decided to go, John's deal comes through and before John dies, John saddles Dean with an enhanced Prime Directive of  Save Sam OR Kill Sam. 

Dean spent all of s2 agonizing over this. He couldn't kill Sam in Croatoan and rather than let Sam die alone he would stay behind with him.  I strongly argue he didn't do it JUST FOR SAM, he was doing it because he was tired, his existential crisis still being a key plot point for Dean, which was reiterated in AHBL2 when he told Bobby he shouldn't be alive and that trading his life gave his existence meaning. It was always far more nuanced and complicated than  "I CAN'T STAND TO BE WITHOUT MY BROTHER". Given he took the one year deal,  I suspect he still would have taken it if she said go now,

Ironically s3 was Sam needing  learn the lesson of letting go of his brother in s3 (Mystery Spot) not the other way around.

We get to s4 and Dean is back from Hell and Dean doesn't understand why Castiel saved him because he doesn't think he deserved it.  Dean's existential crisis still at play IMO.  Dean struggled with Sam's hanging with a demon with good reason IMO.  Dean must face Alastair and be compelled to revisit the worst time of his existence..and at the end says he is not the one to fix the mess he didn't know he broke. More existential crisis IMO. But it's lost because of the focus on how mean Dean is for not trusting his brother because he's hanging with a demon. Even when Dean is nearly strangled to death by Sam , Dean is still shamed into trusting Sam. I mean why is that even a lesson to be learned by Dean much less carried over into s5? 

[Demented Daisy]

Just now, DittyDotDot said:

I hate to say it, but I've seen videos of Jensen, more than once, saying he thought it would've been fun if Demon Dean had went on longer and there would've been more of a cat 'n mouse with him and Sam.

Like I said, I don't doubt it's out there.  I just want to see it.

[ILoveReading]

12 minutes ago, Demented Daisy said:

Sorry, still not good enough.

about five minutes in someone asks the question and both say they are disappointed.  Jensen says he wanted 6, 7, 10 episodes.  HIs own words.

[Diane]

2 minutes ago, Demented Daisy said:

Jensen saying something negative, IMO, would be that he hated the storyline or that it was bad for the character, not that he wishes it went on longer.

For me, it's not good enough that others have said that he said it.  That's the definition of hearsay: the report of another person's words by a witness.

Why is it a problem that I want to see actual evidence that he said it?

Not a problem, I am on it.  I will do my best to find him talking about it.  Give me a little while, I seem to remember him saying it too.

[ahrtee]

1 minute ago, Demented Daisy said:

Jensen saying something negative, IMO, would be that he hated the storyline or that it was bad for the character, not that he wishes it went on longer.

For me, it's not good enough that others have said that he said it.  That's the definition of hearsay: the report of another person's words by a witness.

Why is it a problem that I want to see actual evidence that he said it?

Not a problem, just curious as to why you need actual evidence?  I did say this isn't a court of law and we can at least acknowledge hearsay.

(And IMO, to Jensen, negative is anything that implies disagreement with TPTB and the way they work things.)  

But hopefully the video above (I haven't seen it yet) will solve this.

[Diane]

@ILoveReading Thank you, you beat me too it.

[DittyDotDot]

6 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Not a problem, just curious as to why you need actual evidence?

I'm not @Demented Daisy, but I'll tell you why I never trust hearsay: People tend to state their own opinions as fact and many times things that get discussed around here are comments taken out of context, IMO. Many, many, many times I've watched the same exact video and had a completely different read on it.

So, yeah, I understand why someone would want proof, I generally do too.

Edited October 27, 2016 by DittyDotDot

[Demented Daisy]

5 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

about five minutes in someone asks the question and both say they are disappointed.  Jensen says he wanted 6, 7, 10 episodes.  HIs own words.

Thank you.  That's all I wanted.  Though I wish he had elaborated more.  

 

2 minutes ago, Diane said:

Not a problem, I am on it.  I will do my best to find him talking about it.  Give me a little while, I seem to remember him saying it too.

Thanks to you, too.  If you could find a video where he talks about the storyline and how he felt about it (Dean being a demon, not about it ending or wanting Sam and Dean to be separated longer), I'd appreciate it.  :-)

 

2 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Not a problem, just curious as to why you need actual evidence?

Really?  Okay, because opinions get tossed around all the time, disguised as facts.  Facial expressions and tone of voice are often interpreted in a way I wouldn't.  I wanted to see what Jensen had to say about it.

Again, why is that a problem?

1 minute ago, DittyDotDot said:

 

5 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Not a problem, just curious as to why you need actual evidence?

I'm not @Demented Daisy, but I'll tell you why I never trust hearsay: people tend to state their own opinions as fact and many, many, many times I've watched the same exact video and had a completely different read on it.

So, yeah, I understand why someone would want proof, I generally do too.

 

Yeah, what she said!

[Diane]

Just now, Demented Daisy said:

Thank you.  That's all I wanted.  Though I wish he had elaborated more.  

 

Thanks to you, too.  If you could find a video where he talks about the storyline and how he felt about it (Dean being a demon, not about it ending or wanting Sam and Dean to be separated longer), I'd appreciate it.  :-)

 

Really?  Okay, because opinions get tossed around all the time, disguised as facts.  Facial expressions and tone of voice are often interpreted in a way I wouldn't.  I wanted to see what Jensen had to say about it.

Again, why is that a problem?

I will try I am going to go back and watch one that came after the episode aired and see what I can find.

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Jensen saying something negative, IMO, would be that he hated the storyline or that it was bad for the character, not that he wishes it went on longer.

Jensen is quite diplomatic.  To me, when Jensen says he's disappointed with demon!Dean or the Purgatory SL being truncated that IS a negative comment.  I don't think he's ever been asked what he thought about it happening at all. He's said he was surprised they went there. But it seems to me he embraced the opportunity to play something new and different and was disappointed that it wrapped up so quickly. 

I don't quite understand why it's so unbelievable that Jensen did want to play demon!Dean for a longer time.  He's got the rest of his career to consider here.  He's going to welcome a chance to stretch his legs.

[Aeryn13]

Jensen is actually quite seldom asked about Dean as a character. Even when the MOC story was going on, nada. IF there are valid show questions at Cons at all these days, he gets asked more about Dean in terms of being Sam`s brother or someone tries to bring it to "Cas`s possible lover" territory. As if the character is just the other half of a ship or a pair of binoculars to focus on the character of choice. Perish the idea that anyone could like the character outside of those characters and not want him to revolve around either but wants cool and interesting things for and about Dean himself.  

[catrox14]

8 minutes ago, Demented Daisy said:

Really?  Okay, because opinions get tossed around all the time, disguised as facts.  Facial expressions and tone of voice are often interpreted in a way I wouldn't.  I wanted to see what Jensen had to say about it.

I don't think there is any real agenda here by folks purposefully disguising opinions as facts.  I think it's more the case that opinions which are strongly worded are at times interpreted as facts.  I've made that mistake and been mistaken for doing that.

When I think something is amiss, I try to do my own research and bring my rebuttal "evidence" to the discussion rather than compel someone else to prove what I disagree with.   

[Demented Daisy]

Actually, I said this.

24 minutes ago, Demented Daisy said:

Jensen saying something negative, IMO, would be that he hated the storyline or that it was bad for the character, not that he wishes it went on longer.

 

6 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I don't quite understand why it's so unbelievable that Jensen did want to play demon!Dean for a longer time.  He's got the rest of his career to consider here.  He's going to welcome a chance to stretch his legs.

I never said it was unbelievable.  But if he wants to stretch his legs, he needs to leave Supernatural, IMO.

[DittyDotDot]

21 minutes ago, Demented Daisy said:

If you could find a video where he talks about the storyline and how he felt about it (Dean being a demon, not about it ending or wanting Sam and Dean to be separated longer), I'd appreciate it.

I'm not sure it was for story reasons that Jensen wanted it to continue. I got the impression Jensen just was just having fun with it.

However, as I've said many times before, IMO, storylines shouldn't be actor-based, but character-based. If they'd had an actual reason for making Dean a demon and it served story, I'd have been more-than-thrilled for Jensen. As it was, I think Jensen dodged a bullet by TPTB wrapping it up quickly. This way they left everyone wanting more--ETA, or a good chunk of the audience, anyway--instead of dragging it out until we were all begging them to end it...remember Soulless Sam?

Edited October 27, 2016 by DittyDotDot

[Demented Daisy]

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

When I think something is amiss, I try to do my own research and bring my rebuttal "evidence" to the discussion rather than compel someone else to prove what I disagree with.

If I were to say, "Jensen hated the Demon Dean storyline!" then I would have to provide the evidence.

Others asserted that Jensen was disappointed it ended, therefore, the onus is on them to provide evidence that he said so.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

But if he wants to stretch his legs, he needs to leave Supernatural, IMO.

That I actually agree with. It`s quite clear he won`t get any opportunities to play something different on this show. Not that it would be impossible, I mean, Dean possessed by an actual entity would be a new character and a new challenge and everyone and their dog gets to do it but for some reason not Dean/Jensen. Even Dark Angel pulled this off better for him in two Seasons than SPN in 12. 

But I have to be honest and say that at this point, the career suicide has happened. Noone lives 12+ years and one single tiny TV show and lives to tell the tale. Actors who have been on long-running shows and then went on to bigger and better things have all left much sooner than that. 

[ahrtee]

8 minutes ago, Demented Daisy said:

If I were to say, "Jensen hated the Demon Dean storyline!" then I would have to provide the evidence.

Others asserted that Jensen was disappointed it ended, therefore, the onus is on them to provide evidence that he said so.

In general I agree because I love evidence, too (one reason why I tend to quote things instead of paraphrasing), but usually it's only when I'm trying to prove or disprove something.  This just didn't seem that big a deal to me.  No offense meant.  But when there were *so many* of the exact same comments (especially when some came from reputable sources, not just vague memories quoted by some random fan) and I'm not trying to make a particular point, I tend to believe them.  Again, just me.  

[Demented Daisy]

Just now, ahrtee said:

Again, just me.

And again, I wanted to see it.

Again, why is that a problem?

[Diane]

11 minutes ago, Demented Daisy said:

If I were to say, "Jensen hated the Demon Dean storyline!" then I would have to provide the evidence.

Others asserted that Jensen was disappointed it ended, therefore, the onus is on them to provide evidence that he said so.

I am still looking, I did find where he talks about wanting Dean and the purgatory story to last longer.  They also talk a little about DemonDean. Jared talks about wishing to have seen more DemonDean. Jared so far seems more passionate about it.  I am still looking.  It's at the beginning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9IHmIv4TRo&index=4&list=PLQVHXBjbQ6pNSQx3y6-uLFUp-NBSPypj4

Edited October 27, 2016 by Diane

[ahrtee]

2 minutes ago, Demented Daisy said:

And again, I wanted to see it.

Again, why is that a problem?

And once again, why do *you* think it's a problem?  Any number of people (including me) said it wasn't.  I said I was just curious.  Why is *that* a problem?

[Demented Daisy]

3 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

And once again, why do *you* think it's a problem?  Any number of people (including me) said it wasn't.  I said I was just curious.  Why is *that* a problem?

Think what's a problem?

[DittyDotDot]

2 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

But when there were *so many* of the exact same comments (especially when some came from reputable sources, not just vague memories quoted by some random fan) and I'm not trying to make a particular point, I tend to believe them.

Just because someone says they have a reputable source, doesn't mean it actually is. And, it makes no difference to me the number of people who say it's true if none of them have the proof to back it up. For me, its all gossip and rumor until someone can provide the proof to back it up.

[catrox14]

RE: Jensen should leave SPN if he wants to stretch his legs.

Given that Jared and Misha have both been afforded the opportunity to stretch their legs within SPN by playing alternate roles or even alternate versions of themselves, it's strange to me to not want Jensen to be afforded that as well.  He did get that with The End -(which was awesome IMO) And for all the bitching he does about how he never wants to be made to do that again, I don't think he means not being able to do something different. I think he meant more like having to play against himself in the same scenes because it kind of messed with his head.  I'd rather Jensen be able to stretch within SPN than lose Dean Winchester as played by Jensen Ackles altogether. But different strokes for different folks.

[Demented Daisy]

Just now, catrox14 said:

Given that Jared and Misha have both been afforded the opportunity to stretch their legs within SPN by playing alternate roles or even alternate versions of themselves

I wouldn't call that "stretching their legs".  That's them playing the same character differently, IMO.  I imagine they could do that in their sleep.  (Just like I think Jensen could have played Demon Dean in his sleep.)

Stretching their legs, IMO, would be if they played a character that has zero in common with the character they've been playing for the last 11 years.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

I don`t just claim to like the character, I do. Still reserve the right to decide which storylines I think are interesting and worthwhile and which ones are boring ass shit. And I happen to like BDH moments, those make for compelling stories to me. Don`t think that needs to be justified.   

For the record, I don't think wanting your favorite character to have a few BDH moments needs to be justified either and I neither said nor implied that it does. But having one or more BDM moments does NOT equal suffering horribly. I think it's quite different to want Dean to have more action oriented plots lines versus wanting the character to be put through excruciating physical or mental pain.

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

However, story-wise - and I`m counting supernatural plots centered around a character here - Sam had more than Dean. I would question any statistics that denied that. Sam played "other" multiple times for story-arcs, Dean didn`t really get that. And please, one-offs don`t count. I could maybe count the measly three Demon!Dean eps but he didn`t get angel possession or soulessness or actual onscreen powers spanning multiple episodes.

I will not justify in finding those things important but it is fact that Sam has gotten them and Dean has not. It`s a two-character show, the writers really couldn`t distribute them more evenly? Really? Good thing they aren`t writing Game of Thrones, no idea what that show would look like if only one character at all times could have a plotline is.

Again, even though the show is named Supernatural, it's mainly about two HUMAN brothers fighting Supernatural beings.  I don't understand the disconnect there.  And why don't one-offs count?  Bet you count them for (or against) Sam.  Why only 'maybe' count the three DemonDean eps?  That's exactly what you're complaining about NOT having, but you don't really want to count them?  I don't think that could be more contradictory.  

Dean also was not the brother "tainted" with demon blood as a baby.  Dean wasn't the Freak.  He wasn't the Monster; the Abomination (as an Angel of the Lord called Sam, no less.)  Dean was (and still is) The Righteous Man.  And I don't think that's a bad thing.  Obviously, ymv.  

Edited October 27, 2016 by RulerofallIsurvey
emphasis and grammar

[catrox14]

6 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Just because someone says they have a reputable source, doesn't mean it actually is. And, it makes no difference to me the number of people who say it's true if none of them have the proof to back it up. For me, its all gossip and rumor until someone can provide the proof to back it up.

I guess this is the difference for me is that I presume that folks who post here in our little corner of the world, about a TV show and it's actors, do so without a hidden agenda and that most of it is not based on gossip or rumor.

[catrox14]

12 minutes ago, Demented Daisy said:

wouldn't call that "stretching their legs".  That's them playing the same character differently, IMO.  I imagine they could do that in their sleep.  (Just like I think Jensen could have played Demon Dean in his sleep.)

Stretching their legs, IMO, would be if they played a character that has zero in common with the character they've been playing for the last 11 years.

As to performances, that's a matter of interpretation and opinion.

Personally, I thought Jared played meg!Sam. soulless!Sam  and Samifer as distinct characters to me. I thought Misha's Lucifer brought Mark Pellegrino's touches enough to be clear it was Lucifer but with his own little spin.

To me demon!Dean was quite different than regular!Dean. He did not have the kindness and good heart of Dean.  It was upsetting but awesome to see Jensen be able to make Dean be Dean but not really Dean.  I love that shit and will eat it up with a spoon.

I don't have the con comments at the ready to post here but Jared has remarked that he did like being able to stretch his acting muscles and that he was excited for Jensen to be able to do the same thing.  I'll take an actor's word on that. I'll try to find those comments and bring them over later. 

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Stretching their legs, IMO, would be if they played a character that has zero in common with the character they've been playing for the last 11 years.

I think at the very least Gadreel for Sam and Lucifer for Misha do count. Those are the same character played differently, those were actually different characters.

Quote

But having one or more BDM moments does NOT equal suffering horribly. I think it's quite a different to want Dean to have more action oriented plots lines versus wanting the character to be put through excruciating physical or mental pain.

I don`t have to have a torture plot of some kind but the writers have shown their repertoire is quite limited. And possession/angel vesseling is at least something they are prone to do. When I say I want a great plot for Dean, I`m trying to come up with something that is even realistically available in this small fishing pond.

That said, I don`t think being possessed by Michael - and we`re truly only talking one episode here - could have been a good plot. Maybe with better writers, it could have been a great plot but I truly don`t see it as the most horrific thing that could befall the character. That would entirely depend on how it plays out for him in the end. If he gets a win in that scenario, I fully believe it would lead to good things for the character.  

Quote

Again, even though the show is named Supernatural, it's mainly about two HUMAN brothers fighting Supernatural beings.  I don't understand the disconnect there.  And why don't one-offs count?  Bet you count them for (or against) Sam.  Why only 'maybe' count the three DemonDean eps?  That's exactly what you're complaining about NOT having, but you don't really want to count them?  I don't think that could be more contradictory.  

Sam was supernaturally special right away. You could tell from the Pilot and he was it for years so it was never two human brothers, it was a special one and, as Edlund once called it, the "chauffeur of destiny".

And no, I do not count the one-offs for Sam either. I`m talking storylines as in a couple of eps, half a Season at least to make an impact. Characters getting a little supernatural stuff in one-offs, no matter the character, is beside the point for me. That gets mostly played as goofy comic relief anyhow and boy, do I find this kind of humour unappealing.

I said I maybe count the Demon!Dean eps because he was somewhat of a different character but he wasn`t radically not-Dean. You may have conflated two points there. I DO count the MOC and Demon!Dean as an ongoing supernatural Dean-storyline. But Jensen getting to play a completely different character in multiple episodes like Gadreel and Lustiel? Nope, that didn`t really happen, not even with Demon!Dean. I can want both for Dean, right? Sam as a character and Jared has gotten both, ongoing storylines AND other characters. 

Quote

Dean also was not the brother "tainted" with demon blood as a baby.  Dean wasn't the Freak.  He wasn't the Monster; the Abomination (as an Angel of the Lord called Sam, no less.)  Dean was (and still is) The Righteous Man.  

The righteous man, as anything that happened in Dean`s supposed storyline in Season 4 and 5 was apparently just a red herring. They also belittled it with John apparently not breaking in hell and he was a candidate for righteous man, too. Not very Chosen-One-ish after all.

Also what you count for Sam as curses may have been curses for the character IN the story but narratively, they are an embarassment of riches. Any character that gets written all that can consider themselves lucky because it means there is story written for and around them. The stories only exist in the first place because bad things happen to that one particular character. 

All the superhero shows on the CW follow that template, the vampire shows, the 100, Grimm, Haven. And this is only counting genre shows here. I can feel bad for the character on some level while still going "hell yeah, that is a doozy of a storyline they are setting up here".   

Quote

I don't have the con comments at the ready to post here but Jared has remarked that he did like being able to stretch his acting muscles 

He did call the Gadreel story "a wet dream of a storyline" so obviously he liked it.   

Edited October 27, 2016 by Aeryn13

[AwesomO4000]

Late to the party, because this site has been giving me all sorts of posting problems lately, and so i had to wait. I promise I'll dive into teh other stuff later, but back since I wrote this, I'm posting it. Please feel free to skip if you like...

7 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

If Dean was so important than why was an avatar of Dean needed when Dean was right there?  Why was a toy solider we had never seen of or heard before shown to have more influence over Sam than Dean's physical presence promising to never leave Sam.  

For me it was because it was Lucifer seeing the toy soldier, not Sam, and Lucifer realizing the strength of the bond. I saw the toy soldier as the past - and all of the memories were of Sam and Dean, rather than Sam doing heroic things - and Dean was still there in the present, despite everything that had happened. It was the two together - Dean there now and the past history - that got to Lucifer and rallied Sam. But even if it just was Sam and not Lucifer  (Not what I think, since Lucifer was in control at the time) who was affected, then in my opinion, Sam would also have needed both. To me, seeing the soldier and having a bunch of memories of Dean and him together would be somewhat depressing and discouraging for Sam if Dean also wasn't there with him in the present, because then Sam would feel that Dean truly had abandoned him this time. It would've been similar to the false phone call he got from Zachariah. For me, I'm not sure how just seeing a toy soldier and remembering a bunch of memories of him and Dean would be enough to rally Sam if Dean had now decided Sam was no longer worth it and had given up on him. That doesn't sound very uplifting to me, more of what Sam had lost than anything else. But that's just my opinion only on that.

2 hours ago, ahrtee said:

I If we were talking pure logic,  wouldn’t it make more sense to think that Dean could control (or reason with) the “good” angel (at least enough to hold off the Apocalypse) rather than thinking that Sam could beat the devil?

I agree with @RulerofallIsurvey on this one that Michael was pretty stubborn. Dean already tried reasoning with him in a way in "The Song Remains the Same." If Dean had been able to get his warning across to his mother, Azazel might not have been able to get Sam. Sam might not even have been born, and voila, apocalypse avoided. But nope, Michael, dick that he is, made sure - over Dean's objections - that Mary and John's memories were wiped so that things would happen exactly as they did - including Dean going to hell - so that he could have his prize fight. And he made sure to gloat about the fact that he was doing that to Dean's face with the "oh, but it's what your mother always wanted, isn't it" (I wanted to punch him in his smug borrowed face.)

Lucifer - the brother Michael claimed to Dean to have loved and raised - also tried reasoning with Michael when he suggested that they just "walk off the chess board" and Michael told him "no."

Quote

And even if he couldn’t…Michael/Dean fighting Lucifer/Nick would be a lot surer/easier win than if both angels were in equally strong vessels.  But that wouldn’t give the brother-against-brother theme they were going for.

But even in that scenario, the "best case scenario" - if half the people weren't killed when Lucifer was killed - would be the angels taking over earth. That was their plan and why they raised Lucifer to kill him in the first place. Humanity - which to me is one of the things the show is about - would have ceased to exist according to the prophecy. The only way to avoid that - the angels taking over - except for God himself coming to prevent it, would've been to recage Lucifer alive. And Michael was having none of that.

I think that it is sometimes forgotten that even though Sam ultimately raised Lucifer, it was the angels who set this up. They were the ones who wanted Lucifer out, when everything would've been status quo if they just left Lucifer where he was. And the reason they wanted Lucifer out, was so that they could kill Lucifer and be able to take over earth. And that was Michael's goal - which he insisted was doing what "Dad" (God) wanted.

I guess Dean could've said "yes" and tried to reason with Michael - though Michael didn't seem as chatty and needing of approval as Lucifer did - but if Dean made Michael jump in the cage, Lucifer would still be around, so they'd both have to go. Or Dean would have had to convince Michael to throw Lucifer back in... which considering all of the trouble Michael went through to get him out so he could kill him - to me - would be a difficult sell.

For me, Sam working against Lucifer's need for approval seemed the one that was more apt to work, but that's just my opinion I realize.

 

My bitterness is more at the *way* they sidelined Dean:  not at being replaced, but the fact that everyone *blamed* him for wanting to say yes, while they supported and praised Sam.  (Granted, they had a plan to recage Lucifer, but the fact is still that they trusted Sam to overcome the devil but told Dean that saying yes was the worst possible thing he could do.) 

And for me that is what made the difference. Saying yes to Michael meant at that time that maybe half the planet would go, not to mention what would happen afterwards, and the warning sign was that Dean was okay with that. Because Sam recognized that for what it was. Yes, Dean was convincing himself he was doing it for the right reasons - kind of like Sam in season 4 actually - but Sam recognized that usually Dean is not one to sacrifice a few to save the many. He'd rejected that outright many times - "Jus In Bello" being the best example. And just in "Sam, Interrupted" Dean talked about having to "save everybody." So for me this was less about "blaming" him and more about them realizing that this wasn't Dean acting normally. Except for Castiel, but I have the unpopular opinion of believing that Castiel is often given undue credit for loyalty when it comes to Dean. They are great friends, but Castiel is rather apt to feel slighted somewhat easily.

[rue721]

3 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

I'm not sure it was for story reasons that Jensen wanted it to continue. I got the impression Jensen just was just having fun with it.

Yeah, I think he just enjoyed figuring out that role. And imo he clearly did put a good deal of thought into it, because his choices w/r/t playing Demon!Dean were interesting. He might also have been flattered that TPTB basically gave him free reign over his interpretation of Demon!Dean (sorry, don't have quotes/"evidence" right on me, but I do remember something about him being given a pretty long leash). So I think he got into it, started hitting his stride...and was disappointed when it ended so fast.

It must have felt ESPECIALLY fast to him, because he filmed the third episode in that three-episode arc first, right?

2 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Personally, I thought Jared played meg!Sam. soulless!Sam  and Samifer as distinct characters to me. I thought Misha's Lucifer brought Mark Pellegrino's touches enough to be clear it was Lucifer but with his own little spin. 

That's an interesting point. I think that Jared has *definitely* improved as an actor over the course of the show. Imo since S10, he's been in a whole different league than he was before. He's proof imo that an actor can grow within the same role, over the long term.

Has Jensen grown as an actor, though? Honestly, I'm not sure.

Imo Jensen also has the issue that he's *extremely* well cast. On the one hand, he's great as Dean and he really *owns* that part, but on the other hand, his acting skill in playing Dean might not fully translate to other roles. I think the same thing is true of Michael Rosenbaum as Lex Luthor in Smallville. I absolutely loved him as Lex, he was perfectly cast and just perfectly embodied the character imo...but I haven't liked him nearly as much in anything else. Not saying he's bad at all, just that he caught lightening in a bottle playing Lex, and that that magic hasn't happened again. Which is fine imo -- most actors/shows don't catch lightening in a bottle at all, so I was just happy to see it in Smallville and I'm happy to see it again with Jensen/Dean in Supernatural.

[SueB]

**whoa.... **

runs back out of thread...

[Diane]

19 minutes ago, SueB said:

**whoa.... **

runs back out of thread...

Dang it, I would really like to know your opinion. But I totally understand!

[catrox14]

38 minutes ago, rue721 said:

Imo Jensen also has the issue that he's *extremely* well cast. On the one hand, he's great as Dean and he really *owns* that part, but on the other hand, his acting skill in playing Dean might not fully translate to other roles.

 

I'd think the show got lucky with casting him rather than him being lucky.  IMO if Dean had remained the character Kripke originally created, he wouldn't have lasted.  I see that with his other Han Solo type characters in Revolution and Timeless. It's what Dean would have been in another actor's hands IMO.

 Jensen is why Dean is so multilayered.  I think he keeps track of all the major issues that have impacted Dean's life and he keeps those in the character and plays those  moments when he can because those things are not really written the script.  Like no acknowledgment by any other character in s11 that Dean was going back to Hell, so Dean hesitates. That's Jensen remembering these things about Dean. Like his reaction to Mary saying John was a great father. He said nothing but his faced showed..."Well, yeah...not so much".  

IMO, Demon!Dean was completely different in his attitude, his outlook, his brutality.  Jensen couldn't play another character because he wasn't possessed so he had to make it Dean but different and I think he succeeded spectacularly.  Jensen removed everything that made Dean who he is. He took out the heart, the caring for humanity, kindness to strangers, sense of duty and responsibility.  For me Future!Dean was very much Dean but harder harsher but he still tried to make things right, but IMO  Demon!Dean had none of that. 

But that's just me. I think everything Jensen has done with Dean would easily translate to another character if that was needed.  IMO Jason Teague was nothing like Dean.  Alec was sort of like Dean but really not all. He carried himself differently, he was just different.  

ETA: Shapeshifter!Dean was totally not Dean at all.  He was only Dean on the surface with Dean's memories. But he was not Dean. YMMV

Edited October 27, 2016 by catrox14

[RulerofallIsurvey]

4 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

I don`t have to have a torture plot of some kind but the writers have shown their repertoire is quite limited. And possession/angel vesseling is at least something they are prone to do. When I say I want a great plot for Dean, I`m trying to come up with something that is even realistically available in this small fishing pond.

Glad to hear that about the torture plot, but please don't blame your 'wishes' on the writers limitations. Where wishes are concerned, the sky's the limit! It's Supernatural, after all. What isn't realistically available as a plot? Just because someone hasn't thought of it already, doesn't mean that someone won't. Why not you? 

4 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

That said, I don`t think being possessed by Michael - and we`re truly only talking one episode here - could have been a good plot. Maybe with better writers, it could have been a great plot but I truly don`t see it as the most horrific thing that could befall the character. 

Back in S5, I think it would have been the most horrific thing for Dean.  Now (since Michael is apparently a waste) maybe not.  But then again, maybe Mikey would want revenge of some sort, so maybe yes after all?  Even if 'not the most horrific thing' - even still Dean wouldn't want it.  Wouldn't welcome it.  Would LOATHE it.  So I still don't understand why you would want to subject the Character (not the actor) to such a thing. 

4 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Also what you count for Sam as curses may have been curses for the character IN the story but narratively, they are an embarassment of riches. Any character that gets written all that can consider themselves lucky because it means there is story written for and around them. The stories only exist in the first place because bad things happen to that one particular character. 

Ah, now who's conflating two different ideas?  If we are talking about the Character (Which I thought we were) then how would the Character even know that it was written at all? LOL!  Sure, the ACTOR could consider themselves lucky to be playing a Character written with all that angst built in...but the Character would never consider themselves lucky to have such curses.  And all the others around them would not consider that Character lucky either.  

Besides, the story of Supernatural does not exist only because of what happened to Sam.  Mary started it with her deal to save John, remember?  And John could have brushed it off and gotten on with his life and raised his sons as normally as possible after a tragedy such as losing his young wife.  But he didn't.  Sam was a victim of his parent's choices as much as Dean was.  And Sam was only half the equation in the first 5 seasons (and throughout the series).  Without Dean as Michael's "true vessel" - whether or not he ever actually hosted said angel, the Potential was there - the story would not have played out.  (No Potential, No reason to raise Lucifer, No story.)  

4 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

All the superhero shows on the CW follow that template, the vampire shows, the 100, Grimm, Haven.

Reaalllly don't care what other shows do at all...  I don't even watch any of them.  So that argument means absolutely nothing to me.   I'm here to talk about This Show.  And what it does.

Edited October 28, 2016 by RulerofallIsurvey
Wow! Try a spell check, Ruler! Lol.

[catrox14]

57 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Dean.  Now (since Michael is apparently a waste) maybe not.  But then again, maybe Mikey would want revenge of some sort, so maybe yes after all?  Even if 'not the most horrific thing' - even still Dean wouldn't want it.  Wouldn't welcome it.  Would LOATHE it.  So I still don't understand why you would want to subject the Character (not the actor) to such a thing.

I think it's fair to say Dean loathed the idea of being a soul bomb and dying to save the literal universe but he accepted that reality and was ready to make that sacrifice.  I guess I don't really understand your argument here.  I'm probably misreading this but it almost seems like you think Dean would put his loathing over sacrifice. Or have I missed something here? 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

24 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I think it's fair to say Dean loathed the idea of being a soul bomb and dying to save the literal universe but he accepted that reality and was ready to make that sacrifice.  I guess I don't really understand your argument here.  I'm probably misreading this but it almost seems like you think Dean would put his loathing over sacrifice. Or have I missed something here? 

My original comment was that I don't understand why someone who claims to love a character (in this case, Dean) so much would want to subject that same character to something that character would find abhorrent (being Michael's vessel).  That is not to say that the character would not do what is necessary/heroic.   I have no doubt that Dean would do what was necessary to save the literal universe (as you so aptly already described how he did.)  

[catrox14]

4 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

My original comment was that I don't understand why someone who claims to love a character (in this case, Dean) so much would want to subject that same character to something that character would find abhorrent (being Michael's vessel).  That is not to say that the character would not do what is necessary/heroic.   I have no doubt that Dean would do what was necessary to save the literal universe (as you so aptly already described how he did.)  

I understood what you were answering. I'm still not quite following how having a plot where Dean as a character has to face something he loathes to make a sacrifice would be a reason to not have the character do that. Not arguing just not understanding it. It seems to really limit a character to a bit of a small box. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

2 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I understood what you were answering. I'm still not quite following how having a plot where Dean as a character has to face something he loathes to make a sacrifice would be a reason to not have the character do that. Not arguing just not understanding it. It seems to really limit a character to a bit of a small box. 

I didn't say it was necessarily a reason not to have a character do something.  I just don't understand why a fan of the character would WANT them to have to do something they loathe.  That's my disconnect.  It's not a reason for the writers not to have the character do it as long as the story makes sense - if that's the story the author wants to tell.  (If it's not the story the writers want to tell but it's the story a fan wants: tough luck. - and I've been on the wrong end of that before too and had to accept it.)  I just don't understand why a person would want a character they love to suffer.  Would one want a real person they love to suffer?  (I would hope not.) It's the same for me for a character.  I don't know how to be any clearer than that.  

I think there are a myriad of different ways to have a character-centric plot (which is basically what was being bemoaned as missing for Dean) without necessarily having him subjected to possible torture or otherwise suffering  horribly.  I don't think that's limiting for a character at all.  It's only limiting as far as one's imagination.  ;)  Once again, I don't think a character having a BDH moment equals doing something they loathe and/or having to suffer horribly.

I think that's pretty straight forward.  People can disagree of course.  This IS the unpopular opinion thread after all.  :)