Supernatural Bitterness & Unpopular Opinions: You All Suck

[catrox14]

Does this mean that viewers who love Sam but also liked his demon blood/Lucifer vessel storyline even though it was really tough on Sam, don't actually like Sam? I dunno, it seems like you're saying "you can't  really  love/care about a fictional character if you want them to have a possibly difficult SL".  If you are, then I fundamentally disagree with that viewpoint.  But like you said, no one need concur. 

Edited October 28, 2016 by catrox14

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Ah, now who's conflating two different ideas?  If we are talking about the Character (Which I thought we were)

I wasn`t. I`ve said before that I don`t look at things from this perspective. I`m not a character in the story, I watch that story from the outside. Of course the characters think when bad things happen to them it`s actually bad. Of course they hate it and they suffer for it. Of course other characters who love them don`t want it for them.

But if that was my yardstick as a viewer, I would never enjoy a single piece of fiction, no book, no movie, no TV show. Every character ever always suffers at some point during the storylines. Because all storylines contain angst and darkness. Even during the pure emo drivel the characters suffer. 

Every plotline ever done on Supernatural (and any other show) had the character(s) suffering at one point. It is virtually impossible to not have that happen. The characters want to be happy and not have a single bad thing happen to them. If they got their wish, there would be no need for a story about them. And if there were, these stories would be horrifically boring for readers and viewers.

So nope, I do not care that a plotline I wish for makes a character suffer. The plotlines I hate or indifferent about do that too. Every plotline will do that. That doesn`t mean I hate the character. I want them to succeed and triumph in the end but because they are fictional characters their suffering is a foregone conclusion. 

Case in point, did Dean NOT loathe it when he saw Sam fall into a plothole in 5.22? Did he not suffer? Why was that apparently cute and wonderful despite that but somehow vesseling Michael would be a horrible crime for that reason? Do all Sam-fans who enjoyed any or all of the many Sam-arcs actually dislike Sam? Because every single one of them was one where the character suffered and/or that the character didn`t wish for and loathed happening. Either it`s always wrong or never wrong. I don`t buy the pick-and-choose-approach. 

My measuring stick for enjoyment is something else. I care for the character being more directly involved and not be a sidekick basically shining the boots of another character who gets to be hero. And it can`t be always Dean-arcs that are somehow "wrong" for narrative reason, like: oh, this should fall to Sam for xy reason and this should really go more to Cas more xy reasons and oh, this Dean-story should not be happening for xy reasons. That is mightily convenient, writers. THEY control the story after all. At least when someone comes out and says they aren`t interested in Dean doing anything but revolving around Sam and emo-ing, I get that. I don`t feel that way but there are plenty of characters in shows I don`t really have enough interest in beyond what they can do for my favourite. It shouldn`t be the writers, though, because that kind of bias is okay for viewers, not the people who get paid for a job.

Quote

 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. 

It`s so completely different for me, they are basically on different planets. I don`t want someone I love to get beat up or kill or become a vampire or get tortured or any of that but it is the lifebread of fictional characters for me. 

When Sam was tortured in the Season Opener, they allowed him to be an ultra-badass. Scenes like that can be potentially super-cool, that doesn`t mean I want to do live-action enactments. Are all people who enjoy Flowers in the attic secretely waiting to commit incest or do they just like the exploration of a forbidden topic in a book like that? That is how it is for me.

 

Quote

 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 loved Michael as Lex too and I thought he just didn`t get any noticeable roles afterwards but IMO the above is saying him (and Jensen) lacks range. If an actor can only do one character type well and can`t impress in anything else, it means they lack range.

Eliza Dushku would be an example for me. Splendid as Faith, both badass and more vulnerable moments but in a show like Dollhouse where range was important, not that impressive.

Don`t believe that is true for Jensen. Nor actually Michael Rosenbaum. I thought Ben in Dark Angel was a completely different type than Dean and Alec and that performance did impress me. Other things he did, those weren`t really projects where he was given a chance to shine. I would have to see Jensen in a decent project with a different character type at the very least before I would make any judgments on his ability to transform.

As for Jared, I really liked Meg!Sam, I believe he is good at mimicry of other actors. Soulless!Sam was too much Smug!Sam for me and I really hated the Gadreel!Sam portrayal. And to be fair to him, all his other projects that I have seen have also not provided him with the material where I would feel comfortable in saying "well, that was a great opportunity and you blew it".     

Edited October 28, 2016 by Aeryn13

[RulerofallIsurvey]

58 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

I wasn`t. I`ve said before that I don`t look at things from this perspective.

Ah.  Dean is the character and several times you mentioned Dean, so forgive my mistake.  I also must have missed where you said you don't look at it from that perspective.  As I said, I can't remember every single line on this forum I've ever read.  

9 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Does this mean that viewers who love Sam but also liked his demon blood/Lucifer vessel storyline even though it was really tough on Sam, don't actually like Sam? I dunno, it seems like you're saying "you can't  really  love/care about a fictional character if you want them to have a possibly difficult SL". 

No, that is not what I'm saying.  You seem to be twisting my words to support your view.  And you are taking what I said way out of context.  The discussion (about which I originally made the comment) was about how some thought Dean got short-changed by never becoming Michael's vessel and having to jump in the cage and be tortured in Hell.  That's all.

See also: "Possibly Difficult" need not equal horrible suffering.  

And for the record (if I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will come out and correct me - and that's fine!) I don't recall reading anywhere from big Sam fans how much they loved the demon blood/Lucifer story line and Boy Oh Boy! They wish he could go through that again!   ::snort::

I think we just have different definitions of 'enjoying a story line'.  Same with @Aeryn13.  

58 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

My measuring stick for enjoyment is something else. I care for the character being more directly involved and not be a sidekick basically shining the boots of another character who gets to be hero. And it can`t be always Dean-arcs that are somehow "wrong" for narrative reason, like: oh, this should fall to Sam for xy reason and this should really go more to Cas more xy reasons and oh, this Dean-story should not be happening for xy reasons. That is mightily convenient, writers. THEY control the story after all. At least when someone comes out and says they aren`t interested in Dean doing anything but revolving around Sam and emo-ing, I get that. I don`t feel that way but there are plenty of characters in shows I don`t really have enough interest in beyond what they can do for my favourite. It shouldn`t be the writers, though, because that kind of bias is okay for viewers, not the people who get paid for a job.

I don't understand this at all.  Of course it's the writers who control the story.  What's your problem here?  Are you saying writers shouldn't have a bias for which characters get which storyline?  That seems unrealistic.  Do you not think authors of novels are the same way?

58 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Are all people who enjoy Flowers in the attic secretely waiting to commit incest or do they just like the exploration of a forbidden topic in a book like that?

Uh, well...I didn't like Flowers in the Attic, so I think I'll pass on this one.  

Edited October 28, 2016 by RulerofallIsurvey

[Boopsahoy]

11 hours 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 abhorren

This is how I felt about the Demon Dean storyline.  They made him what he hated most in the world. (I will admit to shedding a tear when his eyes turned black) I loved Jensens acting as Demon Dean but I was happy to see Dean human again. At least with the MOC he was a human fighting supernatural influences. I want my Dean to be human.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Of course it's the writers who control the story.  What's your problem here?  Are you saying writers shouldn't have a bias for which characters get which storyline?  That seems unrealistic.  Do you not think authors of novels are the same way?

I realize that every author is gonna have some bias but if you act like a total stan for one character and either don`t care or outright dislike all the others, why bother having them on? If characters don`t interest you enough to ever even consider them for a storyline or invest time and care in the writing of one, what you get is Mary Sue fiction. I understand that from 11years olds writing their first self-insert fanfic, not from so-called professionals. And we`re not talking about a gigantic ensemble here, there is a measly two main characters, what a hardship to write stories for two people at the same time.   

Quote

Uh, well...I didn't like Flowers in the Attic, so I think I'll pass on this one.

I was so-so on it but that doesn`t mean, I considered it an advertisement for incest either way. Liking or disliking something in fiction does not necessarily translate to those same feelings in real life. 

Quote

was about how some thought Dean got short-changed by never becoming Michael's vessel and having to jump in the cage and be tortured in Hell.  

While I wouldn`t have had a problem with Dean jumping into the cage - it wasn´t gonna last and hey, it is potential for another storyline so cool - that wasn`t the only possible outcome. When I say I wanted to see Michael!Dean, that doesn`t mean I wanted a carbon copy of 5.22 and nothing else. I would have been fine with it for Dean but the episode itself was still meh to me. There could have been a much better episode that didn`t end with anyone falling into a stupid hole in the ground. It could have even be an actual joint save where Dean had an active and equal role to Sam. I do understand that it can`t just be a show where Dean is the only character onscreen, doing everything. There is a vast middle ground between that and being the sidekick.

My most favourite episode of the show ever is Lazarus Rising. Which featured both a Dean and a Sam-special plot. The screentime wasn`t perfectly even, no, but both characters had actual plotlines centered around them set-up. Sam having a possible dark arc doesn`t mean it`s a bad story. Dark arcs can be very good and interesting. And Dean`s plot set-up wasn`t all pearly-white either. Cas` first appearance was ominous enough. So, both characters got something special on their own. Why wasn`t it possible to carry that theme through in the Finale of the first 5 Seasons? Perish the thought. And it doesn`t mean they needed to do splitscreens or separate scenes, two characters can be serviced plotwise in one.        

[Boopsahoy]

10 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

 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 feel the same way! When Dean suffers I suffer.

[DittyDotDot]

For me, as a fan of Dean's, the reason I don't give a crap if Michael gets to possess Dean has nothing to do with whether it would be horrible for the character, but Michael possessing Dean would mean Dean would disappear. I prefer my Supernatural with Dean. 

[Aeryn13]

Quote

When Dean suffers I suffer.

That`s what a character`s suffering is supposed elicit in the viewer. For that  reason, they are made to suffer. But does that mean any viewer wants a character they love in a TV show with 23 episodes to spend all 23 episodes, week after week, sitting happily in a chair and eating pie? The character would enjoy it but does noone think this would be boring?

To me, THAT would be wishing for the torture of real life people, namely those in front of TV screens. 

Edited October 28, 2016 by Aeryn13

[RulerofallIsurvey]

2 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

That`s what a character`s suffering is supposed elicit in the viewer.

I'm getting conflicting ideas from your posts.  This doesn't seem to be what you said here:

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

I`ve said before that I don`t look at things from this perspective. I`m not a character in the story, I watch that story from the outside.

Where it sounded like you said it didn't bother you if a character in story got hurt, as long as it was a good plot for them.  Anyway,

5 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

For that  reason, they are made to suffer.

I disagree.  I don't think that characters are made to suffer only to elicit sympathetic reactions from the viewer/reader.  That would be pretty boring if that's all it were.  

6 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

But does that mean any viewer wants a character they love in a TV show with 23 episodes to spend all 23 episodes, week after week, sitting happily in a chair and eating pie? The character would enjoy it but does noone think this would be boring?

And once again, you are missing my point that exciting stories do not necessarily have to involve torture!  Lots of other things they could do.  Dean could try ice cream once in awhile...  (kidding.  Just kidding.)

19 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

I realize that every author is gonna have some bias but if you act like a total stan for one character and either don`t care or outright dislike all the others, why bother having them on? If characters don`t interest you enough to ever even consider them for a storyline or invest time and care in the writing of one, what you get is Mary Sue fiction. I understand that from 11years olds writing their first self-insert fanfic, not from so-called professionals. And we`re not talking about a gigantic ensemble here, there is a measly two main characters, what a hardship to write stories for two people at the same time.   

Isn't that why there are multiple writers on shows like this?  (that and the time it takes would be overwhelming for just one.)   Granted, I don't really know how it works, but I don't think that every writer in Supernatural is a total stan for Sam.  I think that's your bias showing.  Further evidenced by:

21 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

My most favourite episode of the show ever is Lazarus Rising

 Of course it was.  Because it was a Dean-heavy episode where Dean comes out (probably literally - haha) smelling like roses and Sam is the worst.  

22 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

While I wouldn`t have had a problem with Dean jumping into the cage - it wasn´t gonna last

Actually, at the end of S5, I thought viewers didn't know it wasn't going to last?  The show wasn't renewed for a 6th season until after it aired, was it?  Since that finale was supposed to be the series ending, it should have lasted.  

24 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

There could have been a much better episode that didn`t end with anyone falling into a stupid hole in the ground. It could have even be an actual joint save where Dean had an active and equal role to Sam.

I do agree that if no one had fallen in the hole it would have been a better episode for me also.  However, still not sure you've made the case that Dean didn't have as active role as Sam.

26 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

I do understand that it can`t just be a show where Dean is the only character onscreen, doing everything. There is a vast middle ground between that and being the sidekick.

Really?  Because from most of your posts, this isn't how it comes across to me.  FWIW (I realize not much) - I don't see Dean as just a sidekick.  And I disagree that the majority of writers see him that way also.  

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Where it sounded like you said it didn't bother you if a character in story got hurt, as long as it was a good plot for them.  Anyway,

I said I want interesting plotlines and that in those, characters get hurt, hence, I would never go "oh, I hope nothing ever interesting happens to my favourite character because I don`t want them to suffer". That doesn`t mean WHILE those cool storylines go on, I`m not moved by their plight. Those are not the same thing.

And to clarify, I never implied I only ever like torture. Don`t know where that comes from. Just because Dean wouldn`t have liked to be possessed means it`s a literal torture plot. I want those, I have an entire Season of Game of Thrones to watch. Possession is a time-honored genre storyline, I don`t consider it sooo abhorrent as a plot.

I don`t consider Purgatory or the Mark of Cain storyline or the connection with Amara to be "torture" either.  

Quote

but I don't think that every writer in Supernatural is a total stan for Sam

I`m pretty sure some stan for Cas and Crowley so that would be correct.

Quote

 Of course it was.  Because it was a Dean-heavy episode where Dean comes out (probably literally - haha) smelling like roses and Sam is the worst.  

So you hated it? On the other hand, 5.22 is an uber-Sam-episode so it`s not like bias only ever flows one way. 

Quote

Actually, at the end of S5, I thought viewers didn't know it wasn't going to last?  The show wasn't renewed for a 6th season until after it aired, was it?  Since that finale was supposed to be the series ending, it should have lasted.  

No, it was known that it wasn`t the Series Finale. That wasn`t a surprise renewal after the fact. Not sure if Gamble was already announced as new showrunner but Season 6 was in the bag.  

Quote

However, still not sure you've made the case that Dean didn't have as active role as Sam.

That`s okay, you didn`t make the case to me that he did, either. 

Quote

Really?  Because from most of your posts, this isn't how it comes across to me. 

Because wanting the character to have as much as Sam is wanting too much? I don`t think they were equal in the narrative, therefore I`d like a correction. Sam can get the stuff Dean "had" in return, it`s fine with me.     

Edited October 28, 2016 by Aeryn13

[ahrtee]

Ummm...I just want to point out that "hurt/comfort" is a very common (and popular) genre in fanfiction--probably equal to slash.  It includes mental and physical pain to all different degrees, some graphic, others just show-levels of angst.  The show can choose what it wants to portray, but it doesn't mean that people can't wish for other things (or create subtext.)  And, since the "comfort" part is also key, the hero-of-choice is usually the one with the "hurt" part.  To each his/her own.  

[RulerofallIsurvey]

24 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

And to clarify, I never implied I only ever like torture. Don`t know where that comes from.

Um...probably from lines like this:

25 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

I said I want interesting plotlines and that in those, characters get hurt

 

26 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

I don`t consider Purgatory or the Mark of Cain storyline or the connection with Amara to be "torture" either.  

Neither do I.  So you see - there CAN be interesting storylines where a character doesn't really suffer horribly.  That's the point I've been attempting to make over and over.  

28 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

I`m pretty sure some stan for Cas and Crowley so that would be correct.

Do you not think there is one single writer on staff that stans for Dean?  I think it would be incredibly unrealistic to believe that.

28 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

So you hated it? On the other hand, 5.22 is an uber-Sam-episode so it`s not like bias only ever flows one way. 

Didn't say that.  Actually, I liked the episode very much.  Dean coming up out of the ground was all kinds of awesome!  Then again, I happen to like most Supernatural episodes, so I'm probably not the best one to ask about such things.  And I hated - I HATED - that Sam jumped/fell/however you want to put it - in the cage with Lucifer in Swan Song.  I did not consider that a good story for the character, or even a very good redemption like some.  I think it could have been handled much better, even if I don't have a specific idea of how that would have been.

Even though I watched the early seasons on Netflix, I was unspoiled, so had no idea at the time I watched Swan Song what was going to happen after - or even if Sam would get out of Hell.  Maybe that sounds pretty dense to you - and maybe it was - but nevertheless it was a shock for me when it showed him out.  

Yes, the writer's bias does flow both (and even cross) ways.    But that didn't seem to be your supposition in earlier posts.

38 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

That`s okay, you didn`t make the case to me that he did, either. 

Oh, that's good!  Because I was never trying to!  Lol.

38 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Because wanting the character to have as much as Sam is wanting too much? I don`t think they were equal in the narrative, therefore I`d like a correction. Sam can get the stuff Dean "had" in return, it`s fine with me.   

Wanting the character to have their own exciting storyline is one thing.  When it seems like you want that character to have *every* exciting storyline (regardless of the overall story the writers are trying to tell) in lieu of the other lead character, it becomes a problem for me.  (I'd feel the same if it was a hardcore Sam fan advocating more, more, MORE!)  We obviously have different opinions on what "as much as Sam" and being equal in the narrative entails, especially when the statistics do not back you up for Dean having a 'lesser' part of the show.  (See also where I responded to Catrox14: "I think we just have different definitions of 'enjoying a story line'.")  They are never going to be "equal".  They are different characters.  (Viva la différence!)   They SHOULD have different storylines and character arcs.  It doesn't seem to me that you agree with that.   So round and round we go.   

I seem to be on auto-repeat with my last few posts.  I'm going to agree to disagree with you and move on.  :)

[Aeryn13]

Quote

So you see - there CAN be interesting storylines where a character doesn't really suffer horribly.  That's the point I've been attempting to make over and over.  

I think we have had a miscommunication then. I don`t consider these torture plots but I do think the character really suffered in them. So when I say characters being "hurt" in every plotline, I encompass every hurt in that. That`s why I make no distinction between them in terms of hurt. Storylines like that, if done a lot better, would be perfectly fine with me. See, I think we are not that far apart after all.

Quote

Do you not think there is one single writer on staff that stans for Dean?  

In the early Seasons of the show, yes, but I think they all left. And no showrunner has IMO. Kripke was the most Jensen-positive.

Quote

 I'm going to agree to disagree with you and move on.  :)

Okay. :)

[catrox14]

22 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I cannot for the life of me understand why any 'hard core Dean fan' would want Dean to become Michael's vessel.  I mean, for the actor it makes sense, (because you want to see what the actor would do it) but not for the character.  Dean would feel immeasurably violated.  He would hate it.  I don't want that for him.  I don't have the problems with many of the episodes that some on here obviously have, but seems to me if one really wanted a big, huge Dean win (cause he's never had one before /snark) and have him play a significant role in putting Lucifer back in the cage in S12*, then - for the CHARACTER - wouldn't it be better if Dean did it without having to become Michael's meatsuit?  Oh, and then throw in a 'Dean also gets Michael out of the cage' and Boom!  Two BDH moments for Dean in one.  And then, Michael would have to be grateful to Dean (oh, wouldn't that just burn?) for saving him and maybe even acknowledge that Dean was right to turn him down back in the day.  

*tbh - Sam should have more of role of helping to put Lucifer back in the cage than Dean, since it was pretty much Sam's fault that he got out.  (Even though it's really Cas' fault since he said yes.  But still, more Sam's fault than Dean's.)  Now, before you 'hardcore Dean fans' stomp all over me for that, think for a moment if the situation were reversed and Sam got to fix something that was pretty much Dean's mistake and how you'd be up in arms about that!

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!

 

Quote

No, that is not what I'm saying.  You seem to be twisting my words to support your view.  And you are taking what I said way out of context.  The discussion (about which I originally made the comment) was about how some thought Dean got short-changed by never becoming Michael's vessel and having to jump in the cage and be tortured in Hell.  That's all.

Re the bolded parts of the discussions. I should have quoted directly rather than paraphrasing. If it came across as attempting to twist your words that was not my intention. Your first comment was about how you don't see how anyone who claims to be a Dean-fan can like him being hurt, made to do something difficult that the character would not want and mentioned it again. That's why I asked about Sam's journey and how it relates to the liking of a character.

[companionenvy]

Sometimes in cases like this I think it is worth asking yourself "If these characters plotlines were completely reversed, would I still have grounds to complain about the way my favorite was being treated?" If the answer is "yes," that might suggest the initial argument wasn't entirely fair, because the writers simply can't win.

Let's imagine Dean and Sam's plots switching in a  variety of cases. I have a feeling I'd be seeing complaints like this from Dean fans:

Re: early season 8: "So while Sam gets to be uber-badass in purgatory, Dean is left to star in a Lifetime movie with the most boring love interest ever."

Re: possession plots: "Have you ever noticed it is always Dean who gets possessed? It is like the show cares about his character so little that they need to turn him into someone else to bother giving him screen time."

Re: season 11: "So let's get this straight: God himself is propping up Sam, while Dean just gets a snarky "well, you screwed up the world" from the man upstairs. And of course Dean doesn't get to save the day, even though he spent the season saying he was the one who would have to take on Amara. Instead, he just gets to help out, like Sam's Buffy and Dean's one of the Scoobies."

Re: the apocalypse plot: "Sure, Dean gets the big damn hero moment, but he's just canceling out the major screwup he made last year. Basically, every person who has died in between is on him. And even when he sacrifices himself, he's only strong enough to go through with it because precious Sam the Righteous Man has finally validated his choices."

Don't even get me started on what people would be saying about Dean as the chosen one of Satan vs. Sam as the chosen one of God.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

7 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Re the bolded parts of the discussions. I should have quoted directly rather than paraphrasing. If it came across as attempting to twist your words that was not my intention. Your first comment was about how you don't see how anyone who claims to be a Dean-fan can like him being hurt, made to do something difficult that the character would not want and mentioned it again. That's why I asked about Sam's journey and how it relates to the liking of a character.

Exactly.  Re: the bolded parts of the discussions.  Not just hurt in some generic Supernatural way: that first comment was specifically about Dean becoming Michael's vessel and how much Dean would abhor that.  The second bolded comment was as support for the first.   You still seem to be trying to take a very specific comment about a very specific situation and apply it in a general manner.   That's not how it was ever intended.  

10 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

Let's imagine Dean and Sam's plots switching in a  variety of cases.

LOL!  I wish I could like your post a million+ times.  :)

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Let's imagine Dean and Sam's plots switching in a  variety of cases. I have a feeling I'd be seeing complaints like this from Dean fans

And if Sam had Dean`s "stories" and the oh-so-coveted emo that apparently means Dean is the favoured character, said emo would be met with the utmost derision. I know that because it actually happened in Season 4. One episode where it was implied Dean was the Chosen One to stop the apocalypse "the righteous man who begins it will be the one who finished it" and the sky was falling. And everything that I aways heard about how Dean`s role was so fulfilling and rich was suddenly the worst thing ever when applied to Sam. It`s not just one fan-faction.

Personally, I can say with certainty that I wouldn`t have had grounds to complain if the characters were switched for 5.22. I wouldn`t have magically seen the yellow crayon moment (that went to the car anyway) as something worthwhile if Sam did it and Dean`s part as crap. I thought yellow crayon was a pest long before I watched Supernatural, hated it in the Buffy Finale too and thought it was a real insult to `Xander`s character. "Hey, we gave the character nothing else of note in this fight so give him a stupid speech that will inexplicably work." Yikes.

And if Dean would have had that super-big hero moment, he would have already scored his goal, it`s okay then if the next big Chosen One plot goes to the other character.   

[catrox14]

12 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Exactly.  Re: the bolded parts of the discussions.  Not just hurt in some generic Supernatural way: that first comment was specifically about Dean becoming Michael's vessel and how much Dean would abhor that.  The second bolded comment was as support for the first.   You still seem to be trying to take a very specific comment about a very specific situation and apply it in a general manner.   That's not how it was ever intended

Okay help me understand because I must be getting the wrong end of the stick.

Your argument was "Dean would loathe being the Michael vessel" and invoked no "Real Dean fan" should want that for Dean. What was the purpose of using "no Real Dean Fan" here?

[Hana Chan]

Oh boy... I generally try not to get into these Dean vs Sam debates because I've been reading them for over 10 years now and it gets rather tiresome. We go in circles and in the end everyone just feels aggrieved that their favorite isn't being treated fairly. Sam girls get their backs up and Dean girls feel slighted.

As far as the Deanmon storyline goes, I get why Jensen enjoyed it because going full on EVILZ is always a hoot for an actor. But I get why the writers had a limit to how far they could take it and now long they could let it go before they inflicted serious and permanent damage to the character (and I'm keeping in mind that this is on top of a full season of MOC Dean where he was already pushing boundaries). Sam and Dean have to stay the good guys of the show otherwise there's no show. So while letting them go dark for a bit makes for an exciting and interesting storyline, they still have to come out good guys in the end. Otherwise buh bye Supernatural. So all the dark character storylines have expiration dates where we get the trap door revealed before that kind of irredeemable damage happens.

I'm going to agree with those who've argued that Dean (the character and not Jensen the actor) would have hated being a demon (no matter how much fun he seemed to have). It was his worst fear in season three when he faced going to Hell (second only to losing Sam). He remained damaged by his experiences in Hell that put him on the path to potentially becoming a demon (had Castiel not hauled him out). This would be the complete and total corruption of everything was and held important.

So as a writer, I can find putting him in that situation to be interesting (much in the way that Soulless Sam's storyline was interesting because it was such an exaggeration of his worst traits). But as a writer, they couldn't let Dean go too far on that path because the kind of things that demons do for LOLs would have permanently tainted Dean. By keeping him to sleeping around, drinking and being a general asshole they were able to show that this wasn't our Dean, and still have enough room to pull him back. If Dean had done what real demons do, like kill innocents because they're bored at the moment, how would the writers ever fix that? That was the line that neither of the brothers ever crossed before. Even the nurse that Sam drained in season four was demon possessed (and likely dead anyway given how hard they are on their meatsuits) because the writers didn't want it to be the unforgivable act. They couldn't let Dean do anything that couldn't be forgiven.

I have more issues with the Deanmon storyline because it was clumsily done and because it had the potential to go too far too fast, they had to put the brakes on it as quickly as they did.

[catrox14]

2 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Neither do I.  So you see - there CAN be interesting storylines where a character doesn't really suffer horribly.  That's the point I've been attempting to make over and over.  

I guess that is a matter of what one considers suffering horribly. Supernatural is built on trauma, angst, guilt, suffering, sorrow, physical, mental and emotional torment with actual torture and brutality on screen and implied off screen. It's kind of what makes this engine run. Every main character and most of the supporting characters have suffered horribly, IMO.  It's part of the fabric of this show. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

10 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Okay help me understand because I must be getting the wrong end of the stick.

Your argument was "Dean would loathe being the Michael vessel" and invoked no "Real Dean fan" should want that for Dean. What was the purpose of using "no Real Dean Fan" here?

No offense, but I don't think I can.  I think we are coming at it from diametrically opposed sides.  And you're misquoting me again.  I did not invoke "no Real Dean fan" - as opposed to all those fake ones out there, I guess?  And I did not invoke "should".  (That was You.)  I simply said that I couldn't understand why a 'hardcore Dean Fan' would want their favorite character to be subjected to something they would loathe.  Contrary to how it may seem to you, I'm not telling anyone how they "should" think.  I'm just stating that I don't understand that particular way of thinking.  

[RulerofallIsurvey]

16 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I guess that is a matter of what one considers suffering horribly. Supernatural is built on trauma, angst, guilt, suffering, sorrow, physical, mental and emotional torment with actual torture and brutality on screen and implied off screen. It's kind of what makes this engine run. Every main character and most of the supporting characters have suffered horribly, IMO.  It's part of the fabric of this show. 

Yes, I agree that it matters what one considers suffering horribly.  On the one hand, I agree with your second sentence; on the other, I've seen many opinions wishing it weren't so!  And I do not agree that the angst and suffering, etc is what makes the Show run.  Not to me.  

[catrox14]

23 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Yes, I agree that it matters what one considers suffering horribly.  On the one hand, I agree with your second sentence; on the other, I've seen many opinions wishing it weren't so!  And I do not agree that the angst and suffering, etc is what makes the Show run.  Not to me.  

What I mean is that all the angst and suffering is what started the show. Mom is burned on the ceiling and Dad has to raise two little boys alone. Obviously there is far more as well, Love, redemption etc.

[catrox14]

46 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

No offense, but I don't think I can.  I think we are coming at it from diametrically opposed sides.  And you're misquoting me again.  I did not invoke "no Real Dean fan" - as opposed to all those fake ones out there, I guess?  And I did not invoke "should".  (That was You.)  I simply said that I couldn't understand why a 'hardcore Dean Fan' would want their favorite character to be subjected to something they would loathe.  Contrary to how it may seem to you, I'm not telling anyone how they "should" think.  I'm just stating that I don't understand that particular way of thinking.  

Okay thanks for clarifying. The board has been derpy, it keeps losing my replies and trying to multiquote is mess. I paraphrased and was not intentionally trying to misrepresent your comments.  But it's all clarified now so...moving on!

Edited October 28, 2016 by catrox14

[AwesomO4000]

6 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

My most favourite episode of the show ever is Lazarus Rising. Which featured both a Dean and a Sam-special plot. The screentime wasn`t perfectly even, no, but both characters had actual plotlines centered around them set-up. Sam having a possible dark arc doesn`t mean it`s a bad story. Dark arcs can be very good and interesting. And Dean`s plot set-up wasn`t all pearly-white either. Cas` first appearance was ominous enough. So, both characters got something special on their own. Why wasn`t it possible to carry that theme through in the Finale of the first 5 Seasons? Perish the thought. And it doesn`t mean they needed to do splitscreens or separate scenes, two characters can be serviced plotwise in one. 

And here is where our opinions differ the most. I disliked "Lazurus Rising" not because it set up interesting stuff for Dean or even a dark arc for Sam, per se, but because it set up a dark arc for Sam with little intent to explain it, and with the intent - which the rest of the season continued, in my opinion - to make sure that Sam would be the one who got most of the blame. Both Dean and Sam were lying - potentially - in that episode, but it was all set up so that Dean's reason for lying was sympathetic, while Sam's was not. And the entire season was set up this way, in my opinion, originating from this episode where the point of view for Sam was almost absent and couched in "mystery" except the mystery was never really explained properly - nor did it appear the writers wanted to explain it.

The only real mention of Dean's part in starting this was caged in an episode where it was also seen as sympathetic, tragic, and totally understandable and made sure to throw in Sam drinking blood like a vampire just so we would know that whatever Dean had done, what Sam was doing was so much worse... and why Sam was doing this was never really explained. Why Sam started drinking demon blood - which if you are going to do a real character arc would have been the "event horizon" and a huge step - was never shown or even discussed. I guess we are just supposed to assume that of course Sam started drinking demon blood, like that was some natural progression for his character. In contrast, when Dean made the deal, there was a huge monologue explaining exactly why Dean was doing what he was doing, so we, the viewer, knew exactly why and could sympathize.

For me that is the difference and why I disliked "Lazurus Rising." I like both brothers, but I admit to liking Sam more, so when an episode sets up story arcs where it is for me pretty apparent - especially in retrospect - that we are only getting one character getting a sympathetic point of view, I'm no longer going to like that episode. And considering, for me, season 4 ended up being a pretty grim season anyway, it's one of my least favorites. I don't care how much cool stuff or how many powers Sam had in that season... I pretty much hated it. I didn't want Sam with powers. I wanted Sam with motivation, point of view, and character development. They can tell me later on, "oh, it was about Sam wanting power over everybody, blah blah," but if I don't actually see anything that lead up to that supposed revelation, I'm left going "what? I never saw that. Where  is that coming from?" and Sam's whole dark arc is just plot driven stuff that doesn't make much sense to me.

As always, miles vary greatly.

[Hana Chan]

AwesomO4000 - I agree with your post 100%. This was a major failing of the writing for these storylines (and we got the same thing during the Soulless Sam story). Because Sam's storyline was at the heart of the mystery of the season, the writers kept a lot under wraps where he was concerned and we got very little of his POV that would have explained his motivation to the audience. Season four was especially egregious because the only real POV we got for nearly the entire first half of the season was Dean's. He saw Sam lying to him, sneaking about with Ruby and using his powers. Dean (and the audience) didn't see the Sam suffering any trauma following Dean's death. It didn't help that we had an angel telling Dean that Sam was on a "dark path" (and no one knowing that Castiel was in on the plan to manipulate the Winchesters). It wasn't until we got to "I Know What You Did Last Summer" that we saw just what lead Sam to make these choices and by them, negative feelings towards Sam's behavior was already pretty well set.

We got the same thing after Sam's return from Hell. Because the writers didn't want to reveal that Sam's soul was still in Hell, the story again got told entirely from Dean's POV and rather than the audience being asked to feel sympathy for a character that spent an unbelievable amount of time being tortured in Lucifer's cage, he again fell under suspicion. By the time we found that his soul was still in Hell, there was no room for any sympathy towards Sam's character.

Sam's POV and motivations often got short shrift and while Dean's fans lament that he gets shortchanged in the supernatural storylines, Sam definitely gets shortchanged in the POV and being the primary emotional focus. Even during the MOC and Deanmon storylines, Dean still got the primary POV focus. There's no balance.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

because the writers didn't want to reveal that Sam's soul was still in Hell, the story again got told entirely from Dean's POV 

Well, I guess I thought they had to justify Dean being onscreen somehow during the first half of that Seaon. He really had nothing to do plotwise. 

If I could have, I would have happily gift-wrapped and overnighted the "POV" and received the plot for it instead. It all depends on what one is most interested in watching. 

Like, they did multiple scenes in Season 11 about how Dean felt about this nebulous bond with Amara but I would have traded 98 % of them for scenes creating a real mythology about it. Jensen is good enough that I can infer from him what Dean feels about something, concentrate on fleshing out the plot first.  

[AwesomO4000]

On 10/28/2016 at 9:16 PM, Hana Chan said:

Because Sam's storyline was at the heart of the mystery of the season, the writers kept a lot under wraps where he was concerned and we got very little of his POV that would have explained his motivation to the audience.

I agree, though at least for season 6 we did eventually get an explanation for Sam's behavior, and it was a really good one. For me, that was a big improvement over season 4 where we never did get to know the details surrounding Sam's decision to start drinking demon blood in the first place, and I only saw vague indications of Sam's motivations to return to doing it. "I don't want to be doing this when I'm an old man." What does that even mean exactly? And how was going back to drinking demon blood supposed to help Sam in that goal? Yet that statement was supposed to be another big turning point with Sam deciding to start drinking demon blood again. (Even though we also didn't even know what it was yet.)

I also forgot the first half of season 8, too (probably because I wish I could forget it) - which, for me, was the worst in terms of not giving Sam a reasonable point of view. We saw Sam's flashbacks of him "hitting a dog," but nothing that happened before that lead up to that. When did that happen? Did it happen immediately after Sam was left alone? Was he upset and distracted and that's why he hit the dog? Or - if what the narrative tried to tell (vs show) us is to be believed - was he just so bored that Dean was gone (since he supposedly didn't even try to look for Dean or Kevin) that he fell asleep at the wheel and hit the dog? *sarcasm*  I will admit that season 8 sort of tried to give Sam some point of view, but it didn't really tell much of anything I wanted to know or anything that would make what Sam was doing understandable. Like what happened right after Crowley left Sam? What was Sam doing before he hit the dog? Why did he go to the cabin after he left Amelia? Did he just leave her without her even knowing he was leaving? Why didn't Sam seem all that surprised to see Dean at the cabin?

17 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Well, I guess I thought they had to justify Dean being onscreen somehow during the first half of that Seaon. He really had nothing to do plotwise. 

For me, I guess it depends on what you are calling the plot. If it was Castiel and Crowley, then neither Sam or Dean was much involved with that. If soulless Sam is the plot, then, in my opinion, Dean was very much a part of that, because Dean was not just reacting to Sam's behavior, he was assessing, questioning, and trying to solve the mystery. He was the one insisting that something was wrong and made sure that something was done about it. And considering that Dean was the one who was active in completing part of the plot since he was the one to go and save Sam's soul*, in my opinion Dean was active in the plot, and all of the set up earlier in the season was leading up to what Dean did there.

If Dean had just been reacting to Sam's condition - being worried and depressed about it - I would agree that he wasn't part of the soulless Sam arc, but Dean was actively involved in solving the problem. And this also included soulless Sam doing - or not doing - things that affected Dean along the way, like letting Dean get turned into a vampire - so that became part of the plot. All of those things for me add up to Dean having an active roll. Actually Castiel was a part of it as well - to a lesser extent - since he did the soul-checking and ended up being the reason Sam was soulless. But Cas was more the antagonist than the hero there (in both trying to talk Dean out of saving Sam's soul and then later breaking Sam's wall). Dean was the hero in that he actually saved Sam. And soulless Sam was the one it was happening to/the mystery and also sort of the monster/thing that needed to be stopped. (So I guess Dean = Sherlock Holmes, Bobby is sort of Watson, Castiel = Moriarty/Frankenstein, and Sam was a mystery and Frankenstein's monster combo?)

* which included an at least semi big hero moment that either only Dean could do - because he was the only one who knew and had an "in" with Death - or was the only one who knew and was actually going to do anything about it - since neither Castiel or Bobby were inclined. In either case, Dean was the only one who was going to be able to and would cause Sam's soul to be saved.

Edited October 30, 2016 by AwesomO4000

[Aeryn13]

Quote

For me, I guess it depends on what you are calling the plot.

Soulless!Sam. Which IMO was a plot for Sam. If Dean was possessed and not Dean for half a Season, I`d still call that a plot for Dean regardless. And sure, others characters may partake in that plot but that doesn`t mean I think they have something going on while that happens.

It depends on how they are written in that guest starring role and what material they get if it still comes across reasonably well or not. And I HATED what Dean "got" in the first half of Season 6. The supposedly rusty hunter - hey, wasn`t a problem for Super!Mary - compared to uber!hunter!Sam. That lame emo crap about Lisa and Ben, the being saved all the time and non-badassery all around, except for one ep with the vamps. Just about everything sucked in terms of writing for the character.

In the second half of the Season, he still had not an ounce of plot but he got a bit better writing and some better scenes so I remember 6.B as being better overall. Comparatively I have the few Purgatory scenes in 8.A to tide me over while I wanted to gauge out my own eyes in 8.B.    

The actual plot of Season 6, as we found out later, was Cas and Crowley and you have to kinda include Raphael as the antagonist. It just happened largely offscreen. 

And of course 9.A was "Dean who" again but I got invested with 9.B when he got the MOC story. Though I was terrified every single episode that they would somehow take it from him prematurely and/or transfer it to Sam. Every episode was ended with a "phew, still has a story" sigh of relief for me there. This show really raised my paranoia. 

[mertensia]

AwesomO400, I would say Dean was the only one who thought it necessary to retrieve Sam's soul from eternal torment, no matter what the state of his soul. 

[Bessie]

37 minutes ago, mertensia said:

AwesomO400, I would say Dean was the only one who thought it necessary to retrieve Sam's soul from eternal torment, no matter what the state of his soul. 

One of the many reasons I have trouble with the notion that Castiel is their "brother". He was the lead cheerleader for leaving Sam to eternal torment. 

[SueB]

2 hours ago, Bessie said:

One of the many reasons I have trouble with the notion that Castiel is their "brother". He was the lead cheerleader for leaving Sam to eternal torment. 

Popping in just to say, Castiel said he didn't know at the start. And after he thought he couldn't do it.  Crowley couldn't do it (he was just stringing them along).  Only Death, who is a game-changer character, could pull that off.  

And Cas said it would destroy living Sam to bring it back.  Not that he wanted Sam in eternal torment.  And it nearly DID destroy living Sam. 

ETA: Yes, I'm not supposed to comment on opinions.  I just thought this was a "fact" that warranted clarification. 

**runs away again**

Edited October 30, 2016 by SueB

[Bessie]

9 minutes ago, SueB said:

Popping in just to say, Castiel said he didn't know. And after he thought he couldn't do it.  Crowley couldn't do it (he was just stringing them along).  Only Death, who is a game-changer character, could pull that off.  

And Cas said it would destroy living Sam to bring it back.  Not that he wanted Sam in eternal torment.  And it nearly DID destroy living Sam. 

I guess. But cas seemed pretty gung-ho not to try even when Death made his offer to bring Sam back. Besides, if he'd come back destroyed, they could've just kevorkianed him up to heaven. Cas' stance on Sam's soul is indefensible, to me. 

Edited October 30, 2016 by Bessie

[SueB]

1 minute ago, Bessie said:

I guess. But cas seemed pretty gung-ho not to try even when Death made his offer to bring Sam back. Besides, if he'd come back destroyed, they could've just kevorkianed him up to heaven. Cas' stance on Sam's soul was indefensible, to me. 

Not on Dean's watch.  Whether it came across effectively, I think Cas's intention of naysayer was to not cause Sam harm.  Personally, I had NO doubt that getting Sam's soul out of eternal punishment was the ONLY choice. But I thought Cas was playing the contrarian role sincerely out of concern for Sam (even though Cas was wrong IMO). 

But this is now opinion... and I don't want to try to dissuade you from yours.

[Bessie]

I love Dean. And I cannot believe that he would prefer an alive drooling, tormented, destroyed Sam to a dead Sam. To me, you're underestimating him. 

[DittyDotDot]

26 minutes ago, Bessie said:

I guess. But cas seemed pretty gung-ho not to try even when Death made his offer to bring Sam back. Besides, if he'd come back destroyed, they could've just kevorkianed him up to heaven. Cas' stance on Sam's soul is indefensible, to me. 

Cass's entire reasoning was that he didn't want Sam to suffer. He just wasn't getting that Sam was suffering anyway as long as his soul was stuck in the cage. I think it's typical angel not understanding humanity. To Cass, the soul is a power source--much like an angel's grace--but it's so much more than that to humans. 

[Bessie]

I get that most people don't agree with my take on it, which is why I put my comment in the unpopular opinion thread ;).  I don't like how castiel is treated like a human except for when his behavior needs to be excused. I think it's a crutch the writers and some viewers use because they like him. And I understand that. But, what was it Dean said to Sam? "Those aren't reasons, they're excuses." (Forget which episode and the exact quote)

Like I said, I know I'm not going to persuade anyone here. 

[Aeryn13]

They apparently felt that they needed someone to undermine Dean`s stance here and Cas was used to do that. As if "saving someone from damnation" IS a stance that needs a firm opposition. Like, I`m really glad that in Star Wars there was all that discussion on the advantages of the Empire`s oppression or in Lord of the Rings of all the good a resurrected and repowered Sauron could do... oh wait.

Later when Sam "re-souled" Demon!Dean (against his wishes as well), they didn`t play the "oppressive, stubborn bully victimizes his brother and cares nothing for his well-being" spiel. Back when Dean did it, I remember reading all the "Dean the horrible rapist" meta. Good times.  

[Hana Chan]

6 minutes ago, Bessie said:

I don't like how castiel is treated like a human except for when his behavior needs to be excused. I think it's a crutch the writers and some viewers use because they like him.

Amen! I have huge issues with Castiel and have had huge issues with him since he was introduced. Sure, he rescued Dean from Hell, but only because he was under orders because Dean was of use to Heaven's manipulations. He deliberately seeded doubt in Dean towards his brother and played a huge role in causing the dissention between Sam and Dean in season four. He did nothing when Dean was being tortured by Alistair. He released Sam from the panic room when Dean was trying to detox him and prevented Dean from reaching Sam until it was too late to stop him from inadvertently releasing Lucifer.

Then all through season five, Sam was being raked over the coals for his mistake, but not only was Castiel not held in any way responsible for his actions, but was seen and used by Dean as a substitute for his brother. Then after Sam sacrificed himself to put Lucifer back in his box, Castiel pulled out only his body and left his soul to continue being tortured. And he not only didn't tell Dean that Sam was "alive", but didn't own up to his mistake and argued against trying to salvage Sam's soul once his mistake was caught. He then worked against the brothers and opened the door to Purgatory, but not before he shattered what tenuous hold Sam had on his sanity.

So I have a very, very hard time seeing Castiel as a "brother" to Dean (let alone even a friend to Sam). He just did far too much damage that he never took responsibility for (whereas Sam and Dean are routinely flailed for every mistake). And he is long past his expiration date on this show, as it seems that in the past few seasons the writers have had a difficult time justifying his presence.

[DittyDotDot]

32 minutes ago, Bessie said:

I get that most people don't agree with my take on it, which is why I put my comment in the unpopular opinion thread ;).  I don't like how castiel is treated like a human except for when his behavior needs to be excused. I think it's a crutch the writers and some viewers use because they like him. And I understand that. But, what was it Dean said to Sam? "Those aren't reasons, they're excuses."

Personally, I've never seen Cass as human nor am I making excuses for him. In his own words, he stated he didn't want Sam to suffer, and I take him at his word on that. That doesn't mean I think Cass was right or that I always like how he behaves.  

12 minutes ago, Hana Chan said:

Amen! I have huge issues with Castiel and have had huge issues with him since he was introduced. Sure, he rescued Dean from Hell, but only because he was under orders because Dean was of use to Heaven's manipulations. He deliberately seeded doubt in Dean towards his brother and played a huge role in causing the dissention between Sam and Dean in season four. He did nothing when Dean was being tortured by Alistair. He released Sam from the panic room when Dean was trying to detox him and prevented Dean from reaching Sam until it was too late to stop him from inadvertently releasing Lucifer.

Then all through season five, Sam was being raked over the coals for his mistake, but not only was Castiel not held in any way responsible for his actions, but was seen and used by Dean as a substitute for his brother. Then after Sam sacrificed himself to put Lucifer back in his box, Castiel pulled out only his body and left his soul to continue being tortured. And he not only didn't tell Dean that Sam was "alive", but didn't own up to his mistake and argued against trying to salvage Sam's soul once his mistake was caught. He then worked against the brothers and opened the door to Purgatory, but not before he shattered what tenuous hold Sam had on his sanity.

So I have a very, very hard time seeing Castiel as a "brother" to Dean (let alone even a friend to Sam). He just did far too much damage that he never took responsibility for (whereas Sam and Dean are routinely flailed for every mistake). And he is long past his expiration date on this show, as it seems that in the past few seasons the writers have had a difficult time justifying his presence.

Personally, I've never seen Cass as a substitute anything for Sam. Castiel will never take Sam's place for Dean or for me. I think it took a very long time for either Dean or Sam to consider Cass even friend, let alone family. I'm not sure they even do think of him as a "brother" now, but more of a brother in arms. But, I think he's earned that title at this point.

I agree Cass has done some very crappy things over the years, but who hasn't on this show? That's kind of a thing on the show. If that were the criteria for getting rid of characters, they really wouldn't have any characters. ::shrugs::

However, I disagree Cass never took responsibility for any of his actions. Just because other characters didn't place the responsibility on him, doesn't mean he didn't take responsibility for himself. Cass took on Sam's hell pain as a way to take responsibility in breaking Sam's wall in the first place and wanted to stay in Purgatory to atone for what he did by trying to be God. I think his rebelling and standing with the Winchesters in S5 was him taking responsibility for his role in unwittingly helping heaven manipulate Sam and Dean in S4. And, now, he's taking responsibility for his role in letting Lucifer free by trying to find Lucifer and put him back in his box. 

Personally, I like the character of Cass, and I adore Misha, but I don't think I'd be too sad if they got rid of him. I mean, I'm not wishing for it or anything, but I actually think they need make him relevant again or let him go. But, it's not like they have many other recurring characters now, I'm not sure it will help anything either.

[Bessie]

39 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Just because other characters didn't place the responsibility on him, doesn't mean he didn't take responsibility for himself.

Not only do they rarely hold him accountable, they are inexplicably understanding. I thought we were past that. But last season's finale disabused me of that notion. Dean told him that letting lucifer out was the right thing to do and something that he and Sam would never have done. What?!  

I don't hate cas, I just think Dean, in particular, but Sam too, are saddled with some very ooc behaviors because of him. And the writers might be trying to sell him as a brother using Dean as a mouthpiece, but I'm not buying. I can work with brothers in arms, but that's the best I can do. Sorry Cas!

Edited October 30, 2016 by Bessie

[DittyDotDot]

1 minute ago, Bessie said:

Not only do they rarely hold him accountable, they are inexplicably understanding. I thought we were past that. But last season's finale disabused me of that notion. Dean told him that letting lucifer out was the right thing to do and something that he and Sam would never have done. What?!  I don't hate cas, I just think Dean, in particular, but Sam too, are saddled with some very ooc behaviors because of him. And the writers might be trying to sell him as a brother using Dean as a mouthpiece, but I'm not buying. I can work with brothers in arms, but that's the best I can do. Sorry Cas!

I've never seen the "brother" in Cass because they've never shown me they do anything else with Cass but work cases and/or fight monsters together. That's why I say brother in arms. Which doesn't mean they don't like or care about him, just that they also don't actually treat him like a brother as they treat each other.

I think they tend to be more understanding and forgiving of Cass because Cass isn't human so they don't judge him as they would humans. To me, Cass is like the adopted kid who gets away with breaking the rules because no one thinks he understand there are rules. 

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, Bessie said:

"Those aren't reasons, they're excuses." (Forget which episode and the exact quote)

Like I said, I know I'm not going to persuade anyone here. 

I think you might be thinking about Southern Comfort:

Sam: "What do you want me to say? That I've made mistakes? I've made mistakes, Dean."

Dean: "Those weren't mistakes, Sam. Those were choices". 

Everyone in this show makes horrible choices that often turn out to be HUGE mistakes and have massive terrible negative consequences along.  Cas didn't intend to harm Sam. He made a mistake because he  thought Sam was better off without his soul given what it would do to him. Cas made up for that by taking on Sam's hallucinations. 

As to Cas being a brother,  Dean has declared him family repeatedly throughout the show. If stupid, shitty behavior, borderline betrayal, keeping secrets, lying and dishonesty means someone is NOT family, then Sam and Dean would not be family other than being blood related considering how they have treated each other over the years.  

However, Kripke's (and IMO it continued with Gamble and Carver) view of family as espoused by fan favorite, surrogate father, Bobby  is : "Family is not supposed to make you feel better".  Cas saved Dean because the angels wanted it but he also betrayed HIS family, the angels, to help the Winchesters. He fucks up a lot but tries to fix it and if can't he tries to do something to make amends. 

For me, Cas is 100% family.  Obviously, he'll never replace Sam and he's not intended to do that.  Dean called him their brother in s11 and I don't think he meant brother-in-arms. IMO as far Dean and Sam are concerned, Cas is a brother.  Whether viewers accept that is a whole other kettle of fish but as far as the show is concerned, it's canon that Cas is family/brother.

[Bessie]

Yes!  That's exactly the quote I was referencing. Thanks, @catrox14. As for the rest of your comment, I'm sticking with my bitter & unpopular opinion.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Bessie

[catrox14]

32 minutes ago, Bessie said:

Yes!  That's exactly the quote I was referencing. Thanks, @catrox14. As for the rest of your comment, I'm sticking with my bitter & unpopular opinion.

My comment wasn't intended to change your mind. Just voicing my opinion about Cas in the show. 

My unpopular opinion is that Chuck being God, sucks. I hate it. I don't think it's well supported personally but I have to live with the fact that canonically in the show Chuck is officially God, so I understand your frustration. :)

Edited October 30, 2016 by catrox14

[Bessie]

2 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

My comment wasn't intended to change your mind. Just voicing my opinion about Cas in the show.

I know. Just didn't want to come across as ignoring what you wrote. 

Actually, I've got a question about this. My impression is that this thread is for people to write comments on ideas/characters/plot lines etc which they think are not widely shared.  And the All Seasons thread is for debate about those ideas or anything else over the course of the series. Is this wrong?

[catrox14]

5 minutes ago, Bessie said:

Actually, I've got a question about this. My impression is that this thread is for people to write comments on ideas/characters/plot lines etc which they think are not widely shared.  And the All Seasons thread is for debate about those ideas or anything else over the course of the series. Is this wrong?

I thought discussion where one is supporting their own opinions with facts, quotes etc is acceptable so long as it's not coming across as "trying to change someone's mind" and is civil.  

I dunno I might be wrong. Maybe check with a mod about that.

Edited October 30, 2016 by catrox14

[DittyDotDot]

24 minutes ago, Bessie said:

Actually, I've got a question about this. My impression is that this thread is for people to write comments on ideas/characters/plot lines etc which they think are not widely shared.  And the All Seasons thread is for debate about those ideas or anything else over the course of the series. Is this wrong?

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to convince you of anything nor do I think your interpretation in invalid. I thought this thread was where people come to vent, I didn't realize it wasn't a discussion thread.

[Bessie]

Just now, DittyDotDot said:

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to convince you of anything nor do I think your interpretation in invalid. I thought this thread was where people come to vent, I didn't realize it wasn't a discussion thread.

No, don't apologize! I really am just looking for clarification. I think what I thought this thread was intended for is wrong.

[AwesomO4000]

6 hours ago, Bessie said:

No, don't apologize! I really am just looking for clarification. I think what I thought this thread was intended for is wrong.

My understanding of the thread - and I admit that I could be wrong...

This thread is intended for unpopular opinions and for venting without repercussions, definitely. However it is also used on this board as a place for what I call "safe discussion." In other words, discussion that in the "All Episodes" thread might be seen as delving into "I think the writers do X to Sam, but not Dean (or vica versa)" or "I think the writers ignore character X in favor of character Y"- and therefore get you into trouble since that is not allowed there - is generally brought here. If you know you're going to want to say something like that in your discussion and/or you know your fellow discussee(s) might want to do the same and don't want him/her to feel encumbered either in discussing how he/she feels about what you're going to discuss, the discussion gets moved over here, so that everyone can say what they want and discuss their points without having to feel like they are holding back so as not to go into "forbidden territory" for other threads.

But, if you ever feel like you want to express an unpopular opinion without discussion, that's perfectly acceptable, too, obviously. You could just say something like "I know this is unpopular, so no need to tell me so /disagree with me/ etc. but..." and then go for it. Or just come right out and say "I'm not looking for a discussion on this one..." and then go for it. This can be especially helpful if a full on discussion is going on and you want to say your piece, but don't necessarily want to get involved in the discussion at large.

Since I'm a big fan of the "safe discussion" aspect of this thread and realize that some just don't want to read my crap (especially when I get in a hissy fit mood) over in other threads, I am glad that I can bring it over here, and so will do so as long as that aspect of this thread is allowed. Especially whenever I feel like my comments or discussion might be annoying for some if they were posted elsewhere. We all know this is a place where someone might post something they don't agree with or want to hear, so posters know they can avoid the thread altogether - or just come to vent and ignore the rest.

I hope that was helpful more than confusing and/or sounded like I was being bossy.