catrox14 December 16, 2016 Share December 16, 2016 (edited) Put me in with the UO that I liked s9 and s10 in general because of the MoC storyline. I find that for me s8 to s10 is more satisfying as a binge watch. Did they disappoint me with the too early end of demon!Dean? Yep. Was the MoC resolved satisfactorily for me? Not really. But overall, I liked it in the end. They even managed to make Sam likeable for me again in s10, which I didn't think was possible after s8. S11 was not a good one for me overall. Even though Dean had the Amara connection I greatly disliked it's nebulous, amoebic, quasi-romantic/dub-con nature. I was particularly aggravated by the narrative shift at the end of s11 that Dean didn't kill Amara because he didn't really want to kill vs being unable. It especially pissed me off that the narrative had Sam side with Chuck and fucking Lucifer and even more when Lucifer implied that Amara was Dean's GF and Sam didn't defend Dean against that charge, given that in "Love Hurts" Sam made it quite clear he understood where Dean was coming from and that he saw that it was out of Dean's control. It was worsened by the implication that the Mark only enhanced the darkness that already existed in Lucifer, which implies Dean being a murdering murderer was enhanced by the Mark unless a generous reading is that the Mark enhanced Dean's reckless tendencies. Maybe I missed something. I didn't like Sam having to ally with his tormentor nor Dean having to ally with his murderer with little discussion or emotional insights into how that would be for the boys and was just hand-waved as NBD. NOPE to that. I enjoyed "Baby", "Thin Lizzie', 'Into the Mystic', Beyond the Mat, The Vessel and bits and pieces of other episodes but the last episodes it all fell apart IMO. YMMV etc. I was concerned that Dean would ultimately have no character growth out of his MoC journey but I will say that S12 started out with promise with Dean being open with Mary about being proud of being a hunter; with Dean telling Cas about his confusion with how to approach Mary; with his airing of grievances with Mary when Sam bugged him and that he didn't apologize for his emotions but said he'd try to not be a dick(even though I didn't think he was being a dick). I liked that it was followed up in the next episode that he was not going to let Sam's continued interrogation of him bother him and by the end of the Hitler episode, Dean was feeling proud of himself and wanted to get his own pie. I think that was something he needed to do for himself. I was happy in the Asa Fox episode that he didn't hold back with Mary and didn't guilty for his viewpoint. In the "Rock Never Dies" episode Dean went from being horrified at the idea of cucumber water to giving it a try and he picked up a guitar and played it a bit without really caring what someone else thought about it. I'm feeling a little hopeful that Dean has been redefining himself and possibly shedding some of the bravado and walls that hurt him more than helps him without him losing what protects him. Back half of s12 spoilers. Spoiler I'm interested in what happens to Dean's mind when he's in isolation in the not!ARGUS prison. That will be the first time he'll have been in confinement since Hell IIRC. I wonder if it will trigger his Hell PTSD. I mean it kind of should. He was okay with being in prison in s2 but that was before he went to Hell. Edited December 16, 2016 by catrox14 spoiler tagged Link to comment
AwesomO4000 December 16, 2016 Share December 16, 2016 5 hours ago, Myrelle said: So... just wondering if liking S9 and 10 is an unpopular opinion at this site. I watched every episode in those two seasons(except Fan Fiction) after having almost given up on the show entirely after S8(I skipped a good number in the second half of that season). For me those two seasons were a resurgence and gave us some new and innovative changes that the show was in dire need of, at that point. The last half of nine and most of ten actually saved this show for me, but I get the feeling that most here didn't like them and that 11(which I found to predominantly be a return to profound mediocrity and very similar to S5-8, especially where the writing was concerned) is far more popular here. I'll try to answer your question, but not surprisingly - because it's me - the answer is complicated. Also remember, in case I don't say it enough, this is all my opinion only here. It's also long so I'm bolding the important points for those who are of the "too long: didn't read" type. First to get this out of the way - for me, season 8 would not be lumped in with seasons 5-7 in no way, shape, or form (as my mom used to say). For me 8 was a complete outlier and will always be at the bottom of the heap. This is because season 8 took everything that went before it and - in my opinion - threw it out the window in favor of... whatever the hell that was. Those two people did not remind me of Sam and Dean. After the great set up of season 7, I imagined a bunch of potential arcs for Sam and Dean, and the arcs that we got in season 8 - especially Sam's - weren't even on my radar - in a bad way. As for season 9, I think my problem was that it ended up being part of one of Carver's passive-aggressive lessons for Sam in the end. There is often speculation that Sam-leaning fans such as myself were disappointed in seasons 9 and 10 because Sam had no real role in the myth-arc, but for me that wasn't it at all. For me, Carver took the character assassination of Sam from season 8 and complicated it. The whole thing with Sam not looking for Dean ended up in the end being that Sam should have looked... and this carried over into season 9 where Dean's Gadreel decision - instead of being the wrong thing to do - was portrayed as generally not being the wrong thing to do in the end. Everything worked out mostly fine and actually even better that Gadreel was there, and in the end Sam would've done the same thing. Except in that with Sam learning this very special lesson, the entire season ended up making Sam look like a whiny, ungrateful, unforgiving (previously not in his character as shown in seasons 2-7) jerk. Since characterization is the most important thing for me, this disappointed me about season 9. I wouldn't have cared if Sam had spent the entire season just backing Dean up and basically doing nothing (which he did), but he was also made to look like a jerk while doing it - which not cool, in my opinion. But in the end, I could have accepted that, too. Sam learned his lesson and we could move on, right? Well... Season 10. The sad thing for me about season 10 is that I thought that it was really good, and I still enjoy much of it. Although a few of the standalones were pretty bad, quite a few I really liked, including "Fan Fiction" which I thought was great.* I didn't mind the demon Dean arc and (unpopular opinion) thought it was just about the right length for that part. What ruined season 10 a little for me was that passive-aggressive lesson thing rearing its ugly head. So last season Sam learned that he should save his brother at all costs, just like Dean saved him, because all ended up being good, and Gadreel redeemed himself. So what if Sam had to suffer a bit and never got an apology? Dean was right in the end, so now this time Sam would save Dean and all would be good and the brothers could be on even footing again, because codependency is good, right? That's what we learned in season 8-9. But nope, when Sam does the brother saving at all cots thing, Carver has to throw in a total turn-around from the previous season message and teach Sam another very special lesson. "Oh, you thought saving Dean at all costs was the right thing to do? Silly you, why would you think that? What because Gadreel turned out to be redeemed and you learned Dean was right in the end when the shoe was on the other foot? Oh, Sam, no see, saving your brother at all costs and being super codependent is wrong, and so now you've started an apocalypse. What do you mean, Dean killed Death to save you but nothing really happened because of that, and Billie the Reaper actually ended up helping in the end? Oh, that's because Dean did it, pay no attention to that. You just remember that codependency is baaaaad... except when it isn't." That's what annoyed me about season 10. Make up your friggin minds! Is codependency good or is it bad? And once you decide that, stop handing out random "lessons," and especially not so unevenly. I didn't mind at all that Dean was the character that the mytharc revolved around. I was annoyed that Sam is once again the huge screw up that big brother has to fix things for... and I knew at the end of season 10 that it would be Dean who would fix it, because that's how Carver rolls. *(potentially unpopular opinion - I don't really understand why some find "Fan Fiction" to be pro-Sam only. Yes Marie was pro-Sam, but she was also very much about Dean, and Maeve - arguably the sanest one of the bunch, and the one who kept everything and everyone on track (kinda like Dean) - was obviously a Dean Girl.) The reason why I liked season 11 so much is that, despite Sam starting the apocalypse again, he was at least allowed to realize his "mistake" (I put that in quotations, because apparently it's only a big "mistake" when Sam does it, but I digress), accepted responsibility for it, and was allowed to do something that season in the standalones (unlike season 9). So Dean got the mytharc, and Sam got some standalone episodes to shine in. Even though Sam did have to learn a small very special lesson, he at least didn't have to be made to look like a jerk while doing it. Also the brothers worked together again - finally. Yes, Dean's mytharc was a little vague here, but for me that wasn't unlike Sam's "mytharc" in season 3. Dean was the one to do the world-saving in the end, because he was the one to get close. So, the connection wasn't really explained. Neither was the supposed "boy-king" plan from season 3. In the end, Dean still saved the day, and Sam got some good standalones. The Chuck story was a little rushed and sappy, but for me that one episode where he got involved and why (Don't Call me Shurley") was really well written, and Sam and Dean still had a roll to play, doing what they do best - trying to save people even when the odds are against them. A fairly balanced season, for me, where Sam and Dean were the characters I recognized, not some "petty, little jerks" (TM somebody smart on this board**). And there were some really good episodes. That's why I liked it. ** Sorry that I have no time today to go back and look at whose description this was. I do remember, however, that I found it pretty accurate, especially for seasons 8 and 9. 3 Link to comment
Aeryn13 December 16, 2016 Share December 16, 2016 Quote *(potentially unpopular opinion - I don't really understand why some find "Fan Fiction" to be pro-Sam only. Yes Marie was pro-Sam, but she was also very much about Dean, and Maeve - arguably the sanest one of the bunch, and the one who kept everything and everyone on track (kinda like Dean) - was obviously a Dean Girl.) But the fangirl mainly featured was once again a Sam-girl, just like Becky. And I know Becky wasn`t a good representation but the meta-episodes make it seem like mainly Sam has all the fangirls and Dean maybe a few outliers. And of course it is because Sam is "sweet, brave, sensitive" and whatnot whereas a deleted scene revealed the Dean-fan liked Dean because... he is hot. As if I didn`t know the writers can`t think of any reason why a fan might, gasp, favour Dean that is not completely shallow or ultimately Sam-related, i.e. loving him as Sam`s cheerleader or butler or generally having no thought on his brain but Sam. It couldn`t possibly be that Dean is brave or sensitive or important on his own. I already see the show as one gigantic sales pitch to basically switch to a different provider character without them going meta about it. Luckily, I had no expectatitions for this episode to be good - meta-ones are at best so-so and their track record is spotty - but I found it annoying nonetheless. Quote Make up your friggin minds! Is codependency good or is it bad? And once you decide that, stop handing out random "lessons," and especially not so unevenly. I think Dean gets those frustrating see-saws just as much. It continuously veers between "you should be your family`s bitch, that is your role" and "look how pathetic you are and what horrible things you do because you are your family`s little bitch". Like all throughout Season 5 he had to learn to let go and not be bossy and mean and in Season 6 he had to come back and cling tight as his job. Fuck you, show. Quote So Dean got the mytharc, and Sam got some standalone episodes to shine in. I know I said I liked the standalones better in earlier Seasons because they gave Dean a chance to shine vs. the mytharc episodes being Sam but I thought the ratio wasn`t quite as bad as in reverse in Season 11. And Sam still had a little mythplot in the first half of the Season. Apart from all the scenes with Amara, which amounted to maybe 25 minutes of screentime overall and a few good scenes in Baby, I didn`t think Dean had one good episode in Season 11. I never thought things were that poor for Sam during Seasons 1-3 in reverse. So I found it highly unbalanced. If the mytharc got a lot more care, I could have probably taken the utter nothigness that were the standalones. Like, I would consider Seasons 1 and 2 more balanced and Dean had jackshit to do arc-wise back then. 2 Link to comment
trxr4kids December 17, 2016 Share December 17, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said: What do you mean, Dean killed Death to save you but nothing really happened because of that, and Billie the Reaper actually ended up helping in the end? Oh, that's because Dean did it, pay no attention to that. Emphasis mine: That is precisely my problem with how this show has consistently treated anything Deancentric. Dean and his actions are treated as insignificant in the scheme of things by TPTB except in regards to how his actions effect Sam, most recently taking on the MoC and becoming a demon. The MoC only became world changing when Sam did something (the seals and apocalypse all over again) . I get that that annoys Sam fans but as a Dean fan it pisses me off or it would if I wasn't so apathetic at this point. Edited December 17, 2016 by trxr4kids There was more but I lost it to whatever pagan god eats our posts 1 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 December 17, 2016 Share December 17, 2016 (edited) 13 hours ago, Aeryn13 said: I think Dean gets those frustrating see-saws just as much. It continuously veers between "you should be your family`s bitch, that is your role" and "look how pathetic you are and what horrible things you do because you are your family`s little bitch". Like all throughout Season 5 he had to learn to let go and not be bossy and mean and in Season 6 he had to come back and cling tight as his job. I can somewhat see what you are saying, though I never really saw the "look how pathetic you are" part as strongly as you do. For me, if that were the case, there would be more bad consequences when Dean saves Sam above all else. But that's not generally the case. The deal and its effects on Sam weren't even explored in season 4, and consequences of Dean's actions - beyond those for Dean - weren't given much weight beyond that one episode. It became all about how crappy and unfair Sam was being to Dean. When Sam criticized Dean for being "weak" and not able to do the job, it was shown to be wrong and just Sam being "arrogant." And for all of that, Sam also got the "you should be your family's bitch" lesson, except when he got it, it wasn't Bobby telling him "boo hoo," it was "you didn't listen to your brother and chose a demon instead? Well then you get blamed for starting an apocalypse. See what happens when you aren't about family and betray your brother." I tend to think that's a harsher criticism, especially since I didn't think Sam really betrayed Dean by taking up with Ruby. It was much more complex than that, but in later seasons it was all boiled down to Sam "betraying" Dean and Sam having to gain Dean's trust again. Everyone else's roles - the angels' (including Castiel), the demons', Chuck's - were pretty much shrugged aside and it was "Sam started the apocalypse." Sam was even hunted down and killed for it. Even more ironically, later on when Dean "betrayed"* Sam and lied repeatedly about it, Dean didn't have to apologize or try to regain Sam's trust. Instead Sam was the one to learn a lesson again. Nothing pathetic shown about Dean needing or choosing family in that case, since it was shown that Sam's criticism was unwarranted, because Sam would do the same. (* According to the show anyway. I didn't blame Dean for what he did with Gadreel. I thought it was pretty much the right thing to do. My issue was with the lying afterwards. That's where I thought Dean went wrong.) But when Sam was all about saving Dean above all else, he didn't get the same exception. His lesson wasn't "see how weak you are" (though usually that's a demon or a bad guy saying those kinds of things to Dean.) Sam's lesson was - again - starting an apocalypse. Again, sort of harsh, considering when Dean did similar things, multiple times, including in the same episode, he never got that kind of result - and often good or useful things came of it. If Dean gets blamed for starting an apocalypse for doing something, then I might see your position more strongly. 13 hours ago, Aeryn13 said: I know I said I liked the standalones better in earlier Seasons because they gave Dean a chance to shine vs. the mytharc episodes being Sam but I thought the ratio wasn`t quite as bad as in reverse in Season 11. And Sam still had a little mythplot in the first half of the Season. Apart from all the scenes with Amara, which amounted to maybe 25 minutes of screentime overall and a few good scenes in Baby, I didn`t think Dean had one good episode in Season 11. I never thought things were that poor for Sam during Seasons 1-3 in reverse. So I found it highly unbalanced. If the mytharc got a lot more care, I could have probably taken the utter nothigness that were the standalones. Like, I would consider Seasons 1 and 2 more balanced and Dean had jackshit to do arc-wise back then. I thought Dean had a few good episodes in season 11: Baby, Into the Mystic, Love Hurts, Safe House, The Chitters, and We Happy Few. And Our Little World and The Vessel weren't that bad either, in my opinion. At the time of airing, there was a lot of complaint about Love Hurts, because supposedly it was setting up a big Sam save at the end of the season, but since that wasn't the case, and it was actually Dean overcoming and succeeding in facing Amara in the end, then that was a mytharc episode for Dean with Dean finding out for sure that this Amara connection was not something he wanted, and setting him up to overcome it. As for things not being the reverse for Sam in seasons 1-3, I agree. For me, Sam's season for that was season 9. Not only was the mytharc in season 9 mostly Dean-centric, but Sam pretty much had only one somewhat good episode that entire season. And even that episode - Mother's Little Helper - was mostly about Sam learning that Dean was right and telling Dean so at the end. Dean even got 2 stand-alone episodes centered somewhat on him that season in addition to the mytharc episodes. You might likely count the Gadreel arc or episodes as being Sam-centered, but I don't. Not that those episodes were good for Sam or his arc anyway... If the result of that arc was that Sam's emotions and feelings of "being wrong," or examined how what Dean did affected Sam, I might think differently. But what happened to Sam was mainly used to further Dean's arc/motivation for taking on the mark in the first place, to show Gadreel's redemption arc, and later to ultimately show Sam that Sam actually would do the same thing that Dean did with Gadreel, making all of his bitching and not forgiving Dean ultimately pointless except to create the drama. Sam did almost nothing else all of season 9... not even more than one kill on his own. At least Dean in season 11 got the mytharc and was the one to save the day. Edited December 17, 2016 by AwesomO4000 pesky apostrophes 1 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 December 17, 2016 Share December 17, 2016 3 hours ago, trxr4kids said: Emphasis mine: That is precisely my problem with how this show has consistently treated anything Deancentric. Dean and his actions are treated as insignificant in the scheme of things by TPTB except in regards to how his actions effect Sam, most recently taking on the MoC and becoming a demon. The MoC only became world changing when Sam did something (the seals and apocalypse all over again) . I get that that annoys Sam fans but as a Dean fan it pisses me off or it would if I wasn't so apathetic at this point. I somewhat disagree with this. Dean's actions, including having the MoC had a lot of ramifications and results that didn't have anything to do with Sam. Killing Abbadon, killing Cain. His actions with Gadreel resulted in Gadreel being in a position to help Castiel and Dean defeat Metatron (which had nothing to do with Sam, since Sam wasn't even there.) And Dean's having the mark gave him a connection with Amara that allowed him to get close to her at the critical moment and save the world (which again had little to do with Sam.) As for Dean's demon arc, I personally think the powers that be were concerned that fans would hate it if they took Dean too dark, but then perhaps when some fans seemed disappointed, they went ahead with Dean going dark later on in the season via the MoC effects. This gave them a good compromise in a way, a "dark" Dean for those who were disappointed, but not Dean as a demon for those who hated that Dean had become a demon. I sometimes wonder how much the fan reaction after the season 9 finale affected how long the demon Dean arc ended up being. 2 Link to comment
mertensia December 17, 2016 Share December 17, 2016 My unpopular opinion is that except for Defending Your Life season 7 was one of the better ones. Further, at this point in their lives, co-dependency may be necessary. Also that it is perfectly natural that a bunch of romantic teenage girls are Sam fans: mom killed when he was six months old, girlfriend dies tragically, etc., etc. The only thing missing is he doesn't sparkle. 3 Link to comment
Bessie December 17, 2016 Share December 17, 2016 2 hours ago, mertensia said: Also that it is perfectly natural that a bunch of romantic teenage girls are Sam fans: mom killed when he was six months old, girlfriend dies tragically, etc., etc. The only thing missing is he doesn't sparkle. I love Sam! On occasion, I'd like to ditch my responsibilities and wish I was a romantic teenager, but generally, I'm pretty content being an adult. But you're wrong about Sam not sparkling. He and Dean are both very sparkly! 2 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 December 17, 2016 Share December 17, 2016 2 hours ago, mertensia said: My unpopular opinion is that except for Defending Your Life season 7 was one of the better ones. Further, at this point in their lives, co-dependency may be necessary. Also that it is perfectly natural that a bunch of romantic teenage girls are Sam fans: mom killed when he was six months old, girlfriend dies tragically, etc., etc. The only thing missing is he doesn't sparkle. I agree with all of this! So table for at least two. But on this board - unlike elsewhere - there are quite a few season 7 fans. For me, it's in my top 5 of all seasons. My (perhaps) unpopular opinion is that I'd put season 11 up there with it in the top 5. My other (almost decidedly) unpopular opinion is that I don't much like season 4. I understand that it is fairly well written with an interesting story, but still I rarely rewatch it. I find it relentlessly grim and a bit frustrating in that it despite Sam and Dean being the central figures in the story, at the same time they are being manipulated into a pre-determined outcome and are no more than pawns. So in a way, for me, it didn't much matter that they were the "central" figures in the story, because they didn't hold any of the power to really change the outcome. 2 Link to comment
Aeryn13 December 17, 2016 Share December 17, 2016 Quote You might likely count the Gadreel arc or episodes as being Sam-centered, but I don't. I do, I consider the first half of Season 9 Sam-centric. Dean`s story only started with "First Born" which was ep 14. Before that, it was a wasteland of nothing for me in that Season. Quote I can somewhat see what you are saying, though I never really saw the "look how pathetic you are" part as strongly as you do. Lately it is Billie`s shtick to bring that up, how he is a mixture of selfish and pathetic who only saves Sam for himself. So obviously Sam`s speech in the Purge, the most hateful thing he ever said to Dean, was supposed to be taken as truth. The Dabb-penned werewolf last year had Super!Sam and in contrast a Dean so incredibly pathetic (as well as incompetent), it made my insides churn. It was like being back in Season 8.B where I got half a Season of just that. Helpfully, Billie was once again there to point it out. Quote Also that it is perfectly natural that a bunch of romantic teenage girls are Sam fans: mom killed when he was six months old, girlfriend dies tragically, etc., etc. The only thing missing is he doesn't sparkle. But in meta-episodes it`s basically their go-to fangirl so to me it feels like using those episode to erase people who have the audicity to like Dean aka the wrong character. Link to comment
AwesomO4000 December 17, 2016 Share December 17, 2016 3 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said: I do, I consider the first half of Season 9 Sam-centric. Dean`s story only started with "First Born" which was ep 14. Before that, it was a wasteland of nothing for me in that Season. I might have if Gadreel hadn't become a character in his own right or if Sam's feelings had turned out to be validated, but in my opinion they weren't. The episodes might have been Jared-centric, but for me that wasn't Sam. It was Gadreel who did the saving and all the heroics. Sam was just a passive passenger in his own body. And Dean did have some plot in that he had Gadreel happen and then reacted to it and that paved the way for him taking on the mark. 9 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said: Lately it is Billie`s shtick to bring that up, how he is a mixture of selfish and pathetic who only saves Sam for himself. So obviously Sam`s speech in the Purge, the most hateful thing he ever said to Dean, was supposed to be taken as truth. If that's true, then it would equally apply to Sam since Sam admitted he would do the exact same thing, and then after failing to actually save Dean (unlike Dean being able to save Sam), Sam did do the same thing when he tried to call Crowley... and then went even further while trying to find Dean, first being labeled "worse than a demon" because of it, and then if that wasn't damning enough, he started an apocalypse. And afterwards in case that wasn't clear, first Lucifer pointed out how pathetic Sam was and then God himself, pointed out what a colossal screw up Sam was and that it was Sam's fault, not Dean's, since "the world could've gone on with Demon Dean," but Sam had to screw things up. God also blamed Sam for freeing Lucifer again. So Dean doesn't have the corner on the market of being labeled "pathetic." And yet, go figure, I really liked season 11, because at least Sam was someone I could like again. 2 Link to comment
mertensia December 17, 2016 Share December 17, 2016 But-and I wish writers would remember this-he didn't. Dean started it (ably assisted by demons and, most probably, rogue angels). If that blood hadn't been spilled in Hell by Dean, Sam (ably assisted by demons and definitely rogue angels) could have killed Lilith ad infinitum without it releasing Lucifer. Lucifer, of course, glosses over that to poke at Sam, which is in character. 1 Link to comment
Aeryn13 December 17, 2016 Share December 17, 2016 (edited) Quote But-and I wish writers would remember this-he didn't. Dean started it (ably assisted by demons and, most probably, rogue angels). If that blood hadn't been spilled in Hell by Dean, I just wait for the day someone in show actually has a line like "see, Dean, if you hadn`t been such a weak loser and broken under 30 years of extreme torture - unlike Super!John - none of that would have happend" and then I will punch through the screen. I mean, they implied it but at least noone has verbalized it so far. Personally, I don`t blame Sam so much for breaking the seal but basically his demeanor that led to it. If he had done it under torture or coercion, it would be douchy to call him on it. But falling for the ego-validating demon and reaching new heights of arrogance, THAT was a huge problem for me. The second half of Season 4 it got so bad, I basically couldn`t wait to see the character hoisted by his own petard. And then in Season 5 they go and basically make Sam`s arrogance Dean`s fault. The character never ever recovered for me. And it is actually pretty easy to "redeem" arrogance as a character flaw. A multitude of stories do it and do it successfully. Characters I found acted despicably arrogant at first, I end up loving much, much more than the ones who were/are always nice. Redeeming weakness, cowardice or patheticness is much harder, if nigh impossible for me. You just don`t come back from that. That`s why whenever Dean is labeled as such in the show, I think it is the biggest insult to the character they can do. IMO no showrunner would allow it for Sam. Edited December 17, 2016 by Aeryn13 4 Link to comment
companionenvy December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 Can't remember if I've made this point on this forum or in RL, so I'll repeat it: I actually believe that John would have outlasted Dean in hell -- but for precisely the reasons that make Dean a better man than he is. John is absolutely single-minded and mission-oriented, almost to the point of emotional nullification. Once in hell, I could see him turning that laser focus to an absorbing obsession with accepting the torture and not giving the demons what they wanted -- indeed, he would have taken a grim pride in it. Dean, however, has always needed people (and cared about people) far more than John does, and consequently isn't as capable of compartmentalizing and shutting out everything but "must resist." At a certain point -- and I'll forever hate that they made the timeline so exaggerated in the first place -- he would simply have been so despairing that he couldn't hold out any longer. For the record, I suspect Sam would have broken sooner, but for a different reason. He has John's ability to go ice-cold on a mission, so I think he, like John, would have been emotionally equipped to hold out for longer (physical pain alone, all three are probably on equal terms). Rather, I think he would have been able to persuade himself (or allowed himself to be persuaded) that he was justified in torturing sinners, the vast majority of whom were probably pretty bad people, and not just dumb and/or desperate folks who had agreed to crossroads deals. I know I've written plenty in defense of S4 Sam, but as long as the conversation keeps coming up, I'll keep responding: while I agree that Sam showed a certain arrogance in his conviction that Dean was "too weak" to do what needed to be done, he also had excellent reason to trust Ruby, who had proven herself on many occasions, to the point where even Dean at times grudgingly accepted her help. Further, what Ruby was asking him to do was to kill Lillith, which everyone agreed was a good thing. While Sam did at least one unconscionable thing in the process (killing the nurse), no one could have anticipated that killing Lillith was going to lead to disaster. This goes back to Awesome's point about the consequences of Sam's choices and Dean's choices being portrayed in unequal ways; Dean has gotten the great majority of Big Bad kills/defeats, and none of them have gone wrong -- including his killing of Death, which should by rights have had massively negative consequences. And, of course, in season 5, when Dean has to convince Sam they should accept Crowley's help in tracking down the horseman's rings, Dean is right to trust Crowley, who is by now practically a member of the team. 4 Link to comment
DeeDee79 December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 14 hours ago, Aeryn13 said: Personally, I don`t blame Sam so much for breaking the seal but basically his demeanor that led to it. If he had done it under torture or coercion, it would be douchy to call him on it. But falling for the ego-validating demon and reaching new heights of arrogance, THAT was a huge problem for me. The second half of Season 4 it got so bad, I basically couldn`t wait to see the character hoisted by his own petard. And then in Season 5 they go and basically make Sam`s arrogance Dean`s fault. The character never ever recovered for me. This is why I see Dean breaking the 1st seal and Sam breaking the last seal in different lights. Dean survived 30 years in Hell undergoing unspeakable torture and reached his breaking point after which he was released from the rack and as a result broke the 1st seal. However, he had no idea that he would be rescued from Hell; he was simply giving in to relief from eternal torture. Sam on the other hand had been told by both his brother and angels whom he held in high regard (until he met Uriel) that he was headed down a dangerous path and that demons couldn't be trusted. He shouldn't even have needed to be told; from experience of years of being a hunter he knew how untrustworthy and shady demons were but he was so cocky from the demon blood he was ingesting he saw himself as the only hope of averting the apocalypse and his weak ass brother wouldn't be strong enough to assist. I cringed when he beat his brother to a pulp when he tried to stop him in When the Levee Breaks. It took a while before I enjoyed Sam again even thought I enjoyed his character a great deal before season 4. I know this is just a show with characters that are only as flawed as their writers make them out to be but I hate it when people try to rationalize Sam's season 4 dickishness when looking down on Dean for everything under the sun. 5 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 (edited) 13 hours ago, Aeryn13 said: I just wait for the day someone in show actually has a line like "see, Dean, if you hadn`t been such a weak loser and broken under 30 years of extreme torture - unlike Super!John - none of that would have happend" and then I will punch through the screen. I mean, they implied it but at least noone has verbalized it so far. I can fairly confidently say that that is never going to happen. Any number of demons could have brought this up, but the only recurring narrative we have had on the subject has been that Sam raised Lucifer and started the apocalypse. That was still being brought up through season 11, by everyone from demons to hunters to Lucifer to God. If they were going to fault Dean - which in my opinion would've been ridiculous, since as @companionenvy says, the time was already remarkably long - to me that would make no sense. I would also add to companionenvy's above opinion that John might have held out also because he might have known the stakes, whereas Dean did not. I also think that there is evidence that Alistair was lying. If John was supposedly on lockdown being tortured, in my opinion, his chances of being in the vicinity of the Devil's Gate when it was opened would've been very slim. 13 hours ago, Aeryn13 said: And it is actually pretty easy to "redeem" arrogance as a character flaw. A multitude of stories do it and do it successfully. Characters I found acted despicably arrogant at first, I end up loving much, much more than the ones who were/are always nice. Redeeming weakness, cowardice or patheticness is much harder, if nigh impossible for me. You just don`t come back from that. That`s why whenever Dean is labeled as such in the show, I think it is the biggest insult to the character they can do. IMO no showrunner would allow it for Sam. I actually disagree with this. For me, the opposite is generally the case. I personally can't think of one show that I have seen where true arrogance has been redeemed in a believable way for me. It's why I dislike House. However, I have seen plenty where cowardice has been redeemed. There is an example for me right now on The Walking Dead. Currently one of my most favorite characters on that show was extremely cowardly. He was a character that had lied to a group of people, saying that he knew how to stop the zombie situation in exchange for being protected by that group of people because he knew he wouldn't be able to survive on his own - I mean how cowardly can you get. And lots of characters call him a coward and worse. Yet, in more than one case, after confessing his deceit and taking his lumps (literally), he has subsequently done things to save others, often while either cringing or crying or both. The last we see of him until the second half of the season, he was speaking up - again while looking scared to death and crying - in defense of a woman who had recently berated him and called him a coward because he didn't want to make her a bullet, because, he told her, he thought that using it might put others in danger... Which indeed did happen, and another woman was killed in retaliation for her failed attempt to assassinate the bad guy with the bullet she had cowed him into making. Yet even after that, he spoke up and admitted that he was the one who made the bullet to save that woman and to try to keep anyone else from being hurt even if it meant he might be killed. I had already started liking this character, but in that moment I adored him... much more than some of the supposed "brave" characters who do things without considering the consequences to others. And I thought he was brave even as he was crying and almost babbling the proof that he was the one who made the bullet so that he could save the others. Screw that "brave" woman who went ahead and tried to shoot. For me, the sniveling coward was the real hero of that scene, and he was completely redeemed for me. And the writers on that show aren't even currently that stellar, in my opinion. 13 hours ago, Aeryn13 said: Personally, I don`t blame Sam so much for breaking the seal but basically his demeanor that led to it. If he had done it under torture or coercion, it would be douchy to call him on it. But falling for the ego-validating demon and reaching new heights of arrogance, THAT was a huge problem for me. The second half of Season 4 it got so bad, I basically couldn`t wait to see the character hoisted by his own petard. And then in Season 5 they go and basically make Sam`s arrogance Dean`s fault. The character never ever recovered for me. I never saw Dean being blamed for Sam's arrogance in the show. Sam came right out and said it was his fault and that he went with Ruby because she made him feel more independent and less like the little brother, and I didn't see how that was somehow a reflection on Dean, but even though that's apparent to me, others interpret it differently. But then again, I never believed that Sam was extremely arrogant anyway. There was some arrogance, yes, but even Dean has shown arrogance on the show... he's just seldom called on it, because his arrogant decisions somehow turn out to be the right ones. But for me it doesn't work that way. Arrogance isn't less so just because you turn out to be right. Dean was not less arrogant in season 9 just because Sam was unnecessarily cruel and a hypocrite and Dean turned out to be right. Which is one of my basic problems with the idea of "redeeming" arrogance as a character flaw. If the arrogance is "redeemed" by the character failing and then having to grovel and apologize and then he's/she's learned his/her "lesson" would that have happened if he/she had succeeded? Probably not. That being said, Sam redeemed himself to me in season 5. Not only did he turn himself around to defer to Dean, but he believed in Dean and trusted him even when others didn't (unlike when he didn't in season 4), throwing himself behind Dean's plan to say no to Lucifer and Michael, and letting Dean be the leader in that regard and most important of all, admitting that he couldn't do it without Dean. I do not hold it against Sam that he didn't turn on a dime and go along with Dean's later plan to say "yes," to Michael, because Sam new that that plan was likely not even half made out of strategy. Dean was trying to justify it with strategy, but it wasn't the entire reason that Dean was making the decision he did. But Sam knew Dean would figure this out, and he believed in Dean enough until Dean did. 1 hour ago, DeeDee79 said: Sam on the other hand had been told by both his brother and angels whom he held in high regard (until he met Uriel) that he was headed down a dangerous path and that demons couldn't be trusted. He shouldn't even have needed to be told; from experience of years of being a hunter he knew how untrustworthy and shady demons were but he was so cocky from the demon blood he was ingesting he saw himself as the only hope of averting the apocalypse and his weak ass brother wouldn't be strong enough to assist. I cringed when he beat his brother to a pulp when he tried to stop him in When the Levee Breaks. It took a while before I enjoyed Sam again even thought I enjoyed his character a great deal before season 4. I know this is just a show with characters that are only as flawed as their writers make them out to be but I hate it when people try to rationalize Sam's season 4 dickishness when looking down on Dean for everything under the sun. I understand why some see it like this, but for me, it was never that simple. Those angels who were telling Sam that he was headed down a "dangerous path" at the same time threw situations at Sam that almost ensured that he would have to use those supposed "cursed" powers or he and Dean or innocent people would die and at the same time secretly wanted Sam to use those powers. So, if Sam hadn't used his power and had listened to the angels instead of Ruby, what would have happened? The angels needed Lucifer to be raised in order for their plan to work, so how was that going to happen except for Sam to be manipulated somehow into doing it? The angels would've found a way... just as they did when Dean had put a stop to it. Sam was in the panic room, and likely either would've either detoxed or died, but wouldn't have been out to raise Lucifer at the right time, so the angels let Sam out. Dean sent a message that likely would've persuaded Sam to stop, so the angels changed the message to ensure that Sam would be nudged into going through with it and in addition kept Dean prisoner until it was too late. But these were the angels that Sam was supposed to listen to? The same angels who were pitting Sam and Dean against each other to ensure that they wouldn't work together to solve the problem? And while yes, it was awful of Sam to beat Dean up in The Levee Breaks, and I don't condone that behavior, it also took two to start that fight. Dean wouldn't listen to Sam or compromise in any way - even though he could have and later showed Ruby to be a snake. Dean is smart, he could have done that - but instead he called Sam a "monster" almost ensuring that Sam would retaliate. And yes, Sam ended up being wrong about Ruby and Dean, but I argue that he wasn't wrong about the angels. In fact, Sam was entirely right that the angels couldn't be trusted and were actually doing absolutely nothing to stop the seals from breaking and stopping the apocalypse. So in that regard Sam was the only one who was actively trying to stop it - literally - since even though Dean was theoretically, by going along with the angels, by association, Dean wasn't really. I am not excusing Sam's arrogant behavior here, but I am arguing that Dean wasn't necessarily right either to throw in with the angels against Sam. He should have been questioning the angels' motivation from the beginning... and especially after Uriel's deceit was uncovered. It's mostly because Sam's mistake was the final one that raised Lucifer, Sam is the one who gets all the blame for it. It still annoys me sometimes that the mistakes that Castiel made were never really brought to light, so that Castiel could hold Sam's bad decisions over Sam's head while never admitting his own bad decisions and part in starting the apocalypse. Edited December 18, 2016 by AwesomO4000 4 Link to comment
DeeDee79 December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said: And while yes, it was awful of Sam to beat Dean up in The Levee Breaks, and I don't condone that behavior, it also took two to start that fight. Dean wouldn't listen to Sam or compromise in any way - even though he could have and later showed Ruby to be a snake. Dean is smart, he could have done that - but instead he called Sam a "monster" almost ensuring that Sam would retaliate. And yes, Sam ended up being wrong about Ruby and Dean, but I argue that he wasn't wrong about the angels. In fact, Sam was entirely right that the angels couldn't be trusted and were actually doing absolutely nothing to stop the seals from breaking and stopping the apocalypse. So in that regard Sam was the only one who was actively trying to stop it - literally - since even though Dean was theoretically, by going along with the angels, by association, Dean wasn't really. I am not excusing Sam's arrogant behavior here, but I am arguing that Dean wasn't necessarily right either to throw in with the angels against Sam. He should have been questioning the angels' motivation from the beginning... and especially after Uriel's deceit was uncovered. It's mostly because Sam's mistake was the final one that raised Lucifer, Sam is the one who gets all the blame for it. It still annoys me sometimes that the mistakes that Castiel made were never really brought to light, so that Castiel could hold Sam's bad decisions over Sam's head while never admitting his own bad decisions and part in starting the apocalypse. Why should Dean have compromised when Sam was willing to put all of his trust into a demon? I know that the angels weren't on the up and up but I would argue that Sam had never put any stock into what demons had to say until he had one by his side pumping up his ego with how powerful he could be and how he was the only one that could stop Lillith and stop the apocalypse etc, etc. I also admit that the consumption of human blood added to his behavior but had Dean done anything so entirely wrong to want his brother to see his side of trusting ( somewhat ) good over evil as they had always done? A few dick angels doesn't equal demons who have their own agenda and always do more harm then good. I still hate the fact that they worked alongside Meg who had done so much harm to them and John in the past. Dean didn't throw in with the angels to go against his brother; he threw in with the angels to go against demons and Lucifer. Furthermore, Castiel has gotten plenty of flack for all of the crap he's done to the Winchesters and in regards to the mytharc in general. I can recall Dean's washing his hands of him after the Leviathan debacle and only barely forgiving him after he took on Sam's shattered mind. It frustrates me to even debate about this. Again I say that it isn't about brother against brother; whatever criticism that the writers spare Dean of on the show the fans certainly make sure to do in fandom. Edited December 18, 2016 by DeeDee79 1 Link to comment
catrox14 December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 Dean said Sam was a monster if he knew what he was doing and chose to do it anyway. That's not him calling him a monster for no reason. Dean had watched Sam go down the wrong path, be told by Sam that he's weak and he can't fight and then Sam wouldn't give up his alliance with Ruby. IMO, Sam got off light in that episode. 4 Link to comment
ahrtee December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 2 hours ago, companionenvy said: I know I've written plenty in defense of S4 Sam, but as long as the conversation keeps coming up, I'll keep responding: while I agree that Sam showed a certain arrogance in his conviction that Dean was "too weak" to do what needed to be done, he also had excellent reason to trust Ruby, who had proven herself on many occasions, to the point where even Dean at times grudgingly accepted her help. Further, what Ruby was asking him to do was to kill Lillith, which everyone agreed was a good thing. While Sam did at least one unconscionable thing in the process (killing the nurse), no one could have anticipated that killing Lillith was going to lead to disaster. This goes back to Awesome's point about the consequences of Sam's choices and Dean's choices being portrayed in unequal ways; Dean has gotten the great majority of Big Bad kills/defeats, and none of them have gone wrong -- including his killing of Death, which should by rights have had massively negative consequences. And, of course, in season 5, when Dean has to convince Sam they should accept Crowley's help in tracking down the horseman's rings, Dean is right to trust Crowley, who is by now practically a member of the team. IMO, the "arrogance" wasn't in his conviction that Dean was too weak, but in believing Ruby over what *everyone*--from Dean and Bobby to the angels (who, at that point, weren't known to be dicks) specifically told him NOT TO DO. For whatever reason--whether it was demon blood or Ruby egging on his ego, he was convinced that *he* was right and everyone else was wrong. (I will say that everyone--including Dean--admitted that no one knew killing Lilith would be a bad thing.) And IMO letting Ruby help is a far cry from trusting her--which is the way they usually deal with Crowley--use him, but keep the weapons handy. Sam did the same thing with the Book of the Damned as well, and in most of the cases when something he did turned out badly. I'd say he always has good intentions, but always refuses to listen to anyone else's advice when he's convinced he's right. That's his weakness, and what annoys me is that he hasn't seemed to learn from it (which might be why he keeps doing things that turn out wrong...) Dean's weakness, of course, is to do stupid things in order to save Sam, without thinking of consequences. I will say, though, that most of the consequences only affected himself or Sam, not the whole world; so maybe that's why Sam gets more flak, especially from other hunters. His mistakes are much more visible to others. Dean, for all his bad choices, is usually willing to listen to other opinions and discuss other options. Maybe that's part of being more strategic (at least, when Sam's not involved) or his training from John; but he does, in fact, usually change his mind (or the plan) when he has the chance to discuss it. (He did that as far back as Phantom Traveler in season 1 when he went on the plane rather than let Sam go alone, or Home, when he went back to Lawrence because of Sam's dreams, when he had no reason to believe in them at the time.) The main times he did something stupid (like selling his soul, letting Gadreel in, or taking on the MoC) it was because he was alone, upset and/or panicked about Sam, and there was no one there to tell him not to. 52 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said: And while yes, it was awful of Sam to beat Dean up in The Levee Breaks, and I don't condone that behavior, it also took two to start that fight. Dean wouldn't listen to Sam or compromise in any way - even though he could have and later showed Ruby to be a snake. IIRC, he *did* offer a compromise (though I can't remember if it was at that particular time)--ditch Ruby and he'd work with him. He said he'd go along with what Sam wanted as long as Ruby wasn't a part of it, and Sam refused. 4 Link to comment
companionenvy December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 Quote Why should Dean have compromised when Sam was willing to put all of his trust into a demon? I know that the angels weren't on the up and up but I would argue that Sam had never put any stock into what demons had to say until he had one by his side pumping up his ego with how powerful he could be and how he was the only one that could stop Lillith and stop the apocalypse etc, etc. I don't think he should have, necessarily. Sometimes, there is a dispute so fundamental that no compromise is possible. But, first of all, while Sam is ultimately responsible for his own decisions, I do think that Dean's absolute unwillingness to consider Sam's perspective made it more likely that he was going to go completely over the edge. I mean, Sam had powers that a)allowed him to save humans possessed by demons and b) saved the Winchester's lives on multiple occasions (which, as AwesomeO suggested, might well have been due to angelic and/or demonic manipulation). Yes, the source of those powers was evil, but there was no reason to believe they couldn't be used for good as well. In fact, they had been, and more than once, for months, with no apparent side-effects, and not a hint of betrayal from Ruby, who was instead doing things like letting herself be tortured by Alistair on the Winchester's behalf. To me, that warrants at least a serious discussion about when, whether and to what extent they might be used, not a "stop that, end of subject." I also disagree that it is meaningful that Sam "had never put any stock into what demons had to say until he had one by his side pumping up his ego." No, he hadn't trusted demons in the past -- but then, Sam and Dean hadn't really encountered many demons before S3, and the ones they did were, almost without exception, openly hostile, so it wasn't as if there would have been much room for trust. Sam had, on the other hand, consistently shown a willingness to buy that some "monsters" might not be evil. So, I don't think it is fair to say that Sam made an exception simply because Ruby was propping up his ego -- if it were all about ego, he might as well have thrown in his lot with Azazel, who wanted to make him the boy-king of hell. And even if ego were a part of it, there were also a lot of other nobler motivations mixed in. I mean, we could also say "he only trusted Ruby because she was hot," but while her physical appearance couldn't have hurt, it would be reductive to claim that was the extent of Sam's thought process. 3 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 4 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said: I know that the angels weren't on the up and up but I would argue that Sam had never put any stock into what demons had to say until he had one by his side pumping up his ego with how powerful he could be and how he was the only one that could stop Lillith and stop the apocalypse etc, etc. I also admit that the consumption of human blood added to his behavior but had Dean done anything so entirely wrong to want his brother to see his side of trusting ( somewhat ) good over evil as they had always done? But Ruby wasn't just "pumping up Sam's ego" she was actually - supposedly anyway - down in the trenches trying to help kill Lillith. She came up with plans, helped save people and Anna, helped save Sam, and Dean, and helped to defeat Alistair for a while. And Dean was also being told that he was the "only one" by the angels and even though he said he didn't believe it, he told Sam when Sam said that he (Sam) was the only one who could do it, that no Sam wasn't... meaning that Dean thought he was - which he implied with "What you don't think I can." Both of them were being taken for a ride and manipulated. 15 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said: I also admit that the consumption of human blood added to his behavior but had Dean done anything so entirely wrong to want his brother to see his side of trusting ( somewhat ) good over evil as they had always done? A few dick angels doesn't equal demons who have their own agenda and always do more harm then good. But I argue that there was no "somewhat good" here. The angels were just as bad as the demons. Both wanted Lucifer to be raised. How is the angels wanting Lucifer to be raised for Michael to kill and have half the planet annihilated and the angels take over earth all that much better than wanting Lucifer to take over? It's like comparing being eaten by a shark or being eaten by a bear. In both cases you're dead, and neither one cares about your opinion. And yes, they didn't know this yet - well except in the case of Uriel - but they didn't really know that Ruby wanted anything more than Lilith dead yet either - as companionenvy said better above. 36 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said: Dean didn't throw in with the angels to go against his brother; he threw in with the angels to go against demons and Lucifer. This is true, but those angels were going against Sam and wanted Sam to raise Lucifer. And in my opinion, even though demons were bad, there wasn't much proof that the angels were good either. Castiel threatened to throw Dean back in hell, Uriel called humans mud-monkeys and basically let it be known he had no real interest in saving people and actually wanted to kill them when it was convenient. And then they threatened to kill Sam. So for Dean, to me that should've raised some red flags, but maybe that's just me. 37 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said: It frustrates me to even debate about this. Again I say that it isn't about brother against brother; whatever flagellation that spare Dean of on the show the fans certainly make sure to do in fandom. I'm sorry to hear this. I won't discuss with you anymore, especially since it appears that you've already made up your mind about Sam and don't want to hear/discuss other views about him or Dean or Castiel. I apologize, because I do like to discuss, and have actually been known to change my mind on occasion after engaging in discussion - as others here can likely attest to... especially catrox. 11 minutes ago, catrox14 said: Dean said Sam was a monster if he knew what he was doing and chose to do it anyway. That's not him calling him a monster for no reason. Dean had watched Sam go down the wrong path, be told by Sam that he's weak and he can't fight and then Sam wouldn't give up his alliance with Ruby. I didn't say that Dean didn't have a reason to call Sam a monster. My main point was that unless he was stupid - which Dean isn't - Dean knew that calling Sam a monster was going to start a fight. Hence my statement that it took two to start that particular (physical) fight. 7 minutes ago, ahrtee said: IIRC, he *did* offer a compromise (though I can't remember if it was at that particular time)--ditch Ruby and he'd work with him. He said he'd go along with what Sam wanted as long as Ruby wasn't a part of it, and Sam refused. This is true, except that the compromise was very unlikely since Sam thought that Ruby was necessary... or what @companionenvy above explained much better. 2 Link to comment
SueB December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 Quote I just wait for the day someone in show actually has a line like "see, Dean, if you hadn`t been such a weak loser and broken under 30 years of extreme torture - unlike Super!John - none of that would have happend" and then I will punch through the screen. I mean, they implied it but at least noone has verbalized it so far. That's what Alastair said verbatim in S4, On the Head of a Pin. But he was Dean's torturer. And was trying to get under his skin. He also thanked him sincerely for starting the Apocalypse. And Zachariah blamed him for starting it as well. Is it going to happen in the future? Maybe the BMoL. But they seem kinda stupid on stuff that isn't common knowledge. You would THINK they would good "Sam and Dean Winchester" and find "The Monster at the End of This Book". Unless Chuck STILL protected their names (which is plausible). Still, for all their studies, I can't believe they haven't read the books. Yeesh. Weak-sauce google-fu powers. 2 Link to comment
ahrtee December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 (edited) 34 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said: But I argue that there was no "somewhat good" here. The angels were just as bad as the demons. Both wanted Lucifer to be raised. How is the angels wanting Lucifer to be raised for Michael to kill and have half the planet annihilated and the angels take over earth all that much better than wanting Lucifer to take over? It's like comparing being eaten by a shark or being eaten by a bear. In both cases you're dead, and neither one cares about your opinion. NO ONE knew that the angels were on the side of the Apocalypse till the last episode of season 4, when it was already too late to change anything. They didn't even know that it was Cas who turned Sam loose in When the Levee Breaks. Up till then, Dean may have not trusted them entirely (because, well, trust issues) but there was no reason at all to think they were planning to annihilate the planet. ETA: Sorry...I skimmed over the part where you acknowledged that they didn't know that yet, but it brings up a big question: if all was equal, and you had two opposing sides giving you opposite advice... would you believe in the angels (even if they were behaving like dicks) or demons (even if they were being helpful)? Even if you did trust one particular demon, wouldn't the fact that angels were so absolute that it was a Bad Thing make you at least pause to question? (Or at least understand why Dean might have believed the angels vs. Ruby?) I also always remember Ruby1, when Dean challenged her about not telling the whole truth, shrugging and saying, "Demon. Manipulative kind of goes with the territory." Sounds like a warning to me; and that was in season 3. Edited December 18, 2016 by ahrtee missed a line in Awsom's post and wanted to address it. 2 Link to comment
ahrtee December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 2 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said: I can fairly confidently say that that is never going to happen. Any number of demons could have brought this up, but the only recurring narrative we have had on the subject has been that Sam raised Lucifer and started the apocalypse. That was still being brought up through season 11, by everyone from demons to hunters to Lucifer to God. Not to be snarky, but the reason why Sam keeps getting blamed is that, since season 5, no one has even acknowledged that Dean went to Hell at all. 1 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 30 minutes ago, ahrtee said: Dean, for all his bad choices, is usually willing to listen to other opinions and discuss other options. Maybe that's part of being more strategic (at least, when Sam's not involved) or his training from John; but he does, in fact, usually change his mind (or the plan) when he has the chance to discuss it. (He did that as far back as Phantom Traveler in season 1 when he went on the plane rather than let Sam go alone, or Home, when he went back to Lawrence because of Sam's dreams, when he had no reason to believe in them at the time.) The main times he did something stupid (like selling his soul, letting Gadreel in, or taking on the MoC) it was because he was alone, upset and/or panicked about Sam, and there was no one there to tell him not to. I used to think this, also, but then something @catrox14 said changed my mind on this. I actually think that Dean is just as confident in his plans as Sam is, and is just as unwilling to compromise on his point if he thinks it's the right one. Dean still insisted that Gadreel was the right thing to do - even after Kevin was killed. That could've turned out much worse than Gadreel redeeming himself and helping out in the end. Similarly Dean taking on the mark of Cain could've gone horribly wrong, but it didn't - until Sam that is - but Dean also insisted that that was the right thing to do. And for me Sam can be just as willing to compromise on many occasions. Jus In Bello comes to mind. Sam went ahead with Dean's plan even though Nancy herself wanted to go with Ruby's plan, and even though, by any normal means, Dean's plan shouldn't have worked. But Sam was willing to listen to dean and do what Dean considered to be the right and moral thing, and even if it didn't work, they would go down fighting. 49 minutes ago, ahrtee said: Sam did the same thing with the Book of the Damned as well, and in most of the cases when something he did turned out badly. I'd say he always has good intentions, but always refuses to listen to anyone else's advice when he's convinced he's right. That's his weakness, and what annoys me is that he hasn't seemed to learn from it (which might be why he keeps doing things that turn out wrong...) But in my opinion, it's sometimes just as much bad luck as it is Sam. As I said above, Dean's Gadreel situation could've turned out much worse, in my opinion, but instead Gadreel redeemed himself and was helpful. Same with the mark of Cain. 6 minutes ago, ahrtee said: I have to say you're comparing apples to oranges here. NO ONE knew that the angels were on the side of the Apocalypse till the last episode of season 4, when it was already too late to change anything. They didn't even know that it was Cas who turned Sam loose in When the Levee Breaks. Up till then, Dean may have not trusted them entirely (because, well, trust issues) but there was no reason at all to think they were planning to annihilate the planet. Actually someone did know... Castiel did, but he didn't warn Dean. Castiel at least did know that some angels wanted to raise Lucifer, because Uriel told him that was the case. And no one knew that Ruby didn't want to kill Lilith either. And for me, the fact that Uriel was very open about looking down on humans, including Dean who was supposed to be the one to stop the apocalypse, and didn't think twice about killing a bunch of them if it was convenient, didn't exactly say to me that angels were especially trustworthy if the task at hand was supposed to be saving humanity, but I realize that I'm likely alone in this one, and I'm okay with that. 22 minutes ago, ahrtee said: So...if you were given the choice of believing angels (even if they were behaving like dicks) vs. demons (even if they were being helpful)? Which would be more logical? For me, neither. I'd be like Bobby and not trust either/any of them. But If I had to choose, it would be a hard call. Someone threatening to send me back to hell, smite my brother, and basically calling me and my entire species worthless wouldn't exactly elicit confidence in me as what I would call an ally. Meanwhile demon, yes, but at least she was being helpful. So truthfully for me - hard call there. And Sam didn't start out trusting Ruby. He thought that he could use her - and even close to the end, he was still questioning her - but the angels made it clear they had no use for Sam, and barely were better to Dean, and then proceeded to do hardly anything to stop the apocalypse while blaming Sam and Dean for it, so I can understand Sam's actions even if I don't condone them. 2 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 40 minutes ago, ahrtee said: Even if you did trust one particular demon, wouldn't the fact that angels were so absolute that it was a Bad Thing make you at least pause to question? (Or at least understand why Dean might have believed the angels vs. Ruby?) Maybe - if they weren't threatening me, my brother, and insulting my entire species. As I said above, it's hard to have confidence in angels helping to save humanity if at least some of those same angels are calling humanity "mud monkeys" and making it clear that they are doing this because they have to not because they want to. And Uriel was acting this way from the very start. And Sam actually did pause to question and actually stopped using his powers for quite a while unless it was absolutely necessary... And I would love to know exactly why Sam started up using them again - just like I'd like to know why exactly he started in the first place - but sadly the writers didn't seem to think that was an important enough plot point to make it clear - for me anyway - Because "I don't want to be doing this when I'm old?" What does that even mean? And why is that motivation to start going dark again when nothing else previously had been? Hell if I know, but the show didn't seem to elaborate, so, truthfully I can't say exactly why Sam did what he did and didn't listen to Dean, since that doesn't sound anything near "Because I'm the only one who can put an end to this" that showed up later on... and I'm usually one who can at least try to come up with something to explain Sam's actions. Yet another reason I didn't much like season 4 in retrospect. 1 Link to comment
ahrtee December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 19 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said: I actually think that Dean is just as confident in his plans as Sam is, and is just as unwilling to compromise on his point if he thinks it's the right one. Dean still insisted that Gadreel was the right thing to do - even after Kevin was killed. That could've turned out much worse than Gadreel redeeming himself and helping out in the end. Similarly Dean taking on the mark of Cain could've gone horribly wrong, but it didn't - until Sam that is - but Dean also insisted that that was the right thing to do. And for me Sam can be just as willing to compromise on many occasions. Jus In Bello comes to mind. Sam went ahead with Dean's plan even though Nancy herself wanted to go with Ruby's plan, and even though, by any normal means, Dean's plan shouldn't have worked. But Sam was willing to listen to dean and do what Dean considered to be the right and moral thing, and even if it didn't work, they would go down fighting. I don't think I said (or at least, I didn't intend to say) that Dean *always* listens to others, or that Sam never does, but I think Dean is more likely to listen to others than Sam *when they're sure they're right*. Sometimes they're less than absolutely sure (as Sam in Jus in Bello, because frankly, I think he'd be looking for a way to save civilians) and sometimes it's grudgingly (as Dean, in Monster at the End of This Book, when Sam refused to leave town--though actually they *both* stuck to their guns there and did what they wanted--Sam stayed and faced Lilith, Dean found a way around it to protect Sam from Lilith.) And while you do have a point about Dean insisting he was right to take on the MoC or let in Gadreel, my point on both of those was not for him to admit he was wrong, but that he made those decisions out of desperation, not logical thought, and without discussing them with anyone (I don't consider Crowley as a voice of reason.) I could see Bobby talking him out of the MoC, or at least making him ask about consequences, though maybe not Gadreel, because that was Sam's life at stake. And I'd say the MoC did go pretty horribly wrong--from a personal, not world viewpoint, since it turned Dean into a demon once and threatened to "turn him into something he didn't want to be" permanently. It just didn't threaten the rest of the world till Sam decided (again, after being warned by Dean and angels and demons and Death himself) to remove it, no matter what the cost. So again--Dean's *epic* bad decisions impact himself and/or Sam (and Kevin, of course!) Sam's epic bad decisions impact the world. Just the epic ones, of course. Everyone's entitled to some bad decisions that don't end the world. JMO, of course. 28 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said: Maybe - if they weren't threatening me, my brother, and insulting my entire species. As I said above, it's hard to have confidence in angels helping to save humanity if at least some of those same angels are calling humanity "mud monkeys" and making it clear that they are doing this because they have to not because they want to. And Uriel was acting this way from the very start. Uriel was the only angel he met who was so anti-human and threatening Dean, and they learned that he was going *against* heaven's orders and the other angels, so in theory they had no reason to think that others were also "bad," though no one ever said directly what their purpose was in saving Dean. So, yeah, Dean didn't trust the angels; but, as he told Bobby in When the Levee Breaks--it was a choice between him trusting angels or Sam trusting a demon. (Wasn't there a line somewhere--and I'm pretty sure it was Dean but I can't remember what season or ep--when Sam said something like "can't you just trust me" and Dean said, "yeah, I trust you, but you're asking me to trust [a demon/monster] and I can't do that." That makes sense to me.) (Maybe it was about Amy?) 30 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said: And I would love to know exactly why Sam started up using them again - just like I'd like to know why exactly he started in the first place - but sadly the writers didn't seem to think that was an important enough plot point to make it clear - for me anyway - Because "I don't want to be doing this when I'm old?" What does that even mean? And why is that motivation to start going dark again when nothing else previously had been? IA with this 1000%. I think we can infer why he started using his powers in the first place (though not exactly how it started), but I never did figure out why he decided to start using them again after the magic episode, except that the writers needed it to happen. Ruby seemed just as surprised as us, so it obviously was his choice, not anything she pressured him into. 1 Link to comment
catrox14 December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 For me, the bottom line comes down to Sam putting a demon over Dean, regardless of whatever Ruby was convincing Sam about his abilities and the goal of killing Lilith. IMO once Sam learned that Alastair and the other demons tortured Dean to the point he couldn't take anymore, resulting in an entirely different kind of torture for Dean when he in turn tortured others, should have been the end of his relationship with Ruby. BUT if that wasn't the end of it then most certainly after OTHoAP, when he saw what Alastair did to Dean. That's where IMO Dean's deepest anger and resentment towards Sam's relationship with Ruby came. That's where IMO it was a betrayal of Dean. YMMV. 5 Link to comment
shang yiet December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 No, it wasn't. Ruby as far as Sam knows, was not in cahoots with Alastair or other demons. She had saved Dean before back in s3 and she appeared to have a legitimate beef with Lilith. Didn't Ruby tell Sam she herself was tortured in hell before escaping? So she was apparently a victim of torture just like Dean. She produced concrete results, helped Sam save demon-possessed people and appeared to be a lone operator. I disliked how Sam's complex motivations were distilled down to one line like that. Sam is entitled to follow his own strategy without being accused of the sin of not putting Dean first. Funnily enough, the reason he was so messed up in the first place was because Dean was first in his heart leading to a vulnerability after Dean's death that Ruby exploited. So it's all one big circle. How come when Dean was trusting the angels and following his own strategy he's never accused of putting them first before Sam? It seems it all boils down to who's right and who's wrong and Sam always has to be wrong. Breaking the seals - of course, Dean broke the seal for a 'good' reason while Sam broke the seal because of his 'arrogance'. How can anyone blame Dean when there is a built-in sympathetic reason for Dean's actions? Consequences - I agree Dean's actions have limited consequences because they affect only Sam and himself while Sam's actions threaten the whole world. Won't argue with that. Dean gets off lightly here. Arrogance - I don't mind the so-called arrogance in Sam because it's a very human and relatable flaw and I don't need Sam to get rid of this flaw completely. It actually helps me to sympathise even more when this flaw leads to epic mistakes and the eating of humble pie. It's Dean's flaws that irritate the heck out of me. Compromise - After 200 or more episodes, I can point out many times when Sam did just that while just as many times, Dean went ahead with his plans insisting he was right and not listening to objections. 4 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, ahrtee said: So again--Dean's *epic* bad decisions impact himself and/or Sam (and Kevin, of course!) Sam's epic bad decisions impact the world. Just the epic ones, of course. Everyone's entitled to some bad decisions that don't end the world. JMO, of course. No, I agree with you that this is generally the case. I just don't understand why this is usually the case. I mean, yes, unlike Sam and the Book of the Damned, nobody told Dean that killing Death just might be a bad idea that might have really big consequences, but for me anyway, I don't think that actually needed to be said. Just intuitively, killing a millennial's old force of the universe who heads up one of the balancing forces of said universe just might be a potentially bad idea. So just because nothing happened, does that somehow make it less of a bad decision than anything Sam did that happened to start an apocalypse - especially the Lilith mistake - or does it just make Dean luckier that his potentially bad decisions don't have apocalyptic consequences even when the potential for epic, global consequences is arguably there? 2 hours ago, catrox14 said: For me, the bottom line comes down to Sam putting a demon over Dean, regardless of whatever Ruby was convincing Sam about his abilities and the goal of killing Lilith. IMO once Sam learned that Alastair and the other demons tortured Dean to the point he couldn't take anymore, resulting in an entirely different kind of torture for Dean when he in turn tortured others, should have been the end of his relationship with Ruby. BUT if that wasn't the end of it then most certainly after OTHoAP, when he saw what Alastair did to Dean. That's where IMO Dean's deepest anger and resentment towards Sam's relationship with Ruby came. That's where IMO it was a betrayal of Dean. YMMV. When you put it that way, I can see how it could be seen as a betrayal. And Sam himself knew this. He never expected Dean to forgive him and even told Ruby as much when she suggested that Dean would "understand." However, I didn't see it as Sam putting a demon - Ruby - over Dean. As I said above, I'm not exactly sure why Sam even decided to start up with the demon blood again, because for me it was never adequately explained - not even close. But even then, it wasn't like Sam was choosing Ruby because he cared about her. He was choosing to listen to Ruby as a means to an end - stopping the apocalypse, so in this case Sam was choosing saving the world over Dean... not Ruby. Should Sam have believed that Dean could do it and just gone with that? Maybe, but ironically that wouldn't have necessarily saved the world any better, because the angels actually had no plan for Dean to stop the apocalypse and save the world. They had plans for Michael to stop the apocalypse and sort of save the world - well for the angels anyway, they weren't all that concerned about the human population - while Dean became a meatsuit. However, I also can see shang yiet's point that it is unreasonable that Ruby should necessarily have been lumped into the same category as Alastair and the other demons. By that logic, Dean shouldn't have trusted/chosen the angels, because Uriel wanted nothing more than to smite Sam if he got the chance to do so, and Dean knew this. Edited December 18, 2016 by AwesomO4000 Link to comment
mertensia December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 Ruby followed a path of being helpful to help Sam release Lucifer without being too helpful and making everyone suspicious-and that's tough, no matter what you think of her. (Unpopular opinion: I don't mind Ruby.) IF Uriel et alia had been smart they would have sent an angel in on it to help Sam. But again I am forced to wonder: did no one bother trying to see if the list of seals were and what the last one was? Why not? 1 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 I think Michael knew what the last seal was and Zachariah at least, but since they wanted the seals broken - and Zachariah admitted that if the higher up angels had wanted, they could have stopped the seals from breaking - they didn't warn anyone else what that final seal was. Link to comment
mertensia December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 I meant hunters. Bobby. Rufus. Sam and Dean. Etc. Link to comment
MysteryGuest December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 I think we can, and do, go round and round on this discussion, and ultimately it's really just a matter of who your favorite is. Since I favor Dean, I take offense at things Sam has done or said, and absolutely judge him more harshly than I do Dean, but I think that's just as true of Sam fans. Each brother has made mistakes, been cruel and thoughtless, acted recklessly, etc., but depending on your perspective (seen through your favorite's eyes), most of those acts are defensible. For example, I never fault Dean for doing something outrageous or stupid (demon deal, Gadreel, etc.), if it means saving Sam's life. Dean will always do whatever it takes to save Sam. It's ingrained in him and it's never going to change, and it's one of the things I love about the character. I'm a sap, what can I say. So when Sam gets angry at Dean for doing this it usually pisses me off. When Sam tells Dean that he wouldn't do the same to save him, or that Dean only does it because he's selfish, etc., my heart breaks for Dean because I know how much those words hurt him. That's because I watch the show from a Dean perspective most of the time. I'm aware that there's a flip side, and that Sam has feelings and a perspective of his own that are just as valid as Dean's. When it's both brothers against the world, I enjoy their differences and really like Sam, and can appreciate what he brings to the table. But when they're pitted against one another, 9 times out of 10, I'm going to come down on Dean's side. I blame human nature. 4 Link to comment
Aeryn13 December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 Quote I actually disagree with this. For me, the opposite is generally the case. I personally can't think of one show that I have seen where true arrogance has been redeemed in a believable way for me. It's why I dislike House. I loved House but as a variation of Sherlock Holmes it pretty much follows a different formula. Those stories never try to redeem to uber-arrogance and dickishness in the first place, the characters stay who they are for the most part. It`s just a question of the actors making them compelling or not which I thought Laurie and Cumberbatch can do but most others would fail. But overall I think weakness it the one trait they can`t really redeem for me in a fictional character. If they start out very young and grow into their own later, okay, but other than that, do not want. Now I, too, believe Alistair was lying about John - even keeping it ambiguous though rankled me because it made Dean lasting for 30 years child`s play - but if I didn`t, I`d have to concede that John was the better man because he was stronger. Strength of will being of more value to me. Just as Bobby saying Sam was the better hunter was a far better compliment than "Dean is my favourite". Quote So, I don't think it is fair to say that Sam made an exception simply because Ruby was propping up his ego -- if it were all about ego, he might as well have thrown in his lot with Azazel, who wanted to make him the boy-king of hell. Sam didn`t want an evil destiny and be an evil "saviour", he wanted to be the good saviour and be validated that way. Ruby promised that. So her ego propping worked whereas Azazel`s offer held far less appeal for Sam. So those two things made complete sense to me. Even Lucifer knew which kind of butter job would work and send his visions of "I am God, I have chosen you to defeat the darkness, open the cage, my champion" accordingly. And if they had another apocalyptic threat, a similar approach would work again. If Dean was skeptic about it, he would be pegged as bossy, unsupportive, not trusting in Sam and also "too weak/unimportant to be of use anyway". In the end, I even agree that Dean`s actions seem to just not have the world-reaching conquences but I also believe that is because the writers don`t consider his character all that important and thus do not put much thought into potential stories for him. It was ludicrous that he could kill Death and nothing happened. I guess I could squint and say nothing happened because they already involved him into the mytharc via Amara. Which would be fair but then they didn`t put half a crap into establishing their connection or make it mythologically exciting. With Dean, the emo and depression and all that increasingly annyoing stuff they milked for all they were worth and more but the actual, interesting stories, they half-assed, even the one with the decent screen-time aka the MOC. Worst attribution of focus ever. 1 Link to comment
DittyDotDot December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 10 hours ago, ahrtee said: Sorry...I skimmed over the part where you acknowledged that they didn't know that yet, but it brings up a big question: if all was equal, and you had two opposing sides giving you opposite advice... would you believe in the angels (even if they were behaving like dicks) or demons (even if they were being helpful)? For me? I didn't trust either of them. The angels came on too strong and put up my hackles from the start. And, even though I never trusted Ruby's "I've come to help" shtick anyway, she was proven to be untrustworthy at the end of S3 so I was sure she was still untrustworthy after getting her ass handed to her by Lilith too. I think they both were being pushed around and manipulated by forces beyond their control and knowledge and, IMO, neither were responsible for the apocalypse--that was solely down to Michael and Lucifer, if you ask me--but they were responsible for their own actions in how they reacted to their respective manipulations. There are times I think Sam was a bigger fool simply because he trusted someone who had already been proven untrustworthy. But, Dean seemed a pretty big fool when he finally agreed to "serve" Heaven too. Granted he didn't trust them, but he was signing on to do their bidding anyway, so... . 9 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said: Actually someone did know... Castiel did, but he didn't warn Dean. Castiel at least did know that some angels wanted to raise Lucifer, because Uriel told him that was the case. And no one knew that Ruby didn't want to kill Lilith either. Actually Cass did warn Dean once he learned about Uriel, he just didn't know the whole scope of what to warn Dean about until after he got to experience Heaven's persuasion. Even then, I'm not sure how much Cass really knew. I mean, it seems unlikely the angels would tell the rebel angel EVERYTHING. The whole thing was a big lie and, IMO, all the players were being pushed around the board, including Cass. I'm not sure it would've made much of a difference if they had known everything going in anyway. 8 hours ago, catrox14 said: IMO once Sam learned that Alastair and the other demons tortured Dean to the point he couldn't take anymore, resulting in an entirely different kind of torture for Dean when he in turn tortured others, should have been the end of his relationship with Ruby. BUT if that wasn't the end of it then most certainly after OTHoAP, when he saw what Alastair did to Dean. That's where IMO Dean's deepest anger and resentment towards Sam's relationship with Ruby came. That's where IMO it was a betrayal of Dean. YMMV. I think the thing to remember about Sam in S4 is he was hopped up on demon blood most of the time and much of what he was doing was the "drug" talking more than it was Sam. We just didn't know that until almost the end of the season. So, it makes perfect sense to me, in hindsight, Sam got in deeper with Ruby at that point. He believed Ruby was working against the demons and, in his mind, he wasn't working with someone who participated in breaking Dean, but was working with someone who was helping him hurt the demons who broke Dean. The show never sold me on why he would believe Ruby was working against them--I'm with Dean, all they showed me was a manipulative demon who, screwed Sam, played mind games with him, and did everything in the book to get him to go bad--but, from his demon-blood-addled perspective, it apparently looked different. 2 Link to comment
ahrtee December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said: No, I agree with you that this is generally the case. I just don't understand why this is usually the case. I mean, yes, unlike Sam and the Book of the Damned, nobody told Dean that killing Death just might be a bad idea that might have really big consequences, but for me anyway, I don't think that actually needed to be said. Just intuitively, killing a millennial's old force of the universe who heads up one of the balancing forces of said universe just might be a potentially bad idea. So just because nothing happened, does that somehow make it less of a bad decision than anything Sam did that happened to start an apocalypse - especially the Lilith mistake - or does it just make Dean luckier that his potentially bad decisions don't have apocalyptic consequences even when the potential for epic, global consequences is arguably there? Oh, absolutely it should have had some big consequences, and (for all we know) maybe it's still coming down the line--if the writers want it to/can figure out what to do with it. I (and I assume others) have been holding my breath waiting to see what's going to happen--maybe with Billie, maybe (my opinion) that Death really isn't dead, just watching to see what happens without him. He did say wearing the Ring was tiring. Maybe Chuck gave him a vacation--since he and Amara would be handling things in season 11--and for now he's lying back on some beach with a margarita and some pork rinds. (OTOH--and this was never addressed either--apparently Death was "caged" for millennia--until Lucifer performed the spell and raised him. Same for the other horsemen--and yet war and pestilence and famine go on even without them. So maybe their actual presence is not really that important?) And if you want to look at the big picture--Dean selling his soul directly impacted himself (and Sam, being left behind.) But in actuality, it also caused him to break the first seal, and so it *did* have apocalyptic consequences (even overlooking the fact that it was his time in hell that caused Sam to turn to Ruby and thus break the last seal). It's just that the writers never mentioned it after season 5, because the final seal was much more obvious. So you can look at it as the writers letting him off the hook, or (as Aeryn does) as the writers not giving him enough importance to write anything about it--it depends on your POV. Because: 4 hours ago, MysteryGuest said: I think we can, and do, go round and round on this discussion, and ultimately it's really just a matter of who your favorite is. Since I favor Dean, I take offense at things Sam has done or said, and absolutely judge him more harshly than I do Dean, but I think that's just as true of Sam fans. Each brother has made mistakes, been cruel and thoughtless, acted recklessly, etc., but depending on your perspective (seen through your favorite's eyes), most of those acts are defensible. Edited December 18, 2016 by ahrtee additional thought on Death... 1 Link to comment
DeeDee79 December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 4 hours ago, MysteryGuest said: I'm aware that there's a flip side, and that Sam has feelings and a perspective of his own that are just as valid as Dean's. When it's both brothers against the world, I enjoy their differences and really like Sam, and can appreciate what he brings to the table. But when they're pitted against one another, 9 times out of 10, I'm going to come down on Dean's side. I blame human nature. I agree with this. I like both brothers but I do tend to favor Dean as well. 13 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said: I'm sorry to hear this. I won't discuss with you anymore, especially since it appears that you've already made up your mind about Sam and don't want to hear/discuss other views about him or Dean or Castiel. We can agree to disagree. I don't mean to be argumentative; my apologies if that's how I came across in my response. Link to comment
MysteryGuest December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 I completely agree that the killing of Death should have had major repercussions. I'm really amazed (and disappointed) that there was nothing made of this last season. It seemed absurd that other than Billy mentioning it as an aside, nothing else was said. Based on hints we've been given this season that Death might be back, I'm going to hope it gets addressed, though I think it's ridiculously late. With that being said, however, I don't think Dean actually "thought" about killing Death. I honestly believe he had every intention of killing Sam in order to save the world from himself, but at the very last second, he simply couldn't do it. I don't think there was any premeditation at all. He looked just as surprised as Sam by what he'd done. This doesn't negate whatever consequences would have (or should have) come from killing Death, but I don't put it in the same category as other reckless decisions Dean has made. 2 Link to comment
DeeDee79 December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 17 hours ago, companionenvy said: I also disagree that it is meaningful that Sam "had never put any stock into what demons had to say until he had one by his side pumping up his ego." No, he hadn't trusted demons in the past -- but then, Sam and Dean hadn't really encountered many demons before S3, and the ones they did were, almost without exception, openly hostile, so it wasn't as if there would have been much room for trust. Sam had, on the other hand, consistently shown a willingness to buy that some "monsters" might not be evil. So, I don't think it is fair to say that Sam made an exception simply because Ruby was propping up his ego -- if it were all about ego, he might as well have thrown in his lot with Azazel, who wanted to make him the boy-king of hell. And even if ego were a part of it, there were also a lot of other nobler motivations mixed in. I mean, we could also say "he only trusted Ruby because she was hot," but while her physical appearance couldn't have hurt, it would be reductive to claim that was the extent of Sam's thought process. I'll agree that Sam was open to the fact that all monsters weren't bad and that the brothers hadn't had any encounters with demons that weren't out to do them harm. However, Sam's willingness to listen to Ruby was in large part to her telling him how powerful he could be and the demon blood only made it worse. I blame the writing mostly; we saw Sam telling Chuck that he had to take on Lilith because Dean wasn't strong enough and the situation was made worse after the encounter with the Siren. Bottom line I feel that the combination of Ruby's influence and the blood consumption went a long way to changing Sam's demeanor in season 4. I strongly feel that this was the season that did the most damage to his character. Link to comment
Aeryn13 December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 For me it was Season 5. You can do almost anything with a character in terms of darkness if you land the redemption. Then I consider it well worth it and I was fully onboard for this when Season 5 started. The convo Sam had with War? (first horseman was War, right?), I really, really felt bad for him. Then came Fallen Idols and I de-boarded that train, never getting back on. I considered the Season 8 thing with not looking more terribly weird for this show. Like, who didn`t see that failing from a mile away? Other than the SPN writers, that is. And whoever directed the Season 8 Premiere and went with "yes, the annoyed reaction with Dean`s return is what we`re going for, cut, print" needs to be slapped. In terms of a show with likeable characters, I would say Season 1 and 2 fit the bill. Afterwards, it kinda falls apart. And while it is completely feasible to write a show with characters that aren`t exactly likeable (I love the Originals and at some point I loved Vampire Diaries but these people were, are and will forever be horrible), you need a different vibe and storytelling for that. 2 Link to comment
DeeDee79 December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 3 hours ago, Aeryn13 said: I considered the Season 8 thing with not looking more terribly weird for this show. Like, who didn`t see that failing from a mile away? Other than the SPN writers, that is. And whoever directed the Season 8 Premiere and went with "yes, the annoyed reaction with Dean`s return is what we`re going for, cut, print" needs to be slapped. Yes, that was bizarre and out of character. They may have had the "don't look for me" talk due to their line of work but for me it was hard to buy Sam not even looking for his brother or Kevin. The flashbacks that showed how shaken he was after Dean's disappearance helped in showing his state of mind but it still didn't seem like Sam. Link to comment
shang yiet December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 I couldn't care less about any redemption considering Dean with all his mistakes, flaws and arrogance is still standing on high ground and apparently, doesn't need redemption in the first place. Because he's always right while Sam gets blamed and blasted by Dean, horsemen and other hunters. We saw Sam blame himself and that's good enough for me. Sam's flaws merely make him easier to relate to, in my eyes. Who doesn't want to be saviour of the world? I understand this far more than him doing it because he's so noble and pure. 3 Link to comment
ahrtee December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 16 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said: Bottom line I feel that the combination of Ruby's influence and the blood consumption went a long way to changing Sam's demeanor in season 4. I strongly feel that this was the season that did the most damage to his character. Season 4 didn't ruin Sam for me. I could understand his motivations, even if I didn't like them (and no, IMO it wasn't entirely Ruby telling him how powerful he could be--it was mostly being lost without Dean, and without his support--and Ruby filled that role for him. She told him he would be fine, that he was strong enough to do whatever needed to be done, and then the demon blood made him *feel* strong.) So I don't blame him for his actions that season--*it wasn't him,* any more than DemonDean or MoC Dean was really Dean. I have no problem with the show skewing the character as long as there's a legitimate reason for it (and hopefully it gets straightened out in the end.) No, it was season 5 that killed him for me. Because that was pure Sam, with no outside influences. 3 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said: For me it was Season 5. You can do almost anything with a character in terms of darkness if you land the redemption. Then I consider it well worth it and I was fully onboard for this when Season 5 started. The convo Sam had with War? (first horseman was War, right?), I really, really felt bad for him. Then came Fallen Idols and I de-boarded that train, never getting back on. Sam wanted redemption. He tried everything he could to make up for starting the Apocalypse, and did, in fact, finally achieve it. But he missed the one thing that he really, *really* needed to do: apologize to Dean--not for Lilith, but for his betrayal. Dean actually said it himself in 5.1: "You chose a demon over your own brother. I'm having a hard time forgiving." And Sam nodded, and accepted it then. But by the VERY NEXT EPISODE he was challenging Dean on not trusting him around demons; and by Fallen Idols (as Aeryn said) when he wound up not only blaming Dean for his choice to go with Ruby, but getting furious at him for *NOT* trusting him--that just made me lose all respect. To me, Sam was behaving like a whiny kid: "I SAID I was sorry. Why are you still mad?" Yes, I can understand why he might feel like he was constantly being judged and tested, but I think either he could have asked in a less challenging/less angry way, or just acknowledged that yes, Dean *was* still hurt and bitter and waited it out till it wasn't such a sore subject. After all, Dean has always forgiven Sam for everything...and usually winds up apologizing to him for *not* going along with him. (That's a whole 'nother story, not for here...) Unfortunately, since then the writers have made Sam act like that many other times--getting defensive and attacking when he *knows* he's wrong. That's human, and understandable--but it's still annoying in these two particular men, and after all this time. I'm the younger sister in my family, so I understand resentment towards the older, and wanting to be accepted in my own right, even now, when we're much, MUCH older than the Winchesters--but I don't have the same relationship with my sister as those two do. Sam and Dean need each other; they've both acknowledged it and accept it, and so the fact that they still apparently don't understand each other (and their fears and needs) is baffling at best, and very annoying. And I'll freely admit that I've been sensitized to that particular behavior from Sam, so it grates on me whenever I see it, and tends to make me furious with him all over again, even when I've started liking him again. (I'm not even considering season 8, which was as much not!Sam as season 4). But the Purge speech killed him for me again; and his behavior about Gadreel--NOT his anger, which I understand (and is part of the "why don't you two understand each other" annoyance above)--but his speech afterwards: the "your *real* friends--Cas and Gadreel--are looking for Metatron." That made no sense whatsoever. 19 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said: In terms of a show with likeable characters, I would say Season 1 and 2 fit the bill. Afterwards, it kinda falls apart. And while it is completely feasible to write a show with characters that aren`t exactly likeable (I love the Originals and at some point I loved Vampire Diaries but these people were, are and will forever be horrible), you need a different vibe and storytelling for that. For me, I can watch and enjoy a show with horrible characters (House, for example, or Deadwood) as long as they're interesting/complex, but I need someone to root for and identify with in order to become fully invested in a show. For me, that's Dean, and so I can watch even when he (or Sam) are being particularly annoying, or OOC, or even downright evil, as long as I can understand the reasons and still see the original characters underneath. Even House, until the last few years, had enough complexity to keep me watching, because I could see the (warped and bitter) human being underneath all the snark and bad behavior. By the last few years, he'd become a caricature of all his worst characteristics with no redeeming factors, so I gave up. So far that hasn't happened with Supernatural (even though there have been individual episodes where they came perilously close) so I'm still watching. 2 Link to comment
DittyDotDot December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, DeeDee79 said: I'll agree that Sam was open to the fact that all monsters weren't bad and that the brothers hadn't had any encounters with demons that weren't out to do them harm. However, Sam's willingness to listen to Ruby was in large part to her telling him how powerful he could be and the demon blood only made it worse. I blame the writing mostly; we saw Sam telling Chuck that he had to take on Lilith because Dean wasn't strong enough and the situation was made worse after the encounter with the Siren. Bottom line I feel that the combination of Ruby's influence and the blood consumption went a long way to changing Sam's demeanor in season 4. I strongly feel that this was the season that did the most damage to his character. While I agree that the demon blood what affecting Sam, I don't think it actually damaged his character. I mean, sure he was a royal douche at times, but no more than Dean was at times when he was under the influence of the Mark. They both have traits the supernatural influence heightened, but even before the supernatural influence, it was part of who they were. And with the supernatural influence gone, it's still a part of who they are. It's just that those traits are in balance when the supernatural influence isn't present. For better or worse, Sam has an arrogant streak to him, always did, IMO. That doesn't necessarily make him a bad person. Arrogance can be a useful trait--as in self confidence--when kept in balance. Just like Dean is rash and impetuous, which can also be a useful trait--it allows for his quick thinking and creativity--when it's kept in balance. I actually think the only time the show has damaged the characters was starting in S8. Sam being hopped up on demon blood in S4 and Dean having little-to-no impulse control whatsoever when he had the Mark or was a demon wasn't permanent or a total change of personality. S8-S9 was really the only time I can say I, not only didn't understand, but just plain didn't like either Sam or Dean. Petty Little Jerks, if you ask me. BTW, @AwesomO4000, you can attribute the "Petty Little Jerks" trademark to me. I've been saying it for a couple years now to describe both S8 and S9. Edited December 18, 2016 by DittyDotDot 2 Link to comment
companionenvy December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 See, I think the "you chose a demon over your own brother" thing is BS emotional manipulation. If I vote for candidate A even after my friend passionately argues that I should be voting for candidate B, does that mean I "chose candidate A over my best friend"? Of course not. It means we are different people who will at times make different choices. And if the friend says "well, if you vote for candidate A, I'll never speak to you again," that's emotional blackmail, plain and simple. Sam "choosing Ruby over Dean" would be Sam saving Ruby in a situation where both Ruby and Dean were in danger -- or, heck, Sam giving Ruby the second ticket to a concert and leaving Dean sulking in the Impala. Deciding to trust Ruby over Dean's protests in a situation where Sam legitimately thinks he is doing what is right for the fate of the world simply doesn't fit the bill. That Dean turns out to be right in his objection doesn't change the fact that Sam isn't personally betraying Dean by going ahead with his plan. 5 Link to comment
Aeryn13 December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 Quote Deciding to trust Ruby over Dean's protests in a situation where Sam legitimately thinks he is doing what is right for the fate of the world simply doesn't fit the bill. That Dean turns out to be right in his objection doesn't change the fact that Sam isn't personally betraying Dean by going ahead with his plan. But in that case he can also stfu over "why do you think I went to Ruby in the first place, it`s because she made me feel strong and you didn`t". It`s not like Ruby didn`t make Sam weak in the end, she just topped him from the bottom. If he is into that, Dean is just not the right guy. 2 Link to comment
ahrtee December 18, 2016 Share December 18, 2016 (edited) 22 minutes ago, companionenvy said: See, I think the "you chose a demon over your own brother" thing is BS emotional manipulation. If I vote for candidate A even after my friend passionately argues that I should be voting for candidate B, does that mean I "chose candidate A over my best friend"? Of course not. It means we are different people who will at times make different choices. And if the friend says "well, if you vote for candidate A, I'll never speak to you again," that's emotional blackmail, plain and simple. Sam "choosing Ruby over Dean" would be Sam saving Ruby in a situation where both Ruby and Dean were in danger -- or, heck, Sam giving Ruby the second ticket to a concert and leaving Dean sulking in the Impala. Deciding to trust Ruby over Dean's protests in a situation where Sam legitimately thinks he is doing what is right for the fate of the world simply doesn't fit the bill. That Dean turns out to be right in his objection doesn't change the fact that Sam isn't personally betraying Dean by going ahead with his plan. Disagreeing with a friend (whether over candidates or concert tickets or what color to paint the house) isn't the same as this, at least for the Winchesters, and I'm pretty sure most fans understand that. This *was* a serious personal betrayal of family and trust to Dean, and I think Sam understood that as well. By telling him after the fact, Dean wasn't trying to manipulate Sam into anything, just express his own anger/upset. If he *hadn't* said anything but withdrew emotionally and/or seemed not to trust Sam without any explanation, I'm sure people would complain that he was being passive-aggressive or sulking. And frankly, it was good to see him talking about it instead of just sucking it up and drinking more. Sometimes expressing feelings out loud is necessary, not manipulative. Edited December 18, 2016 by ahrtee 4 Link to comment
companionenvy December 19, 2016 Share December 19, 2016 5 hours ago, ahrtee said: Disagreeing with a friend (whether over candidates or concert tickets or what color to paint the house) isn't the same as this, at least for the Winchesters, and I'm pretty sure most fans understand that. This *was* a serious personal betrayal of family and trust to Dean, and I think Sam understood that as wel Well, yeah, it isn't the same in that the practical and emotional stakes are much, much higher. The principle, IMO, remains sound, and the fact that the Winchester's intense relationship and highly fraught circumstances dial the situation up to eleven doesn't change that. Of course, ,I don't think this is one sided - Sam has been plenty emotionally manipulative/unfair to Dean on a number of occasions too. I'm defending Sam largely because I don't see Dean bashing on these boards, whereas I do see a lot of criticism of Sam. If people were spending time talking about how horrible Dean was for letting Gadreel possess Sam or for befriending Benny, I'd be defending him. In fact, I have defended his friendship with Benny. It just doesn't seem to strike as much of a nerve. 3 Link to comment
ahrtee December 19, 2016 Share December 19, 2016 33 minutes ago, companionenvy said: Well, yeah, it isn't the same in that the practical and emotional stakes are much, much higher. The principle, IMO, remains sound, and the fact that the Winchester's intense relationship and highly fraught circumstances dial the situation up to eleven doesn't change that. IMO, the two situations are very, very different, but I understand that you see things differently, so we can agree to disagree. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.