Supernatural Bitterness & Unpopular Opinions: You All Suck

[Aeryn13]

I guess I see it as if Dean comes across positively or heroic or actually like a lead despite not having the mytharc, it`s a) to a large part accidental in writing and b) Jensen`s portrayal. Meanwhile, I`m sure the writers do believe they write Sam as the greatest guy who ever lived. And that he might not comes across like that is also accidental in the writing. Because they try and overhype so much and do so much zero sum and vice versa writing for Dean that it creates the opposite effect.

 

Which, actually, is most often the case when they go and overhype and pimp characters. That hardly works. Meanwhile the ones where initially the writers don`t give much of a crap work relatively well. 

 

Because the tell of the show has always been very, very clear to me in how Sam is to be adored. And Dean`s single good trait is adoring Sam. That it creates the "fuck you and the horse you rode in on, you Beckys" against the writers (for me at least) just makes it more obnoxious because the "tell" of the show just gets my hackles up. 

 

I will grant you the hair-stylists as anti-Sammers, though. :)  Then again, sometimes they nearly scalp Jensen so maybe they just don`t have the greatest taste in general? 

Edited November 21, 2014 by Aeryn13

[Mulva]

I guess my UO is that I'm always surprised by the bitter complaining about Dean's characterization. I mean, yes, at this point in the series, every character has been horribly and/or inconsistently portrayed at points, and as DittyDot and I commented on, both main characters were certainly more lively, spirited and even admirable at the very beginning of the series. But Dean, IMO, has always been granted about 99% of the positive traits given to the brothers. He's like the classic hero---courageous, tough, resourceful, funny, endearingly cocky yet vulnerable, righteous, intensely loyal, a studly ladies' man who's always ready with a clever quip and a devil-may-care grin, etc. He drinks too much, but that's often presented more like another indication of how gritty and manly-man-ish he is rather than a genuine issue. And the whole 'he doesn't have the self-esteem to acknowledge just how amazing he is!' thing is kind of a lame non-flaw flaw, IMO, like when you tell job interviewers that your weakness is that you work too darn hard and care too much.

 

And I don't say any of this snarkily, because I like and often even admire Dean a lot. I just don't get the 'popular' notion that he's been screwed by the writers, when, in contrast to the lengthy but not even comprehensive list of laudable, heroic traits given to Dean above, Sam's salient characteristics (when he's actually given any!) are that he's an arrogant, sulky, whiny, selfish, bitter, angry killjoy who's forever screwing up and needing his righteous big brother to save him from his own mistakes. The few strengths he was ever given proved moot---sure, he was supposed to be 'book smart', but that didn't translate too well, if at all, to his post-Stanford life. He was initially presented as empathetic and sensitive, but that was quickly revealed to be  mostly deliberate manipulation and simply his way of getting people to give them information. Some might say his independence and determination to forge his own path by leaving for Stanford was positive, but the show has far more consistently depicted it as indicative of Sam's excessive pride, selfishness and lack of familial loyalty. Past S1 and maybe parts of S2 and S3, poor Sam has been given almost no positive traits at all, IMO...and even the show's hairstylists seem to hate him! ;)

I think you and I are watching the same show! I've never gotten the "Poor Dean" thing at all. Of course, I still don't understand why Sam accepting a scholarship to a prestigious university is considered negative or a character flaw. On the contrary, I always felt that Dean's extreme butthurt was ridiculous.

[amensisterfriend]

I think you and I are watching the same show! I've never gotten the "Poor Dean" thing at all

 

And I forgot to mention that the show's beloved secondary characters, Castiel and Bobby, were both markedly closer to Dean than Sam and even explicitly declared that they like him more than Sam...just in case we didn't get from the whole subtle 'angels choosing Dean, Sam is Lucifer' thing that Dean is considered the 'better' brother :) 

[AwesomO4000]

I guess my UO is that I'm always surprised by the bitter complaining about Dean's characterization. I mean, yes, at this point in the series, every character has been horribly and/or inconsistently portrayed at points, and as DittyDot and I commented on, both main characters were certainly more lively, spirited and even admirable at the very beginning of the series. But Dean, IMO, has always been granted about 99% of the positive traits given to the brothers. He's like the classic hero---courageous, tough, resourceful, funny, endearingly cocky yet vulnerable, righteous, intensely loyal, a studly ladies' man who's always ready with a clever quip and a devil-may-care grin, etc. He drinks too much, but that's often presented more like another indication of how gritty and manly-man-ish he is rather than a genuine issue. And the whole 'he doesn't have the self-esteem to acknowledge just how amazing he is!' thing is kind of a lame non-flaw flaw, IMO, like when you tell job interviewers that your weakness is that you work too darn hard and care too much.

 

And I don't say any of this snarkily, because I like and often even admire Dean a lot. I just don't get the 'popular' notion that he's been screwed by the writers, when, in contrast to the lengthy but not even comprehensive list of laudable, heroic traits given to Dean above, Sam's salient characteristics (when he's actually given any!) are that he's an arrogant, sulky, whiny, selfish, bitter, angry killjoy who's forever screwing up and needing his righteous big brother to save him from his own mistakes. The few strengths he was ever given proved moot---sure, he was supposed to be 'book smart', but that didn't translate too well, if at all, to his post-Stanford life. He was initially presented as empathetic and sensitive, but that was quickly revealed to be  mostly deliberate manipulation and simply his way of getting people to give them information. Some might say his independence and determination to forge his own path by leaving for Stanford was positive, but the show has far more consistently depicted it as indicative of Sam's excessive pride, selfishness and lack of familial loyalty. Past S1 and maybe parts of S2 and S3, poor Sam has been given almost no positive traits at all, IMO...and even the show's hairstylists seem to hate him! ;)   

 

Almost exactly this. * And I agree that generally the positive attributes the show gives Sam are often either mocked - like his book smarts - or not really considered as positive by the show - like his independence. In addition, as you added while I was composing this, Dean is everyone's favorite: Bobby, Ellen, Jo, Castiel, Kevin, Charlie, probably Garth, and now even Crowley. When Sam is someone's "favorite" - like Ruby, Azazel, Famine, and Lucifer - it's generally because they are trying to use Sam in some way or they want him to be evil.

 

* because as I mentioned, I actually like and probably prefer post resoulling Sam. I liked his maturity before it was taken away from him in recent seasons.

 

I guess I see it as if Dean comes across positively or heroic or actually like a lead despite not having the mytharc, it`s a) to a large part accidental in writing and b) Jensen`s portrayal. Meanwhile, I`m sure the writers do believe they write Sam as the greatest guy who ever lived. And that he might not comes across like that is also accidental in the writing. Because they try and overhype so much and do so much zero sum and vice versa writing for Dean that it creates the opposite effect.

 

Like Dean, I don't believe in coincidences and when is it ever an accident? For me, what some see as overhype, I see as damning with faint praise. The writers have Sam do these things to Dean for the "angst" and to highlight how much Dean is the "good brother" then shrug their shoulders with "enh, we'll just have someone say something vaguely positive about Sam to make up for it." It doesn't, and I see it as window dressing only.

 

And Dean`s single good trait is adoring Sam.

Plus all of the other good traits that amensisterfriend mentioned. Adoring Sam may be one of their favorite traits, but considering what demon Dean said concerning Sam, it's a good thing Dean does, because no one else would. Another heroic trait for Dean.

 

Because the tell of the show has always been very, very clear to me in how Sam is to be adored.

 

I'm not seeing this clear "tell" you are describing. Almost ever recurring character on the show (who isn't evil) adores Dean, except for Dean. Sam is some vague notion minor characters talk about in generalities, but don't really understand. Generally even some of the major characters - like Bobby - don't even seem to understand him. And when the writers have Sam fail constantly - with one exception - say cruel things to Dean, have him betray Dean, talk about his lack of family loyalty, push his arrogance, blame him for the apocalypse, etc. this is not telling me that Sam is their favorite, unless it's their favorite to use as a plot device and as an angst button for Dean, so we can see Dean's "single man tear."

 

It's why I tend to slightly prefer Sam. Because in spite of all the negative character traits they've given him, when Sam manages to have a moment where he does something right or when he sacrifices for Dean * - i.e. when he succeeds in spite of the handicaps the writers give him - then these moments are special for me and make me feel good about him as a character. I see them as a triumph.

 

These kind of moments used to surprise me with Dean, but by now it's more "of course Dean sacrificed for Sam or the world... again." But with Dean's one flaw of lack of self-esteem, this has come more to be expected and to mean less for me over time. Warning - unpopular opinion: This kind of sacrifice from Dean will mean more to me again when Dean actually doesn't think he's crappy. When Dean believes that he is deserving and it sticks, then a sacrifice from Dean will be something special again.

 

 

* My favorite being his sacrifice in the season 6 finale which Sam did without anyone knowing what he'd done and exactly what he was giving up to be there for Dean. There would be no praise or recognition. He did it to be there for Dean and because of what Dean had done for him in the past and what that meant for Sam.

[Mulva]

Yup, and Dean gets far more screen time with the guest stars, and even when he's a demon, doesn't do anything really evil. Meanwhile, Sam gets raked over the coals for daring to live a normal life for a year, when Dean did the exact same thing and it was seen as tragic that he left the normal life.

And when the writers have Sam fail constantly - with one exception - say cruel things to Dean, have him betray Dean, talk about his lack of family loyalty, push his arrogance, blame him for the apocalypse, etc. this is not telling me that Sam is their favorite, unless it's their favorite to use as a plot device and as an angst button for Dean, so we can see Dean's "single man tear."

Yeah, if that's 'pimping Sam', I'd like to see what their idea of tearing him down is.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Mulva

[catrox14]

I agree with the seemingly somewhat popular opinion that Sam was most likable in S1, but my UO is that I think Dean was at his most lovable in that very first season as well. He was fun, vibrant, and just the right mix of cockiness and vulnerability. The show hinted at his now infamous 'low self-esteem' issues without making 'awww, he doesn't know just how deserving and wonderful a man he is!' as Dean's salient characteristic and the issue that every freaking demon eventually comments on. He drank but wasn't a raging alcoholic, he cared a bit too much about doing what the family wanted without being pathetically codependent, he lost his temper and got down sometimes but still managed to find joy, humor and adventure out of their weird lives. Chick flick moments really were at a merciful minimum, and he didn't yet insist on speaking like he's a six-pack-a-day smoker! And while I occasionally enjoyed Bobby, I can't help but feel it's not a coincidence that I loved and even admired both boys the most when they were forced to be so resourceful and independent in S1 rather than having constant access to SuperHuter, encylopediac Bobby beginning in S2.

Don't get me wrong---I still like Dean and still think he's a much better defined, likable character than Sam has been for the vast majority of the series. But I really miss S1 Dean's spirit and zest for life.

I never had any issue with the boys not being light or less zest for life considering all the shit they have been through. I mean seriously they probably should have offed themselves by now. Sam didn't ask for the burden of being a the Chosen One s2 and Dean didn't ask for the burden of kill Sam or save Sam. They have both died for the other and sacrificed for humanity. The choices were not good for either of them and both made really dubious decisions about and for each other. And for their own selfish reasons. So for me the depression, the angst, the guilt were reasonable progressions for both Sam and Dean.

What I am bitter about is how little time was given and how kind of terrible characters around Dean treated his Hell experience which was brushed off, overlooked, or even belittled. Sure Dean didn't want to talk about it at first but IMO once he did the show had other plans and he didn't get much moral support. And at times it was out right mockery.

[mertensia]

Sam- rightly or wrongly- ran away to live a normal life. A safe life. Go to college. While we can't know exactly how much Dean tried to keep in touch we know canonically that he stopped contacting Sam for two years per Sam's request.

Dean left hunting because it was Sam's (so to speak) dying wish.

Dislike Dean all you want but don't keep acting as if Sam at college and Dean at Lisa's are exactly the same.

[Demented Daisy]

Here's my unpopular opinion:

 

I like Sam.  I like Dean.  I don't see the show pimping one brother over another.  Do I prefer Dean?  Sure, but not because the show told me to.  I don't think the show has ever told me that one brother is better than the other.  Neither brother is perfect and, dammit, the show would be boring as hell if they were.  They have flaws, they make mistakes.  That's why I like them!

 

Has the show messed up over the years?  Yep.  Did they make writing choices I didn't like?  Yep.  But I'm still watching all these years later because I still love Sam and I still love Dean and I still love Castiel.

 

Crowley, however, needs to die.

[Mulva]

Sam- rightly or wrongly- ran away to live a normal life. A safe life. Go to college. While we can't know exactly how much Dean tried to keep in touch we know canonically that he stopped contacting Sam for two years per Sam's request.

Dean left hunting because it was Sam's (so to speak) dying wish.

Dislike Dean all you want but don't keep acting as if Sam at college and Dean at Lisa's are exactly the same.

I was talking about Dean's snit-fit about Sam's year with Amelia. Especially his, "How many people DIED, Sam?". Um, probably the same number of people who died during Dean's yearlong hiatus from hunting.

BTW, going to college isn't 'running away', it's simply going to college.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Mulva

[catrox14]

I was talking about Dean's snit-fit about Sam's year with Amelia. Especially his, "How many people DIED, Sam?". Um, probably the same number of people who died during Dean's yearlong hiatus from hunting.BTW, going to college isn't 'running away', it's simply going to college.

Not trying to change anyone's opinion, just saying what m ask es it different for me. Dean stopped hunting because Sam extracted a deathbed promise from Dean to quit hunting and lead a normal life. Dean would not have chosen that on his own IMO. Sam actively chose not to hunt for his own personal reasons which was his prerogative and there were consequences for that choice.

[SueB]

I'm with you Demented Daisy....except for Crowley. 

 

I irrationally love him.  I want him to be loved. There. I said it. I meant it.  That's probably an unpopular opinion....Hey! I'm in the right thread.

[AwesomO4000]

Crowley, however, needs to die.

 

Hee, so much this. Even better if they kill him together - as in a death to Caesar moment (Crowley can even say "eh tu, Moose?" or "eh tu, Squirrel?"), because both brothers have so much reason to want him dead, it would seem a shame to give just one the opportunity.

[Aeryn13]

 

Yeah, if that's 'pimping Sam', I'd like to see what their idea of tearing him down is.

I think their idea of tearing down a character is whatever consists of the writing for Dean. It just doesn`t work exceptionally well.

 

 

Like Dean, I don't believe in coincidences and when is it ever an accident?

 

On this show - and I`m not being snarky here - I truly believe it is accidental 95 % of the time. The writers are manipulative, they are just not skilled enough to make it actually work. To be fair, most TV writers aren`t. Nine out of ten cases I see where a writer wants me to go and it drives me in the opposite direction and I don`t think that is ever on purpose. 

 

But I will concede that it is all viewpoint. To me Sam is so freaking favoured, my head would explode if it was trying to describe whereas most of the things that Dean supposedly gets are more often than not subtle digs. Sure, he gets to spend more time with guest stars, often being lectured on appreciating the brotherhood with Sam more or being given a boohoo speech or he gets/gives speeches on how great Sam is or it is spent worrying about Sam`s current mytharc.

 

I`ve already said elsewhere that for me the true compliment was Bobby`s "he is a better hunter" about Sam vs. his relatively "yeah, I like you better" for Dean. One is worthless to me, the other is actual praise worth something.

 

I guess it depends on what you (general you) feel is important for a character to have. And for me the Chosen One-ness trumps "feelings and angst" for example. The Sue-save from Sam of the world in 5.22 trumps everything ever bothered to be given to Dean by ten thousands miles. The praises for Sam some might see as meaningless window dressing I would take in a heartbeat over the guest characters berating Dean. The grass always appears greener on the other side after all.  

[SueB]

***makes secret plans to write a novella about the wonders of Crowley next episode***

Edited November 21, 2014 by SueB

[AwesomO4000]

I`ve already said elsewhere that for me the true compliment was Bobby`s "he is a better hunter" about Sam vs. his relatively "yeah, I like you better" for Dean. One is worthless to me, the other is actual praise worth something.

 

And I might agree with you here if Bobby's compliment was actually for Sam. As I have said before, it wasn't. It was for soulless Sam - who Bobby thought was real Sam, so that somewhat added insult to injury. Not only was Bobby praising a soulless, psychopathic version of Sam - Bobby did qualify his compliment with "at least lately, anyway" (meaning since Sam became soulless, not regular Sam) - Bobby didn't even realize it was a psychopathic version of Sam. So 1) Bobby was really saying Sam is a better hunter... now that he's a soulless psychopath and 2) Bobby knew so little about his supposed surrogate son that he didn't even know that it wasn't really Sam even after a year. In contrast, Bobby could tell very quickly that something wasn't right with Dean in "How to Win Friends..." 3) As I've said before, Bobby didn't even know what he was talking about, since soulless Sam wasn't even technically a good hunter as we learned via flashbacks. He was good at killing things - including innocent bystanders - and sometimes he got the monster, too.

 

So in the end I'm not exactly sure how that compliment is supposedly even a compliment when it wasn't for real Sam, and it wasn't even true. I'm sure if Dean went around not giving a crap about innocent bystanders, he could kill a lot more monsters, too, but I wouldn't ever think that was a good thing nor would I think it made him a "better hunter" worthy of praise.

 

Bobby was making a compliment based on severe lack of knowledge and not even for actual Sam, so yes, I see that as much less of a compliment than "you are my favorite" which was made out of knowledge of actually knowing actual Dean throughout his life versus knowing (or not as the case might be) actual Sam throughout his life. And it being better has little to do with what the compliment is about and more to do with who the compliment is for - the actual person (Dean) versus an imposter (soulless Sam) who is now a better hunter than the actual person (Sam), so Bobby's "better hunter" is actually a soulless psychopath and is not Dean or Sam. (so real Sam gets no compliment.)

 

 

Sorry for that long explanation, but hopefully I got my point across now.

[Aeryn13]

See, the thing for me is, the tell, Bobby`s words in that moment will hold more water and be more easily remembered than any context. Most general viewers go by these short blips of dialogue. Sam is a better hunter? Check. Fact stored. Which is IMO why the writers put it in.

 

Just as they put in neverending digs at Dean`s intelligence. It doesn`t matter if Dean is shown to do something smart or whatnot occassionally. What stays is him being called dumb over and over. Another fact stored. Just as Sam`s super-intelligence is fact stored through those dialogue pieces. He could do one million dumb things and still hardly anyone will question the super-smarts, simply because it is repeated in words.

 

Dean gets the nanny compliments and the "he means well but..." stuff and the "I like you" which to me are all going to the same well. None of it is any praise worth its salt. 

 

Yet those dialogue bits are what the writers do to get their message across quickly and create a lasting imprint. And for that reason I can never see Sam as unfavoured or Dean as favoured. 

[AwesomO4000]

I guess I can see that for some, but I don't watch my television shows that way. I watch what actually happens, and get my opinions on characters from that. There are plenty of dialogue bits in the show (sometimes from multiple characters) telling me that Sam alone started the apocalypse, that he abandoned his family when he went to college, that he wants to be the most powerful person ever, that he's hopeless with women, etc. But I'm going to make my opinions based on what I actually see Sam doing.

 

What comes to mind is the parody movie "Mars Attacks." Just because the new age people and the martians kept saying that the martians were harmless and peaceful didn't make it so when they started killing everybody. (Fortunately the martians were no match for Slim Whitman music - but then again who would be ; ) ). I'm not saying that Supernatural is a parody movie, but I am saying that, for me, words can only go so far, and that actions can speak louder than words.

Edited November 22, 2014 by AwesomO4000

[catrox14]

I seem to find that I get hung up on dialogue more than actions and how characters actions are then framed around the dialogue vs the dialogue being framed around the actions.  But now, because Jensen, Misha, Jared and Mark sell so much shit dialogue with their faces that I look for more form that than the dialogue or the action. 

 

I guess I really don't have an answer because the show is so unusual. It's not a totally heartless by the numbers  procedural. Its not just an action show. It can be so deep and affecting with dialogue that I just can't throw it out the window even if it seems contradictory to the action  even when I don't like it. On the other hand if I go with the words  over actions then I feel like I'm ignoring that too.  :/

 

People say actions speak louder than words but in a show like this the words often have more impact and I have to think that the words are there for a reason. When Jared and Jensen take the time to change the words to match the characters more it feels like the dialogue really is more important than actions. 

 

I dunno I have to think more about this after my rambling blather.  LOL.

[7kstar]

First of all I like both brothers.  I don't see Sam going to college as something bad, period.  But why the no contact...honestly I wish the show had addressed that a bit better.

The story started out revolving around Sam.  It was written for Sam = Luke Skywalker, Dean = Han Solo.

 

However Dean was the more complex character at the beginning and the more interesting character to portray.  I never saw Sam over Dean until Season 4, but I didn't think it was a big deal at the time, because I had faith they would tell Dean's side.  This is the part that for Dean fan's that create all the frustration and mess, at least for me.  I can't speak for anyone other than myself.

 

Dean's hell experience is dropped but then Sam gets to go to the cage and have the worst hell experience.  Jared even makes it worse by saying Sam does it for Dean.  Nope, he doesn't, he does it to pay for his crime of starting the end of the world.  Of course Dean bears the weight of really starting it by breaking the first seal...you don't break the first one, it would have stopped it right there.

 

Now, I accepted why they dropped it  and went back to Sam, but then they add insult by saying Dean after not fighting for a year would be a terrible hunter/fighter.   Now, I'm getting tired of the boys circle of who's done what to who, and just want them to fight the good fight together.

 

When the purgatory storyline got dropped and now the Demon after only a few eps, it is frustrating.  I get why they did, so the 200th could be one that any fan would love, but once again it feels as if Sam's stories get  a longer life span.  Now have they done a good job with Sam, nope.

 

Although not every guess star gives Dean the good feels,  Death started out seeming like he liked Dean, but he also tore him down to shreds.  And I think that is what creates a lot of the WTF.  I will say right now I like both brothers, and I'm really hoping they will do justice with the MOC...but I don't have faith.

 

I don't love all of Edlund's eps either.  I also am very much okay if he doesn't come back. 

Nor do I agree that Sam had this major turn around in Season 7.  However, I am probably one of the few that can read the disagreements and not really get bothered by it.  I don't have to see what you see, I just have to respect your views.  & sometimes, I do get my mind changed a bit.  I have just now started thinking I should really rewatch 7...and that is huge for me.  :)   

 

Personally I love when the brothers grow and get something new about each other.

I also like most of the BM moments.  Though Fanfiction has changed that meaning for me.  I'm hopeful for the rest of season 10 but also still worried of what damage with the do to the brothers this time without any real need.

 

To sum it up, yes actions can speak louder than words, but when the words come more than the actions it leads to an interpretation.  Plus our personal experiences make us see things that others might not feel.  I can see parts of both sides, but lately it feels like Dean isn't getting the strong storylines and that they favor Sam a bit more.  Notice I said bit...Sam hasn't been treated great in the last few seasons either.

[catrox14]

 

Jared even makes it worse by saying Sam does it for Dean.

 

Oh Gods.  Thank you for reminding me of this.  I do not understand why Jared is saying this. I mean he's always been pretty clear about most of Sam's motivations for the stuff he does (save s8).  So why he says he went to Hell for Dean is beyond me.  He did it to save the world and make up for his part in the apocalypse. And IIRC this is new for Jared to speak of it this way, right?

C'mon Jared. You can't really retcon that entire season because you want Sam to be more sympathetic re Dean.  

[AwesomO4000]

I have just now started thinking I should really rewatch 7...and that is huge for me.  :)

 

If you do rewatch it, I hope that you find some things that you enjoy about it... it'll hit a rough patch - and one really awful episode - but the rough patch concludes fairly quickly, I think and I think also well and evenly. May I also suggest that you watch the season 6 finale first? I find that the beginning of season 7 is more enjoyable with a refresher of the season 6 finale... and a lot of Dean's feelings make more sense seeing the season 6 finale.

 

Also, although I don't always mention it, season 7 also has a couple of my favorite Castiel and Dean moments (also a couple of my favorite Castiel and Sam moments).

 

Okay... going away now... I'll be over here in the corner.

[rue721]

It can be so deep and affecting with dialogue that I just can't throw it out the window even if it seems contradictory to the action  even when I don't like it. On the other hand if I go with the words  over actions then I feel like I'm ignoring that too.  :/

 

IA that dialogue matters a lot, but I think its primary purpose is to convey the POV of the character speaking it, rather than any objective/literal truth about the character he's speaking about. Just as an example off the top of my head, when Dean says to Sam (for drinking demon blood) "if I didn't know you, I'd want to hunt you," what's important about that line of dialogue, imo, is that Dean is putting his foot down because Sam has crossed a line for him. I don't think that means that the show is saying, "you must think Sam is wrong" or even "Sam is wrong" or anything as objective as that, rather, I think the dialogue is revealing something about *Dean's* POV.

 

I think characters' actions are important in terms of figuring out the objective truth about what's going on, and dialogue is a way for the characters to convey their individual POVs to the audience.

 

Just as they put in neverending digs at Dean`s intelligence. It doesn`t matter if Dean is shown to do something smart or whatnot occassionally. What stays is him being called dumb over and over.

 

I'm really surprised to hear this. He's never come off as stupid to me. If anything, I've always thought that they've pushed that he's a very quick thinker and good strategist. Pre-MoC, even his criminality in the past has always run more toward outwitting people, running scams, basically being a con man. When he gets upset it also always seems to be about some abstract "this implies that, so therefore..." kind of thing, where he's not upset about what's literally happening but what what's happening means if you extrapolate from it. That's actually one of the things I like most about the character, that he's not an extremely literal thinker, he has a spark of creativity, essentially just that he's bright (I do miss this about the character nowadays, it's been somewhat lost in the more recent seasons with all the violence and yelling, lol).

 

A closely related issue that *does* bother me, though, is how they sometimes try to make both brothers, but especially Dean, into these anti-intellectual boors. Just as a small example, I find it OOC and obnoxious whenever the show has Sam bring up some random factoid and Dean scoffs at him. It always seems ridiculous to me that Dean would be anti-intellectual or would even be able to front for five seconds that he doesn't also know TONS of random crap or do research or just study up on things himself (imo more so -- if either one of them is a "dork" in that sense, I would say Dean, but that's a digression). That imo OOC anti-intellectualism also annoys me because it makes even the pilot/premise of the show make no sense, because come on, if Dean is so anti-intellectual then how was Sam even in college originally, and apparently not pressured by both Dean and John into just getting a GED and being done with it way back when he was sixteen or whatever? I highly doubt that John wouldn't have preferred that, I assume that's why Dean has one. Anyway, I think the show, or maybe just certain writers, throw that anti-intellectualism in there sometimes because they think it seems macho. Irritates me to no end. But I think that's part of the show being essentially very bougy and falling flat when it tries to make the characters or really anything about it seem "hard."

 

That's probably my overall "bitter" opinion:  I wish the show would quit with always trying to make the characters and their world so "hard" all the time. It often results in the tone of the show becoming either too THIS IS SPARTA!!!1!-style ridiculous or this sort of grim!dark emotional torture porn that hits all kinds of wrong notes. I love "Folsom Prison Blues," it's one of my very favorite episodes of the series and always at the top of my rewatch list, but can you imagine if they'd try to do it today? I don't think they could just keep it light and bright the way they did, it would have to be all about how the Winchesters are the hardest prisoners to ever prison and about every horrible thing that could happen in prison (but of course all written/produced by people who have never actually been in prison and obviously so). I still like a lot about the show, but I would like it so much more if they would stop trying so hard to be uber macho stuff. 

[AwesomO4000]

Oh Gods.  Thank you for reminding me of this.  I do not understand why Jared is saying this. I mean he's always been pretty clear about most of Sam's motivations for the stuff he does (save s8).  So why he says he went to Hell for Dean is beyond me.  He did it to save the world and make up for his part in the apocalypse. And IIRC this is new for Jared to speak of it this way, right?

 

That does seem odd. Could Jared mean what happened at the end of season 6? Maybe he's confusing them, because it wasn't really until the end of season 6 (when Cas broke the wall) that Sam got all of his hell memories back. And Sam did do that part for Dean, in my opinion anyway, so he took his memories of hell for Dean. Of course the choice there wasn't great: either stay "safe" in his brain with only 2/3 of his memories and his body would eventually die - though he would presumably be assured to go to heaven if Joshua was telling the truth, so there is that - or take back his hell memories. Since Sam had to do the latter to go help Dean, that's what he decided to do. Not such an easy decision there, but I'd likely be tempted to do the former after having a taste of what taking on the hell memories was going to mean (and Sam had had a sample at the end of "Unforgiven" of what taking on the memories would mean).

 

So I'll give Jared a little slack, I guess, maybe. Sam didn't technically go to hell for Dean, but he took on his hell memories for Dean, so the results were fairly similar. But "taking on hell memories" is more nebulous to describe. Still Jared should try, because that's what really happened, and in my opinion that was pretty similar a sacrifice - especially with Sam knowing what those memories were going to be like - so no need to be revisionist about it.

 

Sorry, I was bored in that corner. ; / .

[catrox14]

That does seem odd. Could Jared mean what happened at the end of season 6? Maybe he's confusing them, because it wasn't really until the end of season 6 (when Cas broke the wall) that Sam got all of his hell memories back. And Sam did do that part for Dean, in my opinion anyway, so he took his memories of hell for Dean. Of course the choice there wasn't great: either stay "safe" in his brain with only 2/3 of his memories and his body would eventually die - though he would presumably be assured to go to heaven if Joshua was telling the truth, so there is that - or take back his hell memories. Since Sam had to do the latter to go help Dean, that's what he decided to do. Not such an easy decision there, but I'd likely be tempted to do the former after having a taste of what taking on the hell memories was going to mean (and Sam had had a sample at the end of "Unforgiven" of what taking on the memories would mean).

So I'll give Jared a little slack, I guess, maybe. Sam didn't technically go to hell for Dean, but he took on his hell memories for Dean, so the results were fairly similar. But "taking on hell memories" is more nebulous to describe. Still Jared should try, because that's what really happened, and in my opinion that was pretty similar a sacrifice - especially with Sam knowing what those memories were going to be like - so no need to be revisionist about it.

Sorry, I was bored in that corner. ; / .

Eh. I dunno. IF 7KSTAR is referring to an interview I read and assuming it's not out of context I think he has to be referring to s5. And then he sojourned back to Hell in s8. Neither time was just for Dean. Both times it was to stop a pending apocalyptic scenario essentially. Jared had responded to the critics that said Sam didn't sacrifice for Dean specifically and only like Dean selling his soul or asking his friend to help Sam get out of Purgatory.

[Mcolleague]

I don't think the show gives one character more likable traits over the other, and I don't think having more positive traits makes for a better character. Dean and Sam are both interesting characters because they are flawed. What is likable or not is also a matter of taste? There are fans, especially younger fans, who cry about Dean being "mean" all the time. Dean also gets the bulk of the more misogynistic lines. Sam is much more sensitive, "enlightened", politically correct. And I think this makes sense in terms of characterization, it's a realistic depiction based on education and class (blue collar Dean vs white collar Sam). To me, those examples are form vs substance things, and they are surface traits I don't find important, but this is certainly not true for everyone. What traits people like and hate are highly subjective, and IMO having more or less likable traits are not particularly important to how interesting they are as characters.  

 

My issue with the writing is how Dean and Sam are treated in terms of importance to the story. The story was initially conceptualized around Sam, and I think it has consistently reinforced the idea that Sam was more important. There is a very detailed meta analysis from a couple of years ago that actually quantified (complete with pie charts!) TFW's conversations and the focus of their discussions - and surprise, surprise, they are rarely about Dean. Yes, we see what is in Dean's head - but for the most part, only as it pertains to Sam - and to me, that is not enough. He is his own person, but that rarely gets the focus because there's usually something physically wrong with Sam, whereas whatever issues Dean have are psychological. Ironically it actually pretty accurately reflects the way people approach physical illness vs mental illness IRL. Physical illness is immediately acknowledged, everyone rushes around trying to fix it, there is sympathy and urgency and no need to justify needing help. Mental illness is treated as being less real, less urgent, less deserving of attention. People with mental illness get told to suck it up princess, you are making a big deal out of nothing, other people with *real* problems have it worse.

 

And yeah, I don't know why the writers stuck with this format for so many years. Role reversals would have benefited both characters. I guess we'll see if this happens this season, with Sam trying to save Dean for a change. 

Edited November 22, 2014 by Mcolleague

[AwesomO4000]

Jared had responded to the critics that said Sam didn't sacrifice for Dean specifically and only like Dean selling his soul or asking his friend to help Sam get out of Purgatory.

 

The following is my opinion only, just in case I forget somewhere here to say that enough and specifically...

 

Those critics didn't know enough about the show then, in my opinion, because it would be pretty easy, I think, to interpret what Sam did in the season 6 finale as sacrificing specifically and only for Dean. When Hell Memory Sam tries to convince Sam to go find the bartender or go find Jessica (a great temptation I would think), but not to take on the hell memories because Sam isn't strong enough and then asks "Why is this so important to you?", Sam answers: "You know me. You know why. I'm not leaving my brother alone out there." - that's not what I would call vague. It's pretty specific. And Sam was going to be taking on over 100 years of hell memories to do it. What about that is not a huge sacrifice?

 

And even if Sam was supposedly making that sacrifice partially to save the world by helping Dean, Dean also didn't make the deal only for Sam - he did it partially out of guilt for "not doing his job." Dean even admitted it was a partially selfish thing to do. And he sacrificed Benny to get Sam out of purgatory at least partially so they could complete the trials.*  Even though Dean's motives there were a lot about Sam, they weren't only about Sam. So, yeah it sounds to me like those critics didn't know all that much about the entire show. At least in my opinion they didn't.

 

It sounds like just more of the same that since Dean is the "good brother" all of his motives must be all for Sam, but when Sam does something mostly for Dean, it mustn't count because there must be some other selfish motivation since that's just Sam, so he couldn't possibly deserve credit for it. So likely if Jared tried to explain the hell-memory sacrifice, those critics probably wouldn't get it anyway.

 

I feel bad that Jared even has to try to explain Sam's motivations to those who likely wouldn't get it anyway. It must be depressing for him.

 

* If the critics wanted a Dean sacrifice solely for Sam, in my opinion, Dean taking the chance of potentially dying in order to make that deal with Death to get Sam's soul back would actually have been a better example.

 

Edited to add:

My issue with the writing is how Dean and Sam are treated in terms of importance to the story. The story was initially conceptualized around Sam, and I think it has consistently reinforced the idea that Sam was more important. There is a very detailed meta analysis from a couple of years ago that actually quantified (complete with pie charts!) TFW's conversations and the focus of their discussions - and surprise, surprise, they are rarely about Dean.

 

I didn't read the entire thing - my posts compared to that look like limericks and that's saying something - but the interesting condition this analysis put on the numbers was that for the "conversations" to count, two members of Team Free Will had to talk about another member without that member being present. So of course the conversations about Sam, Bobby, Castiel are going to be more numerous with that condition, because Sam barely talks to anyone else alone like ever on this show except for non-TFW members. How many conversations did Sam have solely with Castiel in those seasons (4 - part of 7)? 1 or 2 maybe - I think he had that one conversation at the end of "On the Head of a Pin" when Dean was unconscious, and surprise, it was about Dean! How often do Castiel and Bobby talk alone? Have they ever talked alone? But Dean talks alone with both of them all the time, but it only counts when he's discussing someone else, not for Dean. But the article didn't really address that that I could see. So a more accurate analysis on when Dean is discussed, in my opinion, would have been percentage of the conversations that other members of Team Free Will have together that are about Dean when Dean isn't there. Good luck getting an even sample size though.

 

When Sam talked with Ruby, he often talked about Dean, but Ruby is not team free will, so those conversations don't count in the analysis (they were specifically excluded in fact as non-TFW). But Dean got to talk alone to Castiel all the time - Cas was considered to be TFW - so all of those numbers were going to count in the analysis, but only if someone else was discussed (i.e. Sam or Bobby). They wouldn't count for Dean if Dean was discussed. So yeah, the whole thing was biased from the get go. I'm sure if done accurately, it might've still shown a Sam, Bobby, etc bias, but at least it would've been more accurate.

 

But stuff like this then becomes fuel for OMG, Dean is never discussed by other characters. He's never focused on. None of the other characters care about him. Well with restrictions like that on the "data," of course not. Dean is going to be in most of the conversations, and only his discussions about other characters count in the "data."

Edited November 22, 2014 by AwesomO4000

[7kstar]

Eh. I dunno. IF 7KSTAR is referring to an interview I read and assuming it's not out of context I think he has to be referring to s5. And then he sojourned back to Hell in s8. Neither time was just for Dean. Both times it was to stop a pending apocalyptic scenario essentially. Jared had responded to the critics that said Sam didn't sacrifice for Dean specifically and only like Dean selling his soul or asking his friend to help Sam get out of Purgatory.

It was a recent interview but I don't remember where I saw it.  Too much going on right now.  It just hit me and I just think that he was trying so hard to get the fans to see Sam as always trying to be there for his brother when it hasn't always been so.  But yes the reference was season 5.  He was talking about 5 before he made that statement.

 

  Now the guys do say that sometimes they can't remember all the eps, so it may just be that is what Jared remembers and since he hasn't really been thinking about it as much as the fans, he just believes it reads that way, if that makes any sense.

 

I think this is really one of the problems.  They don't think about how it will land.  Then get shocked at the reaction.  I also get how the actors don't think about the show in the way we do.  It's their job and they don't fret about it over and over.  They do their job which is to make the characters real, then let it go and move on to the next ep.   I get that because after teaching over 20 I can't remember some of the thoughts or issues I had with most of my past students, because the next problem child takes their slot.  So I can give Jared a bit of slack but I don't agree with his statement.  JMV.

Edited November 22, 2014 by 7kstar

[Aeryn13]

In terms of discussion, just compare the second half of Season 9 to any other Sam-plot. Because it was the first and only time in the show where there was something supernaturally wrong with Dean and Sam didn`t have a mytharc strand himself. 

 

If Sam had had the Mark of Cain, Dean and Cas would have discussed it ad nauseum, Dean would have been in that obnoxious "Sam, Sam, Sam, Sam, Sam" mode. We would have heard characters espouse how "if anyone can do this, Sam can" bla blibbity bla.

 

So, honestly, I was expecting an actual role reversal for the first time ever in 9 years. In the end, my mind, it was blown but how they did not do this. I mean, the stuff we got seemed somewhat novel and fresh because it was the very first time ever we got it. Never before had Dean been in such a story. But it wasn`t even remotely like a Sam-plot is handled. Cas made one remark. We got one character that signified Dean as special vs. Sam as "and why the hell are you here?" in Magnus. Quantitatively and qualitatively, it wasn`t the same.

 

And Demon!Dean? If it had been a Sam!plot, we would have seen superpowers. Actual superpowers. And the plot would have gone on to mid-Season. They would have found a way. Just because it was about supernatural!Sam and they always, always find a way. Jared remarked on how he was so lucky to play soulless!Sam and Gadreel!Sam both for half a Season. The only and I mean the only reason the demon-plot got no meat to it is IMO it was about Dean. And I think this is because the very idea weirds out the writers. Dean is the sidekick and Sam is the lead. That is how they approach writing them in both plot and characterization. It was that way under every single showrunner. 

 

 

I'm really surprised to hear this. He's never come off as stupid to me.

 

When fans make "character lists", i.e. listing the most obvious attributes they associate with a certain character, "smart" is one every single one for Sam, I have never, ever, ever seen one that doesn`t list Sam as "smart". Meanwhile if out of a 100 fans two of them have "smart" for Dean, and then even qualified as "street-smart" - not to be confused with the actual-smalrt - that is a lot. 

 

It is simply not an attribute readily associated with the characters and that is thanks to 9-10 years of the show reinforcing that through dialogue. He could be solving nuclear equations for every episode till the end of time now and the perception wouldn`t change.

 

 

IA that dialogue matters a lot, but I think its primary purpose is to convey the POV of the character speaking it, rather than any objective/literal truth about the character he's speaking about.

 

That depends IMO. If mouthpiece characters say it, you know those characters where you can nearly see the writers stepping onscreen and adressing the audience directly, than it is as a close to a fourth wall break and a message to be conveyed as can be.

 

Bobby was such a character. His word was basically law. If he said Dean was a little whiny princess, that is what the writer thought. Kripke himself made that clear because it IS what he thought in the commentary. If Bobby says Sam has always been a "deep son of a bitch", that is fact as per the writers. If in comparism he said to Dean not to strain himself with something intellectual, well, it`s clear what he means. He says they have always been so hard on heroic Sam? Clear. He says Sam is the better hunter? Might as well come from the canon bible if the show had one.

 

Meanwhile Dean being liked is framed like a pet being loved. It might be dumb and everything but it is loveable and loyal and you can`t help but wanna cuddle it. What a fantastic compliment for a person. Not.   

Edited November 22, 2014 by Aeryn13

[DittyDotDot]

You guys have done it, convinced me of the unbelievable...the show hates both Sam and Dean and what's more Sam and Dean are both horrible and stupid human beings. The proof is in the pudding folks; my eyes have been opened. I would have never put it together without y'all pointing out how your favorite is actually horrible and I should hate and loathe them as much as the show does. Kudos guys, that's what you wanted, right?

[SueB]

I <3 you DittyDotDot.

 

My Unpopular Opinion:

- They love both Sam and Dean. I love both Sam and Dean.

- The only "shift" in dynamics that really happened IMO was a greater emphasis on Dean after they realized how strong on an actor they had and how much episodes like "Faith" really resonated with the family theme (see "A Very Supernatural Special" for multiple quotes on this). Although Jensen Ackles is the ONLY guy to point out that Jared is #1 on the call sheet, I sense he does this because he is protective of Jared (as a friend) and some of the emphasis on questions etc...**

- They try to write good stories that have character flaws for both boys. Sometimes they hit, sometimes they miss.

- Getting a completely bias-free data set that would pass statistics 101 is darn near impossible, I've read the reference article and it appears compelling but it's got a flaw in the way it bracketed it's data (Dean is almost always part of the conversation).

 

**It's a sad fact that there used to be a price differential for convention opportunities (individual photo ops) where Jensen's was more expensive than Jared's. It was an indicator of capitalism in action as Jensen's sold out first.  I think they only do duo's now but I could be wrong.

Edited November 22, 2014 by SueB

[Aeryn13]

I`m not saying anyone has to agree with me but in the same vain, noone can convince me that it is fact that the show is wonderfully unbiased, that it is an undisputable fact that Dean gets treated wonderfully and everything I get from it otherwise is just a silly delusion.

 

 

It was an indicator of capitalism in action as Jensen's sold out first.  I think they only do duo's now but I could be wrong.

 

There is still single photo ops and always have been. And, as far as I know, J2 has always been equally priced. The prices just skyrocketed in general and the US Creation con prices are as a rule much higher than the European Cons. 

 

 

Although Jensen Ackles is the ONLY guy to point out that Jared is #1 on the call sheet,

 

Kripke once outright admitted that the mytharc was about Sam. He said it didn`t make Dean second banana for him but acknowledged how it could do so for other people. So, he did admit to certain differences. 

 

Personally, I was not impressed that he, a younger brother, made up a five year epos centering on the Chosen One story of a Sue-ish younger brother where the older brother`s purpose is to revolve in adoration around said younger brother. But it`s not like he is gonna be know or care that I hold a very unfavourable opinion over that self-aggrandizement. I think worse about the other two showrunners, looking at their work.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Aeryn13

[catrox14]

You guys have done it, convinced me of the unbelievable...the show hates both Sam and Dean and what's more Sam and Dean are both horrible and stupid human beings. The proof is in the pudding folks; my eyes have been opened. I would have never put it together without y'all pointing out how your favorite is actually horrible and I should hate and loathe them as much as the show does. Kudos guys, that's what you wanted, right?

If we are in the Bitterness Thread doesn't that imply we are finding issues with the the show, the characters, the writing etc in some way shape or form?

I do think the story is about Sam. It will always be about Sam. Sam was created first according to Kripke. Jared was pretty much pegged to play Sam taken from Gilmore girls to play Sam. Jared was 1st the call sheet because he was riding the success of Gilmore girls. Jensen wasn't nearly as well known or popular as Jared. But IMO Jensen is the better actor and Tptb would have been fools to the Not do something with that talent. I would not have made it much past the first half of season 1 if they hadn't done Dead in the Water and Phantom Traveler because whilst Dean was fun and snarky he was one note. Sam was too smug for me in those early episodes. But 1.3 and 1.4 really did wonders to show Dean had more going on than snarky douche bag. and it showed me that Sam was trying to see Dean in a different light. But Skin and Faith were what made me stay because I saw Jensen be amazing as a kind of different character and I saw Sam grow up and be there for Dean in Faith in a way that I hadnt seen before.

I didn't like how he was kind of a dick to Dean about the EMF thing. It didn't come across as sibling banter but that Sam really did not respect Dean's intellect. And that has always stayed with me. And it gets reinforced throughout the show, as Aeryn mentioned.

I would love for once to have Sam defend Dean's brain power when someone else questions it.

Sam makes mistakes, huge ones, but never do I think those mistakes were shown to be a result of an inferior intellect. I can think of one time when Sam's intellect was slightly questioned and that was Bobby in Frontierland about time travel.

Sam's abilities as a fighter, researcher, marksman and intellect have never been consistently mocked like Dean's intellect.

Sams failures come as a result of poor judgment and being manipulated by others but not because he wasn't intelligent.

Edited November 22, 2014 by catrox14

[SueB]

Oh I have no doubt that TPTB recognize Jensen's importance. I'm certain they make the same salary and always have. Jared has said he doesn't want to direct but they've given Jensen the keys to the car 4 times now. Of course he's done very well with it, but that $8M in total production costs they've put in his hands.

[Aeryn13]

They`ve let Misha direct also. Vampire Diaries has let cast members direct. Back in the day Smallville let cast direct. Star Trek has had multiple actors directing. I don`t see this as the gold star of actor acknowledgment. Someone expressed their interest, puts in the prep work and they usually get it.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Aeryn13

[DittyDotDot]

If we are in the Bitterness Thread doesn't that imply we are finding issues with the the show, the characters, the writing etc in some way shape or form?

 

Perhaps I was too subtle? I was just expressing my own bitterness about how every time this same old argument (very, very, very old argument that never leads anywhere, IMO) about how "the show hates my favorite and here's why" usually only points out the various reasons why your favorite sucks and I should probably loathe them. I'm just not sure you're really doing them the service you may think you are.

[Aeryn13]

To be honest, I never got that. When I say the writers are crap and too incompetent to get their intended message across, I don`t think it attacks the characters.

 

Do I think my fave character gets ill-treated and I`m not supposed to really favour them? Sure, I do. But I also said that how they come across as positive - to me - regardless is a) the actor`s portrayal and b) the writers sucking. That the character works on some level DESPITE my issues with the writing.

 

I am just not ready to really credit the writers with much of anything positive. The actors, the production team, the directing and all those people? Sure, I give them kudos. The writers at this point, very very little.

 

And the characters themselves are fictional anyway, they won`t know or care anyone championing them.  

 

 

[catrox14]

Perhaps I was too subtle? I was just expressing my own bitterness about how every time this same old argument (very, very, very old argument that never leads anywhere, IMO) about how "the show hates my favorite and here's why" usually only points out the various reasons why your favorite sucks and I should probably loathe them. I'm just not sure you're really doing them the service you may think you are.

I got the sarcasm. My point was that this is the bitterness thread and this where we come to gripe about what is bugging us about the show. I haven't really come away with the perception that because there are complaints about characterization of either Sam or Dean that I should loathe either one. The only character I recommend others loathe is Metatron.

[SueB]

Well Metatron has cornered the market on Slimey Meglomaniac of the Supernayural Universe...but Curtis Armstrong is actually kinda adorable personally.

[catrox14]

Hate the character not the actor unless the actor is Tom Cruise and then do what you will.

[Mcolleague]

I dunno, people are going to have their own opinions, old argument or otherwise? Preference for early seasons of the show and critique for how much it has gone downhill is also quite a repetitive discussion in this fandom which adds nothing to the enjoyment of the show. It's also something not everyone agrees on (Tumblr LOVES Carver era, especially Season 8). This is a really fragmented fandom, some people want to see the brothers together, some of them want their relationship to become *healthier* by having them lead separate lives as endgame. I don't think any of these are invalid readings, or that people shouldn't be able to voice such opinions, especially in this thread which is specifically FOR the bitter, unpopular opinions. 

[DittyDotDot]

Sorry if I implied others weren't free to voice their opinions. That was not at all what I was trying to say. Be bitter, Lord knows I have my own bitterness. I was just merely pointing out that possibly some of this was hitting an unintentional mark that maybe some folks weren't aware of. Please feel free to rant on.

[supposebly]

I just would hope that there would be something new to discuss. Most people have expressed their opinions, here and at TWOP. Many, many, many times.

 

I'm not exempting myself either, but I'm also bored reading the same old discussions again and again or even my own posts, so I made a vow to stop involving myself in these discussions again. I would think people here are smart enough to come up with a new topic or let this particular topic about how one has the better stories, or the better mytharc, or the lesser mytharc, the better characterization, or the worse characterization, or the too unsympathetic, too sympathetic, woobified, superfied portrayal, writing, or both.

 

This horse has been dead more often than the Winchesters. That includes the hundreds of times Dean was killed in Mystery Spot.

 

Or if there is nothing new to discus and all it creates is the same-old discussions,  then maybe, just maybe this show needs to end. I'd rather have it go out with a bang with a discussion of the final episode that does create sadness in a good way instead of another round of the same old, same old.

 

Your miles will definitely vary and I hope I didn't step on any toes or was too much board-on-boards. This is not my intention. I tried to be very bi-bro in my boredom ;-). It's not the posters, it's the discussion I'm tired of. Being a non-native speaker, sometimes I come across a bit harsh, I've been told.

Edited November 22, 2014 by supposebly

[Aeryn13]

 

Or if there is nothing new to discus and all it creates is the same-old discussions,  then maybe, just maybe this show needs to end.

 

I think this is it pretty much, The reason why I have basically the same bitterness rants over and over again is that this show is giving me the same causes to be bitter about over and over again. I`m annoyed that Dean never really gets mytharc importance like Sam and his plots with potential are dropped like hot potatoes and what does this Season do? The same thing. I`m annoyed at what I perceive to be Sam-Sue-pimping and this Season gives me those same annoyances. 

 

Don`t know what it is, other shows have their own formulaic problems but they have at least switched out the things that annoy me somewhat. This one doesn`t. Which is insane seeing as the plots vary slightly but it`s like having a dinner with several dishes and yet every single one holds the same poison.

 

I would be happy if this was the last Season, provided they can manage something other than another Suck Song ending. I`d even take boring or stupid cliffhanger or anything over that. Sadly, I do think there will be at least one more year they will wring from it. And even without being cynical, I already know that it will be troubled by the same bloody issues.

[Mcolleague]

I just would hope that there would be something new to discuss. Most people have expressed their opinions, here and at TWOP. Many, many, many times.

 

I don't disagree with you there. In fact, I don't usually even weigh in on these conversations anymore, getting too lazy to type out the same long responses over and over. If TWOP didn't close, I could probably just directly copy/paste my own old arguments and be done. :) I guess my point is also that it's a matter of opinion what's considered "new" to discuss? For example, there's a strong preference in this forum for the earlier seasons, dislike of the angel storylines, dislike of the angst etc. which also rehashes a lot of the same criticisms? I think rehashing old arguments is to some extent inevitable in a show that's been on for 9+ years, especially if the perceived problems still exist. I know not everyone is interested in the discussion, but those opinions still exist, and fuel still gets added to the same fires so. I dunno. Maybe it would be easier to put differing viewpoints into separate threads, like on the IMDB boards? 

[SueB]

I kinda feel bad as a "new" fan.  Like maybe I'm a usurper to the original fans.  I know as a Smallville fan I was DESPERATE to see it over. Smallville

In that case, they would not make Clark Superman UNTIL the show ended.

And I was soooooo ready for that. Plus, I hated their Lois Lane. I fell in love with the proto-Lois (Chloe) and there was very little the actual Lois Lane could do stop me from resenting the hell out of her.  So... it was a relief when it was over. I survived the last seasons by using the DVR technique when I could convince myself to. 

 

OTOH, I'm still fresh to SPN. It's still event TV for me. I'm sure in 5 more years (IF it was to go that long), I'd be bitter-ranting too. But I'm not there yet.  So, while I totally respect those who just want it over and feel absolutely CHAINED to watch til the bitter end... I don't want it to end.  So... I'll send condolences to those who feel trapped and continue to bubble about in other threads.

Edited November 22, 2014 by SueB

[DittyDotDot]

I know not everyone is interested in the discussion, but those opinions still exist, and fuel still gets added to the same fires so. I dunno. Maybe it would be easier to put differing viewpoints into separate threads, like on the IMDB boards? 

 

Oh, I hope that's not the only solution. Yeah, I'm tired of the Sam vs Dean discussion, but if it's what people want to talk about, who am I to stop them? Segregating things into threads without differing opinions seems less like discussion to me.

[rue721]

Bobby was such a character. His word was basically law. If he said Dean was a little whiny princess, that is what the writer thought. Kripke himself made that clear because it IS what he thought in the commentary. If Bobby says Sam has always been a "deep son of a bitch", that is fact as per the writers. If in comparism he said to Dean not to strain himself with something intellectual, well, it`s clear what he means. He says they have always been so hard on heroic Sam? Clear. He says Sam is the better hunter? Might as well come from the canon bible if the show had one.

 

If Bobby's word is supposed to be taken as the gospel truth, then that's probably why I've never understood or liked Bobby as a character, I guess! Not that I hate/hated him, he just never made any sense to me, I never warmed up to him. I didn't understand why he was there for exposition, since it seemed fine before, when the guys would just do their own research 95% of the time. I didn't understand why he was there as a surrogate dad because these are grown men who have a father, even if he's deceased. I didn't understand why he was there as a home base, since not having a home base was part of what made the show fun (not big on the bunker, either, for the same reason). He never came into his own as a character, I didn't feel like, though if he was supposed to be some kind of Kripke stand-in, I guess that makes sense to me now. Idk, he just didn't work for me. Obviously YMMV. I did like when he became a ghost and Dean had to carry his flask around so he could hang with them (how weird/funny is that? My dad's a drinker, I can just picture always having to carry around an old empty bottle of scotch so I can have some father/daughter time. So uncomfortably appropriate, it cracks me up in a black humor kind of way. Esp because that wasn't long after they gave Dean the most bizarre drinking problem I've ever seen on a TV show -- but, that's probably a digression), and I liked the *idea* of the storyline of him slowly going nuts as a spirit, but tbh I barely remember that storyline now, it passed by in a flash. Anyway, not to be all down on Bobby, like I said, I didn't *hate* him, he even had some funny lines once in a while, I just never understood why he became such a major character or really came to care about him myself. I guess his insertion was just Kripke being a minor-league megalomaniac?

 

There are fans, especially younger fans, who cry about Dean being "mean" all the time. Dean also gets the bulk of the more misogynistic lines. Sam is much more sensitive, "enlightened", politically correct. And I think this makes sense in terms of characterization, it's a realistic depiction based on education and class (blue collar Dean vs white collar Sam).

 

YMMV, but personally, I disagree that it's a realistic depiction. I think the show is *aiming* for a realistic depiction but is instead just perpetuating stereotypes, which is why it gets under my skin. If Dean says misogynistic things because he has some ~issue~ with women, I guess I can get behind that as a character choice. I can even drum up some curiosity about that. But if he says misogynistic things because he didn't go to college? Wtf. I would probably be more forgiving about the frequent use of "blue collar" stereotypes if it felt like there was any actual realism to how class is depicted on the show, like anything relatable about the depiction, but imo there usually isn't and there's been even less as the show has gone on. It seems more like the show is lifting ideas about class from some ridiculous show like Sons of Anarchy than from real life. Personally, I'd prefer if there was more realism about social/class stuff, because this is a rare show in that it *doesn't* have anti-heroes (just regular heroes) as the leads but is also supposedly about working class people. I've obviously given up that that's going to happen, though. In the past, I've always assumed that the characters' attributes are just character choices, like Dean drinking a handle in one go or something is because he has a drinking problem. But now I'm wondering if the writers have been trying to convey some kind of class stereotype with that kind of stuff? Like, Dean would binge-drink to an extraordinary degree because he's "hard drinking blue collar guy"? SIGH ok now I'm more bitter than I was before I even complained! That's the problem with complaining, I guess.

[catrox14]

I kinda feel bad as a "new" fan. Like maybe I'm a usurper to the original fans. I know as a Smallville fan I was DESPERATE to see it over. Smallville

In that case, they would not make Clark Superman UNTIL the show ended.

And I was soooooo ready for that. Plus, I hated their Lois Lane. I fell in love with the proto-Lois (Chloe) and there was very little the actual Lois Lane could do stop me from resenting the hell out of her. So... it was a relief when it was over. I survived the last seasons by using the DVR technique when I could convince myself to.

OTOH, I'm still fresh to SPN. It's still event TV for me. I'm sure in 5 more years (IF it was to go that long), I'd be bitter-ranting too. But I'm not there yet. So, while I totally respect those who just want it over and feel absolutely CHAINED to watch til the bitter end... I don't want it to end. So... I'll send condolences to those who feel trapped and continue to bubble about in other threads.

This is where I come from. I'm new within the past year to SPN so I wonder from the people that came from TWoP of which I did but didn't comment much there about SPN so maybe as a newbie I'm also rehashing but for me it's all new and exciting. I've watched every episode at least twice and some way more so even as its new I have bitterness about things but not enough to stop watching.

Edited November 22, 2014 by catrox14

[Aeryn13]

 

But now I'm wondering if the writers have been trying to convey some kind of class stereotype with that kind of stuff? Like, Dean would binge-drink to an extraordinary degree because he's "hard drinking blue collar guy"

 

I think this has been pretty much a case since day one. Dean is the "blue collar" guy, that`s why he gets the stereotypical markers. Sam is the blue collar guy who wanted to leave his roots behind and turn white collar, hence despite growing up in the same environment, College apparently gave him the "smart, enlightened, sweet, sophisticated" markers. Kripke himself apparently comes from a blue collar background and he is the younger brother who went away to follow different dreams. It`s like jeeze, can it be more on the nose?

 

And the writers IMO all share a certain perspective. If it were a fantasy setting, the blue collar people would be the backwater woodlands folk, not too bright but hard-drinking and hard-partying, probably family-based and loyal. Happy in pursuing the "little pleasures". Often the "muscle" or brawn side of things. White collar would be the magical city folks, brainy and enlightened if a bit stuck up. Sam would be the guy who left the woods for the city. The story would be written from city folk, though, and their (often ignorant) ideas and perception of woodland people. 

 

People like the family in the recent Clue episode would be the folks in the Palace/nobility, carricatures that are to be mocked by BOTH the woodland and the city people.

 

I also don`t think there is much real life to it. Mostly it reminds me of some people I went to university with who had some seriously ignorant and out-there perceptions at working class people. For the most part they didn`t even mean to be bratty and arrogant but what used to come out of their mouths could be so wrong and offensive, it was mind-blowing. And university didn`t give them a particularly enlightened perspective on life, on shades of gray or anything. It didn`t make them sweet or sensitive or anything. 

 

My family is a mixture of blue and white collar you could say in terms of professions chosen and stereotypes like that just make me shake my head in despair.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Aeryn13

[Mcolleague]

I was thinking more of the "siamese twins" "it's conjoined twins" kind of exchange when I referred to the blue collar vs white collar differences, that Dean is less explicitly aware of/informed about certain social issues, which based on his access to education/information growing up in the 80s-90s makes sense? I certainly do not mean to say that people who don't go to college are more misogynistic, or anything along those lines, if that's what it sounded like. I think class influences were very present in early seasons, and were a strong consideration in how Dean/Sam were conceptualized as characters, down to Sam liking salads/Dean liking burgers. Any actual commentary on class was dropped years and years ago though, so now this is what we are left with... yeah, quite a few awkward stereotypes...