Supernatural Bitterness & Unpopular Opinions: You All Suck

[SueB]

Kripke had a lot of weird shit he thought up. David Nutter (who did the pilot) should get a lot more credit than he does for fixing a lot of bad ideas Kripke had.  

[catrox14]

21 minutes ago, SueB said:

Kripke had a lot of weird shit he thought up. David Nutter (who did the pilot) should get a lot more credit than he does for fixing a lot of bad ideas Kripke had.  

Oh I forgot about Nutter. But would he have had control over script?

[DittyDotDot]

40 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Oh I forgot about Nutter. But would he have had control over script?

I don't know about "control," but I know he helped steer the Pilot, quite a bit. It was he who suggested Jensen for the show in the first place since he'd worked with him on Smallville and Dark Angel. It seems like Nutter had a reputation for directing successful pilots back then, so I think his opinion held a lot of weight with Kripke and Co.

BTW, Kim Manners didn't join the show until after Dead in the Water. He was supposedly retired and came up to direct that episode as a favor to Nutter, but everyone fell in love with him and wanted him to stick around.

[catrox14]

Quote

Salvation of the planet depended on both of them acting equally, and had Dean not decided to sacrifice himself and go to be with his brother because the love of family and the relationship between them trumped all, and had he not learned to forgive his brother and love him over years of experience on the show, then he never would have gone out there, Sam would have never seen him, he never would have seen the car, and he never would have had the strength to take over his body and save the world. That was a two-man job.

So, he played the role he was meant to play?

Eric: Yeah, and it was one that he never would have done in the pilot, but learned to do in the finale. To me, that’s what it’s all about. But, as long as they’re watching, people can think whatever the hell they want.

 

You know what's funny , is that if Dean HAD been Michael's meatsuit and they both agreed to jump in the pit together, they would have been acting equally and the world doesn't burn...

[SueB]

2 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Oh I forgot about Nutter. But would he have had control over script?

I'd have to re-listen to either the first Paleyfest or the S1 DVD commentary to be certain, but I'm pretty sure the answer is yes.  He shaped a shit-ton of things.  Next time I get a chance to listen, I'll put down specifics. And he did not just the Pilot but the second episode as well.

Edited February 20, 2017 by SueB

[AwesomO4000]

5 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

But the quote only harps on Dean learning something over the course of the show and then presto, Sam has the strength to save the world. Doesn`t sound like Sam had to learn or change something, just wait for dumb Dean to catch up to his awesomeness.

I get what you're saying here, but as I said above, this was a lesson they'd been throwing at Sam since season 1 with many incidences. Season 4 was one of the most blatant with not only Sam "learning" that John was right ("Jump the Shark"), but that his desire to go to college was wrong and something he maybe shouldn't have done, because growing up means giving up your dreams and doing what your family wants and needs you to do ("Afterschool Special.")  And by the end of that season Sam also learned that he should listen to Dean, because Sam was wrong about Ruby and Dean was right (never mind that Dean was wrong about the angels, because that didn't matter to the narrative.) That's a whole lot of "lesson learning" for one season in my probably unpopular opinion. Sam also learned that his need for "independence" was a bad thing, because it lead to him listening to Ruby and raising Lucifer. So basically from the beginning of the show, Sam learned and changed a lot in my opinion. In those 5 seasons, Sam went from...

• Being angry with John for how they were raised to: it could've been worse ("Nightmare") to thinking that being compared to John should be a compliment in terms of family dynamic ("Jump the Shark").
• Wanting to have a normal life to: dreams should be sacrificed for family ("Afterschool Special") to downright stating that compared to what they do, normal life sucks ("Swap Meat").
• From wanting "independence" from Dean and fighting Dean's leadership in season 1 to: deciding that what they have is too good to give up, despite the costs ("What Is...") to being generally comfortable in following Dean's directives (most of season 5).
• From thinking he knew better, and Dean was just a "good little soldier" to: understanding why Dean does what he does ("Something Wicked") to deferring to Dean in terms of hunting and sharing decisions about his life in general (much of season 5, but especially evident in "My Bloody Valentine.")
• From thinking that much of the problem was his upbringing, his circumstance, his fate, etc. to: deciding that much of the problem was himself ("Sam, Interrupted.")

Sam had also forgiven Dean for making the deal and had learned to accept Dean for who he was and what he does and had complete confidence in Dean (starting around "The End" and culminating in "Point of No Return.") [This was repeated in season 11, when Sam said that Dean pulled a "Dean Winchester" and he meant it as a high compliment. A lesson that had to be repeated due to the character's regression - in my opinion - in season 8.]

In my (likely unpopular) opinion, that's a whole lot of changing on Sam's part over the course of the show through season 5.

In that one area of accepting Sam for who he was and seeing that Sam had changed, Dean in my opinion wasn't there yet. For me, that was most evident in "Dark Side of the Moon." When Sam tried to explain that just because those were good memories at the time, that didn't mean they were what Sam wanted anymore, Dean wouldn't believe him. Sam tried to explain to Dean that Dean was his family, but for him family wasn't exactly like Dean looked at it. Dean wouldn't accept that, because he thought and expected that Sam should see things how he (Dean) saw them, and if Sam didn't, then somehow Sam loved him less or wasn't enough of a brother. So on that one thing, yes, I think Dean did have to learn to "love" Sam for what Sam was now, not what Sam was before when they were kids. In my opinion, Sam was already there in terms of Dean based on all of the points that I made above... Sam was pretty much in sync with Dean then. Wanting to hunt and agreeing it was the life for them - check. Agreeing with Dean that John did the best that he could - check (even if Dean sort of changed his mind about that - too late Dean, Sam already drank the Koolade... can't unring that bell). Being comfortable with Dean as the leader - check. Dean just hadn't absorbed the memo yet.

And it had nothing to do with Dean being "dumb." There were extenuating circumstances - Sam came into these changes through some rather drastic means and lessons learned - some of those at the expense of Dean's feelings. So just because Dean needed to change his mind about some things so they'd be on the same page, didn't mean that it was Dean's fault he had to do so. It just was. And it was something Sam needed. I don't think there has to be blame associated with either of those things.

Just my opinion on that.

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, catrox14 said:

You know what's funny , is that if Dean HAD been Michael's meatsuit and they both agreed to jump in the pit together, they would have been acting equally and the world doesn't burn...

But then there wouldn't have been "Point of No Return" and I happen to love PONR, and I don't know if I'd have wanted to give that episode up.

And I still claim that from what we knew of him, Michael was a single-minded jerk and never would've given Dean any chance to take over at all. He would've locked Dean away in his mind - like Gadreel did to Sam - end of story. Lucifer let Sam stay near the surface, because he - the evil sicko - wanted Sam to enjoy being possessed by him*. That wasn't something Michael cared about or would have considered, in my opinion anyway. Dean would've been a hindrance to his mission. For me the character of Michael would've had to have been fundamentally changed for that to have worked in any way where Dean would've actively been involved.

And for that reason with the way the character of Michael was written, I wouldn't have believed Dean being able to take over from Michael. And I can just imagine the outrage if Sam in Lucifer was able to take over** but Dean remained buried in Michael.

* It was so creepy. Like an abuser wanting his/her victim to like being abused by him/her and ask for more.

** Though also less believable to me without Dean being there (as Dean) and Lucifer getting the ultimate insult to damage his ego.

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

But then there wouldn't have been "Point of No Return" and I happen to love PONR, and I don't know if I'd have wanted to give that episode up

Heh. And I HATE that episode as much as Swan Song. Because that's when they came up with Adam as the option and just NO. LOL

I guess I've always believed that Dean was going to be able to control Michael like Sam eventually did with Lucifer.

Edited February 20, 2017 by catrox14

[rue721]

27 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Lucifer let Sam stay near the surface, because he - the evil sicko - wanted Sam to enjoy being possessed by him

Yes, Lucifer always seems to want to have a personal relationship with his vessels. Dude has serious intimacy issues.

Frankly, I think that's the single, solitary thing about Lucifer that actually has the potential to be interesting. But they've tried to act like those issues are stemming from the way his relationship with God cooled down once humans came around. God and Lucifer even had ~family therapy~ about that onscreen ffs. But, to me, the "distant" relationship between God and Lucifer doesn't seem like something that would have anything to do with that weird intimacy/power thing that Lucifer has going on. To be COMPLETELY frank, it always comes off to me like Lucifer is caught up in some sex abuse cycle (which, intellectually, doesn't even make sense in light of him being an ANGEL. I don't think that the show is literally saying that's what's up). Like, to me, he always comes off as someone who went from victim to perpetrator or something. It's the weird way he needs to constantly be in total control and how he wheedles at people, while seeming to somehow believe that that's what interpersonal relationships are like. Like, in his head, he's just acting charming and normal and WHY WON'T ANYONE LOVE HIM. lol.

Man OK here's my REALLY unpopular opinion. I think that if they are going to have Lucifer on the show -- which I don't want, but which they are apparently very committed to -- they need to find a new actor to play him. They haven't hit on the right actor yet, I don't think. IMO the writing for Lucifer isn't necessarily worse than it is for any other character, but he's very tiresome because there hasn't been an actor yet who has been able to play him so that he seems to have any complexity or depth. So his scenes and storylines fall very flat. Well, except for Jared, actually. IMO Jared's Lucifer (I'm thinking of in The End specifically) is the best one there has been.

I think Rick Springfield did a very good job, too, but IMO RS would have been better suited to playing a different character. He actually seemed too gentle and likable IMO. I really enjoyed when he was playing the rock-star-not-named-Rick-Springfield, but his version of Lucifer didn't have enough menace or anger IMO.

[catrox14]

6 minutes ago, rue721 said:

IMO Jared's Lucifer (I'm thinking of in The End specifically) is the best one there has been.

I've said this all along. And IMO that is still Jared's best non-Sam performance. "I win.....so...I win".  So great.

[AwesomO4000]

55 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I guess I've always believed that Dean was going to be able to control Michael like Sam eventually did with Lucifer.

For me the two aren't comparable, and I'm not saying anything against Dean, here, or that Dean isn't as "strong" as Sam. It's Michael. He doesn't have the same vulnerability that Lucifer has. He has some ego - though not as bad as Lucifer's - but he doesn't have that "why won't everyone love me?!?" thing that @rue721 described above that Lucifer has or the "My ego can't take the rejection, so now I'm gonna have a temper tantrum." thing* either, and that's part of Lucifer's downfall. And so for me there wouldn't be any reason for Michael to even give Dean a chance. In character, Michael would just put Dean in a fantasy world where Dean was working the "case" and averting the apocalypse and getting his happily ever after, and Dean wouldn't know the difference. Michael would think that was a kindness, actually - just like he insisted that wiping Mary's memory was a kindness: "she's getting what she wants." Of course my opinion is partially influenced but what I know now after Gadreel. Sam was duped by Gadreel for a loooong time, and Sam still never figured it out. Crowley had to come in and tell Sam that he was possessed.

All Michael would've had to do is keep Dean convinced for a day or two and boom, apocalypse now without Dean ever knowing it happened. Lucifer wouldn't do that because he'd want Sam to see the world ending, just like he wanted Sam to feel the demons being killed and Dean being beaten. And so he could talk with Sam while it was happening (as I said above: creepy)... but that's not something Michael would do, in my opinion, so for me, Dean overtaking Michael would've thrown me right out of the episode if it had happened, because Michael wouldn't - and for me shouldn't** - have the same vulnerabilities Lucifer had.

I get that miles vary, however.

* It takes a while, and he can keep up the pretense of patience - like SamLucifer did in "The End" - but eventually he reaches a breaking point and then snaps, like he did when he beat Dean in "Swan Song" and most recently when Sam said "no" last season, and all the "oh, you can be the hero, Sam" went out the window in favor of fists. And of course all of his making demons was just an example of one of his temper tantrums to break "Daddy's toys."

** I mean, Michael's a jerk, but he's not a sick, evil, temper-tantrum prone psycho like Lucifer is.

[Wayward Son]

23 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

For me the two aren't comparable, and I'm not saying anything against Dean, here, or that Dean isn't as "strong" as Sam. It's Michael. He doesn't have the same vulnerability that Lucifer has. He has some ego - though not as bad as Lucifer's - but he doesn't have that "why won't everyone love me?!?" thing that @rue721 described above that Lucifer has or the "My ego can't take the rejection, so now I'm gonna have a temper tantrum." thing* either, and that's part of Lucifer's downfall. And so for me there wouldn't be any reason for Michael to even give Dean a chance. In character, Michael would just put Dean in a fantasy world where Dean was working the "case" and averting the apocalypse and getting his happily ever after, and Dean wouldn't know the difference. Michael would think that was a kindness, actually - just like he insisted that wiping Mary's memory was a kindness: "she's getting what she wants." Of course my opinion is partially influenced but what I know now after Gadreel. Sam was duped by Gadreel for a loooong time, and Sam still never figured it out. Crowley had to come in and tell Sam that he was possessed.

All Michael would've had to do is keep Dean convinced for a day or two and boom, apocalypse now without Dean ever knowing it happened. Lucifer wouldn't do that because he'd want Sam to see the world ending, just like he wanted Sam to feel the demons being killed and Dean being beaten. And so he could talk with Sam while it was happening (as I said above: creepy)... but that's not something Michael would do, in my opinion, so for me, Dean overtaking Michael would've thrown me right out of the episode if it had happened, because Michael wouldn't - and for me shouldn't** - have the same vulnerabilities Lucifer had.

I get that miles vary, however.

* It takes a while, and he can keep up the pretense of patience - like SamLucifer did in "The End" - but eventually he reaches a breaking point and then snaps, like he did when he beat Dean in "Swan Song" and most recently when Sam said "no" last season, and all the "oh, you can be the hero, Sam" went out the window in favor of fists. And of course all of his making demons was just an example of one of his temper tantrums to break "Daddy's toys."

** I mean, Michael's a jerk, but he's not a sick, evil, temper-tantrum prone psycho like Lucifer is.

Excellent point! @AwesomO4000 . I hadnt thought of it like that, but you're right... Michael would have no reason not to just place Dean in a fantasy land while things go down. As you pointed out Sam's victory over Lucifer was just as much to do with Lucifer's shortcomings as Sam's strength, as shown by Gadreel's ability to keep him docile. 

[Icarus]

I absolutely hated Swan Song and very nearly stopped watching SPN after it aired. The whole of the build up was IMO really good drama and it worked well to have Dean have an arc of his own (even Jensen saying how happy he was with that). I would watch episodes and go – no no Sam don't do that – or Dean come on you can't say that – and for me it worked. I was OK with Sam going down hill as it was, for me anyway, well written and played out i.e. it made sense.

Then one of the worst lines that totally took me out of the episode and Supernatural itself was the one (have never watch it again so can't remember it exactly) to Dean about you are not relevant to this fight any more. From then on it was just NO NO NO. I have read, probably close to a hundred arguments and discussions about how it was not how I saw it etc etc but absolutely none of these have made any impression on how I SAW IT and how bad/horrible I felt it was.

 

I am more a Dean girl but I always liked/was interested in Sam as a character. But I almost could not stand Sam over the Benny scenario and it was that conversation Sam had with Dean about killing Benny that stopped my daughter, a Sam fan, from watching anymore. When Sam did not look for Dean I kept waiting for an explanation but when we never got a proper one I just handwaved it as I don't believe Sam would not have looked so it never happened! And then the purge speech, it was very difficult for me to like Sam at all any longer. However (I really really like Jared) and they are seemingly writing Sam much better now so I feel almost a bi bro fan at the moment!!!! Maybe not quite!

 

My last rant on this post anyway! Is a bit OT so hope it is okay, I get very cross at being encouraged again and again to support other projects that ex SPN people are working on, (not talking about charitable ones) especially the tweets from Kripke - “come on SPN fans” to support a second series of Timeless – I am an SPN fan and that should say it all. Don't mind being told about them but just because they worked on SPN does not mean they are still relevant to SPN fans any longer.

[mertensia]

1 hour ago, Icarus said:

I absolutely hated Swan Song and very nearly stopped watching SPN after it aired. The whole of the build up was IMO really good drama and it worked well to have Dean have an arc of his own (even Jensen saying how happy he was with that). I would watch episodes and go – no no Sam don't do that – or Dean come on you can't say that – and for me it worked. I was OK with Sam going down hill as it was, for me anyway, well written and played out i.e. it made sense.

Then one of the worst lines that totally took me out of the episode and Supernatural itself was the one (have never watch it again so can't remember it exactly) to Dean about you are not relevant to this fight any more. From then on it was just NO NO NO. I have read, probably close to a hundred arguments and discussions about how it was not how I saw it etc etc but absolutely none of these have made any impression on how I SAW IT and how bad/horrible I felt it was.

 

I am more a Dean girl but I always liked/was interested in Sam as a character. But I almost could not stand Sam over the Benny scenario and it was that conversation Sam had with Dean about killing Benny that stopped my daughter, a Sam fan, from watching anymore. When Sam did not look for Dean I kept waiting for an explanation but when we never got a proper one I just handwaved it as I don't believe Sam would not have looked so it never happened! And then the purge speech, it was very difficult for me to like Sam at all any longer. However (I really really like Jared) and they are seemingly writing Sam much better now so I feel almost a bi bro fan at the moment!!!! Maybe not quite!

 

My last rant on this post anyway! Is a bit OT so hope it is okay, I get very cross at being encouraged again and again to support other projects that ex SPN people are working on, (not talking about charitable ones) especially the tweets from Kripke - “come on SPN fans” to support a second series of Timeless – I am an SPN fan and that should say it all. Don't mind being told about them but just because they worked on SPN does not mean they are still relevant to SPN fans any longer.

Well, and Lucifer and Michael found out the hard way that Dean was relevant and did have a part to play.  

He showed up to support Sam. Strike One.

His being there woke Sam up. Strike Two.

He let himself be beaten to a pulp, thus giving Sam the necessary time to remember and act and may well have made Lucifer lose vital control. Strike Three, off to the Cage with you.

To argue that Dean had no role at Stull is like arguing that because he didn't personally take part in the D-Day invasion Eisenhower had no part in the D-Day invasion.

[Icarus]

1 hour ago, mertensia said:

Well, and Lucifer and Michael found out the hard way that Dean was relevant and did have a part to play.  

He showed up to support Sam. Strike One.

His being there woke Sam up. Strike Two.

He let himself be beaten to a pulp, thus giving Sam the necessary time to remember and act and may well have made Lucifer lose vital control. Strike Three, off to the Cage with you.

To argue that Dean had no role at Stull is like arguing that because he didn't personally take part in the D-Day invasion Eisenhower had no part in the D-Day invasion.

Erm where did I say that Dean did not have a role or where did I say I was arguing that point?  I thought I had quite clearly said just that I hated that episode?  I could go into why but as I also said having read close to a hundred justifications on why it was a good ending I have not changed my opinion that it was a rubbish one so I didn't bother to try as I have no interest in starting an argument.  Venting my bitterness............................is all

[mertensia]

3 hours ago, Icarus said:

 

Then one of the worst lines that totally took me out of the episode and Supernatural itself was the one (have never watch it again so can't remember it exactly) to Dean about you are not relevant to this fight any more. 

Where? Here. And they were wrong. Dean was relevant. 

[PAForrest]

6 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Heh. And I HATE that episode as much as Swan Song. Because that's when they came up with Adam as the option and just NO. LOL

I guess I've always believed that Dean was going to be able to control Michael like Sam eventually did with Lucifer.

I hate PoNR every bit as much as SS, if not more, because that's the episode where they all decided, "hey, let's throw away almost everything we worked toward for two years", replaced Dean with a guest-star no one cared about, and set the ball rolling for the stupidity of SS. So, unpopular opinion?

And, yes, the original plan was for Dean to control Michael the same as Sam controls Lucifer - but maybe without the idiotic props and actually because they're good guys and care about each other more than they do cars and toys. Jensen was given every impression he was to play Michael, and the PA (I think her name was "vancouvernights") who was tweeting spoilers at the time in season five had posted one that essentially said Dean would take on Michael, but it wouldn't go according to plan and Michael wouldn't be able to take over completely.

Both bothers would have fallen into the pit/plot hole, and maybe as a series finale it would have been sad and depressing. As for renewal, that was no excuse to cut Dean out of the storyline. Cas can pull out two brothers just as easily as one - though in reality neither he nor Crowley should have been able to accomplish that given how impenetrable the box was supposed to be. But, hey, then there's Chuck - he saves both brothers because of their sacrifice. They don't know how they were saved until we bring Chuck back into it later, they just know they were.

Sure, you might have to give up Soulless!Sam, but I hated that plot, so no loss IMO. Maybe that's an unpopular opinion, though, again, I think it is and isn't depending on who you talk to.

Or have something else happen to Sam in season six where he loses his soul, and maybe it's done a whole lot better than the way it was mishandled in season six.

Edited February 20, 2017 by PAForrest

[ILoveReading]

5 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

For me the two aren't comparable, and I'm not saying anything against Dean, here, or that Dean isn't as "strong" as Sam. It's Michael. He doesn't have the same vulnerability that Lucifer has. He has some ego - though not as bad as Lucifer's - but he doesn't have that "why won't everyone love me?!?" thing that @rue721 described above that Lucifer has or the "My ego can't take the rejection, so now I'm gonna have a temper tantrum." thing* either, and that's part of Lucifer's downfall. And so for me there wouldn't be any reason for Michael to even give Dean a chance. In character, Michael would just put Dean in a fantasy world where Dean was working the "case" and averting the apocalypse and getting his happily ever after, and Dean wouldn't know the difference. Michael would think that was a kindness, actually - just like he insisted that wiping Mary's memory was a kindness: "she's getting what she wants." Of course my opinion is partially influenced but what I know now after Gadreel. Sam was duped by Gadreel for a loooong time, and Sam still never figured it out. Crowley had to come in and tell Sam that he was possessed.

All Michael would've had to do is keep Dean convinced for a day or two and boom, apocalypse now without Dean ever knowing it happened. Lucifer wouldn't do that because he'd want Sam to see the world ending, just like he wanted Sam to feel the demons being killed and Dean being beaten. And so he could talk with Sam while it was happening (as I said above: creepy)... but that's not something Michael would do, in my opinion, so for me, Dean overtaking Michael would've thrown me right out of the episode if it had happened, because Michael wouldn't - and for me shouldn't** - have the same vulnerabilities Lucifer had.

I get that miles vary, however.

* It takes a while, and he can keep up the pretense of patience - like SamLucifer did in "The End" - but eventually he reaches a breaking point and then snaps, like he did when he beat Dean in "Swan Song" and most recently when Sam said "no" last season, and all the "oh, you can be the hero, Sam" went out the window in favor of fists. And of course all of his making demons was just an example of one of his temper tantrums to break "Daddy's toys."

** I mean, Michael's a jerk, but he's not a sick, evil, temper-tantrum prone psycho like Lucifer is.

I disagree here because Michael was never explored.  He had one brief appearance.  Lucifer is a dead horse that was beaten over and over so his strengths and vulnerabilities were established.  It's impossible to say Michael does or doesn't have qualities X, Y, Z or wasn't having a temper tantrum.  We don't know if there was something that Dean could have taken advantage of.

Original spoilers for Point of No Return said it was supposed to explore the connection between Dean and Michael, so who knows what we would have seen here that Dean could have taken advantage of.  Saying yes would have happened during episode 18 so that would be 4 episodes for Dean to figure out he was in a fantasy and fight back.

As for fantasies, Dean is extremely smart and observant.  In What is and What Should Never Be, Dean's relationship with his brother was strained, he was protrayed as not always reliable and it was strongly implied he had a drinking problem.  That fantasy was from Dean's own head.  He saw it as a good life but it was far from idyllic.  He was able to realize that John was possessed in Devil's Trap because he said he was proud and he recognized something was up with Sam in Swap Meat after Sam said they don't just hang out enough.  Everything about Dean suggests he would immediately suspect was up if things were too perfect.

Plus the show had long established that Dean had a long history of being able to talk people around to his way of thinking.  So if he found a way to do that its in character. 

The Nick vessel was extremely weak, and Lucifer was doing everything he could to hold it together.  So a fight between them at the two was much more likely to favor Michael.

Edited February 20, 2017 by ILoveReading

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I have read, probably close to a hundred arguments and discussions about how it was not how I saw it etc etc but absolutely none of these have made any impression on how I SAW IT and how bad/horrible I felt it was.

Which, to be fair, all of those are theories and headcanons so for me personally, none of them makes the episode as it is okay. Or watchable.

And for me, Michael`s line was right: Dean was no longer part of the story. The story being: Sam defeats Lucifer. Adam guest stars as Michael. I still posit that I can easily rewrite the entire episode, keeping that story intact and never having Dean in it. All that was needed was Sam and Sam having memories. Well, he had those before the episode. Big whoop.   

Quote

I hate PoNR every bit as much as SS, if not more, because that's the episode where they all decided, "hey, let's throw away almost everything we worked toward for two years", replaced Dean with a guest-star no one cared about, and set the ball rolling for the stupidity of SS. So, unpopular opinion?

I don`t hate it quite as much as 5.22 because at least Dean got a last moment to shine in it but overall I found it an insanely disappointing 100th episode. Would gladly lose it if the final arc got revamped.

Quote

I've said this all along. And IMO that is still Jared's best non-Sam performance. "I win.....so...I win".  So great.

 My really unpopular opinion would be: I didn`t like his Lucifer. Not in "The End" and not in the Finale. There are actors I can enjoy doing smug and there are those I don`t. This is a case of: don`t. Didn`t care for the mirror scene and that scene on the field was atrocious. Jake Abel as well who I normally like.

I thought Mark Pellegrino did an okay job. The best and creepiest Lucifer was IMO the one had just risen and tried to make the Nick vessel say yes. That was sadistic and powerful. And it didn`t have an actor yet. Afterwards, the character just whined too much. Which was intentional but no my cup of tea.

So in the end, the writing for Lucifer put me off more than any individual performer. Or at least, noone really could save it for me. 

Best non-Sam performance for me is heads and shoulders above anything else Meg-Sam in Born under a bad sign.       

[mertensia]

1 minute ago, Aeryn13 said:

 

And for me, Michael`s line was right: Dean was no longer part of the story. The story being: Sam defeats Lucifer. Adam guest stars as Michael. I still posit that I can easily rewrite the entire episode, keeping that story intact and never having Dean in it. All that was needed was Sam and Sam having memories. Well, he had those before the episode. Big whoop.   

 

That the angels decided  that Dean was no longer a part of the story does not take away from the fact that Dean was very much a part of the storyline. 

I find it odd that the people forever upset over Dean not being Michael's vessel and decrying his (in their eyes) lack of inclusion in the finale seem A-Okay with taking away his credit for what he did do. My unpopular opinion.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I find it odd that the people forever upset over Dean not being Michael's vessel and decrying his (in their eyes) lack of inclusion in the finale seem A-Okay with taking away his credit for what he did do.

Because of what he did do or was shown to do onscreen is something I found neither memorable nor worth giving credit for. That`s my problem.

I can only take credit away from someone where I feel they should have it in the first place. My entire problem with the episode is that I do not think Dean got to do something credit-worthy. So when I say he did basically nothing, that`s because I feel he did nothing. And I`m taking nothing away from it.

That`s not even Dean-specific, I wouldn`t credit anyone else in such a situation either. Like I said I don`t credit the "wind beneath my wings" stuff. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

8 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

So on that one thing, yes, I think Dean did have to learn to "love" Sam for what Sam was now, not what Sam was before when they were kids.

8 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

So just because Dean needed to change his mind about some things so they'd be on the same page, didn't mean that it was Dean's fault he had to do so. It just was.

I don't have a problem with this as I think it is very true to Real Life.  As children grow into adults, both parents and children have to learn to love the other for what they are now, not what they were before, if both want to have a genuinely fulfilling mutual relationship, imo.  (Hey, isn't this the lesson many of us want Mary to learn already?)  Even siblings have to learn to love each other for the adults they are not, not the sometimes-annoying-little(big)-brother-or-sister they used to be - for the same reason as above.  

[Myrelle]

9 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

** I mean, Michael's a jerk, but he's not a sick, evil, temper-tantrum prone psycho like Lucifer is.

But as you say, this IS just and simply conjecture based on the very little info, characterization, and screen-time that the writers have provided concerning Michael over all these years. And that was(and still is) the larger part of the problem for many in the Dean fandom, IMO; and it was the biggest problem with S5, IMO. Michael could have been those bolded things, too. He could have taken the control freak thing to another level; he could have been more amenable to change than Lucifer; he could have been convinced to work with Dean as other powerful supernatural beings have done since S5; he could have been the ultimate betrayor of humanity; he could have been the ultimate betrayor of his father. He could have been many things. The potential for that character was(and still is, IMO) through the roof. He is one of most famous angels in angel lore-and what did these writers do with him? Kept him on the shelf. There was no good storyboard reason for that that I can really or readily see other than the fact that they wanted to focus more on Lucifer and the Lucifer/Sam stuff. Just read some of the above posts. Lucifer has been fleshed out so much more and in a much more in-depth fashion than Michael ever was. THAT is the problem for me. I SO! wanted to learn more about Michael back then(and I still do, but not if they're going to completely do away with any connection that Dean might have had with him just to hand it over to another character-a great possibility considering the writing history on this show).

I don't see how anyone could assume that Dean wouldn't in some way be able to overcome Michael based on the miniscule information/characterization that we've been given and/or shown on the character. And while miles might vary as to assumptions, what cannot be questioned is that within the canon of the show, the Lucifer character has been given far more exploration over the course of the series than Michael. And that was my biggest gripe while S5 was happening. But then PONR and Swan Song happened and(more in hindsight) I realized why. IIRC, I remember someone form the show stating early on in that season that PONR was originally going to explore the relationship between Dean and Michael, but obviously something changed and I firmly believe that it was Sera Gamble who was against Kripke's idea of both brothers going into the pit together. DomesticDean was her baby and she wanted it and she got it, 2 year storyline for Dean be damned as far as she was concerned.

Man, those last episodes at the end of S5 that culminated in Swan Song and the first half of S6 was the hardest stretch of episodes ever on this show for me to have had to watch. I think they scarred me for life where it concerns the writing on this show, because it was after that stretch that I first started thinking about giving up on the show. And it was those episodes that I flashed back to when the Trials storyline started in S8, and combined with the overall writing post the episode The End and up to that point, that prompted me more than anything else to start DVRing(and in some cases, just skipping entire episodes), of the show, instead of watching live, as I had still done religiously, even so, up to that point.

ETA: Ach. Missed your post on this the first time around, Ilovereading, or I would have quoted you.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Myrelle

[AwesomO4000]

4 hours ago, PAForrest said:

Jensen was given every impression he was to play Michael, and the PA (I think her name was "vancouvernights") who was tweeting spoilers at the time in season five had posted one that essentially said Dean would take on Michael, but it wouldn't go according to plan and Michael wouldn't be able to take over completely.

Both bothers would have fallen into the pit/plot hole, and maybe as a series finale it would have been sad and depressing.

I think I would have hated that for a couple of reasons. First why would Michael only be able to half take over Dean? And then why would Sam say "yes" to Lucifer when it would be so much easier for half Dean / half Michael to just throw Nickifer into the pit? Because if Dean has half control of Michael, there's no reason for Sam to say "yes" unless they are going to have Sam mess up for yet another time. No thank you - we had that in season 4, and I was already tired of Sam being the "screw up brother."

So in order for a half Dean / half Michael thing to have ended up with both Sam and Dean in the pit, Dean would've had to convince Michael to throw himself in the pit - which why? - for some reason, or Sam would've said "yes" for some reason - which would only be if he was weak and/or a screw up like Dean surmised (no thank you). And then for them both to fall in instead of just Michael defeating Sam in Lucifer, Dean would've had to convince Michael not to kill Lucifer, go get the ring from Death... well actually likely none of that would've happened. They'd have to come up with some other way to open the cage, but whatever (too bad because I loved Death in "Two Minutes to Midnight" and Dean's connection with Death.) So somehow they open the cage, and somehow I'm supposed to believe Sam also takes over Lucifer and they decide to jump in the pit together, rather than Sam just jumping in, because Sam would condemn his brother to hell with him why? And if Dean committed suicide and jumped in with Sam, I'd hate that, too, because why would he do that to Sam instead of convincing Michael to get Sam out later? Or if it was due to a fight, then Sam would have to not take over Lucifer - the most likely scenario for this to work - and Lucifer in Sam is too powerful for Michael in Dean to defeat and they both end up in the pit. Which I would really, really have hated that scenario, because Sam would pretty much be the villain or the eternal screw up, condemning his brother to hell for all eternity, because he didn't listen to him and weakly gave in to Lucifer.

"Swan Song" might not have been great, and it likely would've been better to skip the entire montage thing or frame it another way, but none of the above would've been better for me in the least. Either the logistics of any of it would've been so convoluted that it wouldn't have made much sense or Sam would've had to entirely screw up - again - for it to happen. I couldn't say "no thank you," enough.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

My last rant on this post anyway! Is a bit OT so hope it is okay, I get very cross at being encouraged again and again to support other projects that ex SPN people are working on, (not talking about charitable ones) especially the tweets from Kripke - “come on SPN fans” to support a second series of Timeless – I am an SPN fan and that should say it all. Don't mind being told about them but just because they worked on SPN does not mean they are still relevant to SPN fans any longer.

You know what is ironic? Timeless would normally be right up my alley but 5.22 is a big reason why I wouldn`t touch another Kripke project. What if I get invested in the "wrong" character again? That way lie madness and disappointment. I don`t like what he has ultimately shown as a showrunner or storyteller so thanks but no thanks. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 hour ago, Myrelle said:

I don't see how anyone could assume that Dean wouldn't in some way be able to overcome Michael based on the miniscule information/characterization that we've been given and/or shown on the character. And while miles might vary as to assumptions, what cannot be questioned is that within the canon of the show, the Lucifer character has been given far more exploration over the course of the series than Michael. And that was my biggest gripe while S5 was happening.

You said it yourself: miles vary as to assumptions.  So, based on the minuscule information/characterization that we've been given and /shown on the character, one person's assumption that Dean wouldn't be able to overcome Michael is as valid as the next person's assumption that he would.  

Are you really griping that Lucifer got more exploration than Michael in S5 as individual characters in their own right, or only as how you would have liked for it to relate to Dean?  Because I think those are two very different sets of gripes.  

[Wynne88]

I would label myself as a Sam-fan from the beginning, but even I thought the rug got jerked out from under Jensen when they substituted Jake Abel for him playing Michael at the end of Season 5.  I have no idea how it would have played out, but when you've headed so strongly in one direction for so long, to take a side-step the way they did was disappointing.  What happened to the righteous man starting and ending the apocalypse?  Wasn't that 'written'?  Plus, it didn't help that, to me, Jake Abel's Lucifer had no real weight or menace.

Quote

Best non-Sam performance for me is heads and shoulders above anything else Meg-Sam in Born under a bad sign.

I just saw this again the other day, and absolutely agree with you.    

[Partly]

5 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

That`s not even Dean-specific, I wouldn`t credit anyone else in such a situation either. Like I said I don`t credit the "wind beneath my wings" stuff. 

But he was willing to die to save Sam (and in turn, save the entire world).  Isn't that doing something?  The willingness to take the bullet, to stand true to who you are and what you believe despite the extremely low chance of winning and the extremely high chance of dying IS an action.  An action that, in real life, has changed the world many times. 

I love the fact that the show allows both Dean and Sam to be heroic in more than one way.  My unpopular opinion.

[ILoveReading]

Just now, Partly said:

But he was willing to die to save Sam (and in turn, save the entire world).  Isn't that doing something?  The willingness to take the bullet, to stand true to who you are and what you believe despite the extremely low chance of winning and the extremely high chance of dying IS an action.  An action that, in real life, has changed the world many times. 

I love the fact that the show allows both Dean and Sam to be heroic in more than one way.  My unpopular opinion.

My problem is that it makes it far to easy to dismiss Dean's contribution.  In 9,01 even Sam gave himself full credit.  

[Aeryn13]

Quote

But he was willing to die to save Sam (and in turn, save the entire world).  Isn't that doing something?

Not enough to count for me, sorry, nope.  

Quote

My problem is that it makes it far to easy to dismiss Dean's contribution.

Yup, give me an actual action that noone can dismiss. Sam got that. I hated the episode but I can`t dismiss his world-saving. 

Edited February 20, 2017 by Aeryn13

[Wayward Son]

5 minutes ago, Partly said:

But he was willing to die to save Sam (and in turn, save the entire world).  Isn't that doing something?  The willingness to take the bullet, to stand true to who you are and what you believe despite the extremely low chance of winning and the extremely high chance of dying IS an action.  An action that, in real life, has changed the world many times. 

I love the fact that the show allows both Dean and Sam to be heroic in more than one way.  My unpopular opinion.

Agreed! Sometimes it's the little and subtle things that make the biggest difference. 

I think it depends on what type of viewer you are. Viewers who can appreciate scenes that focus on familial relationships and emotional bonds will appreciate the scene for what it was. Those who want flashy action, action, action, for their favourites won't appreciate scenes with messages like this one.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Wayward Son

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Brought over from Stuck in the Middle with You:

hour ago, Myrelle said:

At that time he had as much of a connection to Michael as Sam had to Lucifer.

 And imo, until Lucifer actually possessed Sam, he had no real 'connection' to him either.  

[ILoveReading]

1 minute ago, Wayward Son said:

Agreed! Sometimes it's the little and subtle things that make the biggest difference. Sadly, some viewers will only be satisfied with the flashiest actions. 

In real life I'd agree.  On tv I want to see my favs get the action.   It's more exciting that way.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Viewers who can appreciate scenes that focus on familial relationships and emotional bonds will appreciate the scene for what it was. Those who want flashy action, action, action, for their favourites won't appreciate scenes with messages like this one.

That sounds like the first group is more sophisticated or morally superior or something. Because I`d disagree with that.

[Wayward Son]

1 minute ago, Aeryn13 said:

That sounds like the first group is more sophisticated or morally superior or something. Because I`d disagree with that.

I didn't say one was better than the other. I simply pointed out that the scene in Swan Song would appeal to the former and not the latter. 

[MysteryGuest]

For those of you who wanted Dean to be Michael's vessel, exactly how did you see that playing out?  Did you really see Dean and Michael joining forces to kill Sam/Lucifer?  I don't see Dean doing that, frankly.  And if they'd both jumped into the Pit together as some sort of suicide pact to save the world from the Apocalypse, then is that the end of your show?  We saw what being in the Pit with Lucifer did to Sam's soul, would Dean have fared any better?  I honestly have never understood why Dean fans would want this to happen.   

Some outrage over slights to Dean's character I can totally get behind, like completely disregarding the time he spent in hell, or the handing off of the MOC to Sam last season, and there are probably even a few more I can't remember right now.  But missing out on being used by Michael in some contrived Heaven/Hell pissing contest, just isn't one of them.  

I always felt that Dean played his role by helping Sam do what he needed to do to both redeem himself, and save the world.  And I firmly believe that without Dean being there, Sam would never have been able to do that.  I see both brothers doing exactly what they had to do.  

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Did you really see Dean and Michael joining forces to kill Sam/Lucifer? 

Quite easy, at the time Dean would have said yes, Lucifer would still have been in the Nick vessel so Dean would have had no qualms about killing Lucifer. Then of course Lucifer doesn`t want to show up in an inferior vessel and goes about aquiring Sam as a vessel. Now why would Sam say "yes"? That scenario doesn`t have to have screw-up-Sam who says "yes" for no apparent reason. Lucifer could use extortion and trickery. As we`ve seen with Gadreel, basically any kind of "consent" counts.

Or, flip it on its head. Dean arrives on the battlefield and Michael makes a last ditch attempt to get him to say "yes". Figuring it is his only chance to turn things around, Dean does so. See, I don`t care why and how Dean says yes so much as the story flows on.

The dialogue between the two archangels clearly set to invoke all the arguments the Winchesters brothers had in Season 1 about following Dad and bla bla. That was even the case in the episode, it was a call-back. Well, now you have the actual brothers and that wakes them up. They both fight their respective archangels down enough to jump into the pit. 

If there is a Season 6, they obviously get out. If there isn`t, that is what fanfic and headcanons are for. I`m still happy because I got an ending where both mytharcs played out and one wasn`t just trashed. Heck, they could do a TV movie to wrap it up later.

Provided that the story goes on, yes, Dean`s soul would have suffered in the cage, too. Makes for good storytelling later as it opens up possibilities. Why should that be a negative for a fan of the character? The character suffered in hell and suffered under the MOC and suffered during his connection with Amara? I was cheering all of those because hey, interesting supernatural story.

I would have also been perfectly fine if he had blown himself up with the soul bomb and saved the world like that. It`s a big hooray hero story, what`s not to like? It`s fiction.

I was not cheering the boring domestic stuff. Or the "depression" stuff. Or the nanny stuff in Season 8.B. It`s the old Chinese curse: may you live in interesting times. Goes double for TV. I want interesting things to happen to my characters story-wise, not necessarily good/happy/mundane things.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Aeryn13

[Myrelle]

24 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

And imo, until Lucifer actually possessed Sam, he had no real 'connection' to him either.  

We can agree to disagree on this then.

[Myrelle]

1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Are you really griping that Lucifer got more exploration than Michael in S5 as individual characters in their own right, or only as how you would have liked for it to relate to Dean?  Because I think those are two very different sets of gripes.  

They could have been two very different set of gripes, but as it was set up in S5 all the way up to the end, it would have been very difficult for them to explore Michael more without somehow bringing/relating Dean into it, as they did for Sam and Lucifer. But since they barely did anything with Michael and/or the angels prophecy that named him Michael's OTV, I'll never know if I would have had any more "gripes" than that one.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Myrelle

[Partly]

23 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Or, flip it on its head. Dean arrives on the battlefield and Michael makes a last ditch attempt to get him to say "yes". Figuring it is his only chance to turn things around, Dean does so. See, I don`t care why and how Dean says yes so much as the story flows on.

And this where I view the story differently: I don't see the whole arc being about Dean leading up to being a vessel and then the writers dumping the story line -- I see the story line as Dean's fight against the "fate" of being a vessel.  To me, that is the story line that has all the emotional and character arcs in it: From Dean's first saying no to the third act arc of his losing faith and being ready to say yes, to his rediscovering his courage and going back to saying no.  In my mind, Dean was never supposed to say yes.  He is always about free will and not succumbing to all the pressure being put on him to just give up. 

I know that there are a lot of fans who see Dean's denial as a cheat of some sort, but I see it as a fulfillment of his character.  In my view of the character, it would have been a cheat to have him become Michael's vessel. 

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, Myrelle said:

I don't see how anyone could assume that Dean wouldn't in some way be able to overcome Michael based on the miniscule information/characterization that we've been given and/or shown on the character.

I actually disagree that we haven't gotten much characterization on Michael. In my opinion, a character doesn't have to be onscreen to learn about them, and I learned a lot about Michael through his actions. First Zachariah was his number one man. Zachariah did what Michael told him to. The angels said that God had been gone a long time, so when orders came from "high up" they were coming from Michael. Therefor, it's reasonable to assume that Michael arranged for Castiel to be taken and "reprogrammed." It was on Michael's go ahead that Sam was let out of the panic room and Dean was taken to the green room so that Sam could go free Lucifer. Zachariah informs Dean that of course they were letting the seals be broken - duh, he says, powerful angels, meaning it was under Michael's direction that all of the seals were allowed to break. Once Michael's "dirty work" was done by Zach, then Michael deems to show up.

And when Michael does show up, it's only because Anna was threatening his grand plan. If Anna makes sure that Sam is never born, Lucifer doesn't rise, so he kills Anna and against Dean's wishes, wipes both Mary and John's memories to make sure he gets what he wants - Lucifer risen. He's not the least bit moved by Dean's assertion that Dean's going to do something with his "unimportant little life." Then Michael lets Zach terrorize Sam and Dean in heaven to butter Dean up to being his vessel.

From all of this I think that I can reasonably conclude that Michael is manipulative, single minded, and ruthless in his goals - and that main goal being what he decided that God had commanded - that he kill Lucifer and bring about the apocalypse... in this case the Revelation one, where most people die, and in the SPN version, angels take over running the earth.

And this is all before "Point of No Return." In that episode, we learned that apparently Michael was also impatient, because it was his idea to resurrect Adam, and he killed two innocent people just to deliver this message to Zachariah - who thought he would be killed for not "convincing" Sam and Dean enough in the heaven plot.

Nothing about any of that would convince me that Michael would be reasonable or open to any suggestions Dean might have of not going along with the plan or even have let Dean distract him from his ultimate goal. Not even Lucifer, who Michael supposedly loved and didn't want to kill - at least that's what he told Dean, anyway - and he had a family connection with could convince Michael not to go through with it.
 

20 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

That scenario doesn`t have to have screw-up-Sam who says "yes" for no apparent reason. Lucifer could use extortion and trickery.

How is that not Sam screwing up? Ruby used extortion and trickery also. If it's extortion, it's Sam being weak and giving in to threats. If it's trickery, then it's Sam falling for something again. I'm sorry, for me, I just don't see how Sam doesn't become a screw up by saying "yes" to Lucifer in a scenario where we already have Michael in Dean when Sam knows that the best way for his brother to get dead and the world to be in danger is if he says "yes," and he should therefor be avoiding anything that could even remotely make that a reality. And if he doesn't avoid it - then he's a screw up who made it necessary for his brother to have to sacrifice himself. We already had Sam do the "make a wrong decision for supposedly good reasons" in season 4. The last thing I would want to see is him do it again in this scenario - this time condemning Dean in the process - just so that both Sam and Dean can fall into the hole.

32 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

They both fight their respective archangels down enough to jump into the pit. 

And again, why would Dean have to jump into the pit? All they really need is Sam/Lucifer in there.
 

2 minutes ago, Partly said:

And this where I view the story differently: I don't see the whole arc being about Dean leading up to being a vessel and then the writers dumping the story line -- I see the story line as Dean's fight against the "fate" of being a vessel.  To me, that is the story line that has all the emotional and character arcs in it: From Dean's first saying no to the third act arc of his losing faith and being ready to say yes, to his rediscovering his courage and going back to saying no.  In my mind, Dean was never supposed to say yes.  He is always about free will and not succumbing to all the pressure being put on him to just give up.

I know that there are a lot of fans who see Dean's denial as a cheat of some sort, but I see it as a fulfillment of his character.  In my view of the character, it would have been a cheat to have him become Michael's vessel. 

Yes. Thank you: this. So much this.

[Wayward Son]

5 minutes ago, Partly said:

And this where I view the story differently: I don't see the whole arc being about Dean leading up to being a vessel and then the writers dumping the story line -- I see the story line as Dean's fight against the "fate" of being a vessel.  To me, that is the story line that has all the emotional and character arcs in it: From Dean's first saying no to the third act arc of his losing faith and being ready to say yes, to his rediscovering his courage and going back to saying no.  In my mind, Dean was never supposed to say yes.  He is always about free will and not succumbing to all the pressure being put on him to just give up. 

I know that there are a lot of fans who see Dean's denial as a cheat of some sort, but I see it as a fulfillment of his character.  In my view of the character, it would have been a cheat to have him become Michael's vessel. 

Agreed! And excellently put :)

[RulerofallIsurvey]

27 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

They could have been two very different set of gripes, but as it was set up in S5 all the way up to the end, it would have been very difficult for them to explore Michael more without somehow bringing/relating Dean into it, as they did for Sam and Lucifer. 

No.  I disagree.  Just as they've done with Lucifer in subsequent seasons, they could have explored Michael as more of a character without exploring some alleged 'connection' to Dean at all.   So if you would have liked more exploration of Michael as an individual, the exploration of archangel mythos, etc, that is different than wanting exploration of Michael's character only where it could possibly relate to Dean.  

Edited February 20, 2017 by RulerofallIsurvey
matching verb tenses is hard work!

[SueB]

*sees Swan Song debate renewed* .... alrighty then.... *moves on*

[Aeryn13]

Quote

And this where I view the story differently: I don't see the whole arc being about Dean leading up to being a vessel and then the writers dumping the story line -- I see the story line as Dean's fight against the "fate" of being a vessel.  To me, that is the story line that has all the emotional and character arcs in it: From Dean's first saying no to the third act arc of his losing faith and being ready to say yes, to his rediscovering his courage and going back to saying no.  In my mind, Dean was never supposed to say yes.  He is always about free will and not succumbing to all the pressure being put on him to just give up. 

If it had meant anything that he said "no", maybe I`d agree. But I just saw Adam taking over that part of the story and Dean not meaning anything anymore so I consider it an arc dropped, not fulfilled.

In the end it was like "I say no" - "well. who cares, everyone`s moved on from you." And as even Death so helpfully put it, it was all about Sam`s choices anyway. 

And in the end, I want a story. Then in that story there can be an emo arc. But not AS the story. Like, it`s nice and all to show what the character is feeling and how he is processing things but that is the icing on the cake for me, not the cake itself. And just icing without cake, meh, not really my taste.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Aeryn13

[Myrelle]

25 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I actually disagree that we haven't gotten much characterization on Michael. In my opinion, a character doesn't have to be onscreen to learn about them, and I learned a lot about Michael through his actions. First Zachariah was his number one man. Zachariah did what Michael told him to. The angels said that God had been gone a long time, so when orders came from "high up" they were coming from Michael.

And you know this how? Supposition. That's all-which renders the rest of your post supposition also. We don't know that Michael took over when God left. Zachariah was working with Michael at the time of PONR. And he appeared to be ruthless and single-minded in the Song Remains the Same. But with this show, appearances can be deceiving. They tried their best to make Lucifer sympathetic in spite of his character flaws even back then. But Michael must not have been worth the effort to them. So to end the debate, I'll just say that your line of thinking was apparently Kripke's and Gamble's also. No further exploration of that character or Dean's angelic vessel storyline necessary. By PONR it had  been decided to deep-six it entirely. And Guck's little speech in Swan Song about not making everyone happy? Yeah, I wonder where that came from...

[MysteryGuest]

39 minutes ago, Partly said:

And this where I view the story differently: I don't see the whole arc being about Dean leading up to being a vessel and then the writers dumping the story line -- I see the story line as Dean's fight against the "fate" of being a vessel.  To me, that is the story line that has all the emotional and character arcs in it: From Dean's first saying no to the third act arc of his losing faith and being ready to say yes, to his rediscovering his courage and going back to saying no.  In my mind, Dean was never supposed to say yes.  He is always about free will and not succumbing to all the pressure being put on him to just give up. 

I know that there are a lot of fans who see Dean's denial as a cheat of some sort, but I see it as a fulfillment of his character.  In my view of the character, it would have been a cheat to have him become Michael's vessel. 

This is exactly my interpretation, too.  He was never going to be Michael's vessel, and we should not have wanted him to be.  

 

7 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

If it had meant anything that he said "no", maybe I`d agree. But I just saw Adam taking over that part of the story and Dean not meaning anything anymore so I consider it an arc dropped, not fulfilled.

But it's not like the writers brought in Adam's character because they hated Dean, or didn't think Jensen was up to the task of seeing the story out.  That particular story was never supposed to play out.  I don't see how that was a cheat, or a dropped arc.  I'd have been extremely unhappy after watching 5 seasons of this show to have it end with both Sam and Dean in the pit.  At least the way it ended, Sam was able to get redemption for the mistakes he'd made, and Dean found the strength to let him go.  If the show had ended there, it wouldn't have been a total downer.  And since the show didn't end there, they were able to pick up from there and move on.  

[Myrelle]

32 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

So if you would have liked more exploration of Michael as an individual, the exploration of archangel mythos, etc, that is different than wanting exploration of Michael's character only where it could possibly relate to Dean.  

Well, I wish we'd gotten both or either one back then because at least it would have been something, and back then there was a good chance(IMO) that Dean's name and role as his vessel would have had to have gotten some focus-that being at least a part/half of the essence of the myth-arc back then and up to PONR. But we can agree to disagree on that also as this discussion can only become circular from here on out and, again, IMO.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

He was never going to be Michael's vessel, and we should not have wanted him to be.  

Well, too bad then because they failed spectacularly in that endeavour with me. I soooo wanted it. 

Quote

But it's not like the writers brought in Adam's character because they hated Dean, or didn't think Jensen was up to the task of seeing the story out. 

No, I actually thought they didn`t give a crap about him. Unfortunately, MY main priority really wasn`t if Sam got redemption and became the world-saving hero. Be it with sidekick help or not. 

Quote

I'd have been extremely unhappy after watching 5 seasons of this show to have it end with both Sam and Dean in the pit.  At least the way it ended, Sam was able to get redemption for the mistakes he'd made, and Dean found the strength to let him go.  If the show had ended there, it wouldn't have been a total downer.  And since the show didn't end there, they were able to pick up from there and move on.  

And I was extremely unhappy that it didn`t happen and would have considered it a total downer if that had been the ending. The only reason I didn`t find it utterly vomit-inducing was the thought of "well, the show goes on, maybe Dean will still get a chance to shine and I can forget this ever happened". I wouldn`t have needed this if they had both ended up in the Pit.

So, mileage greatly varies.   

Edited February 20, 2017 by Aeryn13

[Myrelle]

4 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

He was never going to be Michael's vessel, and we should not have wanted him to be.

I don't even now how to reply to this other than to say sorry that I couldn't toe the party line on that one.