Supernatural Bitterness & Unpopular Opinions: You All Suck

[catrox14]

28 minutes ago, SueB said:

 As for whether or not they have the same blood they had back in S5 -- Sam has been through the trials and housed a regular angel for months -- but Luci still wanted him.  Dean has been a vampire, briefly a Jefferson Starship, a demon, and bore the Mark for 15+ months.  But since Gadreel could live in a messed up Sam, why couldn't an archangel live in a less messed-up Dean?  

Despite all of Dean's OTHERINGS, I don't think he ever lost his own DNA.  I don't remember him ever being a  Jefferson Starship. He got bit but he had the phoenix ashes and a shot of whiskey that killed Eve, but I don't think he ever turned did he? When he was a vampire he didn't feed on humans so he didn't turn fully vampire on the DNA/Blood level. 

Did Dean lose his own DNA as a demon since it was his own body? 

[Katy M]

6 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Despite all of Dean's OTHERINGS, I don't think he ever lost his own DNA.  I don't remember him ever being a  Jefferson Starship. He got bit but he had the phoenix ashes and a shot of whiskey that killed Eve, but I don't think he ever turned did he? When he was a vampire he didn't feed on humans so he didn't turn fully vampire on the DNA/Blood level. 

Did Dean lose his own DNA as a demon since it was his own body? 

I don't know if the show has ever discussed whether DNA changes under any circumstances.  But, I think technically Dean was a full-on vampire.  He could just be turned back because he hadn't fed.  Before you feed, I think you're still technically a vampire. He had the teeth, he had the bloodlust, he had the supersmell and hearing.  As for the Jefferson Starship, I'm not sure if he was or not.  He said something to the effect of I think I've been changed, could you clean that up, too.  And, he did change into a full demon, so that's a change.

But, I don't think any of those things affect angel hosting, because like I said, I don't think the show has ever discussed any of these things changing DNA or bloodlines.  But, angels are kind of prejudices, so I doubt they would ask a demon or a vampire or a werewolf to let them in.  And, none of those things would probably say yes anyway.

[bearcatfan]

1 hour ago, Katy M said:

But, I don't think any of those things affect angel hosting, because like I said, I don't think the show has ever discussed any of these things changing DNA or bloodlines.  But, angels are kind of prejudices, so I doubt they would ask a demon or a vampire or a werewolf to let them in.  And, none of those things would probably say yes anyway.

I think either Sam or Dean could host Lucifer and/or Michael despite what has occurred to them, but it's not something I want to see. I like my Winchesters to be Winchesters and not something or someone else.

Lucifer seems to have moved on from Sam after Sam's emphatic rejection last season. Would Michael care that Dean has had the MOC? I'm not sure. I can actually argue both ways. On one hand, he might not want to have a host who had the same mark that his brother had. One the other, he may be so stubborn that he wants Dean to say "yes" just because he wants to be right about Dean saying "yes" if that makes sense.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

I think a lower-class angel like Gadreel (who was persona-non-grata in heaven anyway and probably wasn't too choosy about his housing since he was in hiding) is different than an archangel.  Since archangels are supposed to be super-powerful, not just anyone can host one.  (And in fact, not just anyone can host an angel at all, as we saw after the angels fell.)  If it's in the bloodlines, which seems to be a pretty consistent element in the lore, and Dean having had the MoC and been a demon does not affect his status as Michael's true vessel (in fact, the "one, true vessel" parlance was not used.  Michael himself said that Dean was not his only vessel) then Sam is also Michael's true vessel since he also has the right bloodline.  Even if it was birth order that determined who the angels thought should host Michael and Lucifer, according to the Supernaturalwiki:

Quote

According to Castiel, consuming demon blood strengthens the person's body, making it possible for him or her to host Lucifer, 

So if Sam had not drank the demon blood, he would not have been a suitable vessel for Lucifer.   

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Dean having had the MoC and been a demon does not affect his status as Michael's true vessel (in fact, the "one, true vessel" parlance was not used.  Michael himself said that Dean was not his only vessel)

Michael said literally: "you are my true vessel, you`re not my only one". 

I know nothing came of his Michael connection but Dean was established as the true vessel of Michael back in Season 5. I don`t think we need to even take the last vestiges of specialness from the character retroactively. 

[MysteryGuest]

I think they'll change the lore to suit themselves, if the writers decide to revisit this storyline, so I'm not sure any of it matters.  I am praying that they don't, however.  Michael can stay in the Cage, doing whatever it is he's doing, and Lucifer will hopefully be joining him in a very short time.  

[RulerofallIsurvey]

4 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Michael said literally: "you are my true vessel, you`re not my only one". 

Isn't that what I said?

6 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

I know nothing came of his Michael connection but Dean was established as the true vessel of Michael back in Season 5. I don`t think we need to even take the last vestiges of specialness from the character retroactively. 

As clarified above, Dean is not the only true vessel of Michael.  He is a true vessel of Michael.  

I don't think without that dubious distinction that Dean has lost all vestiges of specialness at all.    

[Wayward Son]

16 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

So if Sam had not drank the demon blood, he would not have been a suitable vessel for Lucifer.   

I've always thought of that as a plot hole / weak writing on the part of the writers. It makes no sense that Sam needs to consume gallons of blood in order to host Lucifer. No other angel, including Michael who is said to be slightly more powerful, has displayed such requirements. Otherwise, it has always been a case of someone is a true vessel or they aren't. 

I think the writers just wanted to bring the whole demon drinking saga back into the mix and didn't stop to consider how illogical it was.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Isn't that what I said?

For me, Michael meant "THE true vessel", that is every archangel has one. Dean was that for Michael, Sam for Lucifer. Doesn`t mean they couldn`t host the respective other. But the distinction of "the" and just "a" is very important for me. 

Quote

I don't think without that dubious distinction that Dean has lost all vestiges of specialness at all.  

Other than that, I only have the Mark of Cain to fall back on. That is not such an embarassment of riches that I`m ready to lose even one. I like supernatural specialness and I like the few bits Dean got. Both Michael`s one true vessel status and the Mark-bearer. 

Quote

I've always thought of that as a plot hole / weak writing on the part of the writers. It makes no sense that Sam needs to consume gallons of blood in order to host Lucifer. 

Back then they seemed to intermingle it with the Croatoan virus against which the demon blood made one immune. Granted, once safely possessed by Lucifer, the human vessel should have been but maybe it would have killed the human host and Lucifer didn`t want that. He wanted a fun toy at the back of his mind or something. The guy is weird, what can I say.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Aeryn13

[auntvi]

3 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I think the writers just wanted to bring the whole demon drinking saga back into the mix and didn't stop to consider how illogical it was.

I vaguely remember Castiel saying that Sam should drink the demon blood, but I'm not at home to check. Also this conflicts with what Ruby told Sam at the end of Season 4 - that he didn't need the blood, he already had the power within. The dumbo-feather line.

[Wayward Son]

Just now, auntvi said:

I vaguely remember Castiel saying that Sam should drink the demon blood, but I'm not at home to check. Also this conflicts with what Ruby told Sam at the end of Season 4 - that he didn't need the blood, he already had the power within. The dumbo-feather line.

You're right Castiel did say that and it's been established in canon. What I meant was that I consider the requirement itself to be weak writing because it doesn't make sense. If Sam is Lucifer's true vessel then why would he need to change himself in order to host him? Dean didn't have any requirements to host Michael nor did Jimmy have to do anything to let Cas possess him. 

As for the Ruby line that relates to his use of demonic powers in season four. The way I see it the powers were always available to Sam, but he needed that psychological clutch to allow himself to access them. He needed himself to believe "it's the blood that let's me do this not me" in order to let his guard down. 

That line of thinking is actually consistent with previous canon as Ava and Jake described accessing their full powers as "flipping a switch" in season two. 

[catrox14]

34 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

 If it's in the bloodlines, which seems to be a pretty consistent element in the lore, and Dean having had the MoC and been a demon does not affect his status as Michael's true vessel (in fact, the "one, true vessel" parlance was not used.  Michael himself said that Dean was not his only vessel) then Sam is also Michael's true vessel since he also has the right bloodline.  

Michael literally said to Dean in Song Remains the Same:

Michael: "You're my true vessel. You're not my only one."

I'm just bringing this clip here because I really like this scene.  I haven't watched it in a long time. But it's pretty great.

For your enjoyment.  Or not. LOL

8 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

You're right Castiel did say that and it's been established in canon. What I meant was that I consider the requirement itself to be weak writing because it doesn't make sense. If Sam is Lucifer's true vessel then why would he need to change himself in order to host him? Dean didn't have any requirements to host Michael nor did Jimmy have to do anything to let Cas possess him. 

I thought Cas was just telling what he believed true, not that he was necessarily correct. Or it's a canon fail for Ruby.  Who knows.

[Katy M]

13 minutes ago, auntvi said:

vaguely remember Castiel saying that Sam should drink the demon blood, but I'm not at home to check. Also this conflicts with what Ruby told Sam at the end of Season 4 - that he didn't need the blood, he already had the power within. The dumbo-feather line.

That line drove me bonkers.  Of course, he needed the blood.  Otherwise, he would have been able to exorcise Alistair after he had been off the blood for a while.  He would have been able to exorcise stunt demon #3 in The Rapture.

[Aeryn13]

@ catrox,  Aww man, I loved this scene. Now I can`t even watch it anymore because fuck, how it ended. A bad ending can truly ruin an entire story.  

Edited February 21, 2017 by Aeryn13

[catrox14]

27 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

As clarified above, Dean is not the only true vessel of Michael.  He is a true vessel of Michael.

 

I think this is a matter of how one interprets that line and it needs to be taken in context of the line preceding from Dean

Quote

DEAN
I guess they oversold me being your one and only vessel.

MICHAEL
You're my true vessel but not my only one.

If Dean wasn't Michael's true (meaning genuine)vessel why would he bother to say it at all?  IMO, Michael is saying 'yes, Dean , you are  my TRUE (genuine, designated vessel) but you are not the only vessel I can use.'  He's not saying there are many TRUE vessels. That's how I interpret that given he follows it up with the entire explanation of the bloodlines and that it's not a random thing and a plan.
 

22 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

@ catrox,  Aww man, I loved this scene. Now I can`t even watch it anymore because fuck, how it ended. A bad ending can truly ruin an entire story.  

Sorry :(.  I didn't mean to traumatize you.

[Aeryn13]

Aww, no, don`t be. It`s not your fault I can`t rewatch any of my most favourites episodes ever again because now they depress me. It`s still a good scene.     

[Wayward Son]

31 minutes ago, Katy M said:

That line drove me bonkers.  Of course, he needed the blood.  Otherwise, he would have been able to exorcise Alistair after he had been off the blood for a while.  He would have been able to exorcise stunt demon #3 in The Rapture.

Actually, as I mentioned above, it makes more sense for Sam to not need the blood. The idea of the blood being an actual requirement is contradictory to what we have seen before with other psychic kids. When Ava and Jake accessed their powers there was no mention of further demonic blood being a requirement. In fact Ava states; "The learning curve is so fast. The switches that flip in your brain". 

The blood was simply a psychological clutch to help Sam get his guard down enough to access his powers. The primary difference between Sam and the others is that Sam never truly became evil. He certainly comes dangerously close throughout the course of season four, but he (thankfully) never makes that final leap. This meant he still had a reticence towards using the powers unlike Ava and Jake who fully embraced them. The blood was simply a clutch. It was a way for Sam to become comfortable with accessing his powers, as he could trick himself into believing the blood was the source of his powers and not something inside him. 

Edited February 21, 2017 by Wayward Son

[catrox14]

1 minute ago, Wayward Son said:

The blood was simply a psychological clutch to help Sam get his guard down enough to access his powers. The primary difference between Sam and the others is that Sam never truly became evil. He certainly comes dangerously close throughout the course of season four, but he (thankfully) never makes that final leap. This meant he still had a reticence towards using the powers unlike Ava and Jake who had learnt to fully embrace them. The blood was simply a clutch. It was a way for Sam to become comfortable with accessing his powers as he could trick him into believing the blood was the source of his powers and not something inside him

I wonder if they decided that Sam had to have the demon blood in Swan Song so the audience would be more forgiving of Sam being able to contain Lucifer.  I can see in some writers mind that Sam having to use the drug he kicked to kill the Devil is an uber ironic tragic turn of events and makes the sacrifice ever more heart wrenching.  Cause it sure doesn't match with Ruby's big speech. 

[Katy M]

5 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Actually, as I mentioned above, it makes more sense for Sam to not need the blood. The idea of the blood being an actual requirement is contradictory to what we have seen before with other psychic kids. When Ava and Jake accessed their powers there was no mention of further demonic blood being a requirement. In fact Ava states; "The learning curve is so fast. The switches that flip in your brain". 

But, they all had demon blood in them from when they are kids. Sam said he lost his psychic powers (such as they were) when Yellow Eyes died.  So, the demon blood giver being still alive was why they didn't need to keep imbibing to have power.  And, I still think if Sam hadn't needed the blood, he could have handily have dispatched Alistair and that other demon when he was trying to do so, especially since he could kill Alistair after a fresh hit of blood.  I've never seen Dumbo, believe it or not, but I have to assume that he wasn't unsuccessfully trying to fly without the feather once he had actually flown?

[Wayward Son]

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

I wonder if they decided that Sam had to have the demon blood in Swan Song so the audience would be more forgiving of Sam being able to contain Lucifer.  I can see in some writers mind that Sam having to use the drug he kicked to kill the Devil is an uber ironic tragic turn of events and makes the sacrifice ever more heart wrenching.  Cause it sure doesn't match with Ruby's big speech. 

It really doesn't. The whole "Sam needs to drink galleons of blood" idea doesn't even match what we know of angelic possession i.e. someone is the perfect host or they aren't. Nor does it match the nature of Azazel's psychic children. 

I think you're correct that they wanted to hark back to season four and use the blood to make his sacrifice even more heart wrenching. They simply failed to consider how much it doesn't fit in with established canon, but then per Kripke they often made up stuff as they went. 

[Aeryn13]

I think Kripke once said that the point of Ruby`s speech was about Sam`s actions, not his powers. "It was you and your choices", i.e. the demon blood didn`t make him do those things, it came from him. Didn`t say Sam something akin to "you poisoned me" when it was revealed who Ruby truly was?  

But I can`t say with certainty.

The Lucifer-vessel-arc doesn`t jive with the Special Kids arc anyway. I mean, granted, all the other kids could have been decoys but in that case anyone on the demonic side in the know should have gone "that did not just happen?"when Sam died.  

Edited February 21, 2017 by Aeryn13

[Wayward Son]

23 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

The Lucifer-vessel-arc doesn`t jive with the Special Kids are anyway. I mean, granted, all the other kids could have been decoys but in that case anyone on the demonic side in the know should have gone "that did not just happen?"when Sam died.  

Yep, that is one example of how no matter how much fans try it really is impossible to neatly tie everything up together. Kripke and Co made things up as they went and it shows if one looks too closely. I think a few people in this thread have said it already, but he has openly admitted they had no plans to introduce Angels until the writers strike forced them to rethink the ending of season 3 and the beginning of four due to the loss of six episodes. The reason being they had originally planned to have Sam save Dean using his powers, but they no longer had the time to develop that. 

So when they were writing season 2 they definitely didn't think of Sam as the special figure they made him (along with Dean) in season five. 

Edited February 21, 2017 by Wayward Son

[RulerofallIsurvey]

19 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I think this is a matter of how one interprets that line and it needs to be taken in context of the line preceding from Dean

True.  But using my handy-dandy sentence diagramming skills I picked up in jr. high (no, I'm not kidding.  I was weirdly good at it.)  When I look at this sentence grammatically: "You're my true vessel but not my only one", "one" is the subject of the second phrase.  To what does that "one" refer?  To the subject of the first part of the sentence, which at its most basic is "vessel".  "True" is a modifier, just like "my".  The complete subject of the first part of the sentence is "true vessel".   So grammatically, Michael is saying, "You're my true vessel, but not my only true vessel."   

[RulerofallIsurvey]

24 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I wonder if they decided that Sam had to have the demon blood in Swan Song so the audience would be more forgiving of Sam being able to contain Lucifer.  I can see in some writers mind that Sam having to use the drug he kicked to kill the Devil is an uber ironic tragic turn of events and makes the sacrifice ever more heart wrenching.  Cause it sure doesn't match with Ruby's big speech. 

I just figured Ruby lied.  I don't remember all the particulars, but wasn't she getting Sam to drink the demon blood because he was supposed to become Lucifer's vessel as soon as Lucifer was released?  The powers (or not) was just her excuse and made it palatable to Sam.  Her real reason was to strengthen him as a vessel.  I don't understand how they both don't fit together.  

[catrox14]

41 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

True.  But using my handy-dandy sentence diagramming skills I picked up in jr. high (no, I'm not kidding.  I was weirdly good at it.)  When I look at this sentence grammatically: "You're my true vessel but not my only one", "one" is the subject of the second phrase.  To what does that "one" refer?  To the subject of the first part of the sentence, which at its most basic is "vessel".  "True" is a modifier, just like "my".  The complete subject of the first part of the sentence is "true vessel".   So grammatically, Michael is saying, "You're my true vessel, but not my only true vessel."   

 

From a strict grammarian POV that's is probably true, but I'm not  convinced the writers on this show are strict grammarians in their teleplays and scripts. The other aspect to interpretation is how the line is performed and what the preceding dialogue is to interpret the total meaning/implication of entire scene and story line. 

IMO, I don't think the intention was for Michael to be removing Dean as his TRUE vessel. He was telling Dean that he has other vessels.

Edited February 22, 2017 by catrox14

[Aeryn13]

Quote

The other aspect to interpretation is how the line is performed as well and what the preceding dialogue is to interpret the total meaning/implication of entire scene and story line. 

I agree, the entire storyline - before they trashed it - meant to say Dean was the one true vessel of Michael and Sam the one true vessel of Lucifer. Nowadays it`s no more than a breadcrumb from the table but I like that Dean had at least this much. Removing even that leaves him with nothing, not even possibility, from that entire arc. Yeesh.  

I doubt they`ll be bringing the story back in any meaningful way. At least not for Dean. They`d sooner pull another tertiary sibling character out of obscurity.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Aeryn13

[catrox14]

Just now, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I just figured Ruby lied.  I don't remember all the particulars, but wasn't she getting Sam to drink the demon blood because he was supposed to become Lucifer's vessel as soon as Lucifer was released?  The powers (or not) was just her excuse and made it palatable to Sam.  Her real reason was to strengthen him as a vessel.  I don't understand how they both don't fit together.  

Her goal was to get Lucifer released and she achieved that goal. She didn't kill Sam as soon as it was over.  What does she gain by lying to him in that situation? She really believed that Sam would be happy to know he didn't need the demon blood.  Because she thought Sam was hers and they would be rewarded by Lucifer.

Quote

No. It wasn't the blood. It was you... and your choices. I just gave you the options, and you chose the right path every time. You didn't need the feather to fly, you had it in you the whole time, Dumbo! I know it's hard to see it now... but this is a miracle. So long coming. Everything Azazel did, and Lilith did. Just to get you here. And you were the only one who could do it.

SAM
Why? W-why me?

RUBY
Because... because it had to be you, Sammy. It always had to be you. You saved us. You set him free. And he's gonna be grateful. He's gonna repay you in ways that you can't even imagine.

[Aeryn13]

Bringing this post from catrox over from the ep 12 episode thread in response to Perez interview linked there:

Quote

Is it a checklist on the whiteboard? Probably not.  If Perez is saying they had to distill it down to Dean killed Azazel so Sam kills the new YED then yeah I think there are some broad elements they are seeking to include like having the brothers on more even footing in their heroism and anti-heroism.

When I read the interview, I really rolled my eyes because that`s what I thought in watching the episode: checking a box. See, now Sam killed a Yellow Eyed Demon as well.  

And if that would be a two-way-street, fine, but when deciding between the two characters to do something, I never see them going "well, in all fairness, now it should be Dean`s time". Like with the Trials, they clearly said they didn`t even think of him at all. So, I`ve seen a lot of scorecard punching to make it "even" for Sam but the writers never spelled it out in interviews like that. That interview just made me all the more sure about my assessment of the writing. 

[SueB]

35 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Bringing this post from catrox over from the ep 12 episode thread in response to Perez interview linked there:

When I read the interview, I really rolled my eyes because that`s what I thought in watching the episode: checking a box. See, now Sam killed a Yellow Eyed Demon as well.  

And if that would be a two-way-street, fine, but when deciding between the two characters to do something, I never see them going "well, in all fairness, now it should be Dean`s time". Like with the Trials, they clearly said they didn`t even think of him at all. So, I`ve seen a lot of scorecard punching to make it "even" for Sam but the writers never spelled it out in interviews like that. That interview just made me all the more sure about my assessment of the writing. 

And here's the thing, if it's your opinion that the writers have a checklist then that's your opinion.  But that was not a FACT that came out of this interview to bludgeon others with.

Another equally valid interpretation of that interview: with all things being equal (regarding who should kill Ramiel), they chose "Sam" for the sake of balance.  That is far and away different than a checklist.  

So, if it's your "opinion", have at it.  If you try to claim it as fact, this is not true.  Hence, my comment in the first place.  In order for it to be "fact", Davy would have had to say "we had planned on it being Dean who killed Ramiel but changed it to Sam because he needs to have a YED kill too".  Then I'd accept "fact".  But he went out of his way to make it clear that they thought of the way EACH character could kill the big bad and settled on Sam -- 'balance' was a tipping point, not a purpose.  

If anything, this interview gives me great hope about the writing:

1) They let the new guy change mythology but did so under the watchful eye of the show-runner, Dabb.
2) They were careful about continuity and didn't break it. At all.
3) They really think about how this will play out on screen and look at a variety of options for deciding deliberately on how to proceed.

I very much appreciated the insight into the writing process. It shows a great deal of care and collaboration, IMO.  

Edited February 22, 2017 by SueB

[Reganne]

27 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

 

And if that would be a two-way-street, fine, but when deciding between the two characters to do something, I never see them going "well, in all fairness, now it should be Dean`s time". Like with the Trials, they clearly said they didn`t even think of him at all. So, I`ve seen a lot of scorecard punching to make it "even" for Sam but the writers never spelled it out in interviews like that. That interview just made me all the more sure about my assessment of the writing. 

I don't feel the need for everything to necessarily be equal between the two brothers.  However, when it comes to the 'bigger or more prominent' villains, I always felt that it was actually Dean who got more of those kills.  For example Azazel, Dick Roman, Abaddon, Ruby, The Steins, Caine, Zachariah, Death.  Heck even Hitler.  The only prominent ones I can think of off hand for Sam are Lilith, Famine and Alastair.  Then of course you have Sam's part with Lucifer and Dean's part with Amara.  Where both characters were ready to sacrifice themselves in order to set things straight.  I had always just thought the reason for this was because Dean was always shown as the leader.  More characters in the series gravitate towards him as well.  I think if the writers were only pro Sam and not Dean, I think we would see more characters that tend to gravitate towards Sam.  

And since this is the bitterness thread, I must say I would like to see a character introduced that does gravitate more towards Sam for once.  lol I feel it's a little one sided that they all pretty much prefer Dean.

[ILoveReading]

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

Bringing this post from catrox over from the ep 12 episode thread in response to Perez interview linked there:

When I read the interview, I really rolled my eyes because that`s what I thought in watching the episode: checking a box. See, now Sam killed a Yellow Eyed Demon as well.  

And if that would be a two-way-street, fine, but when deciding between the two characters to do something, I never see them going "well, in all fairness, now it should be Dean`s time". Like with the Trials, they clearly said they didn`t even think of him at all. So, I`ve seen a lot of scorecard punching to make it "even" for Sam but the writers never spelled it out in interviews like that. That interview just made me all the more sure about my assessment of the writing. 

Exactly.  It rarely seems to be a two way street.  No one in the writers room said, lets them each do a trial and do the third together for the sake of balance.  Nope,  It was just Sam.  No debate or discussion.  Carver admitted they never even considered Dean and that his name never even came up with regard to entire planning of that story line.  They had no clue what to do with Dean and it showed. 

During the Mark of Cain they made sure to have something for Sam.  He got the story line with the book of the damned.  They did not make that effort for Dean with the trials.

Before the trials started, the writers clearly had the story line planned. It was referenced in every ep, we saw Sam getting sicker and weaker and there were even interviews before it started on how it was going to be Sam and everything he was going to go though.  Compare that to the Mark of Cain.  Im sure if you asked each writer what the Mark meant you'd get a different answer from each one.  .Same with Dean's Amara connection.  It was never developed or explored.  It was mostly just the same scene rehashed.  There was no consistency in it.

If its really about balance then by that logic Dean should get to kill Lucifer this season.  (Although balance doesn't seem to be a problem where.  This is what, Lucifer's 5th season.  When Michael is ignored).  Sam got to take out Lucifer twice and I'm sure Dean has lots of pent up rage toward him for what he did to his brother and family.

I'll believe it if Dean ends up getting to kill at least one of the other princes and Sam doesn't get both.

By rights we should have another story line about Dean's time in hell.  After all Sam's lasted two years.  3 if we count last year.

As for the writers, I have a feeling they really don't know what they're doing this season.  Singer brags repeatedly they don't plan anything.   Its a Hodge podge of storylines, Lucifer's baby mama, Lucifer, the British men of letters with nothing getting any real focus or attention.  As with the Mark story,  I believe if you asked each writer what the primary story is, you'd get several different answers.  Adding the princes is just another direction they don't need. 

I don't think they put much thought into anything.  I think this was just Perez's attempt to come up with way to address the criticism, of Sam using the Michael lance.  As for the so-called  Dean picking up the broken spear was their nod to the connect.  Yeah, no. for me, not so much.

Edited February 22, 2017 by ILoveReading

[DeeDee79]

4 hours ago, Reganne said:

And since this is the bitterness thread, I must say I would like to see a character introduced that does gravitate more towards Sam for once.  lol I feel it's a little one sided that they all pretty much prefer Dean.

I don't get this. What characters are you referring to? Cas, Amara and Anna are the only ones that I can think of that gravitated towards Dean and Cas hasn't preferred one brother over the other in the latter seasons.

Edited February 22, 2017 by DeeDee79

[companionenvy]

For me, the fact that Sam didn't complete the trials renders that point mostly moot. In the course of the trials he killed a hellhound and rescued Bobby, but neither of those incidents struck me as more important than the average case of the week. Closing the gates of hell would have been the major victory, and at the end of the day, he didn't do that. 

I also wouldn't say that the Book of the Damned was a Sam storyline. The BotD was only relevant in that it was a possible way to save Dean. Calling that a Sam story would be like calling Dean trying to re-ensoul Sam in season 6 a Dean story. Plus, given that Sam using the BotD led to horrific consequences -- namely the death of Charlie and releasing the darkness -- I really wouldn't call that a win in the Sam column. I suspect most people who favor Dean would not be pleased with a plotline in which Dean caused an apocalypse after behaving recklessly in the face of repeated warnings to stop. 

Clearly, a lot is up to interpretation. But honestly, I have a very, very hard time seeing the case for "Dean is always playing sidekick to hero Sam" when the great majority of arc-villains have been killed by Dean, and one of the few killed by Sam actually wanted him to kill her in order to start the apocalypse. Of which Sam has started two. I can see both sides to a lot of arguments over Sam and Dean's respective portrayals, but in terms of who gets framed as the hero of most of the arc-plots that actually end in a win for the boys - well, that seems objectively to be Dean.

Yes, if the show had ended with Swan Song (which I loved), Sam would have finally gotten the ultimate hero's role -- even considering that he had started the apocalypse -- while Dean would have still had a very important secondary role in the lead-up to the fight (besides supporting Sam to the extent of letting Lucifer nearly beat him to death in the desperate hope Sam could reassert himself, he retrieved Death's ring, killed Zachariah, and refused Michael). But we're now seven season past Swan Song. Swan Song is no longer even the midpoint of the show. The fact that if the show had ended with Swan Song, Sam would have gotten the most prominent Big Damn Hero moment no longer strikes me as particularly relevant in assessing the show as a whole. 

[catrox14]

28 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

he fact that if the show had ended with Swan Song, Sam would have gotten the most prominent Big Damn Hero moment no longer strikes me as particularly relevant in assessing the show as a whole. 

Seems to me Swan Song pops up on top 10 lists of best rated episodes of the entire series all 11 seasons, often at No.1. Kripke's era is discussed as the halcyon days of the show in the media (not even amongst fans per se). His jump into the pit saved the world, which lead directly to Soulless Sam in s6 which morphed into Lucifer hallucinations for s7. Sam's relationship with Lucifer is STILL a thing as recently as s11. 

That's 7 seasons of Sam's arcs being tied to the Chosen Vessel arc.  Too me that still makes Sam's jump into the pit the titular Big Damn Hero moment that most fans think of and debate about ...8 years later and I don't mean only in a wanky way. YMMV

Edited February 22, 2017 by catrox14

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, catrox14 said:

That's 7 seasons of Sam's arcs being tied to the Chosen Vessel arc. 

Not really, in my opinion, since it didn't have anything to do with seasons 8-10, and then in season 11, Sam was usurped by Castiel as a preferred vessel for Lucifer. Once Sam served his purpose of luring a vessel - any vessel - to the cage and Lucifer jumped into Cas, the writers barely even acknowledged the connection, since Sam is expected to work right alongside Lucifer like he's an ally rather than someone who tortured him for over 100 years. (Would they have Dean work alongside Alastair so easily, for example?)

But I guess at least that's someone connected mostly to Sam who's a recurring character. Most of the rest are associated mostly with Dean.

2 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Seems to me Swan Song pops up on top 10 lists of best rated episodes of the entire series all 11 seasons,

So often does "All Hell Breaks Loose" where Dean killed the YED. Also "Lazurus Rising" which is pretty Dean heavy.

And Sam is the chosen vessel for Lucifer - so yes, there was "Swan Song," but there was also "Lucifer Rising" - which also often ends up as a favorite (though not mine) - so Sam's being chosen is a double edged sword where he's remembered as both the hero and the villain - or screw up, depending on your interpretation. Dean doesn't have the stigma of that part of it, since he hasn't been saddled with being the direct cause of some awful evil being unleashed on the world - both Sam and Castiel each have two of those, all with multiple large body counts.

Depending on how you look at it, I think Dean comes out way ahead in the "saving people" (rather than getting people killed) front.

4 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

I don't get this. What characters are you referring to? Cas, Amara and Anna are the only ones that I can think of that gravitated towards Dean and Cas hasn't preferred one brother over the other in the latter seasons.

Cas has always said that he has a more profound bond with Dean. Despite his affection for Sam also, that's kind of a given considering their past, and I have no problem with that.

I'm not bitter in terms of this, because it just is what it is, but I have seen a lot more characters gravitate towards and/or be associated with Dean than Sam. In addition to those you mentioned there's Bobby,* Donna, Charlie, Jo, probably Ellen, Pamela (who started out sort of bibro, but ended up favoring Dean), probably Garth, Crowley (who was briefly connected to Sam, but started out with and shifted back over to Dean, heading over to Castiel now?), Frank (RIP awesome Frank), Benny, and Death. Sort of Rufus - though he was more associated with Bobby, Rufus was introduced through a semi-bonding conversation with Dean - way more than Sam ever spoke with Rufus anyway). Those are the recurring ones. That's not including the one offs or the evil characters associated with Dean. (Otherwise Dick Roman, Zachariah, Cain, Abbadon, and Alastair would count also.)

Sam has a few, and lately more than he used to have - Jodi and Rowena specifically. Maybe Kevin if I squint, but it's a stretch. Lenore - though she was only in 2 episodes, and she died in the second one. But usually Sam gets more evil character associations like Ruby and Lucifer. Not sure if Gadreel counts as evil or good. Oh and there was Amelia - not evil, but more of a detriment than an asset. But all in all, way less characters who have gravitated towards Sam and are associated with Sam than Dean... which is why I loved Sully so much. Even though he was a one off, it was nice to see a character who was associated specifically with Sam.

* He says that Dean is his favorite (and the fact that he couldn't tell Soulless Sam wasn't Sam pretty much confirms that. He loves Sam, but his bond with Sam isn't the same as the bond he has with Dean.)

Edited February 22, 2017 by AwesomO4000

[companionenvy]

I get what you're saying, catrox, but SPN could end after twenty seasons with Guck handing over rulership of the heavens and Earth to Dean while Sam looks on adoringly, and Swan Song might very well still be a fan favorite and the Kripke years be considered the halcyon period of the show. That people like Swan Song/the Kripke years really has no bearing on the question of who has gotten more attention/emotional focus/hero moments over the course of a show that has now run for eleven and a half years, not five. 

Your post was helpful for me in that I think it clarifies a reason for the difference in perspective. In assessing the show's overall focus, you, Aeryn and some others seem to define "importance" largely in terms of being affected by some sort of explicitly Supernatural threat, destiny, etc. So, for you (and please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm just going by my impression), the fact that, for instance, soulless Sam happens for half a season while demon Dean only lasts for three episodes is an instance of Sam being more important than Dean. Outcome, character agency, etc. seems to matter less than the fact of involvement - so whether or not Sam completes the trials, or gets any credit for his Gadreel or soulless kills, that's still an instance of Sam-centric writing and plotting, and lack of concern for Dean. 

I see it differently. For me, while some of these plots actually do make the affected brother the center of events, that is by no means always or even normally the case, for a few reasons. First of all, attention is often as much if not more on the Winchester trying to save his brother than the Winchester in need of saving. If Sam's psychic powers were only or even primarily a Sam plot, it would have been narratively inexplicable to have Dean be the one to kill Azazel. The fact that Dean gets that kill is to me a strong indication that Dean's grappling with his discomfort over Sam's powers, and then John's order to kill Sam if necessary -- not to mention his overarching need to get closure for his mother's death -- is considered of at least comparable importance. 

Second, there's a big difference between something that happens to a character and something a character does. Soulless Sam is not actually Sam in any meaningful sense of the word. Sam's kills as Gadreel are not Sam-kills, and tell us nothing about Sam or his abilities. 

Third, outcome and context matter. The mere fact that Lucifer is still around doesn't make Sam more important than Dean. If anything, it greatly undercuts Sam's sacrifice in Swan Song. Certainly, the fact that Sam, for instance, gets superpowers after drinking demon blood doesn't turn out to be remotely a good thing, so I don't think the show is being "pro-Sam" in giving him those powers. 

I just see the idea that Supernaturally affected = important somewhat arbitrary. There are narrative universes in which that is the case, but also universes in which it isn't. Spoilers for BSG follow:

For those of you who watched Battlestar, Adama is probably the closest the show had to a lead character. Significantly, he is also one of the few major characters who, as far as I recall, doesn't find out he's an alien sleeper agent, experience prophetic visions, etc. over the course of the show. That isn't because he isn't a vitally important character, it is because his "journey" requires that he be a human who acts without the faith or mystic encounters that undergird the choices of some of the other characters; in this, he is a contrast, most notably, to Roslin. In other words, his lack of "supernatural" attention is a narrative choice that is deeply respectful of his character and his key -- indeed, leading -- role in that narrative. He wouldn't have been a more important character if we had found out he was a Cylon in the second to last episode. 

Edited February 22, 2017 by companionenvy

[AwesomO4000]

7 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Her goal was to get Lucifer released and she achieved that goal. She didn't kill Sam as soon as it was over.  What does she gain by lying to him in that situation? She really believed that Sam would be happy to know he didn't need the demon blood.  Because she thought Sam was hers and they would be rewarded by Lucifer.

She wanted Sam to be Lucifer's vessel - that's one of the reasons why she didn't kill him.

And seeing that quote , especially this part:

Quote

No. It wasn't the blood. It was you... and your choices. I just gave you the options, and you chose the right path every time. You didn't need the feather to fly, you had it in you the whole time, Dumbo!

I think she is saying that Sam had it in him the whole time to make the "right" choices. The blood didn't "poison" him or influence him - though I don't necessarily agree with that either as I think that the blood actually did impair his judgement, but... - because he had it in him the entire time to "go there" and make the choices necessary to raise Lucifer.

In that conversation, it didn't appear to me that Ruby was referencing Sam's powers. If she'd said simply "It wasn't the blood. You didn't need the feather to fly. You had it in you the whole time, Dumbo!" To me, that would be different. But that's not what she said. She specifically referenced Sam's choices and her giving Sam "options" and his choosing the right path. Those things have nothing to do with Sam's powers and so their inclusion makes little sense - to me anyway - unless that was the "flying" she was talking about (i.e. choosing the "right path".)

In either case, I think she was lying. The demon blood did something - Sam had physical withdrawals that threw him around the room - and it looked like it affected his personality - to me, anyway.

But I get that miles vary.

I personally think it's a bit demeaning to Sam's character if the message was that his need for blood to exorcise demons was all in his head and that not only did he let Ruby sway him on the wrong path, but he stupidly let her get him addicted to blood he didn't even need. Why would he make up that he had to keep drinking the blood in order to keep the powers? If it was a "mental block" and he wanted a crutch to blame the blood - why wouldn't drinking it one time be enough of an excuse to let his powers rip and off he could go? And why would he delude himself into making his powers fizzle out with no rhyme or reason to it? Was he counting days and deciding "okay now my powers won't work anymore?" That part especially makes no sense to me. He could just drink the blood once and conclude he's good to go. He certainly only needed one dose of YED's blood, and his psychic powers didn't fade out as long as YED was around on earth, so why wouldn't Ruby being around be enough for a dose of demon blood to keep working?

Also Sam didn't even know about YED's blood until after his psychic powers showed up. His powers seemed to him to just randomly show up (though in reality, they turned on because YED was on earth.) But the demon blood must have done something to begin with or else why would Azazel bother to feed it to Sam and the other special kids to being with?

So that's all very confusing, in my opinion.

I think Sam did need the demon blood, because once YED was dead, Sam's original powers left with him. It's why his powers didn't show up until he was 22 - because that's when YED returned to earth, so Sam's powers started up. Without YED being there, he needed demon blood to power up. Imo anyway.

Edited February 22, 2017 by AwesomO4000

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

 

Cas has always said that he has a more profound bond with Dean. Despite his affection for Sam also, that's kind of a given considering their past, and I have no problem with that.

I'm not bitter in terms of this, because it just is what it is, but I have seen a lot more characters gravitate towards and/or be associated with Dean than Sam. In addition to those you mentioned there's Bobby,* Donna, Charlie, Jo, probably Ellen, Pamela (who started out sort of bibro, but ended up favoring Dean), probably Garth, Crowley (who was briefly connected to Sam, but started out with and shifted back over to Dean, heading over to Castiel now?), Frank (RIP awesome Frank), Benny, and Death. Sort of Rufus - though he was more associated with Bobby, Rufus was introduced through a semi-bonding conversation with Dean - way more than Sam ever spoke with Rufus anyway). Those are the recurring ones. That's not including the one offs or the evil characters associated with Dean. (Otherwise Dick Roman, Zachariah, Cain, Abbadon, and Alastair would count also.)

Sam has a few, and lately more than he used to have - Jodi and Rowena specifically. Maybe Kevin if I squint, but it's a stretch. Lenore - though she was only in 2 episodes, and she died in the second one. But usually Sam gets more evil character associations like Ruby and Lucifer. Not sure if Gadreel counts as evil or good. Oh and there was Amelia - not evil, but more of a detriment than an asset. But all in all, way less characters who have gravitated towards Sam and are associated with Sam than Dean... which is why I loved Sully so much. Even though he was a one off, it was nice to see a character who was associated specifically with Sam.

* He says that Dean is his favorite (and the fact that he couldn't tell Soulless Sam wasn't Sam pretty much confirms that. He loves Sam, but his bond with Sam isn't the same as the bond he has with Dean.)

Donna, Ellen and Rufus never showed a preference for either brother as I recall. Zachariah, Dick and Abbadon were villains who didn't care which brother was tormented. Dean may have been the one in their faces more than Sam but they certainly didn't have a preference. I wouldn't count Benny and Alastair either; one was met in Purgatory so of course he's going to be closer to Dean and the other was his torturer in Hell which doesn't equal fondness in my book. I get the examples of Jo & Pam but it's been ages since they've even been around whereas the poster up thread seemed to imply that every new character fawns over Dean while ignoring Sam which I don't agree with.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

And here's the thing, if it's your opinion that the writers have a checklist then that's your opinion.  But that was not a FACT that came out of this interview to bludgeon others with.

I said the interview confirmed what I always thought about the writing. Of course noone has to agree or follow my conclusions. And I don`t think I bludgeoned anyone with stating my opinion.

We will not change each other`s opinion on the quality of the writing. And that is fine. Why should we? 

Quote

Your post was helpful for me in that I think it clarifies a reason for the difference in perspective. In assessing the show's overall focus, you, Aeryn and some others seem to define "importance" largely in terms of being affected by some sort of explicitly Supernatural threat, destiny, etc. So, for you (and please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm just going by my impression), the fact that, for instance, soulless Sam happens for half a season while demon Dean only lasts for three episodes is an instance of Sam being more important than Dean. Outcome, character agency, etc. seems to matter less than the fact of involvement - so whether or not Sam completes the trials, or gets any credit for his Gadreel or soulless kills, that's still an instance of Sam-centric writing and plotting, and lack of concern for Dean. 

In essence, yes. There will never not be a big difference to me in giving 11 episodes to a plot or just 2.5. 

How that plot is presented, the timeframe, the significance, the flashiness, all those things matter to me in a TV show. For example, I was very unhappy that on top of being cut short, Demon!Dean didn`t get visible flashy displays of powers. Thanks for nothing, show.

Sam`s demon blood arc, yes, there were the voices of "that is wrong" onscreen but it also got enough "this is so cool" and enough saves and it presented as badass and powerful, then I don`t consider it a negative plot for the character. Equally, they did enough to make soulless!Sam "cool and sexy" that it`s the same for me.

It`s like being a vampire in Vampire Diaries. Whenever anyone bitches about it being a horrible fate, I think they are crazy. It has almost no drawbacks and some fantastic perks. 

They threw a lot more pure negativity at the MOC arc when Dean had it, I felt.    

For the same reason 5.22 still rankles. Yes, it has been years but they never bothered to give Dean something comparable in terms of scope and epic presentation. It`s like Kripke made sure to give Sam the ultimate bj when the iron was hot. Everything since then, I can`t help but feeling letdown for my favourite character.  Like, nice to know you never bothered to try even half as hard with him, show. 

In general I also don`t mind if the character is not precisely onscreen as themselves. If Dean "disappeared" for half a Season and Jensen got to play angel-possession, I still would consider it an exciting plot for the character.

I get that for others those things don`t matter or are actual negatives but one mfan`s treasure and all.

Quote

 just see the idea that Supernaturally affected = important somewhat arbitrary. There are narrative universes in which that is the case, but also universes in which it isn't.

And I think Supernatural is a universe where it is the case, 100 %. I would agree Battlestar is not but not SPN.

[Myrelle]

15 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

True.  But using my handy-dandy sentence diagramming skills I picked up in jr. high (no, I'm not kidding.  I was weirdly good at it.)  When I look at this sentence grammatically: "You're my true vessel but not my only one", "one" is the subject of the second phrase.  To what does that "one" refer?  To the subject of the first part of the sentence, which at its most basic is "vessel".  "True" is a modifier, just like "my".  The complete subject of the first part of the sentence is "true vessel".   So grammatically, Michael is saying, "You're my true vessel, but not my only true vessel."

But without the italicized words the subject of the second part could be referring to either the basic noun of "vessel" OR the complete noun as you believe, which grammatically speaking, should leave it open to both interpretations-if the writers thought that much about it, that is-which I do not believe they did. IMO, they were basically explaining how John was able to contain Michael, at that moment and giving some info at the same time about the bloodlines that made both Winchesters "special"  and uniquely and solely qualified to play their respective parts in the Apocalypse scenario-which they all believed(even Michael, IMO) to be a part of God's Grand Plan for the Universe. I think that with God on hiatus, the angels grew bored and/or restless with their lot-some DID miss him, of course, and so they opted  to speed the prophecy up by arranging for John and Mary to unite and give birth to Dean and Sam-in that order so that they would fit into the Prophecy properly. And yes, some of them even connived with the demons to achieve that end because the demons had their Prophecy also.

In that scene that Catrox posted Michael spoke of all the many generations of Winchesters and Campbells that would have had to be born before Mary and John, and how everything had to come together "perfectly" in order for the two true vessels to come into being. And he sure did seem to me like he was telling the truth about believing that it all was all a part of his Father's Plan/Prophecy. He even stated that he didn't want to kill his little brother, whom he loved and had raised in a way that no one could understand-just like Dean-but that he was going to do it because it was "right"-and then Dean questioned that saying because God/Dad says so? to which Michael replied yes and because I am a good son-so we see here, why Dean, alone, would have been Michael's One True Vessel even from Michael's own viewpoint. It wasn't just the bloodlines, both brothers had to understand their respective angel's feelings and viewpoints in order to say yes. And Lucifer constantly bombarded Sam with this kind of stuff every time he encountered Sam in S5, too-and he especially focused on all of Sam's anger over many aspects of his life and his need/desire for power over and revenge on those whom he felt had wronged him-in any way.

But who is to say that Dean AND Sam were actually supposed to be the true vessels of the prophecy if the prophecy was indeed God's Plan and not the angels. Perhaps if the angels hadn't manipulated Mary and John's lives(which are the only two Winchester and Campbell lives that we know w/o a doubt and from show canon were actually manipulated by the angels) other generations of both families would have been born and they would have produced sons that would have fit the prophecy, but this time truly according to God's Plan/Prophecy and timetable-not the angels'.

This is simply another scenario that keeps the Prophecy a plan of God's making, not strictly and only the angels-and as such, still in place and waiting to be fulfilled as long as Michael and Lucifer live. It also leaves the story of the Winchester and the Campbell bloodlines attached to that of the Cain and Abel bloodlines and it further leaves the fate of the human universe up to the completely human choice of whether to allow a second or a third or a fourth Apocalypse to happen. And this seems to me like the kind of Plan that the God we saw in S11 would delight in.

But for now, we still have Dean(the OTV of Michael) and Sam(the OTV of  Lucifer), and as long as they live, they should each, IMO, retain that designation according to God's Plan/Prophecy-and this even though the angels tried to speed things up/screw with it.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Myrelle

[sarthaz]

Reading these posts is so foreign to me.  I just can't identify with the idea that -- at any point -- this show looked to Sam as the more important character than Dean or gave him better arcs.  It has always felt to me that this is Dean's show and Sam's just trying to keep up.  I'm not going to dive into this discussion any further than that, and I don't disparage anyone for their feelings on this matter, but I did want to express my total bewilderment that this is even a thing.

[Myrelle]

Quote

Dean picking up the broken lance was our way of still nodding to the connection between him and Michael… whether or not that pays in some way remains to be seen.

So I just read that interview and the answer to the question of how they decided who gets the kill was exactly what I thought the reason would be-Sam killed this YED because Dean killed the first one. And the above answer to the other part of why it wasn't Dean, and as others have stated, seems like complete BS to me also. That last part was the clincher for me, too. So if nothing comes of it for Dean, it will simply reinforce that thought for me, and if something does come of it for him I'll have to always also wonder if it was only because it was brought to his attention in a big way after the episode aired-unless there's something in one of the next two or three that allude to that happening, which I doubt there will be. There's still time for them to throw something in by the last few episodes, though, and with this bunch(again IMO), that's going to be the best that some of us can hope for where it concerns any kind of a Dean/Michael mention, connection, or tie-in this season.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

15 hours ago, catrox14 said:

From a strict grammarian POV that's is probably true, but I'm not  convinced the writers on this show are strict grammarians in their teleplays and scripts.

2 hours ago, Myrelle said:

But without the italicized words the subject of the second part could be referring to either the basic noun of "vessel" OR the complete noun as you believe, which grammatically speaking, should leave it open to both interpretations-if the writers thought that much about it, that is-which I do not believe they did.

But the angels always seemed to be more strict grammarians.  I'm thinking of Gadreel's stilted style of speaking and the way Cas used to be very proper and literal when speaking when he first came to earth.  So the question then becomes, would the writers know enough to write Michael as a strict grammarian if that's one of the distinctive character aspects of an angel?  To quote Camp from "First Blood": "Probably. Maybe. I don’t know."   If I were a writer, I know that I would make sure to write the character true to how they were supposed to speak, including colloquialisms and whatnot.  But I'm not a writer, so I don't know what the writer of that episode did.  Neither do you.  Bottom line, I agree with the bolded part that @Myrelle said: I think there is room for both interpretations.  

15 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Her goal was to get Lucifer released and she achieved that goal. She didn't kill Sam as soon as it was over.  What does she gain by lying to him in that situation? She really believed that Sam would be happy to know he didn't need the demon blood.  Because she thought Sam was hers and they would be rewarded by Lucifer.

7 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

She wanted Sam to be Lucifer's vessel - that's one of the reasons why she didn't kill him.

Exactly what @AwesomO4000 wrote, except I think that's the only reason Ruby didn't kill Sam as soon as it was over.  Ruby wanted Sam to be Lucifer's vessel.  That was Part b of The Plan all along:  a. Raise Lucifer.  b. Have his vessel ready for him.  Otherwise, what good would it have done to just raise Lucifer?  Angels cannot manifest on earth without a vessel.  As far as:

16 hours ago, catrox14 said:

And he's gonna be grateful. He's gonna repay you in ways that you can't even imagine.

Well, sure.  Ruby was a loyal, loving (of Lucifer) demon.  She thought that Sam being possessed by the devil was the highest honor a man could achieve.  She probably would have offered herself up for the honor if she'd been able.  

2 hours ago, Myrelle said:

But for now, we still have Dean(the OTV of Michael) and Sam(the OTV of  Lucifer), and as long as they live, they should each, IMO, retain that designation according to God's Plan/Prophecy-and this even though the angels tried to speed things up/screw with it.

As we've seen, the 'true vessel' (again, 'One True Vessel' was never dictated by canon) status is also open to interpretation.  

And who's to say that was really God's/Guck's Plan?  Guck didn't seem too pleased about it.  I've never seen this so-called Prophecy written down anywhere or spoken other than the vague "as it is in heaven, so on earth" - which is mainly used to describe Heaven in Christianity, not Armageddon itself.  (Traditionally, according to my understanding, The Apocalypse is the end of the world as we know it - which is supposed to usher in Heaven on Earth.  Armageddon is the battle which brings about the Apocalypse. )  Knowing how Angels lie, I can't say for certain that the angels, tired of waiting around for Guck to come home, manufactured this Prophecy out of other prophetic words (they wouldn't be the first ones ever to take the Word of God out of context) as an excuse to start a war they hoped would get Dad's attention.  

[Katy M]

15 hours ago, Reganne said:

And since this is the bitterness thread, I must say I would like to see a character introduced that does gravitate more towards Sam for once.  lol I feel it's a little one sided that they all pretty much prefer Dean.

I think Jodie does.

[sarthaz]

17 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

True.  But using my handy-dandy sentence diagramming skills I picked up in jr. high (no, I'm not kidding.  I was weirdly good at it.)  When I look at this sentence grammatically: "You're my true vessel but not my only one", "one" is the subject of the second phrase.  To what does that "one" refer?  To the subject of the first part of the sentence, which at its most basic is "vessel".  "True" is a modifier, just like "my".  The complete subject of the first part of the sentence is "true vessel".   So grammatically, Michael is saying, "You're my true vessel, but not my only true vessel."   

Except that sentence doesn't make sense.  "True" is too strong and specific of a modifier.  It's like saying "That's my favorite car, but not my only favorite car."  It doesn't make sense.  The second phrase exists specifically to contrast the first modifier, and while it may be fun to dissect and parse the dialogue, it's difficult to imagine any scenario where the writer did not intend for us to interpret it as "You're my true vessel, but not my only vessel."

[RulerofallIsurvey]

4 minutes ago, sarthaz said:

 it's difficult to imagine any scenario where the writer did not intend for us to interpret it as "You're my true vessel, but not my only vessel."

It's difficult to imagine that scenario, but not one in which vampires and werewolves exist?  Okay, sure.  

[Demented Daisy]

15 minutes ago, sarthaz said:

Except that sentence doesn't make sense.  "True" is too strong and specific of a modifier.  It's like saying "That's my favorite car, but not my only favorite car."  It doesn't make sense.  The second phrase exists specifically to contrast the first modifier, and while it may be fun to dissect and parse the dialogue, it's difficult to imagine any scenario where the writer did not intend for us to interpret it as "You're my true vessel, but not my only vessel."

Not necessarily.  For example, "That's my favorite car, but not my only favorite car." could mean that's currently my favorite car, but I've had others in the past and I will have others in the future.

So, any offspring of Sam and Dean could also be "true" vessels of Lucifer and Michael, theoretically.

[Wayward Son]

16 hours ago, Reganne said:

And since this is the bitterness thread, I must say I would like to see a character introduced that does gravitate more towards Sam for once.  lol I feel it's a little one sided that they all pretty much prefer Dean.

I don't mean this as a slight against Sam, but I actually think their personalities explain why people warm up to Dean quicker.

Dean is by his nature an extrovert. He is quick to warm up to people and enjoys having people around him he can call friends and family. Sam on the other hand is much more introverted. It's not that Sam's ever unfriendly or rude, but in comparison to Dean he is much more reserved. It takes him a lot longer to trust people than Dean. 

[catrox14]

1. 29 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

   1. But@Myrelle
   2. @AwesomO4000
   3.  
   4. As we've seen, the 'true vessel' (again, 'One True Vessel' was never dictated by canon) status is also open to interpretation.  

M

Lucifer literally told Sam in "Free to Be You and Me " he was his true vessel. And to him that Nick was Plan B.. Literally.

Quote

 

LUCIFER :You are a hard one to find, Sam. Harder than most humans. I don't suppose you'd tell me where you are?

SAM
What do you want with me?

LUCIFER
Thanks to you, I walk the earth. I want to give you a gift. I want to give you everything.

SAM
I don't want anything from you.

LUCIFER
I'm so sorry, Sam, I, I really am, but Nick here is just an improvisation. Plan B. He can barely contain me without spontaneously combusting.

SAM
What are you talking about?

LUCIFER stands and moves closer to SAM.

LUCIFER
Why do you think you were in that chapel? You're the one, Sam. You're my vessel. My true vessel.

SAM
No.

LUCIFER
Yes.

SAM
No. That'll never happen

 

Both Michael and Lucifer used TRUE vessel when talking to Dean and Sam. And both said they  have Alternate vessels but only Dean and Sam were referred to as "MY TRUE VESSEL" by their respective connected archangels.

So to me nothing in Canon refutes that assertion regardless of Michael and Lucifer using other not!my true vessels.

[rue721]

15 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

As for the writers, I have a feeling they really don't know what they're doing this season.  Singer brags repeatedly they don't plan anything.   Its a Hodge podge of storylines, Lucifer's baby mama, Lucifer, the British men of letters with nothing getting any real focus or attention.

I don't think it's a hodgepodge. IMO the Lucifer baby mama storyline is supposed to be linked (thematically) with the Winchester mama storyline.

IMO the BMOL storyline, especially the Mary-colludes-with-the-BMOL turn of events, would work better if the show also had more of a storyline about Mary's relationship with John. Those storylines seem like they would play off each other similarly to how the Baby Mama and the Mary's Return storylines play off each other, and without a more grounded "John" storyline to play off of, the BMOL storyline feels kind of out of left field IMO.

The show did hint at the difference between Mary's perception of John and Sam and Dean's perception of him, but then the show basically dropped all mention of him. I think that the show hasn't "forgotten" about that plot-thread so much as they're being too subtle about it. Which I appreciate in the sense that they don't need to overstuff or overstructure the season -- but I still wish they'd be less subtle and flesh out that (nascent) storyline wrt John a bit more.

I think that the show would be working a little bit better this season if the structure were:  Lucifer's Baby Mama (mytharc plot):Mary's Return :: Relationship with & perception of BMOL:Relationship with & perception of John.

10 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Dean doesn't have the stigma of that part of it, since he hasn't been saddled with being the direct cause of some awful evil being unleashed on the world - both Sam and Castiel each have two of those, all with multiple large body counts.

To be fair, Dean did become a demon. I think that's pretty bad and comes with some stigma, as bad and as stigmatized as becoming a psychic blood addict anyway. Maybe not as bad as becoming an evil, Leviathan-filled God, though ;)

10 hours ago, companionenvy said:

the fact that, for instance, soulless Sam happens for half a season while demon Dean only lasts for three episodes is an instance of Sam being more important than Dean.

My hope is that they learned from the Soulless Sam story that 6 episodes is too long to have a major character essentially missing. I like Soulless Sam and in bingewatching after the fact, the storyline is a lot of fun and doesn't drag too much...but when I was watching it live, it felt interminable. And I can see how it would in retrospect, because that is like a month and a half straight of Sam-less SPN episodes.

9 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

She specifically referenced Sam's choices and her giving Sam "options" and his choosing the right path. Those things have nothing to do with Sam's powers and so their inclusion makes little sense - to me anyway - unless that was the "flying" she was talking about (i.e. choosing the "right path".)

Sam made the choice to drink the blood and keep breaking the seals, even when it meant murdering someone. That wasn't the blood making those choices, that was Sam. Yes, his judgement was compromised for some of those decisions because he was "high," but it wasn't so far compromised that he couldn't tell right from wrong or had no idea what he was doing, so he's still culpable (IMO).

I think that that's what Ruby was referring to when she said that he'd had it in him all along. He didn't have the demonic powers in him all along, but he'd had the capacity for evil in him all along -- he made decision after decision that kept him going down the (evil) path she had laid out for him.

I don't think that Sam *is* evil but I think that she showed him that he had the capacity for evil. If he hadn't had the capacity for it, he would never have made the choices that Ruby hoped he would.

He has the capacity for good in him too, of course, but that didn't help. If anything, it made things worse, because he justified his choices and behavior as something that helped him save more people. Not that it's wrong to want to save people or that it's not a relatively valid justification, but you know what they say -- the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

ETA:

Sorry if these thoughts are all dated and the thread has moved on! I was writing this on the plane, but I was too cheap to actually spring for wifi lol

Edited February 22, 2017 by rue721