Supernatural Bitterness & Unpopular Opinions: You All Suck

[AwesomO4000]

Brought over from the "Family Feud" episode thread:

41 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Are you forgetting the MOC?  And Gadreel?

Nope. I just don't consider these to be instances within the show that Dean was shown to be wrong about, per se, because either the end results turned out to be more good than bad, or because Sam wasn't shown to be right either  - or was generally at least shown to be more wrong. Which is interesting how an arc where Dean makes what appears to be a bad decision somehow turns out to be instead one where Sam makes a horrifically worse one, but in the Carver years that's generally what happens.

Gadreel actually somehow turned out to be (mostly) the "right" decision. Gadreel did turn out to be good-ish and helped Castiel stop Metatron from getting the angels to help him wipe out humanity. And Sam would've done the same thing to save Dean - and did - so Dean was right about that, too. And just in case we wondered if it was the right thing in terms of Gadreel, the writers had Sam spout that ridiculous line about their "real" friends - like Gadreel. Gag. But I guess they had to make sure even Sam was shown to realize that Gadreel was a good guy and their ally, and that he should've been glad that Dean tricked him into hosting Gadreel and lying about it all that time, because now they had an ally. (These writers really like to make Sam have to like and/or be an ally of beings who torture/mindwipe/abuse him, don't they? As I said: gag.) So pretty much Dean was shown to be right in his decision.

And taking the Mark of Cain did mean that Dean could kill Abadon and Cain - who also was on a killing spree - and basically the only really bad thing to come from it was because of Sam releasing the darkness. Yes Dean was a demon for a bit, but that was corrected before he did any real damage. Then Dean killed a few bad guys and one questionable one, but other than that, nothing really bad happened until Sam got over-involved and released the Darkness.

Compare this to Sam thinking that killing Lilith would stop the apocalypse when in reality it raised Lucifer (granted this wasn't the Carver years.) Or Sam insisting that Benny was evil, or that it was okay, they could just wait and see what would happen after removing Dean's mark and deal with the consequences later, or that God was talking to him so he needed to go see Lucifer. Those were wrong and had bad consequences (except for Benny - oh wait nevermind, because there was Martin so forget I even thought Sam could be wrong without a consequence, silly me.)

But I keep telling myself Carver is gone now, so maybe things will be different. However this Mary arc isn't looking to be too promising so far, in that I can see the set up maybe going towards Sam being convinced into following / agreeing with Mary while dismissing Dean's concerns until it all goes belly up and Dean is proven correct. While Sam is wrong. Again. And something awful happens. Again.

Edited February 24, 2017 by AwesomO4000

[Katy M]

14 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Brought over from the "Family Feud" episode thread:

Nope. I just don't consider these to be instances within the show that Dean was shown to be wrong about, per se, because either the end results turned out to be more good than bad, or because Sam wasn't shown to be right either  - or was generally at least shown to be more wrong. Which is interesting how an arc where Dean makes what appears to be a bad decision somehow turns out to be instead one where Sam makes a horrifically worse one, but in the Carver years that's generally what happens.

Gadreel actually somehow turned out to be (mostly) the "right" decision. Gadreel did turn out to be good-ish and helped Castiel stop Metatron from getting the angels to help him wipe out humanity. And Sam would've done the same thing to save Dean - and did - so Dean was right about that, too. And just in case we wondered if it was the right thing in terms of Gadreel, the writers had Sam spout that ridiculous line about their "real" friends - like Gadreel. Gag. But I guess they had to make sure even Sam was shown to realize that Gadreel was a good guy and their ally, and that he should've been glad that Dean tricked him into hosting Gadreel and lying about it all that time, because now they had an ally. (These writers really like to make Sam have to like and/or be an ally of beings who torture/mindwipe/abuse him, don't they? As I said: gag.) So pretty much Dean was shown to be right in his decision.

And taking the Mark of Cain did mean that Dean could kill Abadon and Cain - who also was on a killing spree - and basically the only really bad thing to come from it was because of Sam releasing the darkness. Yes Dean was a demon for a bit, but that was corrected before he did any real damage. Then Dean killed a few bad guys and one questionable one, but other than that, nothing really bad happened until Sam got over-involved and released the Darkness.

Compare this to Sam thinking that killing Lilith would stop the apocalypse when in reality it raised Lucifer (granted this wasn't the Carver years.) Or Sam insisting that Benny was evil, or that it was okay, they could just wait and see what would happen after removing Dean's mark and deal with the consequences later, or that God was talking to him so he needed to go see Lucifer. Those were wrong and had bad consequences (except for Benny - oh wait nevermind, because there was Martin so forget I even thought Sam could be wrong without a consequence, silly me.)

But I keep telling myself Carver is gone now, so maybe things will be different. However this Mary arc isn't looking to be too promising so far, in that I can see the set up maybe going towards Sam being convinced into following / agreeing with Mary while dismissing Dean's concerns until it all goes belly up and Dean is proven correct. While Sam is wrong. Again. And something awful happens. Again.

Ah,yes, if we're talking about consequences.  I have already said that Sam gets  bum deal with consequences.  If we are talking about just bad decision making they're pretty equal.

[Aeryn13]

I don`t think this is a "this is wrong" story because IMO the writers are a bit too much in love with their shiny new toys. Sure, begrudgingly, because the Winchesters are the main characters, they will ultimately triumph but till then I`m sure they want everyone to think how cool the BMOL are and how effective and don`t they make a good point?

That goes doubly for Mary. I think Ketch`s asskissing wasn`t supposed to come across as just that. I`ve heard enough from the writers so far on how Mary is this great super bad-ass hunter that some of it was supposed to be genuine pimping of the character. I mean in that first scene you see 4? Rguarus on the floor that Mary killed in stopwatch time. Like, bow down before her. 

If the Winchesters weren`t the protagonists, I`m pretty sure the BMOL and Mary would turn out on the winning side of things. So even if Sam briefly considers them, I don`t believe it will be played up as that badly. 

It won`t fly on the CW but I think Dabb would happily do a Mary/BMOL spin-off. And do so rather than the show at hand. 

[AwesomO4000]

2 minutes ago, Katy M said:

If we are talking about just bad decision making they're pretty equal.

True, but on this show, you can make what appears to be a bad decision and still be right. It's weird, but that's what can happen.

[Katy M]

20 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

That goes doubly for Mary. I think Ketch`s asskissing wasn`t supposed to come across as just that. I`ve heard enough from the writers so far on how Mary is this great super bad-ass hunter that some of it was supposed to be genuine pimping of the character. I mean in that first scene you see 4? Rguarus on the floor that Mary killed in stopwatch time. Like, bow down before her. 

But, how hard is it to take down rugarus when you have some nifty little machine that melts their brains.  I feel like I could do that. 

[Aeryn13]

Quote

But, how hard is it to take down rugarus when you have some nifty little machine that melts their brains.  I feel like I could do that. 

If they had just trussed them up in front of her and gave her the gun to point at them, it would be very easy. But we saw her fighting so obviously it was a scenario where she had to wrestle them away to even get into the position to use the little BMOL toy. Now that is significantly harder to do and was IMO done as "badass pimp extraordinaire".

[MysteryGuest]

Yeah, the Mary as bad ass just isn't working for me.  In fact, the more I think about the Mary we knew vs. this new retconned version, I'm not buying most of it. 

I can accept the fact that coming back from the dead where you were just the mother of a 4 year old and a 6 month old, and now you're supposed to be mother to a 34 and 37 year old would be extremely jarring.  I would even accept the idea that they might never find their way to true mother/son relationships.  

But I don't buy that she continued to hunt after she had children.  After her parents and John were killed, and then John was brought back through the deal with YED that I don't even think Mary realized she'd made, I do not see her ever hunting again.  She wanted out in the worst way before any of that happened, and I don't think she'd risk losing John again, and especially not her children once they were born.  

So that means she probably was an active hunter for maybe 7 or 8 years, based on her age at the time we meet her as a young woman.  She'd never even hunted a demon until Dean showed up.  But I'm supposed to believe that now that she's back, she is this driven hunter who goes off on all of these solo hunts and just kicks monster asses right and left.  Even before her alliance with the BMOL she was hunting alone most of the time and taking out vampire nests, etc., on her own.  Even Sam and Dean after all the years they've been hunting don't normally do those types of hunts alone.  

As with most things, the idea of Mary coming back was intriguing, but so far at least, the reality of her return has left a lot to be desired.  I'm not looking for her to be killed off in some redemption storyline, but I just wish they'd not felt that they needed to totally change her character in order to bring her back.  

[Boopsahoy]

1 hour ago, MysteryGuest said:

ut I just wish they'd not felt that they needed to totally change her character in order to bring her back.  

This is what I was worried about when I saw her in the finale. I couldn't see any way they could bring her back as the paragon we/Dean had thought her to be and have an interesting show. Next time Dean is about to kill Sam the photograph won't help to stop him! :-)

Edited February 25, 2017 by Boopsahoy
grammar

[MysteryGuest]

16 minutes ago, Boopsahoy said:

This is what I was worried about when I saw her in the finale. I couldn't see any way they could bring her back as the paragon we/Dean had thought her to be and have an interesting show. Next time Dean is about to kill Sam the photograph won't help to stop him! :-)

I don't think they needed to bring her back as the perfect mommy, but it's like everything Dean remembered about his mother, and everything John had told them about her was a complete lie.  She's basically been leading a double life from the very beginning, which based on all of the early versions of Mary we saw, just wasn't the case.  But I guess if the writers can turn a drunken prophet into God, they can and will do just about anything if it suits them.

[rue721]

40 minutes ago, Boopsahoy said:

Next time Dean is about to kill Sam the photograph won't help to stop him! :-)

 

20 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

but it's like everything Dean remembered about his mother, and everything John had told them about her was a complete lie.

Awww I don't think his memories are lies...they just aren't the whole truth.

But then again, no toddler's memories would be. And once she was dead, nobody was going to speak ill of her, either.

[mertensia]

Plus, John certainly had no clue she was hunting.

I have long thought that Mary's drive to get out of hunting was partially pushed by the angels meddling with her mind. "You don't want to hunt! You want to marry John and have two sons!"

[Wayward Son]

16 minutes ago, mertensia said:

Plus, John certainly had no clue she was hunting.

I have long thought that Mary's drive to get out of hunting was partially pushed by the angels meddling with her mind. "You don't want to hunt! You want to marry John and have two sons!"

I don't think they'll go there, but that would certainly be a twist! Mary never wanted to be a mum / have a family and that's why she is now struggling to connect.

Although I don't think I could bear the boys pain if they learnt their mother never wanted them :( 

Edited February 25, 2017 by Wayward Son

[mertensia]

I did say partially.

[Katy M]

I think the fact that she was able to hunt after getting married and having Dean and nobody noticed is completely ridiculous.  John wasn't an idiot.  He might not have known she was hunting as he didn't know such a thing existed, but he would have known something was up.  I think we had already been shown that John romanticized dead Mary.  I think that's a natural thing to do.  Therefore, since Dean only had limited memories, and Sam none, they went mostly on what their father told them, and that also would have been romanticized.  But, I think we could have gotten the same, very natural fish-out-of-water story, the disconnect between Mary and grown sons she has never met, and Mary not being the perfect mom that Dean "remembered" without having her hunt after marriage, or without her being awesome hunter extraordinaire that nobody has seen the likes of since Nimrod.

[MysteryGuest]

I have no issues with the fact that Dean's childhood memories of his mother were idealized, and that she's really not that person.  I don't care that she can't cook, in fact that would probably make sense since she spent her youth hunting and not learning cooking skills for Deanna.  

5 hours ago, mertensia said:

I have long thought that Mary's drive to get out of hunting was partially pushed by the angels meddling with her mind. "You don't want to hunt! You want to marry John and have two sons!"

I'll buy the idea that the angels had earmarked Mary and John to be together, since that's what we've been told, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that they convinced her she didn't want to hunt.  I could even see her continuing to hunt if she decided to go after Yellow Eyes to avenge her parents death.  That would make sense, but that didn't happen.  The idea that she'd continue to go on random vampire hunts just doesn't ring true to me.

As for John, he may have been oblivious to the world of hunters, but exactly how did Mary explain the death of her parents to him?  One minute they're both alive and well, and the next minute Samuel is lying dead right next to John.  How do you spin that in any way that makes sense?  I always thought that John had at least an inkling of what they did, or that Mary talked to him about it, because otherwise it doesn't make sense that he would immediately suspect supernatural causes in her death.  Yeah, it was freaky, no doubt about it, but if you were never exposed to the supernatural world, would that really be your first guess?  I'm not sure it would be mine...at least not before watching this damn show for the last 4 years.

[Wayward Son]

UO of the day: I don't want to see Benny return to the show. Ever.

[Katy M]

2 hours ago, MysteryGuest said:

As for John, he may have been oblivious to the world of hunters, but exactly how did Mary explain the death of her parents to him?  One minute they're both alive and well, and the next minute Samuel is lying dead right next to John.

That bugged me to no end.  When they met Sam and Dean in The Song Remains the Same, John said Samuel died of a heart attack.  I could handle if part of Azazel's deal was wiping John's memory and kind of cleaning up the crime scene a bit so it looked natural, but when John came to, Samuel's bloody body was right there.  How is that a heart attack?

Dad went crazy and killed mom and attacked us and I got the knife away and stabbed him is something that happens in the real world, so maybe that's what Mary told him happened and the official story with the cops, but Mary asked John to tell people they knew it was a heart attack?  But, you would think that would make John less anxious to meet Mary's family instead of more.

2 hours ago, MysteryGuest said:

Yeah, it was freaky, no doubt about it, but if you were never exposed to the supernatural world, would that really be your first guess?  I'm not sure it would be mine...at least not before watching this damn show for the last 4 years.

A person burning on the ceiling, defying gravity? Didn't he see her first and then the fire started from the crib for no reason? I might suspect supernatural causes.  Maybe not fully 100% in my mind, but enough to ask an expert.  Actually, now that I think of it, the only other explanation I could come up with is I'm insane.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Katy M

[MysteryGuest]

2 minutes ago, Katy M said:

A person burning on the ceiling, defying gravity? Didn't he see her first and then the fire started from the crib for no reason? I might suspect supernatural causes.  Maybe not fully 100% in my mind, but enough to ask an expert.

I think he just came in to find her burning on the ceiling.  Admittedly, that's pretty damn bizarre, but I'm just trying to put myself in his shoes and I'm not sure what I would think.  It just makes a bit more sense to me to think that John might not have been completely in the dark when it came to the supernatural.  

[catrox14]

19 minutes ago, Katy M said:

A person burning on the ceiling, defying gravity? Didn't he see her first and then the fire started from the crib for no reason? I might suspect supernatural causes.  Maybe not fully 100% in my mind, but enough to ask an expert.  Actually, now that I think of it, the only other explanation I could come up with is I'm insane

The fire started on the ceiling. There was no fire in Sammy's crib until later when the fire spread. He had come in to check on what he thought was Mary screaming. He looked in at Sammy in the crib and blood dripped on his hand. He looked up to see Mary trapped on the ceiling and then the ceiling burst into flames killing Mary.

John got Sammy out of the crib and put him in Dean's arms and then I think he was trying to get back into the room to save Mary and then he got out before the upstairs blew.

Edited February 25, 2017 by catrox14

[Katy M]

17 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

The fire started on the ceiling. There was no fire in Sammy's crib until later when the fire spread.

Yeah, I think I was mixing up Sam and Rosie's fire.  I think that one started in the crib when the baby was taken out of the crib.  But, either way, people suspended on the ceiling with their stomach slit and then bursting into flames isn't natural.

[Aeryn13]

Considering Azazel wanted the babies to grow up and play a part later on, I don`t know what he was thinking. "I sure hope someone rescues that helpless baby before the fire spreads in the nursery"? I mean, giving them his blood would have meant jackshit otherwise.  

[ahrtee]

57 minutes ago, Katy M said:

That bugged me to no end.  When they met Sam and Dean in The Song Remains the Same, John said Samuel died of a heart attack.  I could handle if part of Azazel's deal was wiping John's memory and kind of cleaning up the crime scene a bit so it looked natural, but when John came to, Samuel's bloody body was right there.  How is that a heart attack?

Well, apparently angels (and demons) have mad crime-scene cleanup skills.  Cas was there...maybe  he moved Samuel back to the house and made it look like a heart attack, and Deanna was running to call for help and tripped and broke her neck. ?  ETA: Oh, and he'd've had to wipe John's memory, too...

Think of how many dead bodies the boys have left behind them (ranging from the 3 witches in Malleus Maleficarum, that Ruby1 said she'd "clean up" to all the demons with their eyes burned out in Lazarus Rising and everyone killed at the Biggersons in Santa Fe while the angels were hunting Cas; not to mention all the meatsuits the boys killed with the knife and left behind (I'm pretty sure they didn't wipe out all evidence that they were there, but no one ever suspected them...) 

Then there was Walt and Roy.  Did they remember killing the Winchesters?  Wouldn't that have pinged the rest of the hunters if they turned up, alive and well, the next day?  But none of the other hunters seemed concerned about them being anything evil.  

One of the ones I always wondered about was Lisa's new boyfriend, left in her living room with his neck snapped when Crowley kidnapped her in Let it Bleed.  SInce Cas wiped her memories while she was in the hospital, imagine her trying to explain *that* to the police.  

9 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Azazel wanted the babies to grow up and play a part later on, I don`t know what he was thinking. "I sure hope someone rescues that helpless baby before the fire spreads in the nursery"? I mean, giving them his blood would have meant jackshit otherwise.  

Azazel said no one would get hurt unless he was interrupted.  Sam would have died in his crib, too, if John hadn't grabbed him.  I think Azazel had enough options that he didn't mind losing a few (remember, I think a majority of his "special children" crashed and burned before they ever made it to Cold Oak), so he was just planting seeds to see what might come up.  Besides, I'm pretty sure he was already counting on Sam as being the One (according to Ruby, anyway!) so by starting again after 20 years he was just keeping options open, just in case.

Edited February 25, 2017 by ahrtee

[trxr4kids]

3 hours ago, MysteryGuest said:

I think he just came in to find her burning on the ceiling.  Admittedly, that's pretty damn bizarre, but I'm just trying to put myself in his shoes and I'm not sure what I would think.  It just makes a bit more sense to me to think that John might not have been completely in the dark when it came to the supernatural.  

Also remember he went to Missouri and learned the truth according to his journal. There's something else to love (not) about her character, she tells an grief stricken father of two small children, oh sure something evil killed your wife. Based on her abilities she should have known the truth would set him on the road to paranoia and obsession. 

Mary the super hunter is stupid and annoying. In 1973 she didn't want to hunt, in 1978 she told them she didn't do that anymore, in 1983 she was lax enough that she clearly didn't immediately register what was happening until it was too late. I mean she hears Sammy cry, thinks she sees John lights flicker and she just taps it, yep super hunter skills activate.

I realize I just may be nitpicking at this point but something that has always bugged me about Mary is her choice of sleepwear. Who wears a flimsy cotton gown, in November in Kansas? It's just stupid is what it is. J/K I get they were going for some kinda ridiculous symbolism.

Edited February 25, 2017 by trxr4kids
I forgot to complain about Mary

[trxr4kids]

Brought of from the Family Feud thread: @AwesomO4000 said:

Quote

I think the small difference here between the current situation and the old Dean - John - Sam situation is that in the old situation, Sam was fairly certain that Dean and John would be okay. Sam always knew of Dean and John as close. So if Sam did something to make John angry / annoyed / etc. that wouldn't affect Dean and John very much. And Sam even had fairly concrete proof of this when Sam and John had the big argument and Sam left for college, because Dean and John still hunted together and appeared to remain close.

Emphasis mine:  In Dark Side of the Moon, I can't remember the exact line but it's implied that John was furious with Dean because Sam ran off on his watch. When Sam was at Stanford they didn't always hunt together according to Dean who said something about being 26 when Sam was surprised dad let him hunt alone, it seemed as though it became the norm once Sam left. Also I'm not sure Sam has ever thought of John and Dean as close. I think he thought Dean followed John blindly and put too much faith in him, but I think he saw that with John it was pretty much a one way street, meaning he was a taker not a giver. 

Anyway I just can't believe Sam at 33 would not realize that things he did as a child had consequences that were not always or probably even most of the time paid by him. Even John's dying words left responsibility of Sam's choices on Dean. Save him or kill, meaning if he goes bad kill but you better not let him go darkside. 

[DeeDee79]

11 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

UO of the day: I don't want to see Benny return to the show. Ever.

Benny served his purpose in the Purgatory storyline in which he was introduced but there would be no reason to bring him back at this point. If they bring back any supernatural being at this point it had better be Death!

[Mick Lady]

15 hours ago, mertensia said:

Plus, John certainly had no clue she was hunting.

I have long thought that Mary's drive to get out of hunting was partially pushed by the angels meddling with her mind. "You don't want to hunt! You want to marry John and have two sons!"

I never considered that, but it could very well be true, and heartbreaking!

[DittyDotDot]

59 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

If they bring back any supernatural being at this point it had better be Death!

You know that's right!!! ;)

[Mick Lady]

37 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

You know that's right!!! ;)

I love Death!

Plus, he's a pizza nut, as I am!!

[RulerofallIsurvey]

40 minutes ago, Mick Lady said:

I love Death!

Oh, the things this show makes us say! ;)

[companionenvy]

Do we have confirmation that Mary was hunting regularly after her marriage? In the Asa Fox episode, I thought there was some line about "unfinished business."

I don't think it is too much of a retcon if Mary occasionally hunted in the ten years between the deal and her death. I suspect that even if Sam and/or Dean retired and settled down, they wouldn't stand aside and let people die if a hunt caught their eye. Right now, they probably have enough of a line on the hunter network to put another hunter on the case if they got out, but under her circumstances I can see Mary deciding that taking on a hunt now and then was actually safer than getting her family back on the radar of other hunters. In the real world, plenty of parents have dangerous jobs. I'm not sure how Mary going on a werewolf hunt is substantially worse than a parent serving in the military or as a police officer in a big city. 

I do agree that her level of skill and familiarity with the hunter life is implausible. Mary left home at nineteen. I'm sure she had training, but I strongly doubt she had extensive field experience. While she may have hunted now and then during her marriage, it strains credulity to think that this was anything like a regular thing, and she certainly couldn't have been traveling to take on ambitious, multi-day hunts. 

[catrox14]

My problem with Mary hunting at all even if it was too help someone else is that she KNEW Azazel was coming for her in 10 years. It seems to me, she would have spent that time trying to find a way out of her deal or just lay low. I dunno. 

Maybe that whole memory of Dean's when he heard them argue on the phone and John left for a while was because he found out Mary had been leaving for a couple of days at a time and thought she was having an affair or something.

[MysteryGuest]

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

My problem with Mary hunting at all even if it was too help someone else is that she KNEW Azazel was coming for her in 10 years

But did she know this?  I thought Azazel just said that he was going to come back in 10 years, and as long as he wasn't interrupted, no one would get hurt.  He told her he had no interest in her soul and that she could have that picket fence dream and the couple of kids she wanted.  No more hunting or monsters.  So was she naive to take the deal, probably, but she was also a bit shellshocked since her family and boyfriend had just been killed.  She probably convinced herself that he would come and do whatever he was going to do, and as long as she didn't do anything, her life would go on just as it was.  At least until she realized it wasn't John in Sam's nursery that night.  

[catrox14]

15 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

But did she know this?  I thought Azazel just said that he was going to come back in 10 years, and as long as he wasn't interrupted, no one would get hurt.  He told her he had no interest in her soul and that she could have that picket fence dream and the couple of kids she wanted.  No more hunting or monsters.  So was she naive to take the deal, probably, but she was also a bit shellshocked since her family and boyfriend had just been killed.  She probably convinced herself that he would come and do whatever he was going to do, and as long as she didn't do anything, her life would go on just as it was.  At least until she realized it wasn't John in Sam's nursery that night.  

She was naive to make the deal, but she knew all about demons and monsters, so why wouldn't she consider the price would be more than her life. After the shock wore off of losing her entire family except for John, I dunno I would think she might start worrying. But that's just me. I just hate this whole Mary resurrection thing and having her continue hunting after she said she never would again. Bleh.

Edited February 26, 2017 by catrox14

[rue721]

18 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

My problem with Mary hunting at all even if it was too help someone else is that she KNEW Azazel was coming for her in 10 years. It seems to me, she would have spent that time trying to find a way out of her deal or just lay low. I dunno. 

Maybe that whole memory of Dean's when he heard them argue on the phone and John left for a while was because he found out Mary had been leaving for a couple of days at a time and thought she was having an affair or something.

Interesting to me that in the ten years between Azazel ruining Mary's life by massacring everyone (including John, for a hot second), she apparently never looked for a way to take revenge on him or even seemed to do much research on him at all. I mean, even if she didn't remember or know much about the deal she'd gotten herself into, just the fact that he murdered her parents (and sorta, John) should probably have been enough to pique her interest in him at least and compel her to do quite a bit of research. But no, not particularly, I guess?

And now she's kind of doing a JV version of the same thing by seeing the BMOL kidnap and torture her son, and just sort of moving on and not really looking for revenge (to the point of apparently not even holding much of a grudge!), and is once again pretty light on the research. I wonder what that says about who she is as a character. That seems pretty unusual to me, being so willing to forgive and forget, and being so much more oriented toward the future than the past. I'm not even saying it's a bad thing, because I don't think it is. Ruining your life in some revenge obsession, like John did, is certainly not any better. But it is singular.

I mean, if I were her, I would still be devastated by John's death and looking for loopholes for THAT. And I don't think that would be so unusual within the world of the show. John wasn't a monk or whatever, but he also apparently never had any more serious relationships and didn't marry again after Mary died. Gavin marched right to his death so he could be with the love of his life "for eternity" -- not even to really see her again or live a happily ever after with her. But meanwhile, Mary doesn't even mention John. Well, I guess it's hard to know what she's feeling, though...after all, as far as we know, she's not dating again yet either.

Anyway, I don't know how many hunting jaunts Mary really could have gone on, because who would have been babysitting? John had to work, he couldn't have been watching the baby/babies during the day. And Mary was an orphan, and they were both only children, and neither seemed to have many friends...? I guess John's mother could have helped out? I dunno, it just seems so stressful to try and go off on a secret hunting trip with a toddler or two at home and no family around. Like, I guess she couldn't have been breastfeeding, right? I can understand why she would have WANTED to go hunting -- I mean, aside from the "saving people from monsters" thing, which is a biggie, it's also how she grew up and I would think it would make her feel closer to her parents and just sort of comfortable and "at home" in a way. The logistics seem really difficult, though. Of course, the logistics for John doing it on his own a few years later are also difficult, so...I guess I can go with it as canon if need be, like I do for the backstory on John's hunting days in the 1980s.

[MysteryGuest]

2 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I just hate this whole Mary resurrection thing and having her continue hunting after she said she never would again. Bleh.

I'm in complete agreement here.  I initially wasn't happy that they were bringing her character back, but then during the long break after last season ended, I started to come around to the story possibilities.  By the time this season started, I was looking forward to her return.  But that was before I knew what their plans were.  There was no reason for them to change her character.  She could have still gotten back into hunting in this world in her search to find something familiar to her.  There are any number of ways the story could have unfolded without the need to change her past.   But it's just so much easier to simply re-write history than it is to come up with something interesting while remaining faithful to the character.

[trxr4kids]

1 hour ago, companionenvy said:

I don't think it is too much of a retcon if Mary occasionally hunted in the ten years between the deal and her death. I suspect that even if Sam and/or Dean retired and settled down, they wouldn't stand aside and let people die if a hunt caught their eye. Right now, they probably have enough of a line on the hunter network to put another hunter on the case if they got out, but under her circumstances I can see Mary deciding that taking on a hunt now and then was actually safer than getting her family back on the radar of other hunters

Emphasis mine: I do think it's a retcon based on my earlier posts about 1973, 78 and 83. When Sam wanted out ( the Stanford years ) he was completely out and didn't notice his friend was possessed, he made a clean break, just like it was said Mary had. If Sam or Dean retired now it would be a semi retirement at best not the young naivete that both Mary and Sam were shown to have.

 

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

My problem with Mary hunting at all even if it was too help someone else is that she KNEW Azazel was coming for her in 10 years. It seems to me, she would have spent that time trying to find a way out of her deal or just lay low.

This exactly, if she was going to have anything at all to do with hunting it would only make sense in terms of the deal and it's ramifications not random nonsense.

 

54 minutes ago, rue721 said:

Interesting to me that in the ten years between Azazel ruining Mary's life by massacring everyone (including John, for a hot second), she apparently never looked for a way to take revenge on him or even seemed to do much research on him at all. I mean, even if she didn't remember or know much about the deal she'd gotten herself into, just the fact that he murdered her parents (and sorta, John) should probably have been enough to pique her interest in him at least and compel her to do quite a bit of research. But no, not particularly, I guess?

It was implied in the pilot that Mary recognized the YED and I can't buy that she remembered him but not the deal specifications because part of the deal was as long as Azazel was uninterrupted nobody would get hurt, if that knowledge was taken from her then Azazel couldn't have killed her in accordance with the contract, he could have frozen her on the wall and left after he was done but wouldn't have had legal rights to enforce the terms.

ETA 2: I realize that the whole Mary doesn't want to hunt, the worst thing she could ever imagine is for her kids to be raised as hunters was done for angst and parallels but it seemed to me that 1973 Mary had a pretty stable life as compared to Sam and Dean's childhood and doesn't really hold any weight with me in terms of her motivations at this point. After all she's read John's journal, shouldn't the facts that they didn't have stability, a nurturing parent and support system be the bigger issue. 

Also it seems ludicrous to me that after being out of hunting and dead for decades she has contacts with any hunters other than Sam and Dean and their contacts. 

Edited February 26, 2017 by trxr4kids
complete sentences make more sense

[Mick Lady]

On ‎2‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 3:18 PM, AwesomO4000 said:

But I keep telling myself Carver is gone now, so maybe things will be different. However this Mary arc isn't looking to be too promising so far, in that I can see the set up maybe going towards Sam being convinced into following / agreeing with Mary while dismissing Dean's concerns until it all goes belly up and Dean is proven correct. While Sam is wrong. Again. And something awful happens. Again.

Oh this so much! I'm so sick of Sam making so called "bad" decisions. Lather, rinse, repeat...

[rue721]

@AwesomO4000 (since I can't quote you directly!)

Quote

Sam always knew of Dean and John as close. So if Sam did something to make John angry / annoyed / etc. that wouldn't affect Dean and John very much. And Sam even had fairly concrete proof of this when Sam and John had the big argument and Sam left for college, because Dean and John still hunted together and appeared to remain close.

 

7 hours ago, trxr4kids said:

Also I'm not sure Sam has ever thought of John and Dean as close. I think he thought Dean followed John blindly and put too much faith in him, but I think he saw that with John it was pretty much a one way street, meaning he was a taker not a giver.

I tend more toward @trxr4kids viewpoint, because I didn't get the sense that Sam thought Dean and John had a *good* relationship. It seemed to me that Sam couldn't really grok why Dean was apparently OK with John acting in ways that really frustrated/irritated Sam. IIRC he even flat out asked Dean about that sometimes (early in the show, like in S1). I do think that Sam assumed that Dean and John had a *stable* relationship -- just not a particularly good one, or at least not one he would have wanted to be a part of.

FWIW I think that, back in the day, Dean also hid whatever negative thoughts/feelings he had toward John, to keep from undermining his own authority with Sam, and to keep from undermining Sam and John's relationship -- and that gave Sam kind of a warped view of how Dean thought of John, too. That seemed to change when John died, though.

Dean started letting it all hang out then! I actually was kind of shocked at how bitterly he would speak about John sometimes, considering that that was his dead father. And honestly, just considering that that's his father. But I guess, why not. He was still mostly speaking that way just around family (ie Sam). And it's not like bitterness wasn't at all warranted, so...

I guess they're both pretty much over it now. He's been dead for a decade, makes sense if they've moved on. I still find their relationships with John fascinating, though. :P

Anyway, I think the reason that Sam lumped Dean and John together in his mind was because Sam saw Dean as John's lieutenant. Dean was the "golden son," and I think that Sam just sort of assumed that, in John's eyes, Dean could do no wrong (just like Sam assumed that, in John's eyes, he (Sam) could do nothing right). Obviously that wasn't actually true, and John was fairly strict with Dean, too -- but I think that's how Sam saw it.

So I don't think that the idea of John punishing Dean or even being upset with him was something that came up in Sam's consciousness a whole lot. I think he was kind of blind to the idea, because it didn't fit with his preconceptions about how John saw Dean -- as the golden son who could do no wrong.

I think that that was Sam's perception was also news to Dean, because he would always act so flabbergasted whenever Sam brought up John not being happy with him (with Sam). But I think that Dean seems to forget that there's probably a lot to Dean and John's relationship that Sam was never a party to. There were a lot of years when Dean was growing up that Sam would have been too young to really understand or to remember now, and then there were a lot of years where Dean was old enough to go off and hunt alone with John, but Sam wasn't included because he was either too young or not interested (away at college). I would think that both those periods would have been pretty formative to Dean and John's relationship (when Dean was around 0-10 y/o and then around 14-26 y/o -- that's a lot of years!), but Sam wouldn't really know much of any of that. He really only caught of glimpse.

I guess my UO is that I think it's actually pretty good writing that Sam and Dean's perspectives on their childhood and their family are so mismatched! Just based on their age difference alone, I think it makes sense that there would be pretty major mismatch in their memories and in the circumstances of their upbringings IMO.

ETA:

@trxr4kids

Quote

After all she's read John's journal, shouldn't the facts that they didn't have stability, a nurturing parent and support system be the bigger issue.

Honestly, reading the journal and seeing John basically lose his mind and all ability to live a normal life seems like it would be REALLY upsetting for Mary. I mean, it's not just tragic that her sons didn't get the upbringing and lives she wanted, it's also tragic that her husband was so devastated by her death and really never recovered. I actually had thought that the show was going to go somewhere with that when Sam handed the journal off to Mary so early. But there haven't really been any repercussions (yet).

I dunno, it bothers me that Mary seems to have just forgotten John totally. It seems unrealistic, mostly, and it's also strange considering how his life fell apart once she died. I find her difficulty in connecting with Sam and Dean pretty understandable. But the lack of mourning for John just kind of blows my mind. It doesn't make me dislike the character at all, because it stretches my disbelief in a way that makes me blame the writers for it rather than the character.

But I do wish they'd at least TOUCH a bit more on Mary's relationship with him and how he changed after she died and how SHE feels about that. Doesn't she feel guilty about it, if nothing else? Doesn't she think, "I could have prepared him better"? Doesn't she feel angry that he fell apart instead of being stronger? Isn't she touched that he grieved so hard for her? Doesn't she wonder how well she really ever knew him, considering she never thought that he'd become a hunter, because he was so "sweet"? I dunno, it just seems like something that would bring up a lot of emotions. And not just in Mary, in Sam and Dean, too.

Edited February 26, 2017 by rue721

[trxr4kids]

1 hour ago, rue721 said:

I guess my UO is that I think it's actually pretty good writing that Sam and Dean's perspectives on their childhood and their family are so mismatched! Just based on their age difference alone, I think it makes sense that there would be pretty major mismatch in their memories and in the circumstances of their upbringings IMO

I agree that their childhood perspectives are very realistic in regards to their age difference and personalities, that's why I don't think the current situation with Mary, Dean and Sam are a realistic parallel of motivations at all as was discussed in the Family Feud ep thread in regards to Sam's comments on Dean being dramatic. Sam now has an adult perspective and hindsight, there is no reason for him to to think a) if Dean hurts Mary's feelings she'll ditch me too and b) nothing he did as a child effected Dean's relationship with John. Those two points are contradictory, he'd have to believe that his actions effected John and Dean's relationship to believe that Dean's actions would effect his and Mary's relationship.

ETA: Those contradictory ideas would make sense if he was a child because kid logic but not as an adult.

 

1 hour ago, rue721 said:

But I do wish they'd at least TOUCH a bit more on Mary's relationship with him and how he changed after she died and how SHE feels about that. Doesn't she feel guilty about it, if nothing else? Doesn't she think, "I could have prepared him better"? Doesn't she feel angry that he fell apart instead of being stronger? Isn't she touched that he grieved so hard for her? Doesn't she wonder how well she really ever knew him, considering she never thought that he'd become a hunter, because he was so "sweet"? I dunno, it just seems like something that would bring up a lot of emotions. And not just in Mary, in Sam and Dean,

It's not like I wanted episodes full of talk and tears but I think as someone else pointed out after Mary left she could have been shown following John's footsteps via his journal with parallel hunts and kid Winchester flashbacks. It seems this show is determined to introduce/reintroduce characters strictly for the sake of shock, angst or shocking angst. Just bah!

Edited February 26, 2017 by trxr4kids

[AwesomO4000]

11 hours ago, trxr4kids said:

 In Dark Side of the Moon, I can't remember the exact line but it's implied that John was furious with Dean because Sam ran off on his watch. When Sam was at Stanford they didn't always hunt together according to Dean who said something about being 26 when Sam was surprised dad let him hunt alone, it seemed as though it became the norm once Sam left. Also I'm not sure Sam has ever thought of John and Dean as close. I think he thought Dean followed John blindly and put too much faith in him, but I think he saw that with John it was pretty much a one way street, meaning he was a taker not a giver. 

Anyway I just can't believe Sam at 33 would not realize that things he did as a child had consequences that were not always or probably even most of the time paid by him. Even John's dying words left responsibility of Sam's choices on Dean. Save him or kill, meaning if he goes bad kill but you better not let him go darkside. 

I address some of this below based on the information from your later post, but I pretty much agree that Rue721's "stable" is likely a better description. But stable would still go to my point that Sam could be at least a little confident that Dean and John were "good" for the most part even if John and Sam weren't always good.

As for Sam not paying the consequences for the things he did growing up, my unpopular opinion is that Sam mostly got in trouble for what he did, and Dean for what he did. I think that Dean being punished for what Sam did all the time, is fanon rather than canon. It was established in "Bugs" that John got on Sam's case often enough. Yes, Dean got in trouble when Sam ran away on his watch, because Dean was supposed to be watching Sam. It also doesn't mean that Sam didn't get in trouble also. And considering all of the times we know Dean went off and left Sam alone, in my opinion, Sam was a pretty good kid for only running away that one time and for not getting into more trouble. When I used to watch my sister when we were kids, I couldn't leave her alone for 10 minutes without her getting into trouble. Granted, she didn't run away, and she got much better when she was older, but my point still stands that in many instances, Dean got lucky Sam mostly stayed out of trouble. It could've been a lot worse, especially considering the somewhat seedy motels they stayed at.

And if the look and reprimand John gave Dean in "Something Wicked" didn't stop Dean from leaving Sam places like "Plucky's," I wouldn't think that Dean could've gotten into too much trouble from anything Sam did later on, or he would've been too wary to have left Sam anywhere for fear of getting in trouble for something Sam did. But that's just my take on that from what we know.

With John's "save or kill," how was that leaving Dean responsible for Sam's choices necessarily? Sam didn't choose to be corrupted with demon blood by Azazel, and John didn't even know if Sam would even be "choosing" anything. Sam might not have had any choice about going evil. It might've just been something that happened to him, because of Azazel's influence. In my opinion, that was John sticking John's own responsibility on Dean like usual. I'm not going to blame Sam for that one.

3 hours ago, rue721 said:

I do think that Sam assumed that Dean and John had a *stable* relationship -- just not a particularly good one, or at least not one he would have wanted to be a part of.

I agree that this is likely a better description, however "stable" still fits with my basic premise and the point that I was trying to make. (please see below)

3 hours ago, rue721 said:

Anyway, I think the reason that Sam lumped Dean and John together in his mind was because Sam saw Dean as John's lieutenant. Dean was the "golden son," and I think that Sam just sort of assumed that, in John's eyes, Dean could do no wrong (just like Sam assumed that, in John's eyes, he (Sam) could do nothing right). Obviously that wasn't actually true, and John was fairly strict with Dean, too -- but I think that's how Sam saw it.

And the first part of what you say here was actually my point. Sam might not have figured that his rebellions with John would have any real affect on John and Dean's relationship, because he saw them as  captain and lieutenant.  This isn't the case with Sam and Mary though. Sam might be playing pre-emptive peacemaker with Dean - rather than letting Dean and Mary have it out before intervening - because Sam doesn't have a stable relationship with Mary yet, so maybe he doesn't feel he has the luxury of waiting to see what happens when Dean wants to get snarky with Mary, because maybe if she leaves because of something Dean says, maybe she leaves him (Sam), too. I'm not saying that would happen, but I can see why Sam might be afraid that it could happen.

As for Sam's perceptions, yup they were off, and likely for the reasons you gave - Sam not being present for much of it. And Dean's perception was likely off as well. He seemed genuinely surprised in "Bugs" when Sam thought that the father/son relationship they were seeing with the family reminded Sam of their family, like he had no idea that John got on Sam's case.

3 hours ago, rue721 said:

I guess my UO is that I think it's actually pretty good writing that Sam and Dean's perspectives on their childhood and their family are so mismatched! Just based on their age difference alone, I think it makes sense that there would be pretty major mismatch in their memories and in the circumstances of their upbringings IMO.

I agree.

Edited February 26, 2017 by AwesomO4000

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, trxr4kids said:

I agree that their childhood perspectives are very realistic in regards to their age difference and personalities, that's why I don't think the current situation with Mary, Dean and Sam are a realistic parallel of motivations at all as was discussed in the Family Feud ep thread in regards to Sam's comments on Dean being dramatic. Sam now has an adult perspective and hindsight, there is no reason for him to to think a) if Dean hurts Mary's feelings she'll ditch me too and b) nothing he did as a child effected Dean's relationship with John. Those two points are contradictory, he'd have to believe that his actions effected John and Dean's relationship to believe that Dean's actions would effect his and Mary's relationship.

ETA: Those contradictory ideas would make sense if he was a child because kid logic but not as an adult.

I'm not entirely  getting what you are saying here. My conjecture is that the Mary/Dean/Sam situation isn't an exact parallel with Dean/Sam/John - as some had proposed - because the relationship is newer. There is none of the stability like Rue721 describes above for John and Dean. And I even said in my discussion that it was a small difference.

And I don't think the two points you describe above are contradictory myself, because Sam believed that Dean and John's relationship was stable, because Sam had years of seeing John and Dean work together both before and after he was rebellious, and would've been able to get from Dean himself if John and Dean were off. He also thought that Dean and John shared similar outlooks on their family bond. Sure Sam being rebellious affected Dean, because Dean wanted to keep the peace and was bothered by conflict in the family. But that likely didn't affect Dean and John's relationship in any lasting way.  On the other hand, Sam and Mary don't have a long history or a stable relationship, so why should Sam be confident if things get shaky between Mary and Dean? Sam's main contact with Mary is face to face, not via text or phone like Mary and Dean sometimes do, so if Mary leaves because Dean makes her uncomfortable, why couldn't Sam think that might potentially affect his relationship with her as well? She might potentially come around less to avoid conflict, and so Sam might potentially see her less... which in my opinion could affect Sam and Mary's relationship in Sam's mind. But just my opinion on that.

And if I'm wrong, and Sam's rebelliousness did have some affect on John and Dean's relationship and Sam does now realize this, it's all the more understandable that he would shut Dean down early before things between Mary and Dean got tense, because there would be an even higher risk for things to be affected between Sam and Mary, too than even John and Dean, because Sam and Mary's relationship is still new and not at all stable yet.

In either case, it makes sense to me that Sam would try to mitigate any chance of Dean making Mary feel unappreciated. Sam knows that Dean will likely forgive him butting in. He's maybe not as sure what Mary will do or think if he doesn't butt in. Your miles may vary.

Edited February 26, 2017 by AwesomO4000

[DittyDotDot]

7 hours ago, rue721 said:

Interesting to me that in the ten years between Azazel ruining Mary's life by massacring everyone (including John, for a hot second), she apparently never looked for a way to take revenge on him or even seemed to do much research on him at all. I mean, even if she didn't remember or know much about the deal she'd gotten herself into, just the fact that he murdered her parents (and sorta, John) should probably have been enough to pique her interest in him at least and compel her to do quite a bit of research. But no, not particularly, I guess?

Yeah, I've been really surprised by that too. I know Michael wiped her memory of what happened in The Song Remains the Same, but I don't think it was retroactive to before the deal? I'm not at all surprised that she may have hunted once or twice if something pinged on her radar, but to have done nothing to become more informed in the 10 years after she made a deal does stretch incredulity.

7 hours ago, rue721 said:

And now she's kind of doing a JV version of the same thing by seeing the BMOL kidnap and torture her son, and just sort of moving on and not really looking for revenge (to the point of apparently not even holding much of a grudge!), and is once again pretty light on the research. I wonder what that says about who she is as a character. That seems pretty unusual to me, being so willing to forgive and forget, and being so much more oriented toward the future than the past. I'm not even saying it's a bad thing, because I don't think it is. Ruining your life in some revenge obsession, like John did, is certainly not any better. But it is singular.

I think the "light on the research" is probably due to her inexperience. I mean, she was only 20 yeas old when she supposedly dropped out of the hunting world and it's likely she'd never hunted without her parents before that. I'm guessing, since Grampy Campbell was a library of supernatural knowledge, she relied on them for the research and never honed her own intel-gathering methods. Plus, I think she might be someone who is always looking for the easy road.

I'm not a particularly vengeful person, so I get her not going out on a vengeance mission. But, just because I'm not seeking retribution doesn't mean I've forgotten or that I would put myself in the position to be wronged by the same people again. So, yeah, it's disappointing to see her snuggling up to the BMoL considering what she already knows about them. I realized the other day that she's technically only a couple years older than Sam was in S4 and I think it helped me put it into some sort of perspective. It seems Mary is fairly naive as many young people are.

7 hours ago, trxr4kids said:

This exactly, if she was going to have anything at all to do with hunting it would only make sense in terms of the deal and it's ramifications not random nonsense.

We've only heard of the one case and she said it was unfinished business. It could be that she only hunted the one time after her and John were married? I'm not thrown by the idea that she may have went and taken care of a couple things that pinged on her radar, but I don't buy the idea that she was routinely hunting after her and John were married either. 

7 hours ago, trxr4kids said:

Also it seems ludicrous to me that after being out of hunting and dead for decades she has contacts with any hunters other than Sam and Dean and their contacts. 

I don't think he has many hunter contacts. She probably met Wally while Sam and Dean were in the lamest black site known to man. Other than that, I'm not sure she has any hunter contacts other than the BMoL.

4 hours ago, trxr4kids said:

It's not like I wanted episodes full of talk and tears but I think as someone else pointed out after Mary left she could have been shown following John's footsteps via his journal with parallel hunts and kid Winchester flashbacks. It seems this show is determined to introduce/reintroduce characters strictly for the sake of shock, angst or shocking angst. Just bah!

This could've been really interesting and at the same time lightened the load for Jensen and Jared. 

[mertensia]

Also: no internet in the 1970s. The amount of research Mary would have been able to do would have been minimal. Even long-distance calls could be a royal pain.  I well remember my dad trying to call his brother and having to hang up sometimes and try again because the line was bad.

[Katy M]

12 hours ago, companionenvy said:

Do we have confirmation that Mary was hunting regularly after her marriage? In the Asa Fox episode, I thought there was some line about "unfinished business."

I don't think it is too much of a retcon if Mary occasionally hunted in the ten years between the deal and her death. I suspect that even if Sam and/or Dean retired and settled down, they wouldn't stand aside and let people die if a hunt caught their eye.

If they had presented the Asa Fox hunt by having Mary say "I had given up hunting, but something was killing kids, (or kids were going missing) in the neighborhood and I couldn't turn a blind eye to that, I would have been fine with that.  One hunt in her backyard.  But, I had unfinished business?  The hunt takes place in 1980.  What unfinished business waits around for 8 years?  OK, I guess it could have been some monster on a cycle that they didn't take out the first time, but I just didn't get the sense that was her only hunt post-marriage.

[rue721]

5 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

And Dean's perception was likely off as well. He seemed genuinely surprised in "Bugs" when Sam thought that the father/son relationship they were seeing with the family reminded Sam of their family, like he had no idea that John got on Sam's case.

Yeah, Dean knew that he (Dean) got in trouble and screwed up and John wasn't always happy with him sometimes. I think he saw it as, John was strict with both of them, but if he got in trouble less and maybe also even screwed up less than Sam did, it was because he towed the line and Sam didn't. Not because of something intrinsic to either of them.

But Sam didn't necessarily know about or remember or register the times that Dean got in trouble or screwed up or made John unhappy, because a whole lot of them were probably happening when Sam was too young to really be involved, or when Dean and John were alone on the road together. Or Dean and John just didn't involve Sam in situations purposefully, because Dean was in trouble for something relating to taking care of Sam. I think that not seeing all that (or registering it) gave Sam a warped, or at least limited view of John and Dean's relationship.

Also, I think that Dean not outright complaining about John gave Sam the impression that Dean was OK with whatever John was doing. Like there was no trouble in paradise. IMO it was actually pretty clear that Dean's thoughts were darker than what he was saying, but I guess Sam didn't really pick up on that -- understandable, because things can be right in front of your face within your own family, and you're not going to see them because you're just too close to the situation and take too much for granted as "normal" or "just the way things are." Anyway, I think that that's what it was about Dean and John's relationship that blew Sam's mind -- that Dean was apparently OK with it. But I don't think Dean actually was totally OK with it, or at least not in the way that Sam thought. So I think that was mostly just a miscommunication.

Honestly, Sam really didn't and maybe still doesn't know a whole lot about Dean and John's relationship IMO. He just wasn't there (or wasn't cognizant) for a lot of it. And I don't think he had a very good read on Dean or maybe even John, either.

6 hours ago, trxr4kids said:

Sam now has an adult perspective and hindsight, there is no reason for him to to think a) if Dean hurts Mary's feelings she'll ditch me too and b) nothing he did as a child effected Dean's relationship with John. Those two points are contradictory, he'd have to believe that his actions effected John and Dean's relationship to believe that Dean's actions would effect his and Mary's relationship.

I don't think it's child logic. Mary came into their home, and Dean was teasing her. Sam might have been worried that she'd take the teasing the wrong way and feel unwelcome, and that that would keep her away for longer next time. Some people do take teasing the wrong way, that's not really that out there IMO.

And if she decided to come around even less than she is now, obviously that would suck. Mary asked for space, and Sam seems like he's trying to respect that and not push her to give more than she wants to give. So he's being patient and waiting for her to come to him. If she ends up feeling like going to the bunker is a pain and she gets hassled when she does show up, and shows up less and less, then Sam is left with the choice to either hound her against her expressed wishes or to just let her go. Which is a bummer of a choice.

I dunno, in any case I really didn't think it was a big deal that Sam tried to soften Dean's sarcasm and tell Mary flat out that she's welcome. YMMV.

5 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

In either case, it makes sense to me that Sam would try to mitigate any chance of Dean making Mary feel unappreciated. Sam knows that Dean will likely forgive him butting in. He's maybe not as sure what Mary will do or think if he doesn't butt in. Your miles may vary.

Yeah, I agree.

Also, Mary could have given as good as she got, and then they both would have realized that she's OK with the teasing. Ribbing each other could have become a bonding activity. But she didn't. So maybe she actually DOESN'T like being teased, who knows.

1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:

I think the "light on the research" is probably due to her inexperience. I mean, she was only 20 yeas old when she supposedly dropped out of the hunting world and it's likely she'd never hunted without her parents before that. I'm guessing, since Grampy Campbell was a library of supernatural knowledge, she relied on them for the research and never honed her own intel-gathering methods. Plus, I think she might be someone who is always looking for the easy road.

That's true. She had her parents to help her out before. You'd think being around them would have taught her good research methods, but maybe she's just lazy or uninterested.

It would be nice to know what she WAS interested in, though. I mean, if she wasn't into hunting, what was she into? Everybody needs a hobby lol.

Maybe you're also right that Mary is someone always looking for the easy road. It does seem that way currently. I mean, when bad things happen (her parents' deaths, John's death, Sam's torture, Wally's death), it seems like Mary just sort of moves on, instead of ruminating on how she could have done things differently or how she could do things differently now in light of what she's learned. She has a curious lack of perseverance?

I like her as a character -- I think she creates interesting dilemmas for Sam and Dean, and she is also pretty complicated and unusual in her own right. So I would actually be happy to see a character arc for her. And maybe her learning some more grit would be a good arc. I mean, if there's one thing that she really can learn from her sons or just from the hunting life in general, it's not to take the easy way out, and that perseverance pays off ;)

1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:

It seems Mary is fairly naive as many young people are.

Eh she's not THAT young. She's supposedly around my age. And this is a woman who did go through the death of both her parents, marriage, the births of two children. She does have a decade of experience making it through life as an adult, and that wasn't an especially easy decade for her. Yet she has such poor instincts that I'm like, "Mary, no wonder you were having trouble making it to age 30 alive."

What makes it feel to me like she had to have been used to someone looking out for her is that I can't see a woman going through life on her own and not having to learn better instincts the hard way (or dying in the process). But then, I guess that's sort of what happened -- she did die trying to learn better instincts, I guess.

1 hour ago, mertensia said:

Also: no internet in the 1970s. The amount of research Mary would have been able to do would have been minimal. Even long-distance calls could be a royal pain.  I well remember my dad trying to call his brother and having to hang up sometimes and try again because the line was bad.

Yeah, that's true.

Also, I can understand if a person were too scared to really dig into the history and identity of the monster that massacred their family. What if you annoy the monster and he comes back? And this particular monster said everything would be OK if Mary didn't interfere again.

But OK now I want to watch the show about Mary, mother, wife, and MONSTER HUNTER. Like, what are the daycare dramas and marital arguments of a woman who is trying to hunt monsters on the side. In the 1970s.

I would also be down to watch a show about John in the 80s, as a single father hunting monsters. This whole family is so fascinating. They're such weirdos.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

 If she ends up feeling like going to the bunker is a pain and she gets hassled when she does show up, and shows up less and less, then Sam is left with the choice to either hound her against her expressed wishes or to just let her go. Which is a bummer of a choice.

I get this but handling her with kid gloves and forever tip-toeing around her even when she is shitty will lead her to walk all over them. More than she kinda does already. Taking someone on a hunt without telling them the full facts and working your own side-mission that endangers everyone, up to even keeping mum when things get life-threatening is, for me, one of the shittiest thing a hunter could do to another. And Mary did just that in the prior episode.

And if she can`t even handle someone making a disappointed face at her for her actions, IMO she needs to grow up a lot still. 

So I get why Sam has done it so far but hopefully now he is at the point where he can take her to task. If she acts like a spoiled brat in response, then, sorry to say, not worth the effort. 

[Katy M]

14 minutes ago, rue721 said:

Eh she's not THAT young. She's supposedly around my age. And this is a woman who did go through the death of both her parents, marriage, the births of two children. She does have a decade of experience making it through life as an adult, and that wasn't an especially easy decade for her. Yet she has such poor instincts that I'm like, "Mary, no wonder you were having trouble making it to age 30 alive."

This is one of the things bugging me about Mary being back.  According to her gravestone she was 29 when she died.  She's been back around a year, I'll round up, she's 31.  The actress who plays her is 46 or 47.  I'm 44 myself, so I'm not trying to be rude, but she doesn't look 31.

[DittyDotDot]

2 minutes ago, Katy M said:

This is one of the things bugging me about Mary being back.  According to her gravestone she was 29 when she died.  She's been back around a year, I'll round up, she's 31.  The actress who plays her is 46 or 47.  I'm 44 myself, so I'm not trying to be rude, but she doesn't look 31.

I've adjusted now, but originally thought it would've been smarter to use Amy Gumenick again--especially in the flashback scenes in the Asa Fox episode. Now, I love Samantha Smith and she has great chemistry with both the boys, but I think the dynamic of Mary being younger than her grown sons might've played better with the younger actress. Plus, Amy has a sort of innocence to her that I think would've helped with how naive Mary is being with the BMoL right now. 

[MysteryGuest]

22 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I've adjusted now, but originally thought it would've been smarter to use Amy Gumenick again--especially in the flashback scenes in the Asa Fox episode. Now, I love Samantha Smith and she has great chemistry with both the boys, but I think the dynamic of Mary being younger than her grown sons might've played better with the younger actress. Plus, Amy has a sort of innocence to her that I think would've helped with how naive Mary is being with the BMoL right now. 

I agree that it would have played better using Amy as their mother, since she would look obviously younger than her sons.  With Sam, while she's certainly not nearly old enough to have grown sons of Sam and Dean's ages, she still comes across with a bit more authority because she is slightly older than they are.  It definitely would have added to the strangeness of now having sons who are older than you are, if she actually looked the part.  I'm not sure the fandom would have responded well to the choice of Amy over Sam, but I think the story would be truer.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

12 hours ago, rue721 said:

And now she's kind of doing a JV version of the same thing by seeing the BMOL kidnap and torture her son, and just sort of moving on and not really looking for revenge (to the point of apparently not even holding much of a grudge!), and is once again pretty light on the research. I wonder what that says about who she is as a character. That seems pretty unusual to me, being so willing to forgive and forget, and being so much more oriented toward the future than the past. I'm not even saying it's a bad thing, because I don't think it is. Ruining your life in some revenge obsession, like John did, is certainly not any better. But it is singular.

You sound much more forgiving of this character trait given the circumstances, both past and present, than I think I am!  Lol.  But seriously, I'm not even sure it's a matter of forgiving and forgetting.  Forgetting maybe - but how do you forgive a demon who killed your family?  I think maybe this does play into her (alleged) youth and naivete - especially in the past when she was what?  19 when her parents were murdered?  Even if she'd been hunting all her life with Deanna and Samuel, that's still pretty young to be thrust out on your own.  I do agree that it's still rather baffling that, as far as we know, she didn't do any further research on the yellow-eyed demon or just demon deals in general so that she would know what was coming in 10 years.  (and what @DittyDotDot said below.) I would have thought she just buried her head in the sand, so to speak, (and probably did assume that previous to the Asa Fox episode), but then then knowing that she went a-hunting in the interim, even if it was only 'unfinished business' doesn't make that as plausible any more.  Even if it was only 'unfinished business' with the werewolf, that means that she was still noticing strange occurrences in the news enough for this to ping her radar.  It also means that she must have somehow kept up her hunting skills enough to defeat the werewolf.  If she hadn't hunted, or worked out, or trained at all in the intervening years between the death of her parents and the werewolf hunt, she wouldn't have been in any physical shape to win. 

While I agree that ruining your life with obsession of revenge is a pretty bad idea, I don't really see Mary's way of just ignoring the past as any better.  

3 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

I'm not a particularly vengeful person, so I get her not going out on a vengeance mission. But, just because I'm not seeking retribution doesn't mean I've forgotten or that I would put myself in the position to be wronged by the same people again. So, yeah, it's disappointing to see her snuggling up to the BMoL considering what she already knows about them. I realized the other day that she's technically only a couple years older than Sam was in S4 and I think it helped me put it into some sort of perspective. It seems Mary is fairly naive as many young people are.

49 minutes ago, Katy M said:

This is one of the things bugging me about Mary being back.  According to her gravestone she was 29 when she died.  She's been back around a year, I'll round up, she's 31.  The actress who plays her is 46 or 47.  I'm 44 myself, so I'm not trying to be rude, but she doesn't look 31.

43 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I've adjusted now, but originally thought it would've been smarter to use Amy Gumenick again--especially in the flashback scenes in the Asa Fox episode. Now, I love Samantha Smith and she has great chemistry with both the boys, but I think the dynamic of Mary being younger than her grown sons might've played better with the younger actress. Plus, Amy has a sort of innocence to her that I think would've helped with how naive Mary is being with the BMoL right now. 

@Katy M and @DittyDotDot said what I was going to about the actress playing Mary (but I still haven't really adjusted if I think about the fact that she's supposed to be younger than Sam too hard.)  I understand all the reasons for bringing Sam Smith back - she's the Mary in the white nightgown in all the flashbacks and so the audience is more familiar with her in that role than the younger Mary (Amy Gumenick) - but this is one case where having an older actor playing a younger character just really isn't working for me.  

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

So I get why Sam has done it so far but hopefully now he is at the point where he can take her to task. If she acts like a spoiled brat in response, then, sorry to say, not worth the effort. 

I agree with most of your post (heh!  It rhymes!) but I just really can't see Sam doing this.  Not completely.