SueB November 22, 2014 Share November 22, 2014 (edited) I would probably be more forgiving about the frequent use of "blue collar" stereotypes if it felt like there was any actual realism to how class is depicted on the show, like anything relatable about the depiction, but imo there usually isn't and there's been even less as the show has gone on. I think as the seasons progressed the stereotypes got worse, but I certainly felt a kinship with the mid-western blue collar world Kripke created at the start. In fact it's what really drew me into the show in the first place. Those were MY people. I read commentary about how horrible John was to Sam and Dean and that he should have given them up or something and I'm like....WTF? Yeah, he raised them like warriors and the moving them about was awful but he didn't beat them (at least not very much**) or do anything perverted. And yes, that's the blue collar mid-western world I grew up in. Every family had secrets. And that stayed within the family. Alcoholism, children out of wedlock, Uncle such & such did jail time, Cousin so & so didn't come back right from the war (Vietnam). Please note I'm not remotely suggesting this is a "better" way. No, I'm just suggesting that the original premise speaks to me but I think it comes as child abuse to many who didn't grow up in the mid-west blue collar world of the 60's and 70's (yes, I know Sam and Dean are two decades later ... but I've spoken at length that this is Kripke's childhood era he's reflecting...which is timewarped). People are shocked and horrified by Bobby's "boo hoo princess speech" and that "family makes you miserable". Well, I'm not shocked. That's my people. And those attitudes? Well, they don't really work with a younger audience and certainly not in the internet era. So the show has dropped some of the rough and tumble because it's unseemly. It made sense from a narrative perspective that John was sort of "stuck" in his upbringing and applied that to Sam and Dean. But now, years later, much more exposed to the world, those attitudes don't really work. So, Sam and Dean are still blue collar but they are well read and savvy on many topics well beyond their isolated roots. Subsequently, I don't think the blue collar angle makes sense any more. As for how class is depicted today? Well I think they've just fallen back to "have and have-nots". And in the SPN universe, "haves" are snooty and "have nots" are a spectrum of more relate able people. **yes, corporal punishment was alive and well in the 70's. As long as there was no blood, there was no foul where I grew up. Edited November 22, 2014 by SueB 2 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 November 22, 2014 Share November 22, 2014 Perhaps I was too subtle? I was just expressing my own bitterness about how every time this same old argument (very, very, very old argument that never leads anywhere, IMO) about how "the show hates my favorite and here's why" usually only points out the various reasons why your favorite sucks and I should probably loathe them. I'm just not sure you're really doing them the service you may think you are. Sorry about that, but maybe I half succeeded? I did sort of point to some things that "suck" about Sam that the writers gave him, but I don't think he should be loathed for that. I suck sometimes, so I like that Sam sometimes does too. It makes him more real for me and more relatable (yes I made up that word, but I like it so Imma gonna keep using it ; ) ). Somewhere around season 4, I started finding Dean less relatable. I still love him, I just don't relate to him as much any more. Sam is flawed and more complex for me. When he does something like sacrifice for Dean, it makes it somehow more for me. Maybe it's not fair, but when Dean does something similar, I expect it, because that's what Dean does, sometimes because he doesn't think he's as worthy as those he sacrifices for. I know that's not a popular opinion, but it's how I feel. I had more to say earlier, but I've forgotten now. That's probably for the best, since like Sam, I sometimes feel the need to talk things to death... Sometimes I really do suck ; ) . 1 Link to comment
DittyDotDot November 22, 2014 Share November 22, 2014 I think as the seasons progressed the stereotypes got worse, but I certainly felt a kinship with the mid-western blue collar world Kripke created at the start. In fact it's what really drew me into the show in the first place. Those were MY people. You're entire post made me all nostalgic SueB. This is so much what drew me to the show in the first place. I'd never seen anything close to my childhood depicted on TV. Granted, I wasn't raised to kill monsters or anything like that. But I'm more speaking of the rampant alcoholism; children being left to their own devices because parents had to work at their blue collar jobs and couldn't afford childcare; kids not having every moment of their day planned out and finding their own creative and sometimes not so healthy way of entertaining themselves; the frank talk from family members that wasn't always as helpful as they meant it to be; all of it. This was small town Americana of the '70s, IMO. I actually grew up in the Northwest, so I don't think it's only a Mid-western thing, but a small town thing of an era gone by. And I agree the show is somewhat time warped to reflect Kripke's own childhood timeline. Personally, I always thought the early-years of the show celebrated the hard-working salt of the earth types. People who raised their families the best they knew how, but also recognized most of those people wanted better for their own children and wanted them to go to college and get an education that was denied them, mostly by circumstance. I think you're right SueB, it's just not relatable to some folks and probably doesn't work for the show anymore with the younger audience. 1 Link to comment
7kstar November 23, 2014 Share November 23, 2014 But I'm more speaking of the rampant alcoholism; children being left to their own devices because parents had to work at their blue collar jobs and couldn't afford childcare; kids not having every moment of their day planned out and finding their own creative and sometimes not so healthy way of entertaining themselves; the frank talk from family members that wasn't always as helpful as they meant it to be; all of it. This was small town Americana of the '70s, IMO. I actually grew up in the Northwest, so I don't think it's only a Mid-western thing, but a small town thing of an era gone by. And I agree the show is somewhat time warped to reflect Kripke's own childhood timeline. Personally, I always thought the early-years of the show celebrated the hard-working salt of the earth types. People who raised their families the best they knew how, but also recognized most of those people wanted better for their own children and wanted them to go to college and get an education that was denied them, mostly by circumstance. I think you're right SueB, it's just not relatable to some folks and probably doesn't work for the show anymore with the younger audience. I think that's why I never saw John as awful as some fans. I enjoyed riding my bike and being away from my folks for almost an entire day and not having my parents worried I would be killed. I took care of my younger brother & sister and I had a smarter older brother. So I saw the show as using Dean and Sam to show the conflict of the blue collar vs college. There are still people that believe if you don't go to college you aren't as smart as those that do. But the funny thing from my dad who went to college so he wouldn't be a private in the war by his father pushing him. His Dad didn't want his son to suffer the issues he dealt with just because he didn't go to college. So a good portion of the blue collar vs college, I got. I also got just because I went to college didn't make me smart because I got the easy degree. Actually it wasn't but it is perceived to be that way. So some of the stuff I ignore. Both brothers are important and yes, the show did start to revolve around Sam because I think the writers relate to him more than Dean. Both brothers have flaws and I will always be drawn more to Dean than Sam. I want the writers to expand and explore new things. If they insist on revisiting something by switching the burden on someone that doesn't usually get it, then go for it. I really want to see Sam struggle with how to help Dean and use his understanding of how difficult it is because he's been there. I expect to see Dean hide the issues after all Sam has done it over and over to him. But the writers need to explore the brothers working together even if they don't see eye to eye. I really really am sick of what's wrong with Sam. I always find moments in every ep. I still like Dean and what drew me in, was the two brothers reconnecting and really trying so hard to be there for each other. Because I didn't see 1-3 live, I think I didn't react the same as fans that did watch it live. But I find eps that some hate, that I really like them. It's the potential of the show that keeps sucking me back in. So although I can understand why some say poor Dean, or poor Sam, I'm more like poor Brothers. I also still liked Bobby and didn't really want him killed off. I just wanted the boys showing how they could work together to solve the mystery of the monsters. Also I know this is very unpopular, but I really hate how much gore and blood they use now. I miss when it was less is more. Last thought, I truly believe that Dean has been shown to be smart, it is just he's more creative than Sam. We as a society don't respect the creative mind as much as the logic mind. Most of my very creative students, get in trouble and can't behave. So I see this as Dean. He's very creative and many of us, feel stupid because we to put it simply, we don't think like the majority. We also get told how we are doing it wrong. When maybe we just see the big picture and what is coming way before the majority gets it. JMV. So I'm use to being the one with the different view from everyone else but at least here, I can share with fans that care about the show and the weirdness, isn't so bad if it is shared. If that makes any sense. Not sure how clear I'm being since I'm in a lot of pain right now. 1 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 November 23, 2014 Share November 23, 2014 Not sure how clear I'm being since I'm in a lot of pain right now. Oh, that's awful. I hope you feel better soon. 5 Link to comment
DittyDotDot November 23, 2014 Share November 23, 2014 Seeing my post quoted above made me realize it looks like I had a childhood filled with neglect and abuse. I did not. Even though most the men I knew--and quite a few women--would be considered alcoholics by today's standards, these people managed to function day to day without beating their children and being falling-down, passed-out drunks all the time. And even though I was left to my own devices at times, I also learned how to think for myself, problem solve and had a lot of time to ride my horse--which certainly is not a bad thing, right? It wasn't all roses, but it wasn't bad either. I'm not saying this was better or worse than anyone else--It was what it was and we all made the best of it. Which also seems to be a theme of Supernatural in the early days. Dean especially used to take whatever they had and make the most of it; finding little moments of joy and delight. They found ways to make their lives not seem like it was all gloom, doom and despair. How these guys haven't just offed themselves at this point, with all that's been piled on, is still beyond me. (Damn it, now I have that old Hee Haw song stuck in my head...woooee!) ;) Anyway, my long, stupid point being: I don't think the show ever was trying to say blue collar good; white collar bad or vice versa. They were just using the world as it was to provide two differing points of view between Sam and Dean. I don't think one's point of view is more valid than the other's, just different. Granted, I think there's always been a feeling that the "1 percenters" were snobby, entitled jerks within the show. But, the early seasons didn't seem, to me, to be particularly classist. The last couple of years? Yeah, I've noticed the shift and ::hikes up my old curmudgeon pants above my waist:: I don't like it--the snooty Men Of Letters; more spell-work and less regular, everyday weapons; even the wardrobe has spiffed up quite a bit--but I also think they're responding to the changing demographic of the audience. So, I guess, I'll put those pants back down to the proper level and stop yelling at those damn kids on my lawn. But seriously, they're standing out there on my lawn right now... Also, I hope you're feeling better 7kstar. 3 Link to comment
7kstar November 23, 2014 Share November 23, 2014 It's a little better but I've had a high tolerance to pain for a long time, but I know when you get overloaded you can go the opposite way. Chronic Pain sucks. I'll be seeking help, but just not sure what it is but thanks for the support. :) Which is why I escape to Supernatural. I think the one point the youth of today's society can't get is the freedom we had growing up. Yes, there was bad times, but also mixed in there good times. This is the Dean I love finding mixture of happiness in the bad times. The little things that made him happy like pie. Because people have so many views the show has a tight tight-rope to walk. It's just a thin line and then you get everyone upset. But lately they are crossing those lines and by doing that it makes the fans fight more, I think. JMV. They've always had some strange lines - ex. in season 1 - that caused WTF moments. Sam putting Dean down about his new invention, Missouri talking mean to Dean when she first meets him and if the show had been in the 70's no one would even have picked up on it. But because we now try to shelter people so much more, these things really stand out. Kripke is more child like and I think that showed up in the scripts. The other show runners seem more serious. I know I'm always laughing after listening to Kripke that I haven't done with the others. I don't know if the writers are trying to explore deeper issues and failing or if they are all over the map. But sometimes it feels to me that what I would like to see is the unpopular opinion but my love for supernatural hasn't died yet. This season has sparked it back up more than the others, but I'm also prepared for the big fall of disappointment. Is it really too much to ask that both brothers grow and start enjoying working together again? Really? Darn! 1 Link to comment
SueB November 23, 2014 Share November 23, 2014 (edited) First, now Hee Haw (Sallll-ute!) is stuck in my head. Second, chronic pain suck 7kstar. I hope there is a solution in your near future. Third, it's really interesting to see what works and doesn't work as this show ages and brings in a new generation of fans. As for the brothers back to liking each other... 'SweetOnDean' is a blogger who remarked that the last three episodes were sort of like a breath of fresh air. After the bitterness of last season and the sucking chest wounds inflicted in Soul Survivor, having the brothers work hard to get back to functioning well has felt good. I put some of this in All Seasons, but you can see how eggshell-like the brother relationship was during Paper Moon. Compare their comfort then to how they were talking to each other in Ask Jeeves. At least I (and SweetOnDean) saw that some healing had occurred. I know I needed that. Edited November 23, 2014 by SueB Link to comment
Aeryn13 November 23, 2014 Share November 23, 2014 (edited) At this point I don`t think the show can do anything to redeem this relationship between the brothers to me. After everything that happened and the way it was and keeps being handled, it just is completely dead to me. To the point where those scenes are a chore to get through. I`m not sure any show ever managed to mangle a relationship, familial, romantic or friendship-wise so badly that I felt like that. And I squeed over that relationship in earlier Seasons. Ironic that it is still supposed to be the backbone of the show when I can`t think of two people ever put together who brought out the worst in each other more. Scenes like in that church in the Season 8 Finale? I found that horrific. The Season 9 Opener "there ain`t no me when there ain`t no you"? Azazel burning mothers on the ceiling over their babies doesn`t hold as much horror as those words. The speech in the Purge might have been grotesque and rage-inducing but at least I found it honest. This is what the relationship is for me ALL the time now. As a benefit - I guess you could call it one - no one scene is more hurtful for me than another. Whatever Demon!Dean said to Sam I found no less of a gaping wound than the Sam-fan pushing the Samulet back on Dean. At least it was nowhere in sight in episode 6, I fist-pumped about that. And I just know they will keep destroying each other because the writers will at least vary between playing it as toxic and squeeing about it as the best thing ever. Edited November 23, 2014 by Aeryn13 Link to comment
Demented Daisy November 23, 2014 Share November 23, 2014 Genuine question, Aeryn13, no snark. Why do you continue to watch? I haven't given up because I still hold out hope (perhaps false hope, but hope nonetheless) that Sam and Dean will be brothers again. That someday, they will save people and hunt things without rancor. That the source of conflict for the show will be outside their relationship; they will join together against a common enemy. Oh, and Dean still makes me laugh sometimes. 1 Link to comment
Aeryn13 November 23, 2014 Share November 23, 2014 Genuine answer: because Jensen is still on the show. If he wasn`t, I`d drop it in a heartbeat. 2 Link to comment
7kstar November 23, 2014 Share November 23, 2014 I put some of this in All Seasons, but you can see how eggshell-like the brother relationship was during Paper Moon. Compare their comfort then to how they were talking to each other in Ask Jeeves. At least I (and SweetOnDean) saw that some healing had occurred. I know I needed that. I'm seeing the healing and it's working for me this season. It is a breathe of fresh air and it lands real to me. I'm still hopeful that it will continue. If it does I might even make it through a rewatch of the bad years...lol. Link to comment
rue721 November 23, 2014 Share November 23, 2014 (edited) So the show has dropped some of the rough and tumble because it's unseemly. What kinds of rough and tumble has it dropped, do you think? You mean stuff like how now they live in the bunker and never talk about money? That they aren't often in the position anymore of being SOL and having to improvise or use their wits instead of just punching or stabbing some monster to death? That they take themselves so seriously and everything is srs bsns now? And I agree the show is somewhat time warped to reflect Kripke's own childhood timeline. I don't think that their childhood seems like it's in a timewarp, other than that the flashbacks take place in the 90s. I'm younger than either Sam or Dean are supposed to be (but not by a lot, I was a kid in the 90s, too), and the flashbacks seem "of the era" to me. I mean, they eat Funyuns, how much more "of the era" can you get? I think it's unrealistic that John would have basically no requirements of his kids while he's away other than "survive," but that's because John seemed relatively authoritarian to me and like someone who would at least *pretend* to run a tight ship, not because of the era. And also because I think it's nuts to lock children into a motel room for days on end, no chores or anything to keep them busy, and apparently just guns and weapons to play with. That's Battle Royale waiting to happen. Trash can fires at best. Get those children a dog or something at least! But maybe the show elided all that kind of regular, boring childcare/family stuff. Anyway, corporal punishment was *by far* the norm when I was a kid. Drawing blood (while horrible!) wasn't necessarily over the line, but doling out a punishment ("a beating" "a whipping" whatever) in anger was. That's how you terrorize a child, imo. "Punishment" not including regular hitting or spanking with an open hand, though, literally every parent I know of did that at least occasionally, even if they didn't practice corporal punishment in general. Any hitting, slapping, spanking, etc (let alone something worse) in public was also edging over the line, because that's so humiliating/degrading. It would raise eyebrows. Hitting with a closed fist was straight up over the line, that was considered abusive. "Over the line" meaning, that's where it stopped being generally socially acceptable. Corporal punishment in general wasn't *at all* given the side eye, though, a lot of people considered strictness a way that a parent showed love and care for his children, it was generally seen as a sign of *good* parenting. The general consensus was that if you cared about your kid, you were going to make sure he "knew how to act," and if your kid was acting up it meant he needed more discipline at home. Strictness on the part of the parent and obedience on the part of the kid was a sign of a *loving, caring, responsible* parent/child relationship -- the ideal would have been a relationship like John's and Dean's, tbh. I'm not sure how people see Dean's behavior toward John in the "present day," but coming from the context of when I was growing up, that obedience, deference, etc, toward John would all be proof that Dean was well raised, that John did a good job with him. Other parents would have been complimenting John on him, saying what a good father John was. Sam yelling in John's face and his disobedience at that time would have been a *big deal,* it would have meant that their relationship was broken, because he had no respect, and would have been humiliating for both of them if anyone saw. Like, airing dirty laundry. Ime, if people saw Sam acting like that, they would be feeling uncomfortable and literally saying/mostly-joking that Sam needed a beating. I don't mean when he was a kid, I mean at that time, at age 22 or whatever! Not that anyone would have given him one by then, just as a way of saying he'd better check himself, he'd gotten way out of line. Anyway, I'm not advocating any of that *at all,* zero percent, but that was basically "mainstream good parenting" when/where I was growing up. Which was *after* the Winchesters ostensibly grew up (and I'm from the city, and the East Coast). I would expect John to have raised his kids like that, that would have been the normal way for him to raise them, I would think.* Imo by *far* the weirdest and worst thing that John did was enforce such intense isolation on his kids. I do think that's messed up. It's the moving around all the time that does it to me. How can you have any friends if you move every few weeks? He's lucky they turned out good looking, they would have been so completely SOL socially if they were that unpracticed in making/being friends with anybody *and* were ugly, js. He's also lucky they were smart, I don't know how they could possibly have gone through school in tiny two-week-long or whatever increments. *That's also why I thought that the S6 SL about Dean living with Lisa and Ben was interesting, though. Dean obviously scared the shit out of Ben at that time, but he also obviously didn't want/mean to. I was so glad when Lisa kicked him out, because I felt bad for Ben feeling terrorized under his own roof. That was proof positive to me that Dean couldn't have a family, though, at least until he got his head straight. I wish they'd done more with that SL tbh, it was one of the more interesting ones in the series, I think. Missouri talking mean to Dean when she first meets him Dude, I don't know. Like the first thing she says is that when he was a four-year-old who'd been the partial witness to his mother's murder, he'd been "funny looking," and then after that big thing of Mary's ghost coming back and dying again, etc, Missouri volunteered him to just stay in the house and clean up. That's pretty cold-hearted if you ask me! Anyway, even if that could have worked in some other circumstance, I think that it didn't work in that particular episode because they also included that heartbreaking voicemail-to-the-phone-John-apparently-never-checked. Too much of a contrast. That whole episode had weird stuff about it, though. I still don't understand why John was just hanging out like three blocks away and didn't even bother to have a cup of coffee with his sons. Wtf was he so busy doing, he didn't even bother with the "case" at their old house. That whole "John never returns his calls" storyline made no sense to me altogether. What were they even going for? Edited November 23, 2014 by rue721 Link to comment
Aeryn13 November 23, 2014 Share November 23, 2014 (edited) Dean obviously scared the shit out of Ben at that time, but he also obviously didn't want/mean to. I was so glad when Lisa kicked him out, because I felt bad for Ben feeling terrorized under his own roof. That was proof positive to me that Dean couldn't have a family, though, at least until he got his head straight. You mean when Dean was a vampire? Because while it was stupid to go there, I think it`s a bit unfair to blame this on Dean seemingly not being in the right frame of mind. From everything we`ve seen of newly turned vampires, Lisa and Ben were lucky not to get drained dry on the spot. If we`re strictly measuring human!Dean`s behaviour then I don`t think he was unfit to have a family. The slap he gave Ben when the latter was freaking out in the "Lisa got captured by demons and was bleeding out" episode, I actually didn`t mind. When people get hysterical in TV shows or movies, no matter the age, usually they get slapped "out of it". I wouldn`t know what else to do with one either. Dude, I don't know. Like the first thing she says is that when he was a four-year-old who'd been the partial witness to his mother's murder, he'd been "funny looking," and then after that big thing of Mary's ghost coming back and dying again, etc, Missouri volunteered him to just stay in the house and clean up. That's pretty cold-hearted if you ask me! There wasn`t a single word out of her mouth, to any character, where I didn`t think she was either smug, condescending, bitchy, arrogant, stupid or a general asshole. Telling that first client his wife didn`t cheat on him? Great idea. What if he comes home and find her in bed with the gardener? What if he then freaks out, kills them both and comes back to kill the stupid lying psychic as well? Would serve her annoying ass right. Having the nerve to sneer at non-psychics with an "amateurs" while she was stupidly wrong over two ghosts? Die a fiery death. Back in Season 1 I rarely rooted for side characters to get killed - the Benders, maybe - but I wanted that Poltergeist to gut her way more than I wanted them to kill the Yellow Eyed Demon. At least he had redeeming qualities for my viewing experience. Edited November 23, 2014 by Aeryn13 Link to comment
SueB November 24, 2014 Share November 24, 2014 What kinds of rough and tumble has it dropped, do you think? As you said, pool hustling/credit card fraud for money is an example. It's actually the biggest IMO because it shows them living outside the law for daily subsistence. Another is a lack of interaction with other hunters. We had two episodes where they crossed in S9 (the retired hunter in First Born and the two in Devil May Care). Even Sonny in Bad Boys was like the distant past versus current lifestyle. Of course all their old friends are dead. We've had some off-screen references to other hunters but it feels more remote. And the Men of Letters home as their gathering place is much nicer than Bobby's or Rufus' cabin. Link to comment
rue721 November 24, 2014 Share November 24, 2014 As you said, pool hustling/credit card fraud for money is an example. It's actually the biggest IMO because it shows them living outside the law for daily subsistence. Yes, I agree, I miss that stuff SO MUCH. The scamming was super fun imo. Just the general opportunism, really. I liked that they bothered to sort of explain how they got medical care, too, that kind of stuff grounded the show somewhat imo. All those little touches of them basically having to live underground/off-the-grid were great. Smaller is better on this show imo. They still do have *extremely* occasional little moments of "real life" dropped in that win me back over, though. A couple off the top of my head that I liked: when Castiel was working at that convenience store, and Dean came in to visit him and pick up a pack of cigarettes. Idk, I just thought that seemed like such a boring, ordinary thing to do. Like, are you also going to get a scratch off? It's right there, why not. LOL. Or another time, Sam ran into the store to get some food while Dean waited in the car for some reason, and Dean told him like fifty times to pick up a slice of pie for him, to the point that Sam finally got irritated. When Sam was in the store picking up their food, some crazy supernatural shit went down, of course, but Sam dealt with it and went out to the car with a bag of food for dinner. He was sitting there telling Dean about all the crazy supernatural shit that went down as they were getting their food out of the bag, but then they got to the end of the bag and of course there was no pie. LOL. I wish there were a lot more of those little mundane hitches or little weird personal preferences. I don't know why there isn't, frankly. Who *dislikes* that stuff? You mean when Dean was a vampire? Because while it was stupid to go there, I think it`s a bit unfair to blame this on Dean seemingly not being in the right frame of mind. From everything we`ve seen of newly turned vampires, Lisa and Ben were lucky not to get drained dry on the spot. I don't remember when this episode was actually, but there was this scene where Dean was teaching Ben something with the car, and Ben just seemed scared shitless. That's what I always think about when I'm like, that was NOT working out. Ben just always seemed afraid and iIrc the vampire episode was the final straw even for Lisa, because she felt like he was legitimately in danger. I don't remember the sequence of events well, but I do remember wanting Dean out of that house before Lisa actually did kick him out, too, not because of anything that Dean did in particular, but just because Ben seemed scared. I felt like Lisa needed to put her son first, and she owed it to him as his parent to try her best to ensure that he felt safe in his own home. She'd always been shown to be a good mother, so imo anything else would also have been OOC and done her character/the storyline a disservice. It's not about blame, imo, I think the writing successfully conveyed that everyone was genuinely trying hard to make it work and genuinely cared about each other. I think that what was important about Ben's fearfulness, and the vampire debacle, and just that whole extended breakup in general was that it became clear that family/children and hunting were incompatible, and love and good intentions weren't going to overcome that. Obviously that "lesson" is also interesting w/r/t John, since apparently he didn't see things that way, he threw his kids right into "the life." Along with that, I thought that it was interesting to see Dean in the role of (step)parent, and how it seemed like that experience soured him on John in a way he hadn't been before (though YMMV). I think the vampire episode especially had a lot of emotional richness to it, though that didn't get exploited as much as I personally would have wanted. It seems like it would be an incredibly big deal to see a child look at you in terror, it seems like it would be an incredibly big deal to see how completely vulnerable a young kid is against a grown man (or a monster, ffs!) and how insane it would be to expect him to "protect" himself or anyone else from that, it seems like it would be an incredibly big deal to see that *you* are the monster who has come in from the night and is destroying a home when it's your life's work to stop those monsters. Idk, I saw that episode as basically a metaphor for being afraid of repeating the mistakes from your own childhood as an adult, or even about thinking back on things that seemed normal to you and realizing that they shouldn't have been normal, they were maybe fucked up, and you need to find a way to consciously stop from repeating them. Something I generally like about SPN is that the guys are adults, so the show can do pretty adult stories if it wants. But the show seems to hint at all these actually really interesting stories and metaphors, and then get cold feet or something and drop them to give a bunch of meaningless angst/anvils instead. Not just now, I feel like it's done that since at least S3 if not earlier. The constant extermination of every interesting side character is maybe part of that. I mean, think about the side characters we have now, Crawley, Metatron, Hannah, even Castiel, and then think of the side characters that were just pointlessly killed off (these are my favorites, off the top of my head): Henriksen, Ronald, Gordon, Ellen, Jo, Gadreel, Ash, Rufus, Sarah. I feel like the characters they kill are generally much more complex and interesting and fleshed out, and even have more complex and interesting relationships with the leads, than the characters they keep. I don't really know what that's about -- obviously they're afraid of losing their audience, but I don't really understand what audience they're pandering to by doing this? Kids? I doubt that kids are interested in Metatron, lol. Though what do I know. Anyway, as for a (possibly) unpopular opinion: I'd actually have liked to see Lisa and Ben as characters, and Dean's family life with them, fleshed out more and for the show to have taken more time with that SL altogether. I would have rather the whole Alphas and extended family arcs have been dropped at least for the first half if not the entirety of S6, and for them to have just done an SL about Sam's soul and an SL about Dean's family and otherwise basically just stuck to MotW. Why do they have to have some HUGE OMG mytharc anyway? Yellow Eyes in S1 was imo by far their best mytharc, and their best villain imo, and that was pretty low key. I think it was *because* it was pretty low key/small it worked better, honestly. But it doesn't really look like they're doing a big mytharc this season, so...? Link to comment
catrox14 November 24, 2014 Share November 24, 2014 I don't remember when this episode was actually, but there was this scene where Dean was teaching Ben something with the car, and Ben just seemed scared shitless. Ben had been snooping in Dean's stuff that he had expressly told Ben to stay out of and picked up one of Dean's guns IIRC. Dean got scared and yelled at Ben and told him he would never be a hunter. So yes in that moment Ben was scared shitless. But other than that, nope. Link to comment
DittyDotDot November 24, 2014 Share November 24, 2014 (edited) I don't think that their childhood seems like it's in a timewarp, other than that the flashbacks take place in the 90s. I'm younger than either Sam or Dean are supposed to be (but not by a lot, I was a kid in the 90s, too), and the flashbacks seem "of the era" to me. I mean, they eat Funyuns, how much more "of the era" can you get? I think it's unrealistic that John would have basically no requirements of his kids while he's away other than "survive," but that's because John seemed relatively authoritarian to me and like someone who would at least *pretend* to run a tight ship, not because of the era. What SueB and I were talking about is that even though Sam and Dean's childhood was of the '90s and the flashbacks reflected that with the clothing and the music choices, the values and childrearing standards are more of the '70s. Kids lives weren't regulated like they are now--that started more in the mid-80s. It doesn't seem at all unusual to me John didn't have things for them to do while he was away, that's pretty much how I remember it was for me and most of my friends growing up. We didn't have much structure after school and summers were a wealth of freedom for me. I spent most days on the back of a horse, either by myself or with a friend, just riding aimlessly. Most of the time an adult didn't even know where I was since I would usually decide where I wanted to go on the spot. We also had a lot more responsibility heaped on us at younger ages and more was expected of us. And, I'm not being that curmudgeon who likes to yell at the kids on my lawn here--I learned to drive when I was 9 years old and would get up at 5 am in the morning to take my mom to the end of our road to catch her ride for work so my siblings and I would have a car and wouldn't have to later walk to the bus stop. I was really excited to do it because I got to learn to drive and my older siblings were really excited to teach me to drive so they no longer had to get up at 5 am. Granted, I was a farm kid, so this wasn't the norm for all my friends, but I can't even imagine allowing my now 24-year-old nephew to do that when he was 9-years-old let alone my now 11-year-old niece. Plus, we then got ourselves up, dressed and ate, and got ourselves off to school in the morning. And then came home 2-3 hours before my mom did where we were expected only to finish our homework before we went and screwed around. My friends and I would usually do our homework together on the bus so I had more time to screw around. This is why I think it's hard for the younger audience to connect with the earlier seasons of the show like I did and why there's such a disconnect between fans with John. So many people see John's neglect as outright abuse--and by today's standards it is--but when I was a kid (and I'm only a year older than Kripke) this would not have been the case, IMO. Was it good parenting? Oh, hell no, not even a little! But, he generally left them with food and shelter and someone to call if the food and shelter ran out. Which is more than I can say for a few kids I went to school with as a kid. So, I totally believe this version of their childhood if you time warp it back to the '70s. BTW, Funyuns have been around since 1969 and I ate them as a kid too, just two decades earlier. Edited November 24, 2014 by DittyDotDot Link to comment
catrox14 November 24, 2014 Share November 24, 2014 I grew up the same way. Freedom to come and go in the summer. More responsibility, harsher punishments etc., BUT I still think John is a POS father. Not so much about him dragging the boys around and making them live in hotels but how he was a dick to Sam for leaving and a dick to Dean for not being an adult to relieve John of his responsibilites. Link to comment
DittyDotDot November 24, 2014 Share November 24, 2014 Sorry, I didn't mean to imply John gets any father of the year awards from me. Nope, not even the teeniest tiniest one. Nada and zilch. I just mean that I don't think the neglect was the actual abuse--that would be the psychological trauma he heaped on them. Not only with the monster hunting, but laying so much guilt at their feet when things that shouldn't have been their responsibly went wrong. 1 Link to comment
7kstar November 24, 2014 Share November 24, 2014 IMO, the show made sure we would not like John. Just in case you didn't have an issue with him, let's add this to his list of bad stuff so they really won't think of him as a great father. but I also thought that season 6 gave one nice turn for John, with Dean discovering hunting and raising a child really didn't work that well. But then again, I liked Lisa and Ben. Link to comment
mertensia November 24, 2014 Share November 24, 2014 They have shown that hunters can raise kids: Jo and then Krissy's dad who had them living in an apartment complex and not a rathole complex, either. John with his rathole compulsions and constant dragging around was an anomaly. Link to comment
supposebly November 24, 2014 Share November 24, 2014 (edited) I might be alone in this but I always wanted a few episodes that tell the story from John's point of view. Before it all happened and the aftermath right after Mary was killed, how he coped with two little children. I'm not saying it would be an uplifting story, just an interesting one. Parents and children have different perspectives on their family life, just like siblings do. I'm not even American but if this is supposed to be a 1970s-type father, then child rearing would probably be the last thing on his mind when getting married if it's anything like marriages were in rural Germany of the time. Of course, you have children with your wife but the actual raising was probably women's work at the beginning. Add to that a military background, a war, and you get probably a very odd approach to child rearing from today's perspective even without the trauma of seeing your wife burnt to a crisp on your ceiling. So, being dropped into that under such traumatic circumstances adds an interesting wrinkle to that. We always get hearsay which got progressively worse over the years and even when he shows up, we see him at his worst. He was a level-headed guy in "The Beginning" and the other time travel episode, so, such a radical change must have been caused by Mary's death. I would have liked to see that development. It's one of those many missed opportunities that I am still a bit mad about. Btw., do we know how Ellen and her husband got into hunting? Or how old Krissy was when her mother died? Edited November 24, 2014 by supposebly 1 Link to comment
DittyDotDot November 24, 2014 Share November 24, 2014 I might be alone in this but I always wanted a few episodes that tell the story from John's point of view. Before it all happened and the aftermath right after Mary was killed, how he coped with two little children. I'm not saying it would be an uplifting story, just an interesting one. Parents and children have different perspectives on their family life, just like siblings do. Your not alone, I've always thought this could make for some interesting story too. Link to comment
mertensia November 24, 2014 Share November 24, 2014 Well you know John did do some stuff right- he didn't ship them off to relatives or into foster care. He clearly showed that it's okay to hug family and to love them. And we do have to acknowledge that Lucifer's minions were encouraging Sam to break away from them. To rebel. John couldn't fight that- he didn't know. Link to comment
catrox14 November 24, 2014 Share November 24, 2014 The only thing I want to know is when and how John knew Sam was different and why he burdened Dean with that huge secret and why he made a deal to save Deans life when all he did was make Dean's life worse with that secret. Thanks John. Link to comment
supposebly November 24, 2014 Share November 24, 2014 Me too! It makes a huge difference in how I look at him. If he knew for a long time, then a lot of his behavior and the stalking at Stanford makes sense and comes out of fear and he only put it on Dean when he was about to die. If he only knew for a short time, then that makes him look more like an ass. Should he have let Dean die? That's just not the Winchester way, is it? Do we have a John Winchester thread? Link to comment
mertensia November 24, 2014 Share November 24, 2014 My guess is he knew for a long time. But unfortunately John was not a secret-sharer. Link to comment
Guest November 24, 2014 Share November 24, 2014 Do we have a John Winchester thread? We do now! Link to comment
rue721 November 24, 2014 Share November 24, 2014 It doesn't seem at all unusual to me John didn't have things for them to do while he was away, that's pretty much how I remember it was for me and most of my friends growing up. We didn't have much structure after school and summers were a wealth of freedom for me. I'm talking about "things to do" as in chores and errands, like doing the laundry or making sure the trash is emptied and no food or dirty plates are sitting out overnight for bugs to get to or making sure that Sam actually eats dinner, etc. I also say right in the portion that you quoted that I'm not talking about the era in regard to that anyway, I think it's OOC for John in particular to not assign those sorts of duties so that the household runs according to his specifications/desires because of his "that's an order" obedience schtick. But maybe the show just elided all that, it's not riveting stuff. This is all just because it struck me as odd and unrealistic that someone as big on orders as John was would have had no orders to give to his son (except about demon hunting, natch) as he's about to leave a nine-year-old in charge of caring for a five-year-old and of running their household for days on end. Dean's just allowed to do things any old way, John has no demands? Yeah, right. I would think John's maybe not *telling* Dean his demands, but he's not going to hold back if they aren't met anyway. If I were Dean, I'd have been *wanting* explicit orders or instructions, because you know when John got back he was going to find fault with something/everything Dean did anyway, even just to throw his weight around and show he was in charge again. In Dean's place, I'd have been trying to do as much as possible to the exact letter of John's explicit orders, to minimize the things I'd be getting in trouble for later, so "no orders" = "chance of getting in trouble for anything/everything," which is kind of maddening. Of course, the few demands that John did make (w/r/t hunting) were already fucking impossible to comply with, but putting that aside for a moment. And not that I fault Dean for not being a paranoid appeaser at that point, he obviously felt like a big shot for being left in charge and was just a kid anyway, and "forgot himself." I think that's pretty much the whole point of those particular flashbacks -- "this is why in S1, Dean now wants to know John's rules and is paranoid about not following them!" LOL. I just find it so strange for someone as domineering as John to just be like, "however you think is best, buddy" about this huge realm of their lives (taking care of Sam, the house/family, whatever) and honestly *mean it.* But maybe it was a character choice, and John just sincerely didn't give a shit about or even notice anything that wasn't related to hunting, and he really did just give Dean free reign over everything else in their lives, imo that is possible. YMMV, of course. Anyway, like I said, I don't think the flashbacks seem like a timewarp, I think they seem like the 90s. If anything, I think their relative timelessness is on purpose, that they're supposed to represent a pretty timeless ~America~. Link to comment
catrox14 November 24, 2014 Share November 24, 2014 I have a hard time believing that 9 year old Dean remember 9 years old... is going to ask that closely about Johns rules. He's NINE not nineteen. I, think it's very likely that John had basic tenets like make your bed, do the dishes, feed your brother, make sure you save your brother because I suck and used him for bait, etc.. To me it the boys childhood was not necessarily an endorsement by the writers that kind of life was okay, but, more that it was just a slice of that part of Americana. Link to comment
rue721 November 24, 2014 Share November 24, 2014 (edited) I have a hard time believing that 9 year old Dean remember 9 years old... is going to ask that closely about Johns rules. He's NINE not nineteen. Yeah, that's what I'm saying, that those flashbacks were about how he learned to be paranoid in that way. Because in S1, he *is* like that, he *is* always trying to figure out exactly what John wants and comply with it, even if what John wants is really hard to ferret out or doesn't seem to make any sense or can only be done at immense personal cost. I think the flashbacks were an attempt to explain a characteristic of Dean's (an obsession with complying with John's orders at all costs) that we'd been seeing in action for almost a whole season up until then. I don't think that the show was advocating for blind obedience or living in fear as good things in general, I think it was just attempting to explain something about Dean as an individual character. If anything, I think that Dean's overall character arc is about him learning to be his own person or even who he is when he's not defined by someone else. That's why imo it represented character growth that at the end of S1, Dean trusted his own judgment even when it seemed to fly in the face of what John was saying/wanted from him (esp when John was possessed and trying to trick him into handing over the Colt). I, think it's very likely that John had basic tenets like make your bed, do the dishes, feed your brother, make sure you save your brother because I suck and used him for bait, etc.. He must have, because they clearly know to do that sort of thing. Sam is even good at being bait, what with all the Sam-napping! The show just elides that stuff, probably. Edited November 25, 2014 by rue721 Link to comment
slayer2 November 27, 2014 Share November 27, 2014 (edited) Just found Supernatural on Netflix and trying to watch season 4 again 'cause i love me some Ruby. Can't believe I had forgotten how misogynistic this fucking show is. No, not sexist, misogynist. Just watched a female demon (?) resurrect Sam Haine so that he could break her neck and call her a whore and come to think of it just about every female character this season has earned that moniker or has received Dean casually substituting their names for bitch. God, you'd think SPN was brought to you by a Lil Wayne album with the amount of violence and denigrating words and acts against women. I remember how horrified I was at Ruby's death because Dean had held her down while Sam stabbed her and I believe called her a bitch or a whore (can't remember which). What the FUCK is wrong with these writers and why haven't they been called on this? Jezebel where are you? This is fucked, I can't even sit through one episode without some undue tongue-lashing against my gender. I cannot for the life of me figure out how I enjoyed this show in the past with its terrible, disgusting dialogue. It's not worth it to watch "two hot guys in a car." I mean I'm going to have to watch two full seasons of Buffy just to brain bleach this crap from my psyche, Buffy watching is a happy problem but Christ already what gives?. The fuck??!!!! /RANT OVER Edited November 27, 2014 by slayer2 Link to comment
catrox14 November 28, 2014 Share November 28, 2014 So in the course of Bitterness Thread discussions about why I think Dean is still made the butt of being dumb gags and why I kind of feel annoyed with Sam for making fun of Dean's intellect even through the most current episode and why I think the show wants Sam to always come across as the smarter brother if only marginally smarter, I always come back to Phantom Traveler and Sam mocking Dean for the homemade EMF detector. It's only the 4th episode in and I could never understand what it was that Dean did that deserved Sam being pretty mean about it. To me that was beyond sibling rivalry teasing and outright meanness for the sake of humiliating Dean. To this day I try to figure out why it stays with me so much and just happened to be prowling around Tumblr ..as you do..and came across this Tumblr post totally explains it and it's all in Jensen's Perfect Fucking Ackting. Dean was so proud of his accomplishment and wanted to share it with Sam and Sam just craps all over it. And in an instant, you see the hurt and humiliation in Dean's eyes and then it goes to his face and Dean just shrinks back into himself. And to me Dean looks so surprised and he can't understand why Sam is mocking this. As an aside, this episode also really showed me just how much Jensen could really bring with just a flick of his eyes. Such amazing work. And I swear to this day Jensen carries through that reluctant part of Dean. That he doesn't want to be to proud of his accomplishments because he might be mocked for them based on his intellect alone. Which is another reason why Dean saying "I'm proud of us" in the s9 finale is so damn powerful. Because Dean finally let himself see that he did do good things. Guh. And then he's turned into a demon....geez. Anyway just a musing that was spawned by this awesome Tumblr gif set http://itsjustjensen.tumblr.com/post/103767200285 Link to comment
7kstar November 28, 2014 Share November 28, 2014 (edited) Just found Supernatural on Netflix and trying to watch season 4 again 'cause i love me some Ruby. Can't believe I had forgotten how misogynistic this fucking show is. No, not sexist, misogynist. J I remember how horrified I was at Ruby's death because Dean had held her down while Sam stabbed her and I believe called her a bitch or a whore (can't remember which). At the time so many people wanted Ruby dead, that the fans generally liked it. I wasn't upset over it because I wanted Ruby gone, not because she was female but because I couldn't stand the character any more. I don't think the show thinks about it since technically a demon isn't really male or female. At least I think that is how they think about it. JMV Edited November 28, 2014 by 7kstar Link to comment
slayer2 November 28, 2014 Share November 28, 2014 (edited) At the time so many people wanted Ruby dead, that the fans generally liked it. I wasn't upset over it because I wanted Ruby gone, not because she was female but because I couldn't stand the character any more. I don't think the show thinks about it since technically a demon isn't really male or female. At least I think that is how they think about it. JMVWell, it is a bitterness thread. But I disagree. Everyone fucked by Sam or Dean has at some point come under some sort of censure and that extends to the actors. I received a warning on another site for coming to the defense of Genevieve Cortese when others had been less than hospitable about her, calling her just about every name in the book (before folks knew she was dating Padalecki). Do I think she was 'ganked' on that episode in that way because she was a demon? No. I think it was specific to her gender and the hatred of her character in particular to that. We can fault her 'terrible acting' all we want (which upon second viewing is quite good IMO) but the heart of the matter is her gender and her relationship to the disruption of Wincest that earned her one of the most disgusting deaths in the series. I'm a feminist, I make no apologies for it, I don't oppose or seek to pit female characters amongst one another. I don't throw around words like slut or whore as though they were dressing on my pre-dinner salad. I want shows to respect the females whether villains or heroines and this show doesn't do that. I wish I could just watch it and enjoy it without feeling their constant need to denigrate and subjugate women to sexual stereotypes, harrasment, name-calling and violence but that is for the writers to fix, not me. Upon my rewatch I now remember why I gave up so completely on this show. Edited November 28, 2014 by slayer2 Link to comment
catrox14 November 28, 2014 Share November 28, 2014 (edited) Not to nitpick but I think it is actually important to the scene wherein Dean stabs Ruby. No one held Ruby down on the ground. Ruby was standing in front of Sam mocking him for being Dumbo and falling for her years long ruse. Sam called her a bitch and IMO she deserved it. Then Dean burst into the room. Sam grabbed Ruby by the arms and Dean stabbed her. She was never thrown to the ground or anything like that. Do I think she was 'ganked' on that episode in that way because she was a demon? No. I think it was specific to her gender and the hatred of her character in particular to that. We can fault her 'terrible acting' all we want (which upon second viewing is quite good IMO) but the heart of the matter is her gender and her relationship to the disruption of Wincest that earned her one of the most disgusting deaths in the series. I'm a feminist as well. Maybe I'm misunderstanding here but are you suggesting that the showrunners and writers, killed Ruby because the fans wanted Wincest and the showrunners were actively responding to Wincesters? Edited November 28, 2014 by catrox14 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 November 28, 2014 Share November 28, 2014 So in the course of Bitterness Thread discussions about why I think Dean is still made the butt of being dumb gags and why I kind of feel annoyed with Sam for making fun of Dean's intellect even through the most current episode and why I think the show wants Sam to always come across as the smarter brother if only marginally smarter, I always come back to Phantom Traveler and Sam mocking Dean for the homemade EMF detector. It's only the 4th episode in and I could never understand what it was that Dean did that deserved Sam being pretty mean about it. To me that was beyond sibling rivalry teasing and outright meanness for the sake of humiliating Dean. To this day I try to figure out why it stays with me so much and just happened to be prowling around Tumblr ..as you do..and came across this Tumblr post totally explains it and it's all in Jensen's Perfect Fucking Ackting. Dean was so proud of his accomplishment and wanted to share it with Sam and Sam just craps all over it. And in an instant, you see the hurt and humiliation in Dean's eyes and then it goes to his face and Dean just shrinks back into himself. And to me Dean looks so surprised and he can't understand why Sam is mocking this. I agree with Dean in that scene. It makes absolutely no sense that Sam is mocking him. It just comes out of nowhere. Considering the other times in the episode where Sam is trying to help Dean through his fear of flying and doesn't seem to mock him for that unnecessarily, that mocking the EMF meter made no sense. And for me, it wasn't the only out of character thing in that episode. The whole scene where the pilot guy talks about how John supposedly went on and on about Sam going to college and how proud he was of him. First of all, why would the pilot remember that, and second WtF? Why would John even do that? First of all he wasn't proud of Sam going to college, he was pissed off about it, and second of all, even if John would have it in him to brag about something like that (and that makes no sense based on his personality to me anyway) why would John start spouting off family information to people he doesn't even know that well. This guy could be a demon or something for all John knew. To me that made no sense at all. So it makes me bitter that a writer who in my opinion didn't do a good job writing character stuff - and only wrote two episodes - writes a character scene that's going to haunt Sam's character for a long time to come. And I hope that Jensen isn't playing Dean that way myself. Yes, that was a mean insult, but it's not like they haven't insulted each other before or since - on both sides. Sam practically grew up hearing that he was a pain in the ass and things like "so I wouldn't have to look at your ugly face." * He got over it. If Dean has so little confidence in himself that something like that haunts him for the rest of his life, he's even worse off than I thought. * Even if it was sarcastic, Sam was a little kid. Link to comment
7kstar November 28, 2014 Share November 28, 2014 (edited) Well, it is a bitterness thread. But I disagree. Everyone fucked by Sam or Dean has at some point come under some sort of censure and that extends to the actors. I received a warning on another site for coming to the defense of Genevieve Cortese when others had been less than hospitable about her, calling her just about every name in the book (before folks knew she was dating Padalecki). Do I think she was 'ganked' on that episode in that way because she was a demon? No. I think it was specific to her gender and the hatred of her character in particular to that. We can fault her 'terrible acting' all we want (which upon second viewing is quite good IMO) but the heart of the matter is her gender and her relationship to the disruption of Wincest that earned her one of the most disgusting deaths in the series. I'm a feminist, I make no apologies for it, ... Hey if you like her, no problem. I didn't like the actress and it has nothing to do with Jared. I felt that the storyline would have killed her no matter what. Even if she had been played by the first Ruby, her death would have been the same. So we just don't see eye to eye. Your being a feminist, doesn't make a difference for me. I believe in women's rights. Now can I see how this show is weak with strong female characters, sure...but they have also had some strong female characters. The irony of the show is that it has a major female viewing audience...so not telling you how to feel but also don't tell me what I should feel either. Maybe I took your post wrong but I didn't feel I deserved any type of attack for what I said. Edited November 28, 2014 by 7kstar Link to comment
7kstar November 28, 2014 Share November 28, 2014 I agree with Dean in that scene. It makes absolutely no sense that Sam is mocking him. It just comes out of nowhere. Considering the other times in the episode where Sam is trying to help Dean through his fear of flying and doesn't seem to mock him for that unnecessarily, that mocking the EMF meter made no sense. And for me, it wasn't the only out of character thing in that episode. The whole scene where the pilot guy talks about how John supposedly went on and on about Sam going to college and how proud he was of him. First of all, why would the pilot remember that, and second WtF? Why would John even do that? First of all he wasn't proud of Sam going to college, he was pissed off about it, and second of all, even if John would have it in him to brag about something like that (and that makes no sense based on his personality to me anyway) why would John start spouting off family information to people he doesn't even know that well. This guy could be a demon or something for all John knew. To me that made no sense at all. * Even if it was sarcastic, Sam was a little kid. Well to be fair, my mom has said some really positive stuff to someone I hardly knew but she never said it to my face, so I could see John being a bit proud but how the conversation happened is the key. So that part of the ep didn't bother me. As far as the insult, that came out of left field and I never liked it. Maybe it was suppose to show Sam being angry at Dean for getting him back into the hunting business, the irrational side, that if Dean hadn't come by to ask him to help on the hunt to find Dad, Jess would still be alive. But I agree, it was a lousy part of the script and not one I ever liked. Link to comment
catrox14 November 28, 2014 Share November 28, 2014 (edited) And I hope that Jensen isn't playing Dean that way myself. Yes, that was a mean insult, but it's not like they haven't insulted each other before or since - on both sides. Sam practically grew up hearing that he was a pain in the ass and things like "so I wouldn't have to look at your ugly face." * He got over it. If Dean has so little confidence in himself that something like that haunts him for the rest of his life, he's even worse off than I thought. I think Jensen plays subtext about a lot of things and he retains stuff that I think informs Dean's characterization. Like with Dean's sleeping behaviors...he's totally consistent with those character traits. Buttons are pushed by siblings and close friends that would never be a button pushed by others. It's not that Dean has totally shut down or whatever but he does remain consistent with how he plays Dean as surprised and a little bi5 hurt when Sam mocks him about his nerdy fun stuff like LARPing or pop culture stuff but it doesn't stop Dean being nerd-adjacent and enjoying what he enjoys. But I think when Sam devalues Dean's accomplishments like that EMF detector or the language translation app he downloaded in s8, or being surprised that Dean would read Vonnegut or saying things like "Yes Dean I read books" as though Dean doesn't that carries on the dumb!Dean thing throughout. Some things are sibling mockery and some things are downright mean. I think those are things that really sting Dean and to quote Dean "it sets him back on his heels" for a moment. I wasn't suggesting he's carrying it around like a big WOUND and he can't function because of it. And I'm not saying that because Dean withdraws in those situations rather than fighting back and saying 'Hey Sam, shut your mouth. I was useful here. Don't be a dick about" means that Dean is weak or insecure or what have you. If it were any one other than Sam or Bobby or someone Dean respects mocking him he would just ignore it or be like "Fuck You, I know I'm good". But from Sam I think it lands differently and it hurts him. I think that is a smart acting choice. Edited November 28, 2014 by catrox14 Link to comment
SueB November 28, 2014 Share November 28, 2014 (edited) This discussion reminds me the scene in Time After Time when Dean pulls up the video cameras and Sam is clearly jealous. Then he asks for the computer back and Dean says: "You can't let me bask in the glory for one second, can you?" To me, that particular scene read as pure sibling banter. Yes, there's that underlying resentment of pre-established 'roles', but Dean is sure enough of himself to call Sam on it. And this was during Dean's most depressed time. I guess what I'm saying is that it's definitely 'text' that Sam likes to be the winner in this particular competition. But I think Dean likes to be the winner in who's the better hunter. Sam should win most physical fights between them, but Dean usually seems to have the slight edge. It's the ancient 'I'm tougher' 'well I'm smarter' schoolyard crap they still fall back on IMO. Edited November 28, 2014 by SueB Link to comment
Aeryn13 November 28, 2014 Share November 28, 2014 To me, that particular scene read as pure sibling banter. Yes, there's that underlying resentment of pre-established 'roles', but Dean is sure enough of himself to call Sam on it. I think Dean buys into the same pre-established notion about intelligence that Sam does, most other characters do in the 200+ episodes show, the writers do and, from what I`m seeing, lots of viewers do: smart = level of accumulated knowledge, high scores in standardized tests and the level of educational degree, dumb = everything else. Since Sam groups himself in the former, this is where he feels superior and shows it. Dean groups himself in the latter so he feels self-conscious and maybe sometimes defensive about it. Since the show is written by people who apparently don`t know what intelligence is and what it even meassures (roughly the capability of abstract problem-solving), it`s no wonder no character can show a true understand of it. And since society holds these notiions as well and perpetuates these stereotypes, the writers and their falsities are embraced. And that is not even taking into account that people with exceptionally high IQs have generally low EQs and that is an area where they can be easily exploited, leading them to be Dumby McDumberson. At the time so many people wanted Ruby dead, that the fans generally liked it. I wasn't upset over it because I wanted Ruby gone, not because she was female but because I couldn't stand the character any more. Ruby annoyed me in both incarnations, save for a few scenes with Ruby 1. However, version 2 was a disaster in my eyes. I have not seen Cortese in anything else but I felt she didn`t play demon but smitten girlfriend. And if that was real-life character-bleed, it`s not a sign of great acting talent. Katie Cassidy didn`t much impress me either, on SPN or now on Arrow but I think she did a great job on this murder mystery mini series whose name escapes me now. Granted, Ruby 2 was in no way helped by the writing which turned her into someone I did not recognize as a demon. For comparism, Meg 2 seemed to actually develop genuine feelings for Cas and I think Rachel Miner did a good job in bringing in some emotional vulnerability while still keeping the character intact. If you put in Cortese as the doe-eyed innocent in a Jane Austen movie, I could see it work. In SPN, I found her miscast. And I don`t think one has to like and cheer every actress just to support the gender. Or that criticism of an actress is misogyny or something. I dislike a performance or performer, no matter the gender, I will criticize. Maybe chlld actors get more leeway because, come on. As for Ruby 2 death, I fist-pumped because I loved that scene. And I don`t think a male demon would have gotten any other treatment. She had manipulated Sam into breaking the final scene and there is is gloating and giving him the "well, I`m sure you will get over it, now give me my kudso" and Dean the "haha, you are too late" speech. What did she expect them to do? For Dean to go "well, if I`m too late, I guess I`ll go" and for Sam to shrug and kiss her? THAT was true hubris and stupidity. She was also still a demon and therefore physically stronger than a human if we get down to it. So should a human hunter of any gender be obliged to fight all gentleman-like against demons in female vessels? Should those be spared no matter what they do while their male counterparts get knifed on the spot? And while "female" demons (lets say the distorted soul used to be that of a woman) can apparently kill and do whatever they want but words of insult spoken to them takes it too far? I would hate all that. I would never want female characters to receive such bouncy bouncy baby treatments. To me THAT would be disrespectful to women. Link to comment
amensisterfriend November 28, 2014 Share November 28, 2014 (edited) Different unpopular opinion inspired by a recent rewatch: Of all the post-S3 seasons, Season 7 is my very favorite. I can't even begin to defend that one. *shows myself the door* Edited November 28, 2014 by amensisterfriend 3 Link to comment
slayer2 November 28, 2014 Share November 28, 2014 (edited) Not to nitpick but I think it is actually important to the scene wherein Dean stabs Ruby. No one held Ruby down on the ground. Ruby was standing in front of Sam mocking him for being Dumbo and falling for her years long ruse. Sam called her a bitch and IMO she deserved it. Then Dean burst into the room. Sam grabbed Ruby by the arms and Dean stabbed her. She was never thrown to the ground or anything like that. I'm a feminist as well. Maybe I'm misunderstanding here but are you suggesting that the showrunners and writers, killed Ruby because the fans wanted Wincest and the showrunners were actively responding to Wincesters? I'm saying that the fans would react with virtriol to any female with possibility of sexual interaction involved in the brotherly dynamic and "fans" were waiting for the death of Ruby since she first arrived. The relationship between Sam and Dean was affectionately (and somewhat creepily) termed Wincest on other boards so would I say that Ruby and other females were needlessly killed to support a female-free Wincest? Yes, and that is what I hate about this show. Whether or not Ruby was thrown to the ground is irrelevant to me (can always catch that version on General Hospital), the guy she was formerly sleeping called her a bitch and held her in place while his brother stabbed her. The last thing she heard before death was that she was a bitch before a knife was plunged into her stomach against her will (as she was held in place and not given the option to fight back) then her former lover stepped over her body like it was nothing a spill on aisle 9. Disgusting. There were any manner of ways she could have been killed, and any manner of things they could have said. Sam could have had a moment of god honest upset for putting his faith and trust in someone who betrayed him, which would have been the natural occurence (IMO) but she went from trusted ally to 'random bitch' in two seconds flat. How wonderful to learn that Sam can shut off his feelings for a former lover so quickly (well he did shoot the last one so....) As well to your Dumbo point, Ruby was not taunting Sam, she used Dumbo as an analogy because Dumbo had to believe he could fly before he actually flew. She believed she was doing the right thing and that it would be an honour my Sam to be the vessel for Lucifer (which he eventually was anyway). It wasn't a matter of her mocking and berating him, she was in fact cheering him on in her own demonic way. Edited November 28, 2014 by slayer2 Link to comment
Demented Daisy November 28, 2014 Share November 28, 2014 (edited) I'm saying that the fans would react with virtriol to any female with possibility of sexual interaction involved in the brotherly dynamic and "fans" were waiting for the death of Ruby since she first arrived. The relationship between Sam and Dean was affectionately (and somewhat creepily) termed Wincest on other boards so would I say that Ruby and other females were needlessly killed to support a female-free Wincest? Yes, and that is what I hate about this show. Whether or not Ruby was thrown to the ground is irrelevant to me (can always catch that version on General Hospital), the guy she was formerly sleeping called her a bitch and held her in place while his brother stabbed her. The last thing she heard before death was that she was a bitch before a knife was plunged into her stomach against her will (as she was held in place and not given the option to fight back) then her former lover stepped over her body like it was nothing a spill on aisle 9. Disgusting. There were any manner of ways she could have been killed, and any manner of things they could have said. Sam could have had a moment of god honest upset for putting his faith and trust in someone who betrayed him, which would have been the natural occurence (IMO) but she went from trusted ally to 'random bitch' in two seconds flat. How wonderful to learn that Sam can shut off his feelings for a former lover so quickly (well he did shoot the last one so....) As well to your Dumbo point, Ruby was not taunting Sam, she used Dumbo as an analogy because Dumbo had to believe he could fly before he actually flew. She believed she was doing the right thing and that it would be an honour my Sam to be the vessel for Lucifer (which he eventually was anyway). It wasn't a matter of her mocking and berating him, she was in fact cheering him on in her own demonic way. I understand that this is your opinion, but it is not one that I agree with. I have no interest in who the Winchesters sleep with. So, this is one "fan" who was not cheering on the death of Ruby because she was sleeping with Sam. I was cheering on the death of Ruby because she manipulated Sam into breaking the final seal and freeing Lucifer. Just like I will cheer on the death of Crowley (if they ever kill him) because of how he manipulated Dean into taking on the Mark of Cain and led to him becoming a demon. (My most hated storyline of the entire series.) Where have TPTB said that they killed off Ruby (and Bela?) to appease the Wincesters? Sam slept with Ruby because she manipulated him. If the roles were reversed, would you cheer Ruby on for killing Sam? If so, that's not feminism. Feminism is about equality -- that women can do everything that men can do, including being villains or being killed for their villainy. I also vehemently disagree that Ruby was "cheering (Sam) on in her demonic way". From my POV, she was gloating. Sam had served his purpose, he freed Lucifer. Like many villains, she was a victim of her own hubris. Mileage varies, but I think it's a good idea to always preface comments with "IMO" or some such, especially in a fandom as divisive as SPN has. Edited November 28, 2014 by Demented Daisy 2 Link to comment
Aeryn13 November 28, 2014 Share November 28, 2014 The last thing she heard before death was that she was a bitch before a knife was plunged into her stomach against her will (as she was held in place and not given the option to fight back) then her former lover stepped over her body like it was nothing a spill on aisle 9. Disgusting. I may not be Sam`s greatest fan but that Ruby was so full of it and delusional that SHE felt HE had to be honored by what she "bestowed" upon him is not his fault. I that had been a male demon doing it to a female hunter, the connotations would be "smug fucker, actually expects her to be grateful for being betrayed". Why is it different the other way around? Why would Sam not have the right to be utterly disgusted by her? To hate her for what she did and act accordingly? A demon`s feelings and gloating over starting the apocalypse hold no priority for me, Azazel gloated some, too, and I`ve never seen anyone people/the Wincehsters had to be respectful of his poor little feelings. As for having a knife trust into her stomach against her will, Azazel got a bullet into his brain against his will. Every demon they ever killed with the knife had it happen to them against their will. Of each gender. Now the vessels are something else, they surely didn`t deserve to die if they could have been saved. Unless maybe in the heat of battle when all bets are off. But the demon itself, why would it deserve consideration? The people that demon hurt and killed and allowed to be hurt, what do they count for? Did it not happen against their will, too? And fighting back, demons on this show are superstrong and often possess powers like teleportation. So, technically, Ruby should have been able to easily shake Sam loose. That she didn`t was a plot convenience of that scene but in general why should a hunter prostrate themselves for a demon and allow them every opportunity to fight back? Or does that only go for female demons? I`m really not seeing why demons wearing female shapes should be treated with kid gloves no matter what they do. So basically, if Azazel was wearing a female vessel at the time he was killed, Dean should not have shot him like that but asked him for a fair duel in hand to hand? That would be insane to me. 1 Link to comment
rue721 November 28, 2014 Share November 28, 2014 I wish I could just watch it and enjoy it without feeling their constant need to denigrate and subjugate women to sexual stereotypes, harrasment, name-calling and violence but that is for the writers to fix, not me. Upon my rewatch I now remember why I gave up so completely on this show. I've felt similarly, so now I'm pretty selective about what I rewatch. With approx. two exceptions, from about midway through S4 through the finale of S5 the show is just too ugly and I can't watch it. I also see the rape imagery that (I think?) you're talking about w/r/t Ruby's death in some of the killings (during that era of the show), and I can't not see it. For me, it's not even about whether the (female) character needs to be killed for the story or what, just the visual of a woman being held down or pinned and called a gendered slur while being stabbed, it turns my stomach, all I see is rape, and I literally can't watch it, I have to turn the show off. And I frankly do *not* want to see a show's leads or heroes in that light, it sours me on them and the show altogether -- and I don't want to feel that way! So I've basically tried to excise those episodes from my memory and to concentrate on (and only rewatch) the many that *aren't* like that (which tend to be from S1-3 and S6-7). YMMV, I don't expect everyone to see it that way, and I don't think rape imagery is what the show was *going* for in writing and filming those scenes (because that would just be too horrible to think), but that doesn't make it something that I'm OK with watching. Anyway, as a sidenote, I liked Genevieve Cortese as Ruby. In general, I think that SPN tends to cast relatively strong actresses. It just also tends to wayyyyyy under-write its female characters, so those actresses are by and large wasted. I've been rewatching some episodes here and there from S6 in the last few days, and find that the actress who plays Lisa is actually pretty phenomenal, she can really bring it and elevates the writing. But sadly, her character never got an arc, nothing. What can an actress do with a character that's just a prop, ultimately? I do think that the show has trouble 1. writing female characters that are more than one-note or who seem to have any life 2. when they do manage to write female characters who aren't lifeless or one-note, not killing them off (or otherwise abandoning them/writing them out of the story forever) too quickly for them to actually use their potential. The show has those issues with male side characters, too, but since the mains are all male, I think that's less of an issue for the show overall. I can't speak to the fan stuff, though, because this board is my first dip into the SPN fan-pool in a looooooong time. 1 Link to comment
Aeryn13 November 28, 2014 Share November 28, 2014 (edited) For me, it's not even about whether the (female) character needs to be killed for the story or what, just the visual of a woman being held down or pinned and called a gendered slur while being stabbed, it turns my stomach, all I see is rape, But say it was the other way around, a demon in a female vessel going around killing innocent men. Or even killing hunters who would fight it to protect others. Which would make perfect sense for a demon. However, would it visually look like female empowerment, just because it is a woman exercising power over men? Would the context of the scene and characters not matter at all to inform the viewing of it? Because that`s how I couldn`t watch. I`d see a killer and would always cheer for them to be put down, no matter the gender. We saw Lilith, in child form and later as an adult woman. Apparently she tortured families for kicks and fun. Coming off a scene like that, if a hunter saw this and called her a slur, do sympathies actually turn to her on the spot? And screw what she just did, it`s more important to respect her and someone defending that family is a worse monster just for calling her names? In real life I`d never say a woman who slaughtered people for fun was actually better then a man who called her names. Or think "oh, that poor thing, why did that vile man not show her proper respect". This would IMO never be true to a male demon so I don`t think it should be for a female one. To me that sends a horrible message and is as far from respect for women as could be. I`m not remotely saying the show is good with female characters but swinging the pendulum completely the other way would be just as bad in my eyes. Edited November 28, 2014 by Aeryn13 Link to comment
slayer2 November 28, 2014 Share November 28, 2014 I've felt similarly, so now I'm pretty selective about what I rewatch. With approx. two exceptions, from about midway through S4 through the finale of S5 the show is just too ugly and I can't watch it. I also see the rape imagery that (I think?) you're talking about w/r/t Ruby's death in some of the killings (during that era of the show), and I can't not see it. For me, it's not even about whether the (female) character needs to be killed for the story or what, just the visual of a woman being held down or pinned and called a gendered slur while being stabbed, it turns my stomach, all I see is rape, and I literally can't watch it, I have to turn the show off. And I frankly do *not* want to see a show's leads or heroes in that light, it sours me on them and the show altogether -- and I don't want to feel that way! So I've basically tried to excise those episodes from my memory and to concentrate on (and only rewatch) the many that *aren't* like that (which tend to be from S1-3 and S6-7). YMMV, I don't expect everyone to see it that way, and I don't think rape imagery is what the show was *going* for in writing and filming those scenes (because that would just be too horrible to think), but that doesn't make it something that I'm OK with watching. Anyway, as a sidenote, I liked Genevieve Cortese as Ruby. Thank you.This encapsulated my concerns perfectly. The rape imagery is exactly what I was eluding to and it turns my stomach as well. I ultimately gave up after season 5 when Kripke left but it's nice to hear that 6 and 7 aren't as nauseatingly misogynistic, maybe I'll check them out someday. As the Unpopular opinions continue, I liked Genevieve in the role as well, I preferred Katie Cassidy but warmed up quite a bit to GC and after watching her shy, insightful YouTube videos just found her so delightful and sweet. Praying for her being married to Padalecki but hey, at least their kids are adorable. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.