Supernatural Bitterness & Unpopular Opinions: You All Suck

[FlickChick]

5 hours ago, MysteryGuest said:

As with decent storytelling, quality humor also requires a talented writer.  It seems that what we get now is just the broad, slapstick stuff, and a little of that goes a long way.  I miss all of the totally organic sarcastic comments and little asides we used to get.  It didn't take you out of the scene, and didn't make your hero look like an idiot, it was just funny.  And it was a big part of Dean's character.  Now he's more of a class clown than a smart ass, and I prefer the smart ass.

And IMO the reason we don't have that subtle humor is because for the vast most part, Iwe don't have talented enough writers to put it on the page. In past seasons, we had more talented writers that are since long gone. :(

[bozodegama]

Yes I totally agree.  They’re missing the inside jokes of past years.  The Biggersons, The casa erotica, magic fingers, busty Asian beauties, pie, bacon, cheeseburgers, making fun of each other, etc.  it’s a lot more serious this year.  I watch the old seasons and I laugh all the time.  Some of it is just the funniest stuff.  

[DittyDotDot]

6 hours ago, bozodegama said:

Yes I totally agree.  They’re missing the inside jokes of past years.  The Biggersons, The casa erotica, magic fingers, busty Asian beauties, pie, bacon, cheeseburgers, making fun of each other, etc.  it’s a lot more serious this year.  I watch the old seasons and I laugh all the time.  Some of it is just the funniest stuff.  

To be fair, I don't think it's new this year. IMO, they've been taking themselves far too seriously for years now. It's been one of my gripes for years now. 

[Guest]

On ‎12‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 7:39 AM, DittyDotDot said:

To be fair, I don't think it's new this year. IMO, they've been taking themselves far too seriously for years now. It's been one of my gripes for years now. 

As I've been rewatching, I noticed that there is nothing funny about S1.  Well, almost nothing, except that one episode about an escalating prank war which was their first attempt at comedy (and probably the first meta, knowing what we know now about JP) and even that wasn't particularly funny.

It didn't really get funny until half way through S2 and then the show went bananas at Tall Tales (I particularly loved the romantic sigh from the alien slow dancing with frat guy).

I've been thinking about what happened and I think its probably a mix of the show losing some particular alchemy of comic sensibilities of as BTS folks left in combination with a natural progression of Sam/Dean having so much misery heaped on them over the years.

I don't think that not taking themselves so seriously is enough.  I think that the sense of humor Supernatural used to have needs someone (or a couple someones) bent that way to spark the ideas and to foster them.  Not having anyone whose humor defaults to "cracked" results in more broad and slapstick attempts at comedy.  And I don't think he show is specifically trying to hire writers adept at the crazier types of episodes in the shows history, which is too bad.

I also often wonder if they would have had Sam and Dean killed/sent to hell so many times if they had any idea this show would be going on this long.  I miss when Sam and Dean would get frustrated with myth arc not progressing and go hunting to distract themselves and end up in a good MOTW, comic, or meta scenario.  I wonder if the show feels like they can still do that because they don't ever seem to.

[bozodegama]

15 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

As I've been rewatching, I noticed that there is nothing funny about S1.  Well, almost nothing, except that one episode about an escalating prank war which was their first attempt at comedy (and probably the first meta, knowing what we know now about JP) and even that wasn't particularly funny.

It didn't really get funny until half way through S2 and then the show went bananas at Tall Tales (I particularly loved the romantic sigh from the alien slow dancing with frat guy).

I've been thinking about what happened and I think its probably a mix of the show losing some particular alchemy of comic sensibilities of as BTS folks left in combination with a natural progression of Sam/Dean having so much misery heaped on them over the years.

I don't think that not taking themselves so seriously is enough.  I think that the sense of humor Supernatural used to have needs someone (or a couple someones) bent that way to spark the ideas and to foster them.  Not having anyone whose humor defaults to "cracked" results in more broad and slapstick attempts at comedy.  And I don't think he show is specifically trying to hire writers adept at the crazier types of episodes in the shows history, which is too bad.

I also often wonder if they would have had Sam and Dean killed/sent to hell so many times if they had any idea this show would be going on this long.  I miss when Sam and Dean would get frustrated with myth arc not progressing and go hunting to distract themselves and end up in a good MOTW, comic, or meta scenario.  I wonder if the show feels like they can still do that because they don't ever seem to.

Part of the problem is that they don't have any funny bad guys or ancillary characters this year.  In years past, they had Yellow eyes, Allistair, Gabriel (The trickster), Zachariah, Death (bad food and snarky), Meg (i thought Rachel Miner was funny),Garth, Dick Roman, Metatron and of course Crowley etc..  I thought they might keep the hunter Wally last year because he was funny but they killed him off stupidly.  The extra characters/bad guys are pretty milqtoast this year, except for Ketch (It's always fun to have a psychopath to kill).  Michael and Asmodeus are really mediocre, uninteresting  bad guys.  I think they will have some other bad guys that are more interesting or try and make Michael and Asmodeus more interesting, I guess.  I'm sure the end of the season will be the boys (or Cass) killing Asmodeus and Michael and letting the Shadim out who will prob be represented by a human like the leviathans with Dick Roman or the Darkness.  The show still had a lot of meta episodes in the first half of the season in Season 10, a few in season 11 and 12 (season 11 had Baby and Plush, season 12 had regarding Dean).  I know theres the Scooby Doo episode this year but we've had 9 episodes this year without a meta, comedic episode.   They need more humor and colorful ancillary characters.  It's one part of what made the show so unbelievably.  That and some more great classic rock music.  They had that Steppenwolf song but it's been a light musical season.  Breaking out Blind Faith's I can't find my way home or The Band's The Weight always works for me.

[Bobcatkitten]

So UO but I'm annoyed that SPN is using at least four episodes this year to set up Wayward (Patience, The Bad Place, the Jan. 18 return and now I read another one will set up why Donna goes to Wayward) . I mean I'm intrigued by the spinoff and want it to do well but they are taking so much time that could be for Dean, Sam and underdeveloped Season 13 arcs.

[gonzosgirrl]

9 minutes ago, scribe95 said:

So UO but I'm annoyed that SPN is using at least four episodes this year to set up Wayward (Patience, The Bad Place, the Jan. 18 return and now I read another one will set up why Donna goes to Wayward) . I mean I'm intrigued by the spinoff and want it to do well but they are taking so much time that could be for Dean, Sam and underdeveloped Season 13 arcs.

It's not unpopular with me. In addition to all the Wayward Whatevers, we have Jack, Mary, Lucifer, the AU characters, Michael, Bobby, Kevin and no doubt more, plus Asmodeus, and now Ketch. With the exception of possibly Michael (if they tie him to Dean) I just don't care about any of them, at least as written thus far. I want the Winchesters.

[DeeDee79]

25 minutes ago, scribe95 said:

So UO but I'm annoyed that SPN is using at least four episodes this year to set up Wayward (Patience, The Bad Place, the Jan. 18 return and now I read another one will set up why Donna goes to Wayward) . I mean I'm intrigued by the spinoff and want it to do well but they are taking so much time that could be for Dean, Sam and underdeveloped Season 13 arcs.

It's not unpopular as far as I'm concerned. I could care less about the spinoff or the new characters. As @gonzosgirrl stated the addition of the new characters this season was quite enough without having to also deal with episodes that are completely centered on the spinoff characters.

[Bobcatkitten]

Glad I'm not the only one. There is just too much going on this year. 

[ILoveReading]

It's not unpopular with me.  I'm not interesested Wayward Whatevers.  There is nothing unique or interesting about Clair's story.  We've seen it multiple times already.  She's a copy and paste version of Krissy. 

The Winchesters aren't even really tied to any storylines this season.  If you kind of sort of squint Sam has a tie to Jack but the writers turned him into such a woobie that I don't think his light beige side would have showed even without Sam being nice to him.  Dean continues to feel shoe horned into this season.  I'm not sure what his purpose is.  (I don't mean that in jerk/bitch way, just a overall statement). 

Didn't Dabb say at comic con they were going small this year?

Edited January 7, 2018 by ILoveReading

[FlickChick]

44 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

It's not unpopular with me. In addition to all the Wayward Whatevers, we have Jack, Mary, Lucifer, the AU characters, Michael, Bobby, Kevin and no doubt more, plus Asmodeus, and now Ketch. With the exception of possibly Michael (if they tie him to Dean) I just don't care about any of them, at least as written thus far. I want the Winchesters.

Agree x 1000! Along with @ILoveReading comments of the Winchesters not really being tied to any storylines this season. My only hope is that whatever contract Jensen and Jared signed includes an exit strategy with the ending of their choice - and unfortunately sooner than later. It's getting really hard for me to stay invested with the show at this point. And after all these seasons... :(

[DeeDee79]

9 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

She's a copy and paste version of Krissy. 

I would have preferred that Krissy be added to the spinoff instead of some of the newbies but that's just me.

Edited January 7, 2018 by DeeDee79

[ILoveReading]

4 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

I would have preferred that Krissy be added to the spinoff instead of some of the newbies but that's just me.

I agree.  I also think Madison McLaughlin (I think that was her name) is a stronger actress.  I find I see Claire in every character Kathryn Newton plays.

Edited January 7, 2018 by ILoveReading

[DittyDotDot]

25 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I agree.  I also think Madison McLaughlin (I think that was her name) is a stronger actress.  I find I see Claire in every character Kathryn Newton plays.

I agree about Kathyrn Newton, but I think that's true of Madison McLaughlin too. She's played tough smartass teen a bit too often and they always seem to be basically Krissy. I'm not sure it's the actresses as much as the material they're given to work with. I just happen to prefer the character of Krissy more than the character of Claire--Claire's a bit of a whiny princess at times, but I have high hopes that she'll grow up a bit if the show goes to series.

It would be kinda interesting to see the actresses switch roles and see if I still liked Krissy more than Claire.

[mommo]

I don't know the actress' name but Kevin's mom, Ms. Tran, would be a great addition to the Wayward spinoff.  I also agree to the 1000th degree about music.  Last season I found I was missing the classic rock, now it's just gone.  Sad. 

Waiting to see where this alternative universe thing takes us, but so far I'm not excited. 

[MysteryGuest]

2 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

The Winchesters aren't even really tied to any storylines this season.  If you kind of sort of squint Sam has a tie to Jack but the writers turned him into such a woobie that I don't think his light beige side would have showed even without Sam being nice to him.  Dean continues to feel shoe horned into this season.  I'm not sure what his purpose is.  (I don't mean that in jerk/bitch way, just a overall statement). 

I definitely don't feel this way this season.  Last season, yes, but I think they've done a pretty good job this year of making both Sam and Dean integral to the storylines.  I think both brothers have interacted with Jack equally, just differently.  I know this is the Unpopular Opinion thread, but on this particular issue, I've been pretty happy.  

I can absolutely get on board with the "too much Wayward" argument.  I'm going to be tired of those characters before the spin off is ever a thing.  As much as I enjoy Jody and Donna, and even Claire and Alex, I'm not sure I'd enjoy them so much if I saw them every week.  And it's their interaction with Sam and Dean that I enjoy, and that's going to be missing from the spin off.  

Also not sold on all of the alternate universes.  One might have been interesting, but multiple worlds just seems stupid...especially dino world.  

[ILoveReading]

38 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

 I think both brothers have interacted with Jack equally, just differently.  I know this is the Unpopular Opinion thread, but on this particular issue

Will respond in Bitch vs Jerk to be on the safe side.

[Diane]

My UO I have really enjoyed the addition of Jack, I like him and his interactions with the boys.

[Wayward Son]

4 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Geez so there such a thing as hate-shipping? Gross.

A resurrected Jo? Why would that be a thing?

I'm glad that Dean and Donna are good friends. And I'm glad that Castiel and Dean are BFFs.  I wouldn't want Cas to leave SPN forever.

I was joking about the resurrected Jo thing! Well kinda...

 

I was joking about Dean / Jo specifically, but I was kinda serious about the “hate shipping” if you want to call it that. When I become invested in a character in order to ship them with someone I have to like their other half also. I’m not going to enjoy a ship if I dislike one half of the pairing, I’m just not. So yeah I wouldn’t want to see Dean (someone I don’t overly like) enter a romantic relationship with someone I love (Castiel) or quite like (Donna). I’d rather characters I’m not invested in/fond of  entered a relationship with another character I’m not invested in so I can pretty much ignore that ships existence. 

 

It is easy to just ignore and skip scenes with a pairing I dislike both members of equally than a pairing with a character I do care for and a character I don’t. 

[catrox14]

12 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

So yeah I wouldn’t want to see Dean (someone I don’t overly like)

 

14 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

t is easy to just ignore and skip scenes with a pairing I dislike both members of equally than a pairing with a character I do care for and a character I don’t. 

Are you okay with Dean being best friends with Castiel as long as there is no romance? I mean it can be argued their love as friends and family is deeper than any romantic pairing. Not being snarky here. Genuinely curious.

[Wayward Son]

7 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

 

Are you okay with Dean being best friends with Castiel as long as there is no romance? I mean it can be argued their love as friends and family is deeper than any romantic pairing. Not being snarky here. Genuinely curious.

I’m fine with them being close friends since that’s been a long term part of the show and  would be odd if lost. I just don’t want to see it turn into something romantic. If they wanted Cas to have an other half (which I doubt they ever will tbh) Id rather he be with someone who’d put him and their relationship first, which isn’t something Dean is capable of. Any romantic partner would always play a distant second fiddle to his brotherly relationship with Sam.

[companionenvy]

15 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I’m fine with them being close friends since that’s been a long term part of the show and  would be odd if lost. I just don’t want to see it turn into something romantic. If they wanted Cas to have an other half (which I doubt they ever will tbh) Id rather he be with someone who’d put him and their relationship first, which isn’t something Dean is capable of. Any romantic partner would always play a distant second fiddle to his brotherly relationship with Sam.

Here's what I Think is an UO from me: While I don't think the show could necessarily accommodate either of the brothers in an LTR, I don't think that the brodependency would preclude either of them from finding satisfying romantic relationships with other people. It would be harder -- I don't think a Tinder date is going to do it -- but if one of them began a relationship with someone in the life, especially someone with a pre-existing friendship with both brothers, I think it could work. 

[bozodegama]

What happened to the angels being "Junkless."  I know Cass had sex with that reaper when he lost his grace and became human but how did Lucifer have sex to foster Jack?   So confused.  Is that a retcon? (if i'm using the right word.  I'm not that familiar with all these things.   Just a big fan of the show.)

[Wayward Son]

4 minutes ago, bozodegama said:

What happened to the angels being "Junkless."  I know Cass had sex with that reaper when he lost his grace and became human but how did Lucifer have sex to foster Jack?   So confused.  Is that a retcon? (if i'm using the right word.  I'm not that familiar with all these things.   Just a big fan of the show.)

I always thought that Dean referred to them as “junkless” as a form of mockery. i cant actually recall it ever being confirmed (to be  later retconed) that the vessels of angels would be unable to behave in a sexual manner whilst possessed. 

 

Of course angels in their true form would have no “junk” as they’re just wavelengths of Celestial Intent according to Cas.

 

21 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

Here's what I Think is an UO from me: While I don't think the show could necessarily accommodate either of the brothers in an LTR, I don't think that the brodependency would preclude either of them from finding satisfying romantic relationships with other people. It would be harder -- I don't think a Tinder date is going to do it -- but if one of them began a relationship with someone in the life, especially someone with a pre-existing friendship with both brothers, I think it could work. 

I have always thought that both brothers would lack the ability to truly invest in a long term relationship. They’re too wrapped up in each other emotionally and the lifestyle they live to give someone else the commitment they’d need for a relationship to work. 

[Res]

My UO is that as almost 40 yr old men they should have long out lived the "brodependency" and evolved into more competent individuals who have a deep sense of family but are not willing to kill the world for it anymore. My bitterness is that the writers and most fans haven't allowed this because of their own hang ups. 

 

I had some hope when Carver first took over that he was actually treat both characters as individuals and not the standard "Sam and his sidekick brother, Dean". While I do believe that he made some strides initially, he did not commit to it enough which ended up with the uneven story telling. I honestly think it's asinine that you can't let go of someone enough to live your own life when the other person is over 35 yrs old but most love this failing/failure of a relationship. There is no real character growth in it and the cycles keep repeating because the writers are too lazy and complacent to do anything with anyone at this point. It's so pathetic when there was/is so much potential available to them both storywise and cast-wise.

UO that I have agree with as soon as Lisa told Dean, "And as long as [Sam]'s in your life, you're never gonna be happy." I believe the same for Sam. They might be content. They might be not unhappy, but they will never be happy. Because they are stuck in limbo where they keep doing the same things over and over again without any real growth or learning because that would change the dynamic and make it harder to write for them as individual characters.

[catrox14]

On 1/9/2018 at 0:08 PM, bozodegama said:

What happened to the angels being "Junkless."  I know Cass had sex with that reaper when he lost his grace and became human but how did Lucifer have sex to foster Jack?   So confused.  Is that a retcon? (if i'm using the right word.  I'm not that familiar with all these things.   Just a big fan of the show.)

Lucifer basically raped both President Jeff and Kelly in the end. He possessed POTUS and had sex with Kelly. How much was Lucifer controlling his actions and how much was POTUS is hard to say. AFAIR, POTUS and Kelly were not having sex but were flirting and close.

Castiel IMO could have sex because he is his own meatsuit now.

[Wayward Son]

4 hours ago, Res said:

My UO is that as almost 40 yr old men they should have long out lived the "brodependency" and evolved into more competent individuals who have a deep sense of family but are not willing to kill the world for it anymore. My bitterness is that the writers and most fans haven't allowed this because of their own hang ups. 

 

I had some hope when Carver first took over that he was actually treat both characters as individuals and not the standard "Sam and his sidekick brother, Dean". While I do believe that he made some strides initially, he did not commit to it enough which ended up with the uneven story telling. I honestly think it's asinine that you can't let go of someone enough to live your own life when the other person is over 35 yrs old but most love this failing/failure of a relationship. There is no real character growth in it and the cycles keep repeating because the writers are too lazy and complacent to do anything with anyone at this point. It's so pathetic when there was/is so much potential available to them both storywise and cast-wise.

UO that I have agree with as soon as Lisa told Dean, "And as long as [Sam]'s in your life, you're never gonna be happy." I believe the same for Sam. They might be content. They might be not unhappy, but they will never be happy. Because they are stuck in limbo where they keep doing the same things over and over again without any real growth or learning because that would change the dynamic and make it harder to write for them as individual characters.

I strongly agree with this! 

 

Id further add due to the messed up and consuming nature of the “brodependency” I don’t see either Sam or Dean ever being able to function in a long term romantic relationship. They’d never be able to give their partner the dedication needed to make such a relationship work.

Edited January 11, 2018 by Wayward Son

[RulerofallIsurvey]

On 1/9/2018 at 2:55 PM, companionenvy said:

Here's what I Think is an UO from me: While I don't think the show could necessarily accommodate either of the brothers in an LTR, I don't think that the brodependency would preclude either of them from finding satisfying romantic relationships with other people. It would be harder -- I don't think a Tinder date is going to do it -- but if one of them began a relationship with someone in the life, especially someone with a pre-existing friendship with both brothers, I think it could work. 

I agree with this.  I don't see the 'brodependency' as strong and as overwhelming the last couple seasons as it was in earlier, 'middle'* seasons, where it was the worst.  So, other than Show reasons, I don't think there's any reason a long term relationship with someone who knows about the Supernatural, even if not directly 'in the life' like a fellow hunter, wouldn't work. 

But for Show Reasons - it never will. 

*Because, I personally don't think there was really any bad 'brodependency' in the early-early seasons.  I see the worst of it in what is now the middle years. 

[Pondlass1]

Sam and Dean.  It's the greatest love story ever told (minus the sexual attraction of course). 

[ILoveReading]

11 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

Sam and Dean.  It's the greatest love story ever told (minus the sexual attraction of course). 

This might be unpopular even for unpopular opinions but I don't find Sam and Dean's story much a love story.  Most of the time I question whether these two guy actually like each other.

Sam easily replaced Dean both times when he went to hell and purgatory and both times almost seemed resentful that Dean came back.  

Dean refers to Sam as his job.

When they lose their filters it really seems to like neither one has anything nice to say about the other.

[Pondlass1]

There's a fine line between love and hate.  

[RulerofallIsurvey]

10 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

This might be unpopular even for unpopular opinions but I don't find Sam and Dean's story much a love story.  Most of the time I question whether these two guy actually like each other.

I wouldn't call it a love story either, except perhaps in the agape definition of love.  (The English language is very limited, imo, when it comes to expressions of love, especially compared to ancient Greek.) Otherwise, they seem very much just like brothers to me.  Sometimes they like each other.  Sometimes they don't.  But they're family, so they stick together. 

[Pondlass1]

12 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

they seem very much just like brothers to me.  Sometimes they like each other.  Sometimes they don't.  But they're family, so they stick together.

You're making it ordinary and it's not.  If this ^ were true we wouldn't have gone much beyond season 2.  It's a relationship dynamic like never before. Makes me think of Dickens' famous opening paragraph ...

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way....

The story of Sam and Dean depicts  conflicts between family and love, hatred and oppression, good and evil, light and darkness, times of despair and suffering on one hand,  joy and hope on the other.

 The predictable Salvatore brothers they ain't.  

[RulerofallIsurvey]

2 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

You're making it ordinary and it's not. 

I didn't think I was making it ordinary.  (There are plenty of families who don't stick together)  But even if I did, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.  Maybe some people see 'ordinary' as boring, but I don't.  One thing I liked in the early seasons was that Dean and Sam were pretty much 'ordinary' guys caught up in extraordinary circumstances and doing the best they could with it. 

6 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

The story of Sam and Dean depicts  conflicts between family and love, hatred and oppression, good and evil, light and darkness, times of despair and suffering on one hand,  joy and hope on the other.

I personally, see these themes in many real people's lives as well.  From an outsider view, some might even think they were just ordinary people.  ;) 

[Pondlass1]

I have a passionate romantic bent I guess.  Not that I see their relationship as sexual, of course not.  But where you see ordinary and everyday - I see the tragedy and triumph of heroes.  They are the backbone, the foundation.... and the sole reason I watch.

We must agree to disagree.

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, Pondlass1 said:

I have a passionate romantic bent I guess.  Not that I see their relationship as sexual, of course not.  But where you see ordinary and everyday - I see the tragedy and triumph of heroes.  They are the backbone, the foundation.... and the sole reason I watch.

We must agree to disagree.

I must agree to agree with you:)  I think their relationship is definitely the backbone of the show and without it, well, I probably wouldn't be watching.  I think I have a weird brother thing.  I don't know if it's because I miss having a close relationship with my sister, or if I have some kind of weird fetish, but most of my fave shows over the years have involved brothers. This show, Simon & Simon, Numb3rs, Blue Bloods, and I kind of thought of Mac and Richie as brothers on Highlander.

[catrox14]

UO

The worst thing that happened to this show was Sera Gamble, teasingly to Eric Kripke, calling Dean and Sam's relationship " epic love story" which is reserved in fiction for romantic/sexual relationships not sibling or family relationships, nor even platonic friendships. It's defined by Merriam Webster: a tale about lovers and by Oxford as "a story about a romantic relationship".

http://www.sequentialtart.com/article.php?id=345

 

 

Quote

Sera Gamble: I sometimes say it's "the epic love story of Sam and Dean," but that's just to tease Eric. Yes, I do keep the "Star Wars on Route 66" thing in mind. However huge the scope of Star Wars got, it never stopped being a personal story that was very simple and family-centered at its core.

She poked the Wincest bear, and it's IMO unfortunately used by factions of fandom to prop agendas that nothing should ever be more important to the boys than each other or even have equal footing with either brother; that they should never have better friends than each other which really IMO the boys aren't really good friends at all, nor do they need to be because not all siblings are friends.
It's further complicated by Dean being a parental figure in Sam's life, so that just makes "love story" super creepy and way inappropriate. It's a messy sibling relationship with messy history, and they would also die for each other because they are family. They have a further bond because they were raised in such a weird life that few people can understand by a father who was at worst an abusive father and at best, a really messed up guy trying to protect his kids. It's all there. That's not an epic "love" story. It's an epic family story. They are siblings and MO they act as siblings with a long history of fucked up shit. That is not an "epic love story". 

Man, I've been wanting to say that for a long ass time. LOL. YMMV agree to disagree etc LOL

Damn you, Sera. You either poked the bear on purpose or you knew not what you did. Sigh.

[gonzosgirrl]

I dunno, Oxford and Webster can define it as they will, but I am of the mind that 'epic love' doesn't have to be romantic.

Epic

adjective, Also, epical

1.noting or pertaining to a long poetic composition, usually centered upon a hero, in which a series of great achievements or events is narrated in elevated style:

Homer's Iliad is an epic poem.

2.resembling or suggesting such poetry:

an epic novel on the founding of the country.

3.heroic; majestic; impressively great:

the epic events of the war.

4.of unusually great size or extent:

a crime wave of epic proportions.

I think that is as good a definition of The Winchesters as any.

:)

[Wayward Son]

Major unpopular opinion. 

 

I used to be a big fan of the brotherly bond (although I’ve never shipped Wincest), but I’d say I’ve been watching the show since season 8 in spite of the brotherly bond. 

Edited January 11, 2018 by Wayward Son

[catrox14]

32 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I dunno, Oxford and Webster can define it as they will, but I am of the mind that 'epic love' doesn't have to be romantic.

Epic

adjective, Also, epical

1.noting or pertaining to a long poetic composition, usually centered upon a hero, in which a series of great achievements or events is narrated in elevated style:

Homer's Iliad is an epic poem.

2.resembling or suggesting such poetry:

an epic novel on the founding of the country.

3.heroic; majestic; impressively great:

the epic events of the war.

4.of unusually great size or extent:

a crime wave of epic proportions.

I think that is as good a definition of The Winchesters as any.

:)

I never said it wasn't an epic story in general. I pointed out that it WAS an epic family story. Sera used "epic love story" in reference to ONLY those two characters. She didn't say the 'Epic Love Story of the Winchester family and friends". My point is that her comment is used by factions of fandom to support their assertions that Sam and Dean should only ever be close to and have each other and never be independent of each other in any way. 

[gonzosgirrl]

7 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I never said it wasn't an epic story in general. I pointed out that it WAS an epic family story. Sera used "epic love story" in reference to ONLY those two characters. She didn't say the 'Epic Love Story of the Winchester family and friends". My point is that her comment is used by factions of fandom to support their assertions that Sam and Dean should only ever be close to and have each other and never be independent of each other in any way. 

Fair enough. Maybe an epic story of love would be more a more accurate description than epic love story. Fan-factions are going to latch on to anything to support their assertions, whether intended or not. And honestly, if Kripke didn't want it to be an epic love story (which must be the assumption if Sera consider it 'teasing' to taunt Eric with it), then he shouldn't have based all of the Winchesters actions on love (the loss of it, if not the pursuit of it). LOL!

I will say that I think the love-as-motivation is and always has been pretty centered around Dean, where John and Sam were motivated by vengeance.

Edited January 11, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[catrox14]

16 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Fair enough. Maybe an epic story of love would be more a more accurate description than epic love story. Fan-factions are going to latch on to anything to support their assertions, whether intended or not. And honestly, if Kripke didn't want it to be an epic love story (which must be the assumption if Sera consider it 'teasing' to taunt Eric with it), then he shouldn't have based all of the Winchesters actions on love (the loss of it, if not the pursuit of it). LOL!

I will say that I think the love-as-motivation is and always has been pretty centered around Dean, where John and Sam were motivated by vengeance.

Sure that's true and also not what Sera said which is the part I'm griping about LOL. T Kripke has said the core to the show is the brothers relationship which IMO is true. That doesn't mean that it was intended to be to the exclusion of forming attachments to other characters that might approach the significance of Dean and Sam to one another. 

[gonzosgirrl]

13 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Sure that's true and also not what Sera said which is the part I'm griping about LOL. T Kripke has said the core to the show is the brothers relationship which IMO is true. That doesn't mean that it was intended to be to the exclusion of forming attachments to other characters that might approach the significance of Dean and Sam to one another. 

But that happened under Kripke's reign as much as subsequent show runners. He is the one who set the precedence for them only having each other to depend on, whether through death (Jess, Madison, Jo, Pamela), rejection (Cassie) or circumstance (Sara).

Edited January 11, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Quote

I have a passionate romantic bent I guess.  Not that I see their relationship as sexual, of course not.  But where you see ordinary and everyday - I see the tragedy and triumph of heroes.  They are the backbone, the foundation.... and the sole reason I watch.

I think the real disparity in our views here is that I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. 

[catrox14]

14 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

But that happened under Kripke's reign as much as subsequent show runners. He is the one who set the precedence for them only having each other to depend on, whether through death (Jess, Madison, Jo, Pamela), rejection (Cassie) or circumstance (Sara).

I'm not understanding your point. I'm not talking about Sera as showrunner. Sera said that in 2006, when she was a writer/story editor. 

Edited January 11, 2018 by catrox14

[gonzosgirrl]

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

I'm not understanding your point. I'm not talking about Sera as showrunner. Sera said that in 2006, when she was a writer.

Right - I'm just saying she didn't pull the 'epic love' out of her hat - that the groundwork was already laid by Kripke.

[catrox14]

11 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Right - I'm just saying she didn't pull the 'epic love' out of her hat - that the groundwork was already laid by Kripke.

Kripke laid out the epic story of brotherly devotion and family love not "The Epic Love Story of Sam and Dean". Sera is a writer. She knows how to use words. She knew it would be perceived in the romantic way why else would she tease him about it? I don't think Kripke was intending to sell Dean and Sam as a romantic love story.

[companionenvy]

Both Sam and Dean have or have had strong relationships with people other than each other. Sam, obviously, had Jess and Amelia. Dean had Cassie and Lisa. While I don't see any of those relationships as ones that would have been fully satisfying long term, despite what Lisa said to Dean, I don't think any of them were really doomed to fail because of Winchester brodependency. Rather, I think the problem in each case was that the women weren't hunters or hunting-adjacent. Sam might have been able to settle down happily with Jess had he not been destined to be pulled back into the SPN world, but once he had been, I don't see any relationship that doesn't at least acknowledge his past as tenable. Amelia was framed pretty explicitly as a form of escapism, especially in Hunter Heroici. Cassie rejected Dean because of the hunting life. And while Lisa made an attempt to tell Dean he could be a hunter and have a relationship with her, that was never, IMO, going to work. Maybe if Sam had stayed dead, Dean would never have gone back to the life, although I doubt it, but even as it is, I see it as less "Dean is codependently obsessed with his brother, which precludes a normal relationship" as "Dean was suppressing a part of himself to have a regular life, and Sam's return opened the floodgates." 

Moving beyond the romantic, Dean, and to a lesser extent Sam, have developed close (or, you know, profound) bonds with others during their time together - Bobby, Cas, Charlie, Benny. It is true that they still prioritize each other -- this becomes explicit on several occasions, as when Dean asks Cas to leave to protect Sam. But none of those relationships had progressed to the point that we would have expected a healthy person to put the other person first. The way that Dean made Cas leave was crappy on multiple levels, but not because in a one-to-one "save Sam or save Cas" equation, "save Cas" should have taken priority if not for brodependency. 

To me, what is important is that Dean does have a meaningful relationship with Cas that is distinct from the relationship that the brothers as a unit have with Cas. If Cas were in the vessel of an attractive female, I think it is highly likely that the relationship would have turned romantic. I can't put a number on exactly how far into a relationship either Dean or Sam would  have to be in order to  have at least an equal emotional investment in that relationship as they do in the brother-bond, but I firmly believe it could happen over time under the right conditions - i.e, with a woman who was part of their world, and close to both of them. For instance, had Eileen survived, I could have seen her and Sam working out, over time. 

[bozodegama]

Hey correct me if i'm wrong because i'm no expert but isn't Supernatural supposed to mimic my favorite book growing up, "On the Road."  Two guys (Dean moriarty and Sal paradise) crisscross America, in a vintage car searching for God and Freedom (free will).  They replace the shackles of domestic life and traditional work (apple pie life)  with male brotherhood and bonding as a substitute for the nuclear family, white picket fence and regular employment (law school).  In the book, Dean (Neal Cassady) is the one who drives the car all the time, has a temper, drinks too much etc. .  They listen to Jazz (a 1950's version of classic rock and roll).  There are so many parallels between On the Road and Supernatural that the Kerouac estate probably should've sued Kripke.  But my point is that it's a book about the male bonds of friendship and brotherhood, not necessarily a love story.  They even get away with using the mixed name Sal Moriarty in Swan Song as the guy who first buys Baby..  Sorry for the book report.  That's just always the way I saw the show

[AwesomO4000]

I have not read the book, but the way that you describe it, it sounds like at least an inspiration to me... after throwing in some monsters, demons, and apocalyptic consequences.