Supernatural Bitterness & Unpopular Opinions: You All Suck

[Aeryn13]

 

So yes, Dean being there was entirely necessary, and I thought clearly shown and even foreshadowed by "The End."

 

They never once clarified if The End was a genuine future or just a construct of Zach`s so it can not be used as conclusive proof for Dean`s relevancy either.   

 

 

I thought that it was clear. In fact, for me, it was very clear.

 

When I say they should have made it clear, I mean so that noone, absolutely noone could question it. No viewer can have any doubts as to Sam being the conquering hero in that episode. Dean`s "role" can be build up or completely denigrated because the narrative isn`t obvious if he had any or not. I`ve seen meta that said it was him being a good sidekick that he went there but not really necessary. And that can`t really be argued against factually. It can be interpreted more favourably but nothing more. Sam`s role can not be interpreted.     

 

 

Well in this episode, yes, but as I said before: about time.

 

And they couldn`t do that without nullifying Dean`s role completely and kicking the entire last two years out of the mytharc? Apparently, yes. Even IF I believed, Dean was the trigger himself, it is still quite demeaning. Because what does that make him? The pom-pom-wearer, the one who cheers the real hero on enough to take the TRUE physical action that matters. Sam did everything that was relevant here himself. He took control of Lucifer for seemingly ever, he opened the portal, he threw himself in AND took Michael along. Dean knelt on the ground and looked at it. The imagery couldn`t have been more humiliating and lopsided if they tried. If you give that "role" to a woman nowadays, there is hell to pay.    

 

Samwise took physical, necessary action, That is SOOO much more than what they gave Dean. That is what made Samwise the hero to me. The emotional and cooking support he provided Frodo over the course of the journey was nice and all but if that was all he had done. And if his final role had been "I believe in you, Frodo, you can do it" and then Frodo did it? Samwise would have still remained firmly a sidekick. 

 

The show is at such a point that Dean will never get his equal of Suck Song. And until he does (which again, never), I will never not hate. The Leviathans were a bust but once Dean took on the MOC, they could have made Abaddon more epic, present her as more of a threat to the world, draw that fight out longer and give Dean an epic Season Finale kill where he saved the world on his lonesome with no help whatsoever while Sam looks on in awe. Then it would have redeemed it a little bit. Not fully because 5 Season arc vs. 1 Season arc can not equally compare but at least it would have been something.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Aeryn13

[rue721]

The memories were of Dean of course, but the way it was shot didn't shout to me that it was Dean that triggered the memories.

 

IA that it was completely weird for Lucifer!Sam to look into the ashtray and be ~saved~ or whatever. In terms of "symbolism that offers a depressing commentary on the guys' lives," imo it's up there with the guys having to carry around Bobby's flask because his spirit was attached to it. Sam's gotta look in the ashtray for memories of his brother, Dean's gotta take an inappropriate snort from the flask for memories of his wanna-be father. LOL.

 

This continues to support my (utterly superflous) fanwank that Dean is a smoker, though. The Batman Voice, Sam associating him with the ashtray, that he drove all the way out to I-don't-even-know-where-Cas-was-working and immediately asked for cigarettes, how he will suddenly get all testy and then practically run outside (slamming the door behind him, natch), how it seems like he'll always be waiting in the car or back at the room for Sam to bring their food rather than going inside the store/restaurant himself. Etc.

 

ANYWAY! I think the reasons why an old toy soldier rather than Dean's face triggered those memories:

 

1.  The show's usual "no homo!" weirdness. SPN can't even have Cas and Dean hug more than ~1x/series, it wasn't going to have the world be saved because the Winchesters looked into each others' eyes/souls.

 

2.  Kripke's apparent undying loyalty to that stupid Baby-the-Hero framing device.

[catrox14]

IA that it was completely weird for Lucifer!Sam to look into the ashtray and be ~saved~ or whatever. In terms of "symbolism that offers a depressing commentary on the guys' lives," imo it's up there with the guys having to carry around Bobby's flask because his spirit was attached to it. Sam's gotta look in the ashtray for memories of his brother, Dean's gotta take an inappropriate snort from the flask for memories of his wanna-be father. LOL.

 

This continues to support my (utterly superflous) fanwank that Dean is a smoker, though. The Batman Voice, Sam associating him with the ashtray, that he drove all the way out to I-don't-even-know-where-Cas-was-working and immediately asked for cigarettes, how he will suddenly get all testy and then practically run outside (slamming the door behind him, natch), how it seems like he'll always be waiting in the car or back at the room for Sam to bring their food rather than going inside the store/restaurant himself. Etc.

 

ANYWAY! I think the reasons why an old toy soldier rather than Dean's face triggered those memories:

 

1.  The show's usual "no homo!" weirdness. SPN can't even have Cas and Dean hug more than ~1x/series, it wasn't going to have the world be saved because the Winchesters looked into each others' eyes/souls.

 

2.  Kripke's apparent undying loyalty to that stupid Baby-the-Hero framing device.

 

I don't think it had anything to do with the 'no-homo' thing because in that very same scene they have Dean looking into Sam's face telling him he's there and he'll never leave him. I mean that is classic romantic dialogue. So why not have Sam be triggered by Dean's bloody face saying those words of love and support to his brother.

 

I think it was just a stupid way to set up  Sam to save the world ALONE to redeem himself for starting the apocalypse, never mind that Dean broke the first seal without which there is no last seal for Sam to break. Since Dean torturing souls is what broke the first seal then he had just as much to make up for as Sam. For me, Dean deciding to support Sam by watching him die, is not  Dean's redemption nor is it saving the world. Sending them both into the pit would have been satisfactory.

Edited January 24, 2015 by catrox14

[amensisterfriend]

I really do love and respect all the different opinions here, but just from my own perspective as someone who likes both Dean and Sam but has to fanwank hard to enjoy the latter, it always sorts of stuns me to see that some people think the writers 'hate' Dean or have screwed him over. Of the two brothers, Dean has been given pretty much EVERY positive, noble, lovable quality while Sam has been given only flaws and/or stripped of any sort of personality at all. Dean has spent about 95% of the series as the heroic, saintly, self-sacrificing brother who has to save his perpetually wrongheaded, wayward younger brother from his own arrogant blunders. We are reminded repeatedly and explicitly that Dean is handsome, charming, witty, brave, loyal, etc. He even (as opposed to Sam, of course) has an adorable soft spot for and special connection to young kids, which is always writer shorthand for 'who could not love this guy---he's got the best heart in the whole world!'

 

Every secondary character whose opinion is worth valuing is closer to Dean and even tells us directly that they prefer Dean to Sam. Heavenly angels chose Dean specifically, for heaven's sake (lame pun intended), while for the vast majority of the series the only creatures who like or want Sam are evil and/or demonic. Dean was supposed to be the vessel (or whatever---I have trouble keeping the terminology straight!) for Michael, The Good Brother, just in case we didn't get it already. Meanwhile, Sam let freaking Lucifer inside of him---literally---just in case we didn't yet understand who the infuriating screwup was!

 

Sam is consistently portrayed as the frowning, disapproving humorless killjoy, which are traits pretty much guaranteed to alienate large portions of any TV audience---especially on a show where we're hungry for the type of humor and fun Dean brings as a means of breaking up the relentless bleakness and angst. Sam is the one who we're continually reminded got all of John's worst traits.  (Except the alcohol dependence, though somehow even Dean's booze guzzling has usually been depicted as part of his ever so macho, manly way of coping rather than genuinely problematic) The writers remind us frequently that Sam is prideful and egotistical while poor Dean just doesn't have the self-esteem to see how wonderful he is---again, that's a very clear method of getting the audience to want to hug and sympathize with 'poor' Dean and reiterate his many fine qualities. 

 

I guess you could argue that Dean hasn't technically been as central to many of the season arcs, but given how sloppy those arcs are and how gravely they've ended up assassinating various characters, why would people who like Dean (and I do like him, by the way) even WANT him to have been the centerpiece in whichever Idiot Screws Up Needs to Be saved and Starts Apocalypse they were trotting out in a given season?

 

I like both brothers, but I think if either one got a raw deal from the writers, it's very definitely Sam.  

[Demented Daisy]

I don't think either has gotten a "raw deal".  

 

They're both (mostly) human and humans make mistakes.  They've screwed up and paid the price.  They've saved the world and been punished for it (in a way).  They have positive and negative traits.  They don't always do the right thing and have each betrayed the other (arguably).

 

It's what make them dynamic, interesting characters.  We can argue about all the wonderful character traits they have been given and contrast it to the horrible ones the other has, but in the end, neither are "Gary Stu"s.  

 

We are reminded repeatedly and explicitly that Dean is handsome, charming, witty, brave, loyal, etc.

 

And Sam is intelligent, compassionate, and just as handsome and brave as Dean.  I certainly don't remember anyone referring to Sam as the ugly, cowardly brother.  And loyalty, while admirable, has gotten Dean into trouble on more than one occasion.  Dean's "charm" can also be seen as smarmy -- re: the current discussion of Dean and women in another thread.

 

They are written to be flawed heroes.  The idea that either is considered markedly "better" than the other is mind-boggling to me.

[amensisterfriend]

hey have positive and negative traits.  They don't always do the right thing and have each betrayed the other (arguably).

It's what make them dynamic, interesting characters.  We can argue about all the wonderful character traits they have been given and contrast it to the horrible ones the other has, but in the end, neither are "Gary Stu"s.

 

...in your opinion. Which I disagree with and find as "mind boggling" as you do mine. I personally think Dean has been given FAR more consistent, salient positive traits while Sam has just as consistently been depicted as less likable and far more flawed. Even the compassion to which you refer has often been shown to be deliberate manipulation on Sam's part and a means by which to elicit information rather than a sincere virtue. 

 

That's not to say I don't like both brothers---I do. And I'm off to watch them rather than argue about them! 

Edited January 24, 2015 by amensisterfriend

[catrox14]

 

...in your opinion. Which I disagree with and find as "mind boggling" as you do mine. I personally think Dean has been given FAR more consistent, salient positive traits while Sam has just as consistently been depicted as less likable and far more flawed. Even the compassion to which you refer has often been shown to be deliberate manipulation on Sam's part and a means by which to elicit information rather than a sincere virtue

 

I think most viewers believe Sam and Dean are both handsome, smart , brave and flawed to the nth degree and make mistakes all the live long day.  My comment above was more that I think the current trajectory of Sam and Dean came from an almost reboot starting with s8

 

The problems I have is when both characters are forced into actions that are well outside of what I think has been shown before to be consistent character traits like Sam not looking for either Dean or Kevin. I think even the most ardent Sam detractors would probably agree that Sam got royally screwed on that SL. And some still haven't forgive Sam for those actions or lack thereof. Sam got some redemption in s5 for the problems he had in s4 by jumping into the pit with Lucifer but I'm not sure he's yet recovered from abandoning Dean and Kevin. I think part of Sam's redemption came in s9 with his Purge speech which worked for and against him. Maybe now he's being more supportive-ish to Dean because of not having looked for him in s8.

 

And now Dean is on that same kind of unforgivable action path starting with allowing an angel to possess Sam without Sam's consent  which some viewers have equated to rape (which I completely disagree with personally MMV), followed by taking on the Mark and now killing 5 people. Thank goodness when Dean was a demon they didn't have him literally rape anyone.  But I do wonder if it was being considered.

 

I'm not sure how they are going to rehab Dean's character from him allowing Sam to be possessed by Gadzeke and being a demon and now slaughtering 5 human beings.

[AwesomO4000]

I'm not sure how they are going to rehab Dean's character from him allowing Sam to be possessed by Gadzeke and being a demon and now slaughtering 5 human beings.

 

I don't know about the killing the 5 people yet, but I think they have already rehabbed Dean's character for the possession and taking the mark - unfortunately in a way that I thought sort of damaged Sam... again, just when I was starting to forgive him for season 8's character assassination. (I think Dean got off more easily in season 5. He might've been left sort of on the sidelines, but at least his personality wasn't dinged in the process. Character/Personality-wise Dean came out looking awesome.) It started with showing us almost every step that got Dean to the point of concern where he saved Sam, and showed us in detail why he lied. Then it had him being straightforward about his feelings when he did get caught. It showed us why Dean decided to take on the mark in great detail (as apposed to Sam's decision to start drinking demon blood which was never shown or referred to).

 

Unfortunately during this process, it showed us a Sam who was unsympathetic to Dean and not completely specific about his anger. The writers could've been way more specific with Sam's dialogue here, but I think they purposely left some of it "up to interpretation" so we would sympathize with Dean's situation and understand why he'd feel confused by Sam's reaction and beaten down enough to take on the mark somewhat recklessly. And then of course it turned out that Gadreel redeemed himself in the end and helped the good guys, making Dean's decision to trust him - though sad in terms of Kevin - in the end almost necessary for defeating Metatron. And if that wasn't enough rehab of Dean's character for Gadreel we got Sam's "I lied," basically completely absolving Dean of what he did by saying not only would Sam have done the same thing, but he was either being a complete hypocrite about the situation and unnecessarily being an asshat to Dean, or he was just that pissy / self-absorbed that he didn't bother to try to see Dean's side of it until he was in the same position. Pardon my French and bitterness, but screw you show. Why does redeeming Dean more often than not mean tarnishing Sam's character? And it wasn't the first time in my opinion...

 

{snip}...never mind that Dean broke the first seal without which there is no last seal for Sam to break. Since Dean torturing souls is what broke the first seal then he had just as much to make up for as Sam. For me, Dean deciding to support Sam by watching him die, is not  Dean's redemption nor is it saving the world. Sending them both into the pit would have been satisfactory.

 

Dean had already spent 40 years in hell for his unintentional role in starting the apocalypse - which happened because he sacrificed his soul to save Sam. With Sam, on the other hand, the writers made sure to show that at every turn he lied to Dean and was crappy to him for no apparent reason, so that we sympathized with Dean's plight. (I used to consider that the writers didn't really try to do this deliberately, but then came the above with season 9, so now I'm more leaning towards it being a deliberate tactic on their parts.) And the narrative made it clear that Sam deliberately chose to "go down the wrong path." He betrayed his brother, beat him up, and insisted on doing the wrong thing, so that by the time Sam broke the final seal, Dean's role pretty much looked like an accidental afterthought - and, in my opinion, has been treated as such by the show since early season 5. No characters on the show ever blame anyone for starting the apocalypse / raising Lucifer other than Sam. (In "Dark Side of the Moon" the hunters even lamented that Dean didn't deserve to be killed, and only did so because he'd recognized them. Their information had only pegged Sam as starting the apocalypse). And they did so often enough that it was a theme and it went on until at least the end of season 8. For me, the way the narrative was set up, Sam had way more that he needed to make up for than Dean. Dean's accidentally breaking the first seal after resisting 30 years of excruciating torture in hell that he was sentenced to because he sacrificed his soul for his brother - who by the way couldn't keep his promise to save Dean - to me isn't in need of the same redemption as what the narrative had Sam do. And Dean had already paid enough for his mistake and had tried, repeatedly, to prevent Sam from making his. I'm glad Dean wasn't sent back to hell, because then that would've ended up being on Sam.

 

Dean knelt on the ground and looked at it. The imagery couldn`t have been more humiliating and lopsided if they tried.

 

Well, he could've been lying on the ground looking at it dazedly from afar like Sam in the season 2 finale. Or he could've been screaming and struggling helplessly while his brother was ripped apart by hellhounds. Or he could've been verbally bested and humiliated by a demon who just got him to set Lucifer free while just then figuring out that that demon had been manipulating him for about a year and a half to do exactly what he just did. Oh, and that he'd just sacrificed his humanity and his relationship with his brother for nothing... oh wait strike that - he'd just sacrificed his humanity and his relationship with his brother to end up doing exactly the opposite of what he was trying to do and that his brother and heaven and earth had warned him about, but he didn't listen. Sorry, but in my opinion, that is way more humiliating than being by the side of your brother and supporting him no matter what so that he can do what he needs to do to redeem himself and save the world. It's not even close. Considering that Sam felt that he needed to do it - and had told Dean as such - to me, it was the kindest, most noble thing Dean could've done to let Sam have that, with no humiliation in it at all - especially since it was the last thing on earth Dean wanted to do, because it meant losing Sam.

 

Not fully because 5 Season arc vs. 1 Season arc can not equally compare but at least it would have been something.

 

For me, it was more like a two season arc. The first two season chapter was all about the Yellow-eyed demon and was closed by Dean. The third chapter was mainly about Dean, and Sam's supposed "powers" had no bearing on the conclusion of the arc. Small threads bled over into the next seasons, but they usually do on this show. Season 4 and 5 had to do with Lucifer, Michael and the apocalypse with the only common threads from before being Sam's demon blood (which is a part of him) and Dean going to hell. Sam concluded that two year arc. It just happened to coincide with Kripke's last year and he moved on, but even then threads went over into season six. Actually at least as many threads went over into season 6 from season 5 than from season 2 and 3 over into season 4 and 5, in my opinion, even with the year time jump.

 

They never once clarified if The End was a genuine future or just a construct of Zach`s so it can not be used as conclusive proof for Dean`s relevancy either.

 

I don't think it has to be conclusive for it to be foreshadowing. As foreshadowing goes, I thought it was pretty detailed and strong.

Edited January 25, 2015 by AwesomO4000

[Aeryn13]

 

Or he could've been screaming and struggling helplessly while his brother was ripped apart by hellhounds. Or he could've been verbally bested and humiliated by a demon who just got him to set Lucifer free while just then figuring out that that demon had been manipulating him for about a year and a half to do exactly what he just did

.

The Season 3 and Season 4 Finale were those when noone won. At least not the Winchesters. In the Season 3 Finale Sam might have just watched but Dean did get ripped apart. It wasn`t a "hero" moment for either one. Same in Season 4, Sam freed Lucifer (and at least got the Lilith kill) and Dean just ran in after the fact. Again, a loss on all sides. So those Finales don`t count for me in terms of weighing them against the Season 5 one.   

 

And the entire "Sam`s redemption" in Season 5 fell flat for me because he didn`t redeem himself for what I think he needed to redeem himself for. Increasingly through Season 4 on the demon blood he got more arrogant. And it was that hubris that led him to freeing Lucifer. So when I think a character flaw is pride and that they thought they were the big kahuna? The last, the very last thing I want is the imagery of how they actually ARE the big kahuna and everyone they had looked down their nose at in arrogance having to acknowledge that.

 

Sam thought Dean was weak and pathetic in Season 4 and certainly not up to par to save the world? Well, what do you know, the "redemption" for that had pathetic little Dean kneeling on the ground in his sidekick pose and gazing up in awe at Sam the super-saviour. So basically, arrogant!Sam was right and everyone else was wrong. Urgh. 

 

The re-did that with the trials in a way. "You are a great hunter, Dean, smart, and not a grunt". Dean screws up a hunt and needs to be saved by Sam, then knows noting about the lore for the next few episodes and calling him a grunt would be an embarassment to grunts.  

[Mulva]

What I hated about S5 was everyone's amnesia about their own role in the apocolypse.  Dean started it by breaking the first seal, Cas facilitated it by lying to both Sam and Dean all S4, and letting Sam out of the panic room, and Bobby was urging Dean to let Sam out of the panic room, feed him demon blood and sic him on Lilith.  Then when Sam got out of the panic room, drank demon blood and killed Lilith, Bobby was all, "Sam you monster!  YOU started the apocolypse!". 

 

Poor Sam got all the blame for being tricked into setting Lucifer free and is still getting grief.  Meanwhile, Cas gets tricked into breaking heaven, and it's all, "poor Cas, he has such a big heart", and gets no blame.  Don't even get me started on Cas's betraying Sam and Dean to work with Crowley, and deliberately letting the leviathans out, being responsible for Bobby's death, which has NEVER been mentioned by anyone.

 

Another bitterness:  Sam got fewer lines last week than Crowley's butler.  He's still the first billed character, isn't he?

[catrox14]

Another bitterness:  Sam got fewer lines last week than Crowley's butler.  He's still the first billed character, isn't he?

 

 

I suspect part of making Misha and Mark series regulars was to give J2 more time off to be with families and that would mean less to do in certain episodes for both Jared and Jensen. I am pretty sure as the season comes to a close both Sam and Dean will have far more to do and say.

[shang yiet]

Jensen still gets many more lines and scenes than Jared, maybe he doesn't need to spend so much time with his family?

[catrox14]

Jensen still gets many more lines and scenes than Jared, maybe he doesn't need to spend so much time with his family?

 

I think one would have to actually sit down and calculate just how many lines or scenes Jensen and Jared have each which is not something I'm interested in.  And the lines might not even be a factor for Jared. Maybe he's perfectly happy to be paid handsomely to show up, look pretty, look concerned, etc. Don't know. Jared also has two children but both guys fly home to Texas all the time.

 

Seven of the first 10 episodes of this season have featured a really healthy dose of Sam doing things and saying a lot.  Sam was shown torturing the demon for info, chasing down leads with long speeches to make and phone conversations with Crowley. He captured Dean in the 2nd episode and we saw flashbacks to him setting up Lester to find Dean. He had the de-demoning scenes with Dean in Soul Survivor. I'm sure the pendulum will drift back Sam's way going forward as the quest to un Mark Dean continues on. 

[AwesomO4000]

And the entire "Sam`s redemption" in Season 5 fell flat for me because he didn`t redeem himself for what I think he needed to redeem himself for. Increasingly through Season 4 on the demon blood he got more arrogant. And it was that hubris that led him to freeing Lucifer. So when I think a character flaw is pride and that they thought they were the big kahuna? The last, the very last thing I want is the imagery of how they actually ARE the big kahuna and everyone they had looked down their nose at in arrogance having to acknowledge that.

 

Sam thought Dean was weak and pathetic in Season 4 and certainly not up to par to save the world? Well, what do you know, the "redemption" for that had pathetic little Dean kneeling on the ground in his sidekick pose and gazing up in awe at Sam the super-saviour. So basically, arrogant!Sam was right and everyone else was wrong. Urgh.

 

I'm fairly certain that that wasn't the message. Sam spent most of season 5 following Dean's lead to make up for his screw up - which he acknowledged making, constantly. He followed Dean's just say "no" plan, and then even when Dean did a 180, he gave Dean the benefit of the doubt that Dean would make the decision Dean thought was right. He made sure to let Dean know that Dean's strength was part of what he (Sam) needed to keep fighting himself. But Sam also thought that it was his responsibility to fix the mess that he made - and that a whole boatload of people thought that he made. So there were two things Sam needed to redeem himself for that were somewhat conflicting. In my opinion, if Sam hadn't been the one to put Lucifer back in the cage, it pretty much would've been leaving Dean to clean up his (Sam's) screw up.. again.

 

That might have been okay for me if Sam had been allowed to have even one other real "win" in terms of taking care of something that was related to him or that he said that he would do. But in the narrative, he wasn't allowed that. In fact, the one thing he did "take care of" not only resulted in setting Lucifer free, it required methods which caused even more pain and suffering for Dean rather than being something positive. So Dean not only sacrificed his life in season two, he took care of the family YED problem for everyone (because Sam couldn't - which caused John and eventually Dean to have to go to hell in order to protect him), and he (Dean) had to bear all of the responsibility for saving Sam because Sam couldn't save Dean in return. So if Dean also was the one to defeat Lucifer and take care of screw-up, little brother Sam's problem for him yet again, and perhaps had to go to hell - again - to do it, what would the message be there? It's okay to let other people clean up your messes as long as you are humble about it? When other people sacrifice for you, and you screw up, it's okay to keep letting them sacrifice for you and take care of your messes? To me, in a way, that has its own arrogance and sense of entitlement.

 

Sam wanted to make up for his mistake, and he wanted to gain back Dean's trust in him. That's it. To me "see Dean, you can trust me. I get that I screwed up, and I can take responsibility for my own life this time." Not "See Dean, I was right all along." And if Sam hadn't learned his hubris lesson in season 5 - and I was of the opinion he had - his time in the cage with Lucifer certainly taught him that, in my opinion. When Sam came back in season 6, he was grateful to Dean, and he continued that humility in season 7, accepting Dean's help graciously and admitting that he couldn't always do it himself. ("I mean, I do need you watching my back. Obviously.") Which is why it was so ridiculous to me in season 8 when for some reason Sam had to apparently learn this lesson - actually both lessons, because apparently they couldn't let Sam keep the having to accept responsibility thing either - all over again. That character assassination really was atrocious, in my opinion.

 

In the Season 3 Finale Sam might have just watched but Dean did get ripped apart. It wasn`t a "hero" moment for either one.

 

I disagree. Dean made sure to let Sam know that it wasn't Sam's fault and that he fully accepted the consequences of his own mistakes. He fought any attempt by Sam to sacrifice in his place. Which for me goes back to Sam accepting responsibility for his mistakes in season 5 and accepting the consequences. And Sam had a much bigger mistake to atone for.

 

Same in Season 4, Sam freed Lucifer (and at least got the Lilith kill) and Dean just ran in after the fact. Again, a loss on all sides.

 

I disagree again. Dean had been fighting to do the right thing the entire episode. He even had to put aside his own understandable anger to do what was best. He stood his ground on not saying "yes" and was thwarted every step of the way by the angels.* There was nothing presented as "heroic" about the Lilith kill. It was presented as the exact opposite - a failure on Sam's part. Sam giving in to his pride and need for revenge at the expense of his humanity and his relationship with his brother. the narrative even made sure to paint that he may have thought he had good intentions, but what he did was just as much fueled by negative character traits. They even had Sam almost changing his mind, but then succumbing to Lililth's taunts to get the final act done just to hit us over the head with how much of a prideful, manipulated chump Sam was. But that wasn't even enough of an anvil... then we got taunting by Ruby and "it was all you and your (bad) choices" and "I'm awesome" (what a patsy you were). To me that wasn't a "loss on all sides" - that was one loss after a valiant effort and one epic screw up and total humiliation at the hands of the enemy. So in my opinion, they do weigh against the season 5 finale, because Sam had way more to come back from than Dean did. It wasn't even a comparison in terms of the "loss" in season 4. For me, it wasn't even close.

 

* And mainly caused by Zachariah, who Dean would get to kill in season 5 when he again tried to keep them from stopping the apocalypse.

 

 

Edited to add: Wow, thinking (and looking) back on this, this came out really bitter and rant-y. I sometimes forget how much parts of season 4 ticked me off until I start thinking about it again. I guess I suck, too. ; )  Good thing I really liked seasons 5 - 7 and thought they fixed things quite a bit for me. (I'll ignore season 8, or things won't be pretty) . And good thing that's what this thread is for. Okay, I'm done now for a bit, please excuse me, and carry on.

Edited January 26, 2015 by AwesomO4000

[Demented Daisy]

I have largely refrained from discussing Swan Song because, in the end, I was never sure how I felt about it.  But now, almost 5 years later, I think I finally have some clarity.

 

Everything that follows is my opinion, as this is the Unpopular Opinions thread.

 

Sam did not save the world on his own.  Dean absolutely had to be there, to give Sam the strength he needed to regain control of his body and jump into the pit.

 

The green army man was only ever a green army man.  On its own, it has no power.  Have you ever sorted through your attic or an old closet and found something that you forgot you had?  And when you saw it, held it in your hands, it brought back powerful memories and emotions?  That's what the green army man did.  For a moment, it brought back every good feeling Sam had for Dean.  That love allowed him to regain control.

 

And Dean....  Dean did what he had to do -- that's what he did his whole life.  Without Dean's love, his sacrifice, his absolute determination to take care of his little brother at all costs, Sam and Adam would have waged war that day.

 

Everything that Dean ever did for Sam mattered in that one moment.  And Dean had to be there, to remind Sam of everything they had endured -- together.  In that one moment, it was absolute, unconditional love that saved the world.

 

It wasn't Sam; it wasn't Dean.  It was love.

[MYFAKETVBOYFRIEND]

I have largely refrained from discussing Swan Song because, in the end, I was never sure how I felt about it.  But now, almost 5 years later, I think I finally have some clarity.

 

Everything that follows is my opinion, as this is the Unpopular Opinions thread.

 

Sam did not save the world on his own.  Dean absolutely had to be there, to give Sam the strength he needed to regain control of his body and jump into the pit.

 

The green army man was only ever a green army man.  On its own, it has no power.  Have you ever sorted through your attic or an old closet and found something that you forgot you had?  And when you saw it, held it in your hands, it brought back powerful memories and emotions?  That's what the green army man did.  For a moment, it brought back every good feeling Sam had for Dean.  That love allowed him to regain control.

 

And Dean....  Dean did what he had to do -- that's what he did his whole life.  Without Dean's love, his sacrifice, his absolute determination to take care of his little brother at all costs, Sam and Adam would have waged war that day.

 

Everything that Dean ever did for Sam mattered in that one moment.  And Dean had to be there, to remind Sam of everything they had endured -- together.  In that one moment, it was absolute, unconditional love that saved the world.

 

It I-wasn't Sam; it wasn't Dean.  It was love.

 

I agree wholeheartedly.  I have always felt that way but it was an Unpopular Opinion and this thread didn't exist. I actually liked that they didn't have Dean/Michael fight Sam/Lucifer. That could only end with one of the brothers killing the other. The whole narration by Chuck gets me every time.

Edited January 27, 2015 by CuriousParker

[SueB]

I love your post Demented Daisy! *runs out of thread quickly*

[DittyDotDot]

Dodge, SueB! Hee!

[AwesomO4000]

Serpentine, SueB, serpentine! (while dodging, of course).

[Aeryn13]

 

And Dean....  Dean did what he had to do -- that's what he did his whole life.  Without Dean's love, his sacrifice, his absolute determination to take care of his little brother at all costs

 

Which completely reduces him to Sam`s sidekick, if his entire purpose in life seems to be revolving around Sam and caretaking for Sam. And when it`s convenient for the writers, they use exactly that to trash the character for not "letting Sam go" and not "treating Sam like a grown-up". `For me that`s having their cake and eating it, too.

 

Of course, I generally believe a person`s accomplishments are just that: accomplishments of that person and noone else. And while you can be nice or polite and give a little "I couldn`t have done this without you" pat on the head to another, it doesn`t mean that other person shares those accomplishments. Not if they didn`t do equal or at least part of the actual work. And being the "wind beneath someone`s wings" is doing no part of it. Sam had the memories, Sam had the feelings, Sam had the strength etc.      

 

When Dean killed the YED, Ghost!John did a valid onscreen part to help. It literally couldn`t have happened without him so he deserves credit. Whereas just as Sam gets ZERO credit for Dean killing Zachariah, Dean gets zero credit for Sam defeating Lucifer. The only difference is that in context one episode weighs a thousand times more story-wise than the other. If it was just some random kill within the Season or even within the arc, I still wouldn`t credit Dean for it but it wouldn`t be that much of a bother.  

 

They couldn`t even do the one tiny thing and have Dean`s motivation in going there to be making one last-ditch attempt to save the world. Nope, he goes there because he has no mind or purpose or worth that extends beyond "Sam`s brother". How incredibly pathetic did that look?  

Edited January 27, 2015 by Aeryn13

[Demented Daisy]

You know what, as a military spouse and a mother who has done nothing but care for my family my entire adult life, I find your viewpoint a little insulting.  I don't take it personally, because you don't know me, but I can't help but be a little offended.

 

Of course, I generally believe a person`s accomplishments are just that: accomplishments of that person and noone else. And while you can be nice or polite and give a little "I couldn`t have done this without you" pat on the head to another, it doesn`t mean that other person shares those accomplishments. Not if they didn`t do equal or at least part of the actual work. And being the "wind beneath someone`s wings" is doing no part of it. Sam had the memories, Sam had the feelings, Sam had the strength etc.      

 

(snip)

 

They couldn`t even do the one tiny thing and have Dean`s motivation in going there to be making one last-ditch attempt to save the world. Nope, he goes there because he has no mind or purpose or worth that extends beyond "Sam`s brother". How incredibly pathetic did that look?  

 

 

Pathetic?  Pathetic would have been Dean getting the hell out of there instead of standing by the one person in the world he loves the most.  

 

But mileage varies.

[Aeryn13]

I`m sorry if I offended you, I didn`t mean to say that raising a family is a small or meaningless feat, far from it. But in say, the usual speeches in Award acceptance where the winner goes, I couldn`t have done it without bla bla, I don`t think that means the person they couldn`t have done it without also wins the Oscar or the Pulitzer or the Nobel-Prize. If a fireman runs into a burning building and saves two people, it is something the fireman did and noone else.   

 

Beating Lucifer was something Sam did. As much as I wished Dean had a role there, I can`t wish it into being onscreen. What I saw him do was drive a car and then get beaten up. After that he was just on the ground, not doing anything. Sam did everything of note. I do require a character to DO something (or not do it if we have a "kill all those people or die yourself" scenario) to count as contribution in any given situation.      

 

 

Pathetic?  Pathetic would have been Dean getting the hell out of there instead of standing by the one person in the world he loves the most.

 

The reason he gave for going to that field was pretty much "he should at least see a friendly face - me - before dying and I`m dying with him then". Narratively speaking, the hero would go to a fight to at least TRY and turn it around, to save the world, to think beyond himself. The sidekick might go for nothing else but the express reason of "because I`m the sidekick and I should be on the ground next to the hero, after all, what would I be there for without them?" 

 

So for me, the heroic thing to do would have been a) I will go there and try to prevent the fight or b) if there is no hope of stopping it, I will at least do my damnedest to help the part of the world that survives.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Aeryn13

[rue721]

Of course, I generally believe a person`s accomplishments are just that: accomplishments of that person and noone else. And while you can be nice or polite and give a little "I couldn`t have done this without you" pat on the head to another, it doesn`t mean that other person shares those accomplishments.

 

I agree with Demented Daisy, and am also struggling not to find that insulting. Not even just on my own behalf, also on the behalf of people who have been there for *me,* too.***

 

Anyway, I think that misses the point of the confrontation with Lucifer. By becoming Lucifer's vessel and then throwing himself into the Cage, Sam was basically trying to jump on a grenade. The only way "jumping on the grenade" makes sense even on a practical level, though, is if he's *part* of a larger unit. Which he was -- he and Dean were still brothers/partners/etc. And he knew that was the case because Dean was there *with him.*

 

***I think maybe the disconnect is that I don't think the credit/gold star/trophy/whatever is the point -- or even means anything, to be honest. If you do, that's completely fine, but that's why the idea of tallying "wins" in this way is fundamentally not going to make sense to me.

Edited January 27, 2015 by rue721

[Aeryn13]

 

Not even just on my own behalf, also on the behalf of people who have been there for *me,* too.

 

Again, no intent to offend. Just personally, when someone thanks ME for emotional support or something, I never take that to mean I get credit in whatever they accomplished because ultimately they did it and that should count for something.

 

In a fictional setting it`s even more clear when a line of dialogue in that vein is genuine or when the writers just use it to throw a character a bone. Just like "I will not do it until all of you agree" from Sam. Yeah right, he was the vessel, the only one Death said could pull it off and was therefore important.

 

The others had no part in that destiny so what were they gonna say really? You don`t tell the Chosen One "no". They had to learn that this was their problem in Season 4 apparently. And Sam ultimately proved that in the end he went with the "yes" over Dean`s "no" when they found Lucifer. Because the one with the actual power to make the choice will always make that choice. Telling people with no power to enforce it you will give them a vote in something is silly to me. There is no way it doesn`t look patronizing. At least be honest about "no power, no say". Because that will always shake out to be the reality of it. When Dean was a supposed Michael!vessel, THEN he had equal say. After that played out, he lost his vote.

 

 

By becoming Lucifer's vessel and then throwing himself into the Cage, Sam was basically trying to jump on a grenade. The only way "jumping on the grenade" makes sense even on a practical level, though, is if he's *part* of a larger unit.

 

I don`t follow. He jumped on the grenade to protect the world. If Dean was there or not, that was his plan. Lets say, we follow my argument and Dean didn`t need to be there and Sam (with the car/toy soldier) could have pulled it off themselves, would he have not done so because Dean wasn`t around? I mean, Dean`s presence doesn`t have any bearing on Sam`s intent to save the world. The world is so much bigger than the two of them. And it would have been perfectly worthwhile for one or both to die for its save.  

Edited January 27, 2015 by Aeryn13

[catrox14]

I understand the message the show wanted me to take away in Swan Song but for me it failed epically.

 

Swan Song is highly divisive and either loving it completely or loathing it completely seems to be equally unpopular opinions, depending. 

 

I will forever be bitter about Dean in that episode. Well from PoNR on really. I know they wanted me to believe that Dean being there sitting by Sam was the only thing that let Sam save the world but IMO they totally failed to put that on screen in a clear and unambiguous manner.  Compare it to "Goodbye Stranger" where it was clear, with no ambiguity IMO that is was Dean himself getting through to Cas when Cas beats him in the face, even as Naomi was trying to control Cas. It was clear narratively and on-screen in the way that scene was filmed  it was , without a doubt, Dean affecting Cas,bringing Cas back from the ledge.  

 

I'm not the greatest with subtext etc but I'm not completely blind but for a season finale IMO they needed to make it clear by having Sam glance at the toy soldiers and then back to Dean and back to the toy soldier without seeing Samifer looking at himself in the car window and then over to the toy soldier. Yes, we got cutaway shots to Dean's bloodied swollen face but to me that was showing us Dean's POV of what Sam was experiencing not that Dean was really affecting Sam in anyway.  Even Dean's pleadings of " I'm not  gonna leave you Sam, I'm here" would have been more meaningful had they interspersed that with Sam looking at the toy soldiers vs just beating Dean senseless. 

 

But that still doesn't make it a satisfactory conclusion to Dean's arc they spent two seasons building up.  And using Baby to frame the episode sure didn't make Dean seem that important.

 

I think it would have been far more satisfying in a totally cruel way for Dean to have been killed by Lucifer in the early part of Swan Song in Detroit . Dean's death would have been a motivating factor for Sam to say yes to Lucifer and still jump in the pit. Sam could be all "I'm doing it for Dean. My brother's death will not have been in vain". Sam could have driven himself to Stull Cemetary in Dean's car and we would have had the toy soldier moment either way, since that seemed to be the trigger.

 

Even if  I was okay with Dean having to be there, there is some interpretation that it was Lucifer actually relenting for a minute because he saw Sam's 'happy' life with Dean via Sam's flashback memories, which means that it was only Lucifer being sad in a moment that allowed Sam to take control making Dean's presence even less important.

 

So any way I slice it, Dean's presence was not necessary for Sam to defeat Lucifer. For me anyway. 

 

I do think lending moral support is incredibly important IRL but that doesn't mean the person I'm supporting cannot flat out do it without me. We still have to find it within ourselves to do what we must or want to accomplish. 

 

To me, supposing Dean had died and couldn't be there, was Sam going to not save the world because Dean was dead? That he wouldn't have even tried?

Edited January 27, 2015 by catrox14

[DittyDotDot]

Compare it to "Goodbye Stranger" where it was clear, with no ambiguity IMO that is was Dean himself getting through to Cas when Cas beats him in the face, even as Naomi was trying to control Cas. It was clear narratively and on-screen in the way that scene was filmed  it was , without a doubt, Dean affecting Cas,bringing Cas back from the ledge. 

 

I don't think that scene is any less ambiguous, many folks think when the tablet breaks open is when Cass takes control. One could also argue that Dean didn't need to be present for Cass to take control either.

[Aeryn13]

 

***I think maybe the disconnect is that I don't think the credit/gold star/trophy/whatever is the point -- or even means anything, to be honest. If you do, that's completely fine

 

Yup, I do. In fact, I`m the complete opposite to you because for me it is ultimately the entire point. That`s why it means a great deal to me what kind of accomplishments a character is allowed to have, how they play out and how it compares in relation to others. And why episodes such as the Season 5 Finale are like a slap in the face for me. I mean, I already hated the concept of "yellow crayon" moments, when it was coined in Buffy it sucked but of course the trope was around before and I`m hard-pressed to think of a fictional piece where I ever liked it. But the way it was done in Supernatural? Wow, insult to massive injury.

 

That`s also why I`m so disappointed with some of the moments Dean did get. The Eve kill was pretty good but it was a "buried in the Season somewhere" and not the Season Finale capper to a major arc about Eve being a major threat. That gets points deducted like woah. Same for Abaddon. Technically a good moment but the context needed to be better. The Leviathan kill WAS a Season Finale ender but wow, no build-up to the arc and could they have made the entire thing lamer?

 

Purgatory was a great start-off point but the quick dismissal and Sam hop-skipping through it? Could have been an image of the writers singing "anything Dean can do, Sam can do better" and it would have conveyed the same to me. Now we have the Mark of Cain thing and it could be done with a little more powers, fanfare and epicness but it IS better than nearly everything else they gave the character before combined so I`m crediting it for that.

 

 

I think it would have been far more satisfying in a totally cruel way for Dean to have been killed by Lucifer in the early part of Swan Song in Detroit . Dean's death would have been a motivating factor for Sam to say yes to Lucifer and still jump in the pit. Sam could be all "I'm doing it for Dean. My brother's death will not have been in vain",

 

I think comparatively that would have given Dean the same importance he had in the episode as it aired so would have find it equally as distasteful.

 

What I would have needed? For Michael to be ready and willing to ditch Adam and take Dean as a vessel because "by the book" guy should have been hung up on his supposed "true vessel" too. For Michael to NOT under no circumstances meta-comment on how Dean was actually not a part of the story anymore. Thanks for that, Kripke, I have eyes, I can see how you just threw him to the side without it being lampshaded.

 

And for Dean to be physically involved somehow. Have it be that he and only he can work the stupid rings to open the stupid portal. Meaning that without him there, even if Sam managed to take control, he would have no way to throw himself in the cage without Dean. 

 

Of course, I prefered Dean as Michael and them throwing into the pit together. That was the ending I wanted to see to that arc. If Sam is strong enough to beat Lucifer by will-power, Dean could have done so with Michael. And scene.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Aeryn13

[catrox14]

I don't think that scene is any less ambiguous, many folks think when the tablet breaks open is when Cass takes control. One could also argue that Dean didn't need to be present for Cass to take control either.

 

 

Again, this is just my opinion. I'm saying if both scenarios were supposed to be about Dean's love breaking through IMO "Goodbye Stranger" was much clearer about that message than Swan Song. 

 

And for me, at least in "Goodbye Stranger, narratively Dean had an action reason for Cas' punching his lights out beyond that was beyond just being there for Cas to punch on.

 

As always, mileage varies and I am not trying to sway anyone's unpopular opinion or bitterness. I am saying for me and me alone why I didn't find Swan Song to be effective or good and why I didn't think Dean even needed to be there. 

[rue721]

Again, no intent to offend. Just personally, when someone thanks ME for emotional support or something, I never take that to mean I get credit in whatever they accomplished because ultimately they did it and that should count for something. 

 

No worries, I know that you aren't trying to be insulting, just trying to explain why I disagree with that way of "tallying" accomplishments. Don't want to get all hotheaded about it without explaining why (or pretending not to be getting hotheaded, lol).

 

Imo it depends on what the support entails. I have said, "I couldn't have done it without you," and meant it. I am there for [family] because they need me. Obviously it would be fantastic for people to get publicly acknowledged and rewarded according to their contributions! But that's not how the world works. I don't expect it in real life nor in stories. YMMV. Usually contributing is costly rather than rewarding but what can ya do, "love is sacrifice." The flip side of credit is blame. Haven't you ever  *not* given enough support (ostensibly, anyway) and then gotten the blame for ruining or destroying something important for somebody else? If you have, apparently that person also honestly thinks he "couldn't have done it without you." Heh. The point is, I disagree that there needs to be some kind of explicit, acknowledged personal victory or else the contribution doesn't count.

 

Also, YMMV, but I think it *was* made explicit that Dean's contribution mattered in this case, since they had that jam-packed montage of times when Sam and Dean had gone it together. What else could that montage have meant?

 

I don`t follow. He jumped on the grenade to protect the world. If Dean was there or not, that was his plan. Lets say, we follow my argument and Dean didn`t need to be there and Sam (with the car/toy soldier) could have pulled it off themselves, would he have not done so because Dean wasn`t around? I mean, Dean`s presence doesn`t have any bearing on Sam`s intent to save the world. The world is so much bigger than the two of them. And it would have been perfectly worthwhile for one or both to die for its save.  

 

It wasn't that Dean showed up this one time, what mattered was that when the chips were down, Sam could *always* count on Dean to stand beside him -- even this time, when Lucifer claimed Sam didn't even exist anymore.

 

My interpretations of the events of the end of S5/Swan Song, so add imo as necessary (!):

 

Dean was against Sam saying yes to Lucifer because he knew that Lucifer was stronger than Sam and so he thought it was suicide for Sam to say yes to becoming Lucifer's vessel. He knew that Lucifer was stronger than he was, too, so without Sam, Dean had no hope of defeating him, either. Dean was calculating their odds against Lucifer in practical terms, and thought there was no way for either of them to stop him. What happened in The End backed up those conclusions.

 

Sam had faith that when push came to shove, though, they would be there for each other and wouldn't let each other down. He asked Dean to keep faith in that, too, and Dean agreed out of respect for Sam and Sam's faith in him/them. He didn't see any way for Sam's plan to work, but that's why it was about Dean keeping *faith* rather than about him choosing a strategy. Then, even after Sam was possessed in Detroit and Lucifer said that Sam was "gone," Dean *did* keep faith and still refused to let Sam down by abandoning him -- and he proved that by showing up at the graveyard.

 

Lucifer could kill them and destroy the world, but when Dean showed up at the graveyard he proved that even Lucifer couldn't make him lose faith and let down Sam. So Sam likewise kept faith and still refused to let Dean down by letting Lucifer destroy him -- and he proved that by diving into the Cage.

 

It's gloriously sappy, but since when has SPN shied away from glorious sappiness.

 

There's plenty I hate about Swan Song, personally, and defending it isn't really a hill I want to die on. Kripke isn't a great writer imo and Swan Song isn't well written. But I don't think the clumsy use of a framing device negates the rest of the story arc's story/characterization.

 

Yup, I do. In fact, I`m the complete opposite to you because for me it is ultimately the entire point. That`s why it means a great deal to me what kind of accomplishments a character is allowed to have, how they play out and how it compares in relation to others.

 

Aeryn13, do you really mean that? "The entire point"? I'm honestly asking. Do you think that way about real life, too, or just with regard to this show? Do you want the show to end because you want to do a final tally of wins and losses and rank characters accordingly? Not going to lie, I have literally drawn game theory matrices when speculating about storylines on Hannibal. So if anyone would be relatively sympathetic to the idea of compiling basically a sticker chart for SPN characters, it would probably be me. But I'm not even understanding what meaning you'd find in a tally like that or what context you'd use it in? Let alone how you'd compile it. But before even getting to "how" I guess I'm wondering "why."

 

ETA:

I don't mean this as an attack *at all* and am sorry if I'm being aggressive. It frustrates me how many SPN fans pit the characters against each other or as though they're in competition against each other. Within the show, it always seems to me like the Winchesters work as a team, so I don't understand where that zero sum mindset is coming from. It's so common among SPN fans in particular, though, that it doesn't seem like a fluke. I guess I'm asking, is that part of a larger worldview? And if so, then what's that worldview?

Edited January 27, 2015 by rue721

[AwesomO4000]

I think it would have been far more satisfying in a totally cruel way for Dean to have been killed by Lucifer in the early part of Swan Song in Detroit . Dean's death would have been a motivating factor for Sam to say yes to Lucifer and still jump in the pit. Sam could be all "I'm doing it for Dean. My brother's death will not have been in vain". Sam could have driven himself to Stull Cemetary in Dean's car and we would have had the toy soldier moment either way, since that seemed to be the trigger.

 

Even if  I was okay with Dean having to be there, there is some interpretation that it was Lucifer actually relenting for a minute because he saw Sam's 'happy' life with Dean via Sam's flashback memories, which means that it was only Lucifer being sad in a moment that allowed Sam to take control making Dean's presence even less important.

 

That has generally been my interpretation. Over on TWoP, I was one of two main proponents of and one of the co-creators (the other co-creator left a little while after and/or was banned) of "Team Jealous Indignation." * Ironically the second major proponent was a huge Dean-girl, so it was sort of funny that we both held so strongly to this theory since we disagreed about so many other things. Being a main supporter of this interpretation, I disagree that Dean being there was not important. As I mentioned above, in my interpretation of Lucifer's Jealous Indignation, it was critical that Dean be there. Just seeing the toy soldier and having the montage would not be sufficient, because Dean not being present would mean that Dean had given up on / abandoned Sam just like Michael gave up on / abandoned him (Lucifer). Lucifer wouldn't have any reason to be jealous of and indignant over Sam and Dean's brotherly bond in that case, because they both would've been in the same boat - i.e. neither had their brother's support anymore.

 

In my interpretation, Lucifer's pride and jealousy only made him vulnerable because he was faced with a brother who wasn't willing to support him and "walk off the chess board"with him  while Sam, despite messing up, had Dean right there, supporting him still, no matter what so that the contrast was there to hit him right in the face. And because Lucifer was indignant and jealous because he didn't have that, the feeling dinged him and made him vulnerable and/or partially "give up". And that ding I sort of compare to that demon in "I Believe the Children..." who was dinged by something that happened during childbirth: i.e. once "dinged", it's difficult to gain control back. (Yeah, I know Lucifer's technically an angel, but I'm going with it anyway.) Does that take some of the fight credit away from Sam? Yup, because I don't think Sam showed up until after the "dinging", but I don't care, because, to me, Sam showed the courage to go ahead and throw himself in the hole anyway. And which is also why I am glad he opened the portal, because that made it his choice.

 

* As Team Jealous Indignation, we believed that Lucifer partially "gave up" and/or was fatally "wounded" by his jealousy and indignation over the fact that Sam still had Dean's support, even as Lucifer was killing Dean, when his own brother, Michael, would never forgive him or support him and instead intended on killing him. Therefor Lucifer's pride and jealousy were his final downfall, just as they were the reason he got thrown into the cage to begin with when he thought himself better than humans and was jealous of God's affection for them. As were his flaws and downfall in the beginning, so were they again in the end.

 

I don`t follow. He jumped on the grenade to protect the world. If Dean was there or not, that was his plan. Lets say, we follow my argument and Dean didn`t need to be there and Sam (with the car/toy soldier) could have pulled it off themselves, would he have not done so because Dean wasn`t around? I mean, Dean`s presence doesn`t have any bearing on Sam`s intent to save the world. The world is so much bigger than the two of them. And it would have been perfectly worthwhile for one or both to die for its save. {Emphasis mine}

 

True, but with my interpretation, intent had only a little to do with it. Sam had the intention to save the world in the season 4 finale as well, and we all saw how well that turned out. Sam also had every intention of saving the world in Detroit when Dean opened the first portal, but he couldn't do it then either. So Sam could've had all the "good intention" in the world, but on this show, that doesn't generally mean much in the end. But fundamentally we disagree here, because in my opinion, Sam couldn't have pulled it off by himself. Actually with my interpretation, Sam didn't really "pull it off" at all, because Lucifer's downfall was caused mainly by his pride and jealousy, just like it was the first time, and Sam mostly took advantage of that more than anything else. Sure Michael threw Lucifer in the cage, but the reason Lucifer was being sent into the cage was because he was prideful and jealous. Michael was just God's blunt instrument.

[Aeryn13]

 

Within the show, it always seems to me like the Winchesters work as a team, so I don't understand where that zero sum mindset is coming from.

 

For me, it comes right from the show. Seldom have I seen a two-character show where they were any more pitted against each other in a zero sum way than this one. Granted, lots of two-character shows have a male/female lead so the dynamic is romance or at least UST which is different. But for the largest part, I haven`t gotten a team feeling at all.

 

If the show does stuff like "Dean got to hell, then Sam goes to hell" and actually states onscreen that Sam`s hell will make Dean`s look like "Disneyland", I don`t see how it could be more of a competition. Dean getting the "you are not the brains of the outfit" comments whereas Sam got the "wow, you are a smart/deep cookie" stuff is once again pitting the characters against each other for the viewers.

 

Add to that the Sam-always-having-the-mytharc and stuff like "it`s about you, it`s all about you"? Gee. X-Files started out with Mulder as the one who was "in" because of his kidnapped sister but Scully was brought into the story directly (and not just as his partner) in Season 2-ish and that was not a moment too soon.   

 

It doesn`t surprise me that the lines between Dean-fans and Sam-fans have gotten increasingly more sharp over the years and it is pretty much outright war now.  The show has gone out of its way to cultivate that IMO.

 

In larger ensemble shows this problem usually isn`t so pronounced because the storylines are spread around more. And even if I`m occasionally grumpy if/when my fave doesn`t get a good story at a particular time, it`s not like it never happens. Of course in genre shows (which I watch a lot of), I watch for the genre plot. I don`t WANT real life problems and emo angst. I watch genre to be spared that. I also don`t particulate need to relate to a character in the sense of "I can see myself in this". I want to see better. To have larger than life heroes to admire. See fighting badasses like I`m not one. And I want to see them struggle with stuff that will never play a role in my life. Because the latter? I know, Ì don`t need to watch it for entertainment, too.

 

So again, for genre shows in particular, I do prefer the characters with powers/a destiny/superhuman aka the most removed from "mundane" that they can be. And of course I like to see them accomplish epic feats then. If a show goes the "save the world" route, then save the world. If a show only has one actual lead (compared to a main cast of more characters), then I`m prepared to see only that lead manage that over and over again. With a little help from the sidekicks but they are the lead. Those shows are mostly the ones NAMED after that character.

 

If however I perceive there to be two or more leads, have them all take a turn. In Fringe, I prefered Peter but it was fine if at any given time Walter, Olivia or Peter got the big final win. It would not have been if only ever one of them or only ever the others but not Peter managed it.

 

Tallying the "wins" is IMO also easy because that is basically what the narrative does. You go through the Seasons and follow who has the main plot and who is the main hero in the end in terms of saving the day. It`s not really different than having a favourite sports team or athlete. You go through their competitions and see how often they won. That tells you how successful they are. Can easily extrapolated to fictional characters.

 

In terms of real world view, such a tallying is of course not that easy but the underlying idea of "meassurement by success" still applies. The simple tenet of "what (great) things did you get done yourself?"  And if the answer was none - if someone else asked me or I asked myself - I would feel pretty bad about it. Everyone wants success after all. So, I want it for my favourite characters, too. Lasting happiness? Eh, that is all good and well for when a story ends so I`m not really after that while I watch.

 

 

The flip side of credit is blame. Haven't you ever  *not* given enough support (ostensibly, anyway) and then gotten the blame for ruining or destroying something important for somebody else? If you have, apparently that person also honestly thinks he "couldn't have done it without you."

 

Sure, I got that. But I think it`s only a blame-shifting tactic then. It`s certainly easier to take all the credit in your mind but noone really wants the blame/responsibility for something going to crap. It`s more denial than anything IMO.

[Linderhill]

I'm going to go in a completely different direction than the recent discussion by reiterating that I'm completely over the Charlie character.  I'd have been perfectly happy if she'd stayed off in Oz with Dorothy.  I know Felicia Day is a lovely person and that many adore her and Charlie but she's just another side character that always manages to take over the show and dumbs down Dean and Sam.  I really had issues with how Dean was written in the most recent episode.

 

Also, I'm not sure whether anyone else has said this before but Rowena can disappear sooner rather than later.  She and Metatron need to be gone, vanished, disappeared, whatever it takes.  Their story lines are boring, old and uninteresting.  

[Wynne88]

It doesn`t surprise me that the lines between Dean-fans and Sam-fans have gotten increasingly more sharp over the years and it is pretty much outright war now.

 

Is it really war?  I know there are some vocal fans who post continuously about how their favorite is being slighted, but it seems that while the mostly silent majority may favor one brother over the other, they are still capable of enjoying and respecting the other's story lines and achievements.   Perhaps because they don't feel as strongly, they post far less frequently thereby giving this more balanced viewpoint less visibility.

.   

I am a Sam girl, but I can appreciate Jensen's acting, and think his character is actually very well written.  He's not perfect, but his flaws are by and large understandable.  So far this season is all about Dean, but I think Sam is coming out of it looking better than he has in years where it was all about Sam, so I hope they keep the focus right where it is.

 

As far as achievements go, any parent who has more than one child learns not to compare.  One child may get straight A's without breaking a sweat, while another works hard for B's.  I'm hopefully going to recognize the effort that second child is putting in rather than the end result, and value it accordingly.  When we focus on only one measurement (whether it's grades or the number of times someone gets a heroic win), we risk being blinded to other, less visible but equally important accomplishments and character traits. 

 

And for what it's worth, I didn't like Swan Song largely because the showdown we had been promised all reason between Sam/Lucifer and Dean/Michael failed to happen.  I thought Adam was a very poor stand-in, both story-wise and because the actor just didn't (IMO) have the gravity to pull it off.  That said, ultimately it was only one episode out of more than 200, and it took place a very long time ago.

[Aeryn13]

 

Is it really war?

 

It is noticeably different than it was in the shows say first three or even four Seasons and not for the better IMO. And of course the variety of places to interact, twitter, tumblr, social media in general has grown in the last few years. Also not always in a beneficial way. Writer-fan-interaction on twitter? Oy. That said, battles trenches drawn in fandom are not unique to this show, just usually they are about romantic shipping.

 

 

As far as achievements go, any parent who has more than one child learns not to compare.

.

I don`t consider favourite characters to be like children, though. In each show, I usually have one of them, hence the "favourite" part and I don`t want them left in the dust. Don`t think that is uncommon either.  

 

 

When we focus on only one measurement (whether it's grades or the number of times someone gets a heroic win), we risk being blinded to other, less visible but equally important accomplishments and character traits.

 

TV is a visual, in your face medium so everything that happens in the background or with less pomp/fanfare/flash automatically does come across as lesser IMO. Purposefully so. I don`t see why I should be content with "soup kitchen" when it comes to my favourite character when others get fine wine and dining. Spread the wealth around is what I say. It will never be completely balanced and if the imbalance is minor, I probably wouldn`t even notice but I could not NOT notice the Sam-as-the-lead-hero push with Dean in the little support role for years on end.     

 

 

That said, ultimately it was only one episode out of more than 200, and it took place a very long time ago.

 

In a way I consider it like a Series Finale to the first five years and as such, it is more important to me than the random run-of-the-mill eps. For example the entire second half as Season 8 was just as bad as that episode, with all trial episodes being atrocious in the same way. And comparatively, it was around 10 episodes to 1 but because of the placement and meaning, the one still wins the fight as "worst ever" for me. Maybe if a true Series Finale when that happens wipes the stain away, it lessens my loathing for that episode. 

 

 

I know Felicia Day is a lovely person and that many adore her and Charlie but she's just another side character that always manages to take over the show and dumbs down Dean and Sam.

 

Someone should have Thompson write the Charlie show, then have another writer invent a side character they fell in love with and have them come in to make Charlie look stupid and silly every single time. See if maybe a light bulb goes off then.

[shang yiet]

So far this season is all about Dean, but I think Sam is coming out of it looking better than he has in years where it was all about Sam, so I hope they keep the focus right where it is.

 

 

If I have to choose between a season that is all about Dean but Sam comes out looking good and a season that is all about Sam but he comes out looking bad, than I might have go for the latter.

I myself am all for gold stars, big wins and special powers. I'd like at least one of these for Sam this season. That doesn't mean the emo angst is anything to sneeze at. The hero always corners the market when it comes to angst too.

[rue721]

Tallying the "wins" is IMO also easy because that is basically what the narrative does. You go through the Seasons and follow who has the main plot and who is the main hero in the end in terms of saving the day. It`s not really different than having a favourite sports team or athlete. You go through their competitions and see how often they won. That tells you how successful they are. Can easily extrapolated to fictional characters.

 

In terms of real world view, such a tallying is of course not that easy but the underlying idea of "meassurement by success" still applies. The simple tenet of "what (great) things did you get done yourself?"  And if the answer was none - if someone else asked me or I asked myself - I would feel pretty bad about it. Everyone wants success after all. So, I want it for my favourite characters, too. Lasting happiness? Eh, that is all good and well for when a story ends so I`m not really after that while I watch.

 

That's not at all how I measure success either in the real world or in stories/fiction, so I guess it's just a fundamental disagreement. My baseline assumption is that together is better than apart, so I don't see it as preferable to "accomplish" things alone. IMO it's heartbreaking to be working toward something or even to accomplish something on your own and feeling like nobody else cares or has a share in it. Makes the accomplishment feel pretty meaningless even if you get it imo.

 

So I think a lot of what you're seeing as wins, I'm thinking of as hollow victories at best. There's also the complication that each character wants multiple things at the same time, and many of those things are mutually exclusive. So I don't think a clear "win" is even possible, since each "win" means sacrificing something else that a character might want. On this show, the "wants" that get sacrificed tend to be really basic, like not wanting to go to Hell or wanting your loved ones to not die, etc. Since those "wants" are so basic, the sacrifices tend to overshadow the "wins" for me in any case. Again, a hollow victory at best imo.

 

And even though the storylines that are less genre-heavy might be less important or interesting to you personally, that doesn't make them objectively less important or interesting. For me, the genre storylines are only comprehensible and interesting if they're at least somewhat grounded in human experience. That's why I had trouble even registering that whole "closing the gates of Hell" thing, for example, until the show gave the human consequences (Sam would die) and the human motivation (Sam wanted to be purified) for doing it. Not saying that my priorities as a viewer are the priorities that the show as a whole should be written for, either -- just that there is no set order of priorities that the show "should" be following imo.

 

I think that there's also a lot of room for mileage to vary in terms of what different people care about in terms of the characters. What matters to me is by far the more personal side of things. Imo it was terrible how callously Cas treated Claire, and how callous Cas tends to be in general, and so I pretty much dislike him and am bewildered by his relationships. I don't care what he can/can't do in terms of his powers, but I care a lot about how he chooses to treat people. Same thing with Dean -- I don't actually care if he's the best hunter in the show's universe or if he's mediocre at best at it, that's completely beside the point to me. So him freezing up or someone getting the better of him barely gets on my radar, though I know that that kind of thing bothers a lot of viewers. I care a lot about how he pushed Cas back on the street when Cas was human, though, and then rolled his eyes at the job Cas was working hard at in order to start getting back on his feet. Or other times when Dean's been imo more callous or cruel or deceitful than a decent person would/should be. YMMV, I don't expect for other viewers to necessarily agree with those priorities, either -- my point is just that viewers who genuinely care more about the "human" side of things and the characters' choices rather than their "powers" actually are out there, lol. So when the show gives a character storylines or character arcs that focus on those aspects of the story/character, I think it doesn't mean that the show is giving the character the dregs or second-best or it's an insult.

[Aeryn13]

 

Or other times when Dean's been imo more callous or cruel or deceitful than a decent person would/should be.

 

While I don`t agree with that assessment of Dean at all - seriously, there were various times in the show where I felt he was downright nice in a situation where I would not remotely be - it is not that I don`t understand liking or disliking a character in terms of how they act. I like the powers and the destiny and all that because it makes for exciting watching but not at any price. 

 

When starting with the show, I recognized clearly that Sam was supposed to be the lead hero and identification figure for the audience. Now, as I said, the second one is not something I care for, in fact, the less I get to "identify" the better but usually Sam would have been the type of character I would gravitate towards. But his personality type didn`t appeal to me that much. And I don`t mean rather quiet and bookish compared to social, loud and outgoing because I`m the former to a T and none of the latter but the general vibe. Dean was the one who appealed to me right from the start. Both always had obnoxious traits (as everyone does) but some I can live with and some I can not. Dean had more of the former.

 

It`s not limited to Supernatural either. Some shows I go for the goody-two-shoes lead guy and in others more for the antihero/bad guy-ish or in some for the supporting player. Also, luckily, most genre shows have more than one "genre" character so there is a certain range to choose from.

 

So while my initial preference will always be more out-there-character, I do choose my favourite based on personality appeal. Just storyline-wise, I`m 100 % for the genre stuff and the big wins and everything.

 

 

On this show, the "wants" that get sacrificed tend to be really basic, like not wanting to go to Hell or wanting your loved ones to not die, etc. Since those "wants" are so basic, the sacrifices tend to overshadow the "wins" for me in any case.

 

This is where I`m terribly callous to fictional characters, even the ones I love but on a certain level I don`t care about the sacrifices. Going out in a blaze of world-saving glory is - to me- a wonderful thing to happen to a character. I love it. If the show ends with it and I would have liked them to live, I can make up a happy-end prologue in my mind.

 

Dean going to hell was fantastic for the character in my eyes and I loved that it happened. For the entire Season I was terrified that he WOULD be saved, not that he wouldn`t because hallelujah cool storyline.

 

That`s why stopping the trials on account of Sam dying? Urgh, how unheroic. I expect and WANT my characters to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. They shouldn`t meet a sword, they wouldn`t be willing to fall on for a good cause. That is why they are heroes. If the show wanted that stopped? Bring up the very good argument that bad stuff happens when you lose the balance between good and evil like that aka imagine all the evil souls being stuck on Earth. That is a perfectly agreeable reason to not complete such an endeavour.        

  

 

So when the show gives a character storylines or character arcs that focus on those aspects of the story/character, I think it doesn't mean that the show is giving the character the dregs or second-best or it's an insult.

 

Hm, I can usually see which characters are writer surrogates/pets/avatars and how they rush to give THEM the big mytharcs so even the writers themselves seem to think of emo stuff as filler and lower-tier. And it shows in the writing for me. If this show was truly a series of books and I wouldn`t see the characters acted out? It would change a lot IMO.   

Edited January 30, 2015 by Aeryn13

[AwesomO4000]

Hm, I can usually see which characters are writer surrogates/pets/avatars and how they rush to give THEM the big mytharcs so even the writers themselves seem to think of emo stuff as filler and lower-tier.

 

I'm not so sure about that in all things. Someone posted information from a recent interview with Kripke concerning what type of music Sam would like and listen to somewhere here in the Supernatural section, and Kripke basically shrugged and said something like whatever was current at the time he guessed, and that he didn't know much about music from that time, so he never really bothered to define it. He said he knew more about classic rock. I think he said something to the effect that most music past the 70's was basically crappy. So it isn't coincidence that this is Dean's more favored music and is highlighted in the show.

 

To me, it would seem that the propensity would be to give your favored character the same likes as you have, because you know more about it and can flesh it out more easily and enjoy it more when writing it. To me this says a lot about which character the creator is investing more emotional time in. When the author bothers to define a character's likes so vividly, they are emotionally investing in that character, in my opinion. It's hard for me to imagine a writer writing for a character who is supposed to be a favorite one and just shrugging and saying, "I'm sure he likes something current," and not even bothering to do any research on what that might even be or bothering to see what might apply to the character's personality, etc. The "emo" stuff of a character is sometimes what writers connect with for a character, and Kripke took pains to define some of these in Dean that matched his own likes.

 

So I'm not sure that I agree that a writer always gives his/her avatar the big mytharcs at all. Sometimes the author gives them their likes and dislikes and personality traits and defines them specifically, maybe shortchanging other characters in that department, so the author's own personal tastes are the ones highlighted. And then has the emotional connection of the story be with that character and the story point of view through that character. To me this is just as valid a way to go as the "give my avatar the action" angle, and would in fact make sense if the "action" that's going to be taken in your arc is somewhat objectionable.

 

So I disagree that it is easy to tell which character is a writer's avatar by what plotline they give them. I actually tend to think it can have just as much to do with which character shares the author's own personal likes and dislikes and/or are the ones the author makes sure to spend time defining the likes and dislikes, personality traits, emotional responses, etc. of, as to me, that shows which character(s) the writer thinks is most worth spending his/her emotional energy on.

 

But as always, miles vary.

[Demented Daisy]

Sometimes the author gives them their likes and dislikes and personality traits and defines them specifically, maybe shortchanging other characters in that department, so the author's own personal tastes are the ones highlighted. And then has the emotional connection of the story be with that character and the story point of view through that character.

 

 

Not always.  JK Rowling, for example, has said many times that Hermione was her as a girl, while Dumbledore is the adult Jo.  Neither was the (main) hero or the POV character, they were more often the "info dump" character.  Her favorite character was actually Lupin.

 

I'm not sure that Dean would be Kripke's favored character based on musical likes.  I think Dean's love of music was one of his defining characteristics, whereas Sam had others.  Perhaps Kripke just never thought that music was particularly important to Sam.  It's not like he had a whole lot of chances to explore his musical tastes -- pretty sure John controlled the radio.  Once he got to college, that probably changed, but I can't imagine Sam grooving to the song they're playing on the radio.  (Thanks, Bowie.  That's stuck in my head now.  Could be worse, though.)

 

Basically, I don't think that Kripke preferred one character over the other.  But I could be wrong.

[Aeryn13]

 

The "emo" stuff of a character is sometimes what writers connect with for a character, and Kripke took pains to define some of these in Dean that matched his own likes.

 

I think he gave Dean a few quirks he wanted in the show and Kripke was adamant about the music and to not have the usual "emo pop" the other then WB shows were having.

 

But his avatar was Sam. Kripke is a younger brother who left the family buisness back home to strike out on his own so he modelled Sam`s backstory after him. The entire thing with Dean`s glorified caretaker role, revolving around Sam and Sam being the great Chosen One who saved the world in the end made roll my eyes all the more for that vibe of "hahahaha, now I`ve shown them". If a teenager wrote a fantasy scenario where he went away from home, came back as a big success and had their family look up at them in awe, having learned their lesson, maybe complete with a ritual washing of the feet by the older brother, now properly humbled and having learned his place, it would strike me as pretty much the same.

 

Now Thompson is doing that with Charlie. He actually admitted that he modelled the character after himself and then gives her traits like "best hacker ever", "most special human on the planet that even Leviathans couldn`t clone", "smartest person in the room at all times" and now badass superhunter and "single-handedly winning a war in the mythical world of Oz". Jesus. I get a kid imagining themselves flying across the skies in Superman-pose, I might even get an adult doing it every now and then (though, um, okay) but for the love of God, I would rather be doused in gasoline and set on fire than making that so gosh-damn obvious, writing it into a story and putting it on screen for all to see. 

[7kstar]

One thing that both actors have stated is that the writing started writing to their strengths.  Jensen acting skills gave him some new material that the writers hadn't really thought about. 

 

Also one pet peeve for me is when they leave an interesting question that they know the audience is asking for answers but never answers it, EX...why did Dean's eyes bleed?

 

I think the writers get into something called group think and just don't see the opportunities because it isn't how they learned to do things.  Because we examine it all deeper than the writers do, we see the issues that they choose to just ignore.  JMV.  :)

[AwesomO4000]

But his avatar was Sam. Kripke is a younger brother who left the family buisness back home to strike out on his own so he modelled Sam`s backstory after him. The entire thing with Dean`s glorified caretaker role, revolving around Sam and Sam being the great Chosen One who saved the world in the end made roll my eyes all the more for that vibe of "hahahaha, now I`ve shown them". If a teenager wrote a fantasy scenario where he went away from home, came back as a big success and had their family look up at them in awe, having learned their lesson, maybe complete with a ritual washing of the feet by the older brother, now properly humbled and having learned his place, it would strike me as pretty much the same.

 

And if that is what happened, I might agree, but that isn't what happened, in my opinion. Not only did Sam fail, he concluded in the end that his going away to college was just a fantasy that ultimately came to nothing, because the real responsibility was with family. This was so much the message of season 4, that Sam was spouting the "Dad was right" philosophy and teaching who he thought was Adam how to be a hunter. Sam came back to the family business again and again, usually by choice, so Sam didn't really leave for long and his leaving for college was shown to be pretty much an indulgent and partially irresponsible fantasy (and then Amelia was a - terrible - repeat of that "lesson"). If Sam is Kripke's avatar, he seems to have veered fairly far astray and and it started around at least around the end of season 2.

 

For me Sam's "win" in season 5 had little to do with his striking out on his own and leaving the family business. Sam never succeeded in doing that, nor in the end, did he turn out even wanting to. To me, the end of season 5 was about Sam wanting to take responsibility for his own mess and cleaning it up.

 

Not always.  JK Rowling, for example, has said many times that Hermione was her as a girl, while Dumbledore is the adult Jo.  Neither was the (main) hero or the POV character, they were more often the "info dump" character.  Her favorite character was actually Lupin.

 

I'm not sure that Dean would be Kripke's favored character based on musical likes.  I think Dean's love of music was one of his defining characteristics, whereas Sam had others.  Perhaps Kripke just never thought that music was particularly important to Sam.  It's not like he had a whole lot of chances to explore his musical tastes -- pretty sure John controlled the radio.  Once he got to college, that probably changed, but I can't imagine Sam grooving to the song they're playing on the radio.  (Thanks, Bowie.  That's stuck in my head now.  Could be worse, though.)

 

Basically, I don't think that Kripke preferred one character over the other.  But I could be wrong.

 

No, I agree with you that this is also a way for a writer to go. My main point was that there are multiple strategies a writer can take... and considering that I don't even know who Lupin is, I'm assuming she wasn't one of the major characters or had the main "save the world" role in JK Rowlings books? And if that is the case, that would tend to support my conjecture that just because a character has the main plot arc, this doesn't mean that that character is necessarily the writer's favorite.

 

And I agree also that I can't tell from what I see on the show which if either is Kripke's favorite - who knows maybe John was his favorite. *shrug.*

 

And for me it would be fine if Kripke thought music wasn't really important to Sam - I would like to have seen his apparent draw to art explored myself - but I guess to me it was more what seemed to be the *shrug* attitude of the answer. It's one thing to establish that Sam perhaps doesn't like music all that much  - that's spending time thinking about a character trait - and another to imply well maybe he does, but I didn't really consider it all that much. The audience knows all sorts of things Dean likes - he likes music, he likes eating - and apparently cooking, he likes spending time with women, and when he wants to, starting fights in bars. He likes working on Baby. He apparently also sometimes likes to read - even things other than his porn collection (something else Dean enjoys and even catalogs - hee. I find it amusing and rather endearing that he keeps the collection ordered). But despite my affection for Sam as a character and seeing him for 9 1/2 seasons, I'm not even sure what Sam likes to do for fun, beyond maybe reading (I assume since we rarely see him doing non-research reading) and exercising (although I think that's partial therapy for him also.) We know almost as many things Sam doesn't like much - he apparently doesn't like parties or hanging out in bars all that much.  To me that just seems odd for a major character after over 200 episodes on this kind of show where we spend so much time looking in on the character's lives, but maybe it's just me who thinks that's sort of an odd juxtaposition.

Edited January 31, 2015 by AwesomO4000

[SueB]

and considering that I don't even know who Lupin is, I'm assuming she wasn't one of the major characters or had the main "save the world" role in JK Rowlings books?

...it's like I don't know how to process this sentence (j/k). I'll live in hope that you'll come to realize that JK Rowling writes characters as well drawn as Charles Dickens. No Hyperbole.

And Lupin was a man. A great man.

[Wynne88]

The audience knows all sorts of things Dean likes -

 

 Don't forget his memory foam mattress!  Also showers with good water pressure,   I think that over the years we've seen Dean taking pleasure in the small things of life; living in the moment, so to speak.  

 

Sam always seems to be thinking outside the moment and I'm honestly not sure what he enjoys.  As you say, that's kind of weird after 9 seasons.  Maybe there's stuff I'm just not remembering, though.

[AwesomO4000]

Don't forget his memory foam mattress!

 

Oh, and the Magic Fingers! How could I have forgotten that also? And Clint Eastwood movies.

 

I guess my point is: especially now that they have a more permanent place in the bunker, I think it's far past time for the writers to show us some things Sam actually likes also. This Sam is only a pissy-pants who doesn't like anything thing is kind of annoying now that he's no longer an emo early 20-something, since to me, with the rest of his personality - well the way it was in season 6.5 - 7 anyway - it doesn't really make sense. In my opinion, it's time that the writers gave some thought to fleshing out those kinds of things for Sam's character more, especially since the action arc now belongs to Dean.

[Demented Daisy]

I think there are some little character details we know about Sam, but they aren't talked about as much as they are with Dean.

 

• He usually eats salad, or at least something healthy.  (Egg white omelette, anyone?).
• He's reading the Game of Thrones books, but enjoys the tv show, too.  (ETA  He also read the Harry Potter books.)
• He has an affinity for technology (he loved Charlie's tablet, hooked up an iPod in the Impala, etc.).
• He has some wicked math skills (even Mrs. Tran was impressed).
• He isn't amused by Dean's bad jokes.  Most of the time.
• He listens to... uh oh, I can't remember his name.  See above note about the iPod.
• He has a massive independent streak.

 

Now, I agree that he can't seem to make up his mind about hunting or not hunting, wanting a home and family of his own, etc., but that's what happens when you change show runners, I think.  TFW was in a good place at the end of S7 and Carver had to -- well, we all know what Carver did.  S8 is an abomination.

 

ETA  Remus Lupin was -- well, you can probably tell just from his name.  He was a professor at Hogwarts, a surrogate father to Harry, and an all-around great guy who got a raw deal.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Demented Daisy

[rue721]

I do wish they'd give Sam some more interests or hobbies, or to be frank, just some more idiosyncrasies. It would give his character more texture, I think. But in general, I wish they would lighten up where Sam is concerned. You know, show his sense of humor more and stuff like that.

 

I think back in the day, when the show was starting out and on the WB, the "personal" side of things was in the vein of a family drama (a la Gilmore Girls) but under the CW that side of things has gone more in the vein of a soap (a la Gossip Girl). I wish that it would go back to the family drama tone, because it would let the show lighten up the mood and focus more on more grounded, toned-down characterization. But the CW probably doesn't want to go in that direction because it's not in keeping with their "brand"? *shrug*

 

W/r/t the comparison with Dean's characterization:

 

I think that in the beginning of the series, Sam *was* meant to be the audience's vehicle character, because he was the one (re-)entering the hunting life rather than ensconced in it already (like Dean was). Plus, Jared Padalecki had been playing basically "the boy next door" in Gilmore Girls, and I think the producers/writers were thinking that Sam would be the same "boy next door" type, someone super familiar and easy to relate to by definition. So I think that at least in the pilot and the very early episodes, they tried harder to humanize Dean than Sam, because imo they figured that Sam was already relatable and understandable (since that was part of his purpose on the show) and they didn't need to work so hard to get the audience feeling connected to him. But I'm talking about maybe the first handful of episodes. I don't know why, over the past decade (!), they've chosen to leave him so under-developed (YMMV, but imo anyway).

 

W/r/t Sam's approach to Adam (and how it relates to college, hunting, etc):

 

I took the stuff about Sam wanting to teach Adam about handling a gun, etc, a different way. I didn't think it meant anything about college not having been the right choice. I think that Sam only took to hunting after he didn't have to do it with John anymore, so he seems to me like he mostly associates it with bonding with his brother as an adult. Imo he was happy for a chance to bond with Adam the same way. Dean's perspective is different, imo, because he took to it a lot younger and associates it with bonding with their dad as a kid. I think in general, when Sam thinks of his life as a hunter, he's thinking of post-college/adulthood, and when Dean thinks of it, he's thinking of everything from childhood on up, so they come at it from pretty different angles.

 

I also think their perspective on their dad is different in general. As soon as John died, Sam seemed to start seeing his father through a kind of vaseline-smeared lens with all the faults and aggravating things about John (conveniently) smudged out of existence -- imo out of guilt/grief. Didn't Sam basically say right after John died that he felt guilty for not being a "good son"? So I think that Sam tends to talk up his father and his father's ideas now, because he's kind of "cleaned up" John and their relationship in his mind so he doesn't have to feel so guilty or mourn their (lack of a) relationship so much.

 

But, to me at least, it sounds like John and Sam actually did *not* get along back in the day and could never have worked together as adults -- so imo, there never actually was a plausible scenario in which Sam didn't leave home by 18. He even said that it was John who told him to go, it doesn't seem like Sam had a multitude of choices at the time. At least when he got kicked out (and maybe it was a bluff, but considering that they didn't speak for the next four years or so imo it was a relatively serious threat), he went to college instead of bumming around like most teenage kids would have!

[DittyDotDot]

I have no opinion on whether Kripke preferred Sam more than Dean or vice versa; I've always believed that he probably saw positives and negatives in both, but I just thought I'd share this article with you: http://www.tvovermind.com/supernatural/supernatural-eric-kripke-talks-about-the-show-and-the-new-essential-supernatural-book-182496

 

It was published in 2012 just before The Essential Supernatural book was published in which he wrote the forward for. Relevant to this discussion would be:

 

Quote

Which Character is Most Like Kripke?  “Chuck!  Chuck has always been my surrogate in the show.  He’s a writer with really low self-esteem and spends a lot of time working in his pajamas.  I want to be Dean, but I’m much more like Chuck.”

[amensisterfriend]

I want to be Dean, but I’m much more like Chuck.”

 

LOL---aren't we all?! ;) And I think that actually fits with my perception of the characters---Dean is the quintessential hero who, aside from maybe the excessive drinking, is the nearly perfect ideal who many aspire to be...or be WITH :) Chuck is at the other end of the spectrum, a slightly exaggerated, amusing mess who find himself lacking the looks, charm, courage etc etc etc of a Dean but slogs along anyway. Sam is somewhere in the middle for me---with more numerous and serious flaws than Dean but still with clear strengths, at least in theory...when they remember to write him that way :) And I think it's because he's in the nebulous middle of that spectrum that Sam gets more relatable and compelling to me with rewatch. And because he's so often written as such a blank slate that I have fun filling in the holes in a way that works for me!

 

UO: I've already gushed about my love for the endlessly rewatchable S1 so I may be biased here, but I just never agreed at all with Kripke et al's weird hatred of Wendigo, which they've mentioned at least a couple of times as among their least favorite episodes ever. I genuinely LIKE Wendigo. It's not up there with the Pilot, Scarecrow, The Benders, Hell House and at least a couple more as the S1 episodes that I could (and sometimes do!) watch nearly every day of my TV-obsessed life, but I actually enjoy it and wouldn't even rank it in the bottom five of S1, let alone the whole series. (Honestly, I don't think I'd rank ANY S1-S3 episodes in the bottom 20-25 of the series...and that very much includes Route 666 or Bugs which, UO within a UO alert, I like far more than most do!)    

[amensisterfriend]

ETA: Also, despite a lifelong dislike of Paris Hilton, I genuinely enjoy Fallen Idols. (*shows myself the door*)