All Episodes Talk: Saving People, Hunting Things

[RulerofallIsurvey]

15 minutes ago, Katy M said:

That seems in character.  He fanboyed a bit when he met Cas, also. 

Although, now I realize I'm not sure what you're asking.  ARe you saying that the way that it ended up on screen is what they read and they thought the characters were switched.  Or are you saying that the characters were switched and it was corrected for filming and we're supposed to figure out a scene which would at least make some semblance of sense, while still being odd, if the parts were switched?  Or is it something completely different?  I realize that you moved this from the spoilers thread to get more responses, but I try to stay away from spoilers and I'm not sure it's completely clear from what you have here, what you're asking.  Or, maybe it's just me.

Bob Singer said there was an episode (and now I can't remember if he specifically said he directed it or not, I'll have to go back and check on that.) where Jared and Jensen had a scene together (and it sounded like, but was not specified, that the scene was only between Sam and Dean) and 30 minutes before filming, they went up to Bob and asked if they could swap lines: Jared could read "Dean's" parts as Sam and Jensen could read "Sam's" lines as Dean.  Bob said they tried it out and it worked much better than originally written.  So, what's actually in the episode are the swapped lines from what was in the script.  If that makes sense.  :)

[Wayward Son]

I noticed some talk about several issues over the past few days namely the issue of consent in specific circumstances and the true power, or lack thereof, or the demon blood. I can't seem to find the original posts, but I thought I'd offer my own thoughts on these issues.

 

The Demon Blood

IMO the demon blood was a psychological crutch Sam clung on to in order to persuade himself that it was the blood that was dark rather than Sam himself. Ruby herself explicitly states this in her final scene. "It wasn't the blood. It was you... and your choices. I just gave you the options, and you chose the right path every time. You didn't need the feather to fly, you had it in you the whole time, Dumbo". Ordinarily, I would advise against trusting Ruby, but IMO she was portrayed as telling the truth here. After two years of consistent lying she was finally getting to offload and share how "awesome" she is! In addition to this, the idea of the demon blood being a crutch, rather than a necessity, fits better with the words of the other psychic children in season two. Ava, who was portrayed as being able to control demons due to embracing her powers, states the following "the learning curve is so fast, it’s crazy, the switches that just flip in your brain." There is no mention of relying on demon blood or any other substance. It was simply about Ava and her decision to give into the darkness within her. This ties in perfectly with Ruby's word and creates more consistency between seasons than the idea Sam truly needed the blood to use his psychic powers. 

 

Consent throughout the Season 

As those who've read my posts in the "bitch vs jerk" thread know consent it a major issue with me. Without getting into bitch vs jerk territory it is my reason for reacting the way I did to Dean's decision to aid Gadreel with possessing Sam. However, I personally have no issue with Dean's decision to get Death to reensoul Sam, or Sam's decision to try and free Dean from the mark of Cain. The reason for this is simple; neither were in the position to give or deny consent. Sam's soul was missing. He was operating without a large portion of the things that make Sam the person he was. While Dean still had a soul, but it had been utterly twisted and corrupted by the act of transforming into a demon. Soulless Sam was not the true Sam nor was Demon!Dean the real Dean. They had both been altered at a fundamental level and the other brother had to operate solely on what they thought the real deal would want. Both assumptions were proven correct as a fully formed Sam thanked Dean for what he did and Dean was thankful to be rid of the mark of Cain also. 

Edited July 25, 2017 by Wayward Son

[RulerofallIsurvey]

24 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Well, if it was definitely an ep that Singer directed, that lets out 11.21.  The other ones he directed in season 11 were 11.1 (which was written by Carver) and 11.20, Don't Call Me Shurley, which was written by Robbie Thompson, who IMO knows the boys better than any other writer,.

I also looked at the O Brother transcript, and IA there were very few scenes even where the boys were together (so they could be blocked together) but I did find this one scene:

I'll check those others out too.  I looked at that scene from O Brother, and it makes more sense that it could be the one the way you laid it out.  

34 minutes ago, Katy M said:

That seems in character.  He fanboyed a bit when he met Cas, also. 

Actually, that could work, because if the lines were originally written that it was Dean saying that, that would be OOC for him and really ping that something was wrong with the actors, I think.  

[catrox14]

21 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

TBH, I think the reason Sam started drinking the demon blood was simply because he was trying to destroy himself after failing to save Dean. But, once he started drinking the blood, it made him feel in control instead of that kid being pushed around the universe's playground. By the time Dean comes back he was so hooked on the feeling he couldn't give it up. He told himself he was doing it to save people, but IMO, he just liked feeling as though he was in contro

Do you think it was the demon blood that made him feel more powerful or that he was feeling powerful because he was doing something HE THOUGHT was making him powerful and so it was more like a placebo thing for him?

I don't entirely know which side I fall on with that.

[catrox14]

It's possible Singer can still have influence on the episodes even if he's not the director. He's still an EP if not on the title card with Carver for s11. By the time those episodes were filmed Dabb was the defacto showrunner but new to that part of things so maybe Singer was around and they said "Hey, this is what we want to do" He  considered it and gave the go ahead. Like he's on set if not formally directing the episode. Hard to say though.

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Moved from Spoilers thread:

Thanks for the responses!  Singer didn't specify which season it was and he said he couldn't remember the episode.  

Any idea which scene it was in 11.21 if that was it?  Was it the one where Sam fanboys about God?  (That would kind of make sense)

I looked at O Brother Where Art Thou's transcript too, and I just couldn't find a scene where that swap would have been possible, as most of the dialogue between Sam and Dean were pretty character specific (Dean was dealing with Amara, Sam with Lucifer).

Curiosity has got the better of me! 

If I remember right, it was Oh Brother Where Art Thou. I don't know if they ever specified the scene, but I do remember it being mentioned before. I wish I could remember which con and give you link...but my memory is failing me now.

1 hour ago, Katy M said:

Although, now I realize I'm not sure what you're asking.  ARe you saying that the way that it ended up on screen is what they read and they thought the characters were switched.  Or are you saying that the characters were switched and it was corrected for filming and we're supposed to figure out a scene which would at least make some semblance of sense, while still being odd, if the parts were switched?  Or is it something completely different?  I realize that you moved this from the spoilers thread to get more responses, but I try to stay away from spoilers and I'm not sure it's completely clear from what you have here, what you're asking.  Or, maybe it's just me.

It's something in the main panel from Comic Con. Jared and Jensen were talking about how much they appreciate the trust the writers, directors and producers seem to have in them and they told a story of how they were running lines for a scene they were almost ready to shoot--like the blocking and everything had already been done--but they were kinda tripping over the dialogue and it just wasn't working. They got this idea to swap lines and see what happened and the scene just fell into place for them. So, they went to Bob Singer, who was directing the episode, and asked him if they could change up the dialogue. Singer was kinda like, "Now, you're asking now," but asked them to run it and he agreed they were right, the scene worked better that way. So they rejiggered the blocking and such and shot it the way Jared and Jensen had suggested.

This isn't the first time this type of thing has come up, but I always love the way they talk about how the writers and directors are very open to ideas and suggestions. That's one thing I love about this show, the egos are checked at the door.

 

ETA: Sorry, didn't see there was another page... .

Edited July 25, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

Do you think it was the demon blood that made him feel more powerful or that he was feeling powerful because he was doing something HE THOUGHT was making him powerful and so it was more like a placebo thing for him?

I don't entirely know which side I fall on with that.

I think the demon blood did give Sam powers that allowed him to pull demons out of people, but the supernatural abilities weren't what made Sam feel powerful, that was the feeling that he was in control.

So, to answer your question, yes and yes. Yes, I think the blood had a physical effect on Sam, and yes I also think it had a placebo effect as well. 

Not sure if that made sense, but I don't know how else to explain it.

Edited July 25, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[catrox14]

4 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I think the demon blood did give Sam powers that allowed him to pull demons out of people, but the supernatural abilities weren't what made Sam feel powerful, that was the feeling that he was in control.

So, to answer your question, yes and yes. Yes, I think the blood had a physical effect on Sam, and yes I also think it had a placebo effect as well. 

Not sure if that made sense, but I don't know how else to explain it.

It makes sense. I get it.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

From the Spoilers Thread:  Spoiler tagged some, just to be safe

10 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Spoiler

One thing that kind of amuses me in a not really funny way, was Jared talking about how one of Sam's arguments to Dean for not killing Jack is 'So what, you'd kill me, too?".  JFC show, are they really gonna drag out that chestnut again? And also, why is Sam making killing Jack about himself. I sure hope that was Jared just babbling or overstating it. 

That's a whole ugly can of worms IMO that the show should just let lie, given that Sam had no trouble killing Dean's half human, half-Amazon daughter Emma, before he knew whether she would be good or bad of her own accord vs being brainwashed at 12. Who knows if she  had been given a chance maybe she would have turned out okay.

I just rewatched the scene to be sure.  Emma was never going to be good.  She'd already been brainwashed to be bad.  She was already going to kill Dean - had the knife in her hand and everything.  "I have to kill you."  Dean: "Is that what they told you?"  Emma: "It's what I am."  Dean even pulled a gun on her because he was ready for it.  He just couldn't pull the trigger.  When Dean told her to walk away because she hadn't killed anyone yet, she said, "I can't.  I don't have a choice."  That "Please don't let him hurt me" when Sam came in was all an act.  She would have killed them both.  Dean also didn't see her red eye thing when she turned around to face Sam.  Sam did.  

So, imo, not the same thing as what could potentially happen in S13 (hope that's not too spoilery) at all.  

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

From the Spoilers Thread:  Spoiler tagged some, just to be safe

I just rewatched the scene to be sure.  Emma was never going to be good.  She'd already been brainwashed to be bad.  She was already going to kill Dean - had the knife in her hand and everything.  "I have to kill you."  Dean: "Is that what they told you?"  Emma: "It's what I am."  Dean even pulled a gun on her because he was ready for it.  He just couldn't pull the trigger.  When Dean told her to walk away because she hadn't killed anyone yet, she said, "I can't.  I don't have a choice."  That "Please don't let him hurt me" when Sam came in was all an act.  She would have killed them both.  Dean also didn't see her red eye thing when she turned around to face Sam.  Sam did.  

So, imo, not the same thing as what could potentially happen in S13 (hope that's not too spoilery) at all.  

The point of me bringing that up is that is nature vs nurture.

Emma said she didn't have a choice but she also had been brainwashed. The girls weren't born to kill their fathers. They were trained and brainwashed to do it.  Even during Emma's ritual she didn't eat the food when the other girls did. She had to be pushed into doing it so IMO she was resisting the brainwashing. 

She was 13 and she spent more time  talking to Dean about why she had to kill him than actually trying to kill him.She could have just stabbed him the moment he opened the door.  Why didn't she? IMO it was either just drawn out writing to make sure Sam got there OR maybe Emma was unsure about her destiny here. IMO there was uncertainty on both Dean and Emma's parts that she had to really kill him. 

So Emma was an Amazon but was she born to kill? I don't think so necessarily.  Even if she was born to kill, Sam has given passes to other monsters like Lenore and Amy because Sam was convinced they were trying to live against their natures. Here, Sam had the option to wound Emma, I dunno shoot her in the leg or something rather than kill her and together the boys could have tried to save her. If she couldn't be saved, then they kill her. 

It wasn't IMO a foregone conclusion that 100% she would have killed them both or that she was beyond saving.

I'll take the rest of my reply back to the spoiler thread.

Edited July 27, 2017 by catrox14

[Katy M]

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

She was 13 and she spent more time  talking to Dean about why she had to kill him than actually trying to kill him.She could have just stabbed him the moment he opened the door.  Why didn't she?

we could ask that about so many different would-be killers on so many different shows, including SPN. I get what you're saying, but I think Emma was just evil.  But, even if she wasn't, by the premise of this show (at least to that point) it wasn't Sam and Dean's job to rehabilitate her.  They may have given a couple of known non-killy monsters a pass, but this bs monsters are more often than not good thing is a more recent development.

[catrox14]

Emma was Dean's actual blood daughter.  She had his DNA along with Amazon DNA.  Who's to say that Dean's side, wasn't the side that made her hesitate to eat the food and hesitate to kill him once she started talking to him. Given how quickly she was brainwashed and grew up, it's possible the brainwashing could be reversed fast especially since IMO there was a crack in her armor already IMO which is why IMO she kept trying to convince Dean she JUST HAD TO KILL HIM. That felt a lot like a teenager posturing and bluffing because they don't really want to do the thing they are claiming they want to do. 

[Katy M]

I'm not saying that she couldn't have been rehabilitated.  But, I don't think she was suicidal.  I think she was definitely there to kill Dean.  And, I think she was just trying to get him off guard, IIRC, she pulled the knife out immediately when Jensen turned to look in the fridge.  He saw her reflection or something. She didn't kill him immediately at the door, because the Amazons knew he was a hunter. They told her to be more stealthy.  Sam and Dean aren't ones to give monsters second chances after they've shown themselves willing to kill.  She had plenty of opportunity to say "OK, not going to kill you," before Sam came in. So, Sam did the right thing.  Hesitating is what will get you killed in that line of work.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

35 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

She was 13 and she spent more time  talking to Dean about why she had to kill him than actually trying to kill him.She could have just stabbed him the moment he opened the door.  Why didn't she? IMO it was either just drawn out writing to make sure Sam got there OR maybe Emma was unsure about her destiny here. IMO there was uncertainty on both Dean and Emma's parts that she had to really kill him. 

I think it was writing drawn out for drama's sake to give Sam time to get there - and let's not forget the 'tit for tat' that Sam killed Dean's daughter because Dean killed Amy Pond.

35 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

The point of me bringing that up is that is nature vs nurture.

On the nature vs. nurture thing - I think what you don't seem to be considering in the Emma situation is that nature vs. nurture is only an argument for not killing a monster before either one has been able to have it's way.  Emma had nature against her since she was half Amazon and she'd already been nurtured to kill her daddy.  Double whammy!  Mile vary, but like I said, it was already too late for Emma.  If they'd gotten her when she was a baby when Dean first went back to the house for his flask (? I think it was his flask) then sure, I could get on board with your argument about Sam giving her a chance.  But by the time she showed up to kill Dean it was too late.  

Dang - this is a pain, because you're right: I need to take the rest of my response back to the Spoiler thread!

Edited July 27, 2017 by RulerofallIsurvey

[ahrtee]

1 hour ago, Katy M said:

we could ask that about so many different would-be killers on so many different shows, including SPN. I get what you're saying, but I think Emma was just evil.  But, even if she wasn't, by the premise of this show (at least to that point) it wasn't Sam and Dean's job to rehabilitate her.  They may have given a couple of known non-killy monsters a pass, but this bs monsters are more often than not good thing is a more recent development.

The thing that annoys me is the attitude that Dean is always "shoot first, ask questions later" towards *all* monsters.  (And I'm not intending to go into Bitch/Jerk territory, because it isn't against either boy).  But he has *always* (AFAIK) given "monsters" who haven't killed a chance, even if Sam has to point it out to him first.  But *on his own* he let Amy's son go (even asked him if he'd killed anyone, and said that if he does, he'll be back.)  He was willing to watch Jack the rugaru before he killed anyone (it was Travis who wanted to kill him immediately).  He bonded with the shifter baby, and even resented giving it to Christian because then he'd be raised as a hunter (brainwashed in the opposite direction, maybe?)  He let Kate the werewolf (and Magda) go even without Sam first insisting on it.    

With Emma, I'm not sure if his hesitation to kill her was entirely because she was his "daughter" or because he *wanted* to give her the option of not killing.  (And yes, to give Sam time to show up in the nick of time.)  However, as it turned out, killing your "father" was their initiation, so chances were if she didn't kill him, she wouldn't have been a full (or accepted) Amazon, so might not kill at all.  (The odd thing about that is that Dean didn't know that but *Sam* did.)  That was what sent him running back to save Dean:

PROFESSOR: At 11:30 at night, it better be. Oh, here's a new twist. It repeats the conventional lore. Amazon warriors mate with males. The males are murdered. Yada, yada. But according to this... It's not the women who do the killing. Instead, a ritual of initiation REQUIRES [caps and emphasis mine] that the child born of the mating process must kill her own father.

Whether or not she would have tried to kill him (or if he'd kill her if she did make a move) is moot, because Sam shot first.  (And no, I'm not saying it was wrong or bad or entirely "tit for tat" for Amy, because yeah, I do think she was going to kill.)  But the point is that Dean was giving her the option of choosing not to, just as he did with Amy's son and the others.  And he was even hesitant about killing Jesse the Antichrist (Cas was the one who was adamant) and was happy to find another choice (that is, sending him off to train For Good with Bobby).  

Even Baby Styne had already killed someone (or at least participated in a killing), even if you want to give Dean a pass because of the MoC influence.  So I think Dean is fairly consistent in who he wants to "shoot first" and who he might give a chance.  YMMV.

Edited July 27, 2017 by ahrtee
Spelling "Styne" not "Stein"

[catrox14]

Just now, Katy M said:

I'm not saying that she couldn't have been rehabilitated.  But, I don't think she was suicidal.  I think she was definitely there to kill Dean. 

Where is the idea that she was suicidal coming from?

Yes, she went there to kill Dean but for me considering she didn't obey the rituals until she was more or less compelled to do so unlike the other girls, and unlike the other girls, she didn't kill Dean as quickly as the other girls killed their fathers, IMO she was having a bit of an internal struggle about whether to kill him or not.  

[RulerofallIsurvey]

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

IMO she was having a bit of an internal struggle about whether to kill him or not.  

I didn't think she looked like she was struggling with the decision to kill him so much as 'toying with her food.'  She went so far as to say (before Sam showed up) that one of them was going to die.  That is, either she was going to kill Dean or he had to kill her first.  

[Katy M]

16 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Where is the idea that she was suicidal coming from?

Sorry, I'm slightly dyslexic, and I misread

 

Quote

IMO she kept trying to convince Dean she JUST HAD TO KILL HIM

as he had to kill her.  Like you were saying she was trying to get him to kill her instead. Sorry about that.

[ILoveReading]

From the spoiler thread:

Quote

On the nature vs. nurture thing - I think what you don't seem to be considering in the Emma situation is that nature vs. nurture is only an argument for not killing a monster before either one has been able to have it's way.  Emma had nature against her since she was half Amazon and she'd already been nurtured to kill her daddy.  Double whammy!  Mile vary, but like I said, it was already too late for Emma.  If they'd gotten her when she was a baby when Dean first went back to the house for his flask (? I think it was his flask) then sure, I could get on board with your argument about Sam giving her a chance.  But by the time she showed up to kill Dean it was too late.  

With Emma, Amazon's grow quickly, so Emma might have looked like a 16 year old but she was really about 3 days old.  Her nurturing wasn't much.   So its too soon to write Emma off.

Plus, we saw that Emma was also the only one who hesitated to eat the meat at the first ceremony. 

She's half Winchester and Dean's a pretty good nurturer since he raised Sam to over him evil side.   What's to say that with time, Dean might not have been able to change Emma's mind.

Lets say a kid who neglected by both parents and ends up in a gang, and that gang becomes his mentors.  Not a great influence in his teen years.  He ends up trying to steal a car, gets caught and ends up in Juvy.  Is it to late for that person?  The odds may be stacked against him, but if he ends up with loving supportive foster parents he might be able to turn his life around.

Dean was talking to Emma.  She hadn't attacked him yet.  Dean had a gun on her, and its possible she might have been luring him into a sense of security but we'll don't know one way or the other.  Its possible Dean's words were having an effect. (Since we saw that doubt initially).

Sam busting in changed the whole dynamic of the scene.  If you have a negotiator trying to talk someone into letting a hostage go, and suddenly a swat team burst in the hostage taker could get spooked and fire out of reflex.  It's possible that Emma felt threatened by Sam and that increased threat caused her to react faster than she normally would have. 

As Emma kept saying, "I have to"  Not "I want to"  I think there is a difference there.

I think you can make a strong argument for either scenario, but I disagree that Emma is a lost cause.

Edited July 27, 2017 by ILoveReading

[catrox14]

14 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

On the nature vs. nurture thing - I think what you don't seem to be considering in the Emma situation is that nature vs. nurture is only an argument for not killing a monster before either one has been able to have it's way.

 

Emma was half Amazon, half human(Dean) and was ritualized into killing. Amazons were a different species but the species itself wasn't shown to be evil at birth IIRC. Her first kill would have been Dean. She went from infancy to toddler to young girl to 13 year old in a few days. Amy had already killed so she could feed her son. So I'm not sure what you are saying here. 

 

2 minutes ago, Katy M said:

as he had to kill her.  Like you were saying she was trying to get him to kill her instead. Sorry about that.

No, sorry. That's not what I was trying to say. I don't think she was trying to get him to kill her.  That thought never crossed my mind at all.

I'm saying that I think she was as hesitant to kill him as he was hesitant to kill her. What I'm saying is that Emma was trying to convince herself that this was her role and her destiny because IMO the thing that made her hesitate to eat the flesh and drink the milk, is the same thing that was making her hesitate to kill Dean. That's what I mean.

She knew Dean was a hunter so she could have just thrown the knife at his back when he turned away if her entire reason for being there was to kill him.  I don't think it was. I think she was conflicted.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

22 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Emma was half Amazon, half human(Dean) and was ritualized into killing. Amazons were a different species but the species itself wasn't shown to be evil at birth IIRC.   Her first kill would have been Dean. She went from infancy to toddler to young girl to 13 year old in a few days. Amy had already killed so she could feed her son. So I'm not sure what you are saying here. 

Actually, it's never quite stated outright whether or not Amazons were evil at birth, unless you count this bit of dialogue:

Quote

SAM: 
[after a pause] Right. Um, apparently, there was this long, bloody war. The Amazon population was decimated, so they made a bargain with Harmonia to replenish their ranks and make them stronger.

DEAN: 
Well, I'd say throwing grown men through walls was stronger.

SAM: 
Yeah. Well, basically, they became more than human. Harmonia turned them into monsters.

Which, to me, calling them 'monsters' makes it seem more likely than not.  Also, the 'deal with a goddess' thing never turns out well.  

Even still, like I said, regardless of how many 'human' days she'd been alive, Emma was an Amazon teenager and had already been nurtured as such to kill her father.   I don't think using a 'human' timeframe when talking about Amazon DNA is applicable but I understand that others do. 

[AwesomO4000]

4 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Emma was Dean's actual blood daughter.  She had his DNA along with Amazon DNA. 

I'm not actually convinced of this. I'm pretty sure the scientist at the hospital who got a hold of the Amazon's DNA said that there was nothing human about it at all. To me that implied that the Amazon DNA was the only thing contributing. The Amazon women might need the act of sex to get pregnant for some reason - there are a few species in nature that work this way, too, in that the egg has to be "woken up" so to speak by sex with a male, but the resulting progeny only get their DNA from the female parent  (I forget where the males come from - guess I'll have to look that up later) - but I think that the male's DNA is repressed and the resulting mystical DNA is all Amazon. Otherwise, there would also be male children, too, to deal with... something the Amazons wouldn't want to worry about. I'm thinking part of the deal with Harmonia was that they would be a "pure" race from then on... no what they might consider inferior DNA to mess up their progeny.

That's just my opinion on that one.

4 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I think it was writing drawn out for drama's sake to give Sam time to get there - and let's not forget the 'tit for tat' that Sam killed Dean's daughter because Dean killed Amy Pond.

I completely disagree that any of Sam's motivation was a "tit for tat" thing. The reason Sam mentioned Amy was because he was a bit freaked out that Dean was hesitating after Dean went through such pains to let Sam know that being too closely involved is a bad thing, and something they shouldn't do. And here Dean was hesitating and Sam was worried he could've been killed. (paraphrase) "Just don't get killed." Sam was freaking - which came out as misplaced anger - because he thought Dean was hesitating rather than being the one with the straight ahead, work through it attitude. Or at least that's what I got out of that last scene. Your mileage may vary.

[Katy M]

14 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I'm not actually convinced of this. I'm pretty sure the scientist at the hospital who got a hold of the Amazon's DNA said that there was nothing human about it at all. To me that implied that the Amazon DNA was the only thing contributing.

That's interesting.  Kind of makes you wonder what they need sperm for if the Amazon is contributing all the DNA.  This sounds like one of those things I don't want to think too deeply about.  So, I'm not going to.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

14 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I completely disagree that any of Sam's motivation was a "tit for tat" thing.

Oh, sorry if I wasn't clear - I don't think Sam's motivation was 'tit for tat'.  I think that was just the writers.  If that makes sense.  

[AwesomO4000]

5 hours ago, Katy M said:

That's interesting.  Kind of makes you wonder what they need sperm for if the Amazon is contributing all the DNA.  This sounds like one of those things I don't want to think too deeply about.  So, I'm not going to.

Here's an example of a critter in nature - a fish - that uses this type of reproduction. The female fish mate with males of closely related species to "get the job done" (stimulate the egg), but the males don't contribute any DNA to the offspring. Interestingly the example fish is called the Amazon molly in reference to the Amazons of Greek mythology.

[AwesomO4000]

5 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Oh, sorry if I wasn't clear - I don't think Sam's motivation was 'tit for tat'.  I think that was just the writers.  If that makes sense.  

Ah, okay. I was thinking that sounded weird coming from you, but it seemed so straightforward, I took it at face value.

[Wayward Son]

12 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

This show's not going anywhere without both Jensen and Jared.  It's that relationship that makes the show.  It's not about the acting or the writing, it's that intangible something between those two that sucked us in to this show and won't let us leave till the bitter end. 

This isn't necessarily the case for every viewer or indeed many. There are many fans with others preferences such as preferring one brother in particular, or even secondary characters such as Castiel and Lucifer. There are many fans who have become very disillusioned with the more toxic aspects of Sam and Dean's relationship. 

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

This isn't necessarily the case for every viewer or indeed many. There are many fans with others preferences such as preferring one brother in particular, or even secondary characters such as Castiel and Lucifer. There are many fans who have become very disillusioned with the more toxic aspects of Sam and Dean's relationship. 

In any case I'm sure that there are a great deal of fans that still watch for the Winchesters and would be saddened if either Jensen or Jared were to leave the series. Speaking for myself I enjoy both brothers as well as the secondary characters and though they may be codependent I believe toxic is a little extreme. But quite obviously MMV.

[MysteryGuest]

35 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

This isn't necessarily the case for every viewer or indeed many. There are many fans with others preferences such as preferring one brother in particular, or even secondary characters such as Castiel and Lucifer. There are many fans who have become very disillusioned with the more toxic aspects of Sam and Dean's relationship. 

I suppose that's true, but I still stand by my opinion that the show does not continue without both Jensen and Jared.  

[Wayward Son]

4 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

In any case I'm sure that there are a great deal of fans that still watch for the Winchesters and would be saddened if either Jensen or Jared were to leave the series. Speaking for myself I enjoy both brothers as well as the secondary characters and though they may be codependent I believe toxic is a little extreme. But quite obviously MMV.

 

4 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

I suppose that's true, but I still stand by my opinion that the show does not continue without both Jensen and Jared.  

Yes, I actually agree that the show couldn't continue without both of them. I was simply pointing out that while many watch primarily for the Sam n Dean bond. There are also many viewers whose primary investment lie in other aspects of the show :) 

[MysteryGuest]

1 minute ago, Wayward Son said:

Yes, I actually agree that the show couldn't continue without both of them. I was simply pointing out that while many watch primarily for the Sam n Dean bond. There are also many viewers whose primary investment lie in other aspects of the show :) 

I'm sure that's true, based on what I see on social media.  But I prefer to think that what I see there isn't really representative of the entire fanbase.  Some of those people scare me.

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

 

Yes, I actually agree that the show couldn't continue without both of them. I was simply pointing out that while many watch primarily for the Sam n Dean bond. There are also many viewers whose primary investment lie in other aspects of the show :) 

True indeed!

3 hours ago, MysteryGuest said:

I'm sure that's true, based on what I see on social media.  But I prefer to think that what I see there isn't really representative of the entire fanbase.  Some of those people scare me.

I agree! I've read very hostile debates on Tumblr regarding characters & the actors.

[MysteryGuest]

4 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

I agree! I've read very hostile debates on Tumblr regarding characters & the actors.

I tend to think it's more the nature of social media in general than anything specific to SPN, but still...  Some people need a good dose of reality.

[Wayward Son]

17 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

True indeed!

I agree! I've read very hostile debates on Tumblr regarding characters & the actors.

11 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

I tend to think it's more the nature of social media in general than anything specific to SPN, but still...  Some people need a good dose of reality.

Well, there are also plenty of Sam and Dean bond enthusiasts on SM whose attitude scare me also. So that's an all round fandom thing I'd say. 

 

Im gonna make this my last post on this since we are straying from talking about the show and the key parts of it to fandom :). It was nice talking to you both. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

8 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Ah, okay. I was thinking that sounded weird coming from you, but it seemed so straightforward, I took it at face value.

Yeah, I worded it badly, and didn't realize that until you said something!

[Wayward Son]

2 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

My issues with Yellow Fever isn't that Dean is supposed to be a dick--because, yes, it is foreshadowing, IMO--but that both Sam and Bobby actually are acting like dicks in that episode, but it's Dean, who is not acting like a dick, who gets infected. It just wasn't a very well thought out episode, IMO. It does have it's charms though along with it's logic fails. But so do most episodes, so whatcha gonna do?

But, as I said, the description of the ghosts MO as going after dicks was an overly simplified and misleading summary. Within the episode the assumption was instantly  corrected and the actual MO of the ghost was to target those who used the fear of others as a weapon against them.

 

IIRC, while Sam and Bobby were both less than sympathetic towards Dean at times, neither of them actually used Dean's fear to their advantage. They didn't wield it as a weapon against Dean. So their behaviour while dickish wouldn't fall within the ghosts actual jurisdiction. 

[DittyDotDot]

28 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

But, as I said, the description of the ghosts MO as going after dicks was an overly simplified and misleading summary. Within the episode the assumption was instantly  corrected and the actual MO of the ghost was to target those who used the fear of others as a weapon against them.

Except without the context of why Dean got infected and not Sam, it's kinda a head scratcher. That's why I say it wasn't very well thought out. It probably should've been done later in the season after Dean's reveal because standing on it's own, it doesn't really make sense why Sam didn't get infected alongside Dean. There's also the logic fails that they could road haul the ghost with an iron chain and the lack of urgency from Sam and Bobby as the time was running out that don't work for me.

TBH, I imagine Lofflin and Dabb pitching this as, "Road hauling a ghost, awesome right?" And everyone nodding and not worrying about the little details that get us to the road hauling. There's at least one of these episodes every season where it feels like they got caught up on an AWESOME idea and didn't give the rest of the episode enough care and feeding in the end. Doesn't mean it's all bad, just that I don't think it was particularly well thought out in the end.

28 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

IIRC, while Sam and Bobby were both less than sympathetic towards Dean at times, neither of them actually used Dean's fear to their advantage. They didn't wield it as a weapon against Dean. So their behaviour while dickish wouldn't fall within the ghosts actual jurisdiction.

I don't think Sam and Bobby were being a dick to Dean, but they were the ones actually using fear as a weapon, not Dean. I mean, it was Sam who had the shotgun and shot the ghost while Dean ran away--granted Dean was already infected--and Bobby and Sam road hauled the ghost to purposely terrorize him. The other victims had personally victimized the ghost, so it made sense how and why they got infected, but why would Dean be infected here when he wasn't using fear as a weapon or terrorizing anyone? How'd the ghost--or the ghost sickness--know Dean was the dick in this case?

Edited July 29, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[RulerofallIsurvey]

From the Spoilers thread:

13 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Well, it was a hallucination... .

Yes, but was it his hallucination?  If it was Sam's hallucination (manufactured mostly by Sam under the influence of drugs and spell) then I'd think the anti-possession tattoo would be there, since he would certainly know he had one.  Since he didn't, it makes me wonder if the hallucination was a total construct by Lady RnotIP.  If that's the case, then I'd still think that the fact that he didn't have it would have helped tip him off subconsciously that 'something wasn't right' way before he actually figured that out.  

[bettername2come]

7 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

From the Spoilers thread:

Yes, but was it his hallucination?  If it was Sam's hallucination (manufactured mostly by Sam under the influence of drugs and spell) then I'd think the anti-possession tattoo would be there, since he would certainly know he had one.  Since he didn't, it makes me wonder if the hallucination was a total construct by Lady RnotIP.  If that's the case, then I'd still think that the fact that he didn't have it would have helped tip him off subconsciously that 'something wasn't right' way before he actually figured that out.  

He wasn't looking down at his own chest in that scene to notice? 

[DittyDotDot]

17 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

From the Spoilers thread:

Yes, but was it his hallucination?  If it was Sam's hallucination (manufactured mostly by Sam under the influence of drugs and spell) then I'd think the anti-possession tattoo would be there, since he would certainly know he had one.  Since he didn't, it makes me wonder if the hallucination was a total construct by Lady RnotIP.  If that's the case, then I'd still think that the fact that he didn't have it would have helped tip him off subconsciously that 'something wasn't right' way before he actually figured that out.  

What @bettername2come said.

I think it was a continuity error, but also could be a hint that was a hallucination, if one is inclined to give the show some credit...not sure which side of the fence I fall on that one right now. ;)

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 hour ago, bettername2come said:

He wasn't looking down at his own chest in that scene to notice? 

LOL!  

[SueB]

20 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

What @bettername2come said.

I think it was a continuity error, but also could be a hint that was a hallucination, if one is inclined to give the show some credit...not sure which side of the fence I fall on that one right now. ;)

Jared implied he was too lazy to shave his chest and get it put on so he used the excuse of "hallucination".  So it wasn't an error, 'hallucination' was an excuse.

Now, I'm not a dude, so I don't know, but I would think getting your chest shaved is annoying.  I'm give him a Mulligan on this play but I'd rather see it because it actually is plot important. 

[ahrtee]

Moved from "Bitch/Jerk" thread: 

32 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Oh certainly. I think if she had died like any other normal person, he would've grieved, but moved on and probably raised Sam and Dean quite normally. He also likely would've had a support system to help when he fell down, as all parents do from time to time. John was just so isolated and the help he did have was fleeting and easily gotten rid of by throwing the boys in the car and running off to the next town.

I actually think what broke John more than anything was learning the truth about Mary and Sam. I think that's what drove his quest for vengeance more than anything.

I'm not even sure what was driving him was vengeance, at least not at first.  Finding out that there were monsters in the world who were killing innocent people was enough of a paradigm shift for anyone but wouldn't necessarily turn John into someone so driven by vengeance that he would put his sons in danger (young John was "sweet and hopeful" even after coming through a war, according to young Mary, and in The Song Remains the Same he seemed more protector than vigilante, and was incensed at the thought of a father putting his children in danger.)  But if he learned that Sam was specifically a target (which I suspect Missouri told him, even if she didn't know any details), IMO it was that same protective instinct that could turn him into a cold, driven hunter.   Since he didn't know what exactly had killed Mary, he had to learn everything he could about all monsters, and thus hunted everything he came across instead of specifically looking for Mary's killer.  The fact that he dragged both boys into it with him (instead of finding them a stable home to stay in while he went off hunting--even with other "settled" hunters like Bobby or Pastor Jim)-- and focused so much on their training, indicates to me that his motivation was as much "protect/watch out for Sam" as it was vengeance at that point, and he didn't trust anyone else to do it.  

Going vengeful on *all* monsters was IMO a combination of frustration once he lost the trail of the YED and a sense of guilt that made him want to save as many people as he could.  And of course over the years he lost track of *why* he was hunting and focused more on "killing as many evil sonsofbitches" as he could, and became drill sergeant instead of dad.  

Going on a tangent here: we don't know when John found out about Sam's "dark destiny" (in IMTOD he only said he'd known "for some time") but it just occurred to me (I'm a little slow) that maybe that was also why he was so adamant about Sam staying with him and not going off to college.  We know that he said he was worried that he couldn't protect him (the implication being that it was from monsters in general or, once we found out about Azazel, from him in particular), but maybe also from other hunters, who, if they found out about the demon blood and Sam's possible destiny, wouldn't hesitate to kill him.  Just a thought, not a defense.  

[DittyDotDot]

5 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Moved from "Bitch/Jerk" thread: 

I'm not even sure what was driving him was vengeance, at least not at first.  Finding out that there were monsters in the world who were killing innocent people was enough of a paradigm shift for anyone but wouldn't necessarily turn John into someone so driven by vengeance that he would put his sons in danger (young John was "sweet and hopeful" even after coming through a war, according to young Mary, and in The Song Remains the Same he seemed more protector than vigilante, and was incensed at the thought of a father putting his children in danger.)  But if he learned that Sam was specifically a target (which I suspect Missouri told him, even if she didn't know any details), IMO it was that same protective instinct that could turn him into a cold, driven hunter.   Since he didn't know what exactly had killed Mary, he had to learn everything he could about all monsters, and thus hunted everything he came across instead of specifically looking for Mary's killer.  The fact that he dragged both boys into it with him (instead of finding them a stable home to stay in while he went off hunting--even with other "settled" hunters like Bobby or Pastor Jim)-- and focused so much on their training, indicates to me that his motivation was as much "protect/watch out for Sam" as it was vengeance at that point, and he didn't trust anyone else to do it.  

Going vengeful on *all* monsters was IMO a combination of frustration once he lost the trail of the YED and a sense of guilt that made him want to save as many people as he could.  And of course over the years he lost track of *why* he was hunting and focused more on "killing as many evil sonsofbitches" as he could, and became drill sergeant instead of dad. 

That's pretty much what I was thinking, just didn't have time to really wax-on today. I figure what propelled John to hunt was finding out Sam was in danger, so he had to learn as much as he could to protect them all. But, the more he learned--which I assume at some point he learned about Mary's deal and that she basically died so he could live--I think that's what fueled his wanting vengeance. Mostly though, I think John got into it all thinking he was protecting them. It just spiraled downhill from there.

Edited July 31, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[ahrtee]

1 minute ago, DittyDotDot said:

That's pretty much what I was thinking, just didn't have time to really wax-on today. I figure what propelled John to hunt was finding out Sam was in danger, so he had to learn as much as he could to protect them all. But, the more he learned--which I assume at some point he learned about Mary's deal and that she basically died so he could live--I think that's what fueled his wanting vengeance. Mostly though, I think John got into it all thinking he was protecting them. It just spiraled downhill from there.

Do you think he learned about Mary's deal?  There was no one left to tell him or give any clues, though I guess he could put things together once he realized from his research that Azazel had to be "invited" into their house, which would suggest that Mary had made a deal.  And then, maybe he remembered waking up in her arms without knowing whatthehell had happened.  But I'd think knowing that would make him turn to hunting more out of guilt than vengeance.  But then, I'm not John!  :)

[DittyDotDot]

3 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Do you think he learned about Mary's deal?  There was no one left to tell him or give any clues, though I guess he could put things together once he realized from his research that Azazel had to be "invited" into their house, which would suggest that Mary had made a deal.  And then, maybe he remembered waking up in her arms without knowing whatthehell had happened.  But I'd think knowing that would make him turn to hunting more out of guilt than vengeance.  But then, I'm not John!  :)

I think John's need for vengeance was born out of guilt, myself. But, yeah, I think he eventually figured it out one way or another. He was researching all those deals Yellow Eyes made and it was nothing sort of suspicious that both Mary's parents died on the same day. Plus, it sure seemed like he knew an awful lot more than he let on when he died.

I imagine he also learned about the Campbells being hunters at some point.

[CluelessDrifter]

22 hours ago, ahrtee said:

Do you think he learned about Mary's deal?  There was no one left to tell him or give any clues, though I guess he could put things together once he realized from his research that Azazel had to be "invited" into their house, which would suggest that Mary had made a deal.  And then, maybe he remembered waking up in her arms without knowing whatthehell had happened.  But I'd think knowing that would make him turn to hunting more out of guilt than vengeance.  But then, I'm not John!  :)

He figured out that Azazel visited the Whitshire farm and a few days later Liddy Walsh.  The Whitshire farm and Liddy Walsh farm were near where Mary was raised, so I don't think it'd be a stretch to think he thought that those few days are when Mary came into contact with the YED, especially when Mary's own parents died during that period of time.  He just didn't remember dying or know how they died.  I also think he might've missed some people over the years (Rosie, and her Mom or Dad - he didn't know which family in Salvation was going to be targeted), but that he tracked the teenagers in the families that Azazel contacted around the time Mary made her deal and was able to decipher using demonic omens when Azazel would have revisited them.  Even though Azazel's visits weren't exactly 10-years to the day that he would have come into contact with the parents the first time (Mary's deal was made in May of 1973, roughly 10-years to the day that Sam was born, but Azazel waited until Sam was 6-months old to actually come back), the revisits roughly 10-years later probably told John that there were deals being made, since he knew about demon deals.  

I'm just not sure if he ever figured out that Mary was a hunter.  I know he probably ran into other hunters who would have known about the Campbells, but I doubt he ever really spoke about Mary, so it's not a topic that would've come up, and since her family was stationary, I don't think it would've been as easy to notice that they were hunters.  He had his own hunts to find and research too, so unless he was researching one of those and found something like a newspaper clipping with Samuel or Deanna's picture in it, I don't see how he would've known . . . maybe if he actually ran into any of her other family on a hunt, like the mysterious uncle that paid for her headstone?

I've also never been quite sure what he was doing right after he took off.  I think he was always on the look out for signs of the YED and noticed the demonic omens in Palo Alto, and that's why he dropped the Woman in White case.  My thought was that he left the case to go to Sam, because he wasn't that far from him (certainly much closer than Dean in New Orleans), but he still didn't have anything he could use to kill the YED, and wasn't certain enough that the YED would go after Sam to make contact with Sam?  Maybe he was just waiting in the shadows in case Sam needed him until Dean got there?  Sure, he knew that Dean would come looking for him and finish the hunt, because he left his journal behind with coordinates to the next hunt for a reason, but maybe John also knew that Dean would do what he did and go to Sam, and when he saw Dean leave with Sam, he thought that Sam would be okay, so he left and heard later what happened to Jessica?  I don't know.  I'm sure the rest of his year was filled with him staying a step ahead of the YEDs minions, while also tracking down demonic omens, maybe other psychic kids to see what was happening to them, and something he could use to kill the YED, but what was he doing immediately after he left that message for Dean?  

Edited August 1, 2017 by CluelessDrifter
Grammar for clarity

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, CluelessDrifter said:

I'm just not sure if he ever figured out that Mary was a hunter.  I know he probably ran into other hunters who would have known about the Campbells, but I doubt he ever really spoke about Mary, so it's not a topic that would've come up, and since her family was stationary, I don't think it would've been as easy to notice that they were hunters.  He had his own hunts to find and research too, so unless he was researching one of those and found something like a newspaper clipping with Samuel or Deanna's picture in it, I don't see how he would've known . . . maybe if he actually ran into any of her other family on a hunt, like the mysterious uncle that paid for her headstone?

Over the years, I've decided he did learn about the Campbell's. Not because John talked about Mary, but, as Gordon pointed out, hunters like to talk, so I wouldn't be surprised if John didn't hear a story or two about the Campbells over the years and just put it together with what he already knew of Mary and her family. I highly doubt John ever told anyone his dead wife was Mary Campbell, of the Campbell's who were cutting the heads of vamps on the Mayflower, but probably listened very closely if a Campbell was mentioned. 

I actually think that might be a big reason why John kept Sam and Dean away from other hunters, for the most part. So they wouldn't learn about Mary since he was so keen on keeping her memory pristine for them. When they started talking about John never wanting them to go to hunters' gatherings in Celebrating the Life of Asa Fox I started thinking of Gordon's comment about how there was a lot John never told them about the life and it all just fell into place for me. I don't know if that's what actually happened or not, but it's my theory anyway.

Edited August 1, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[CluelessDrifter]

Just now, DittyDotDot said:

Over the years, I've decided he did learn about the Campbell's--not because he talked about Mary, But, as Gordon pointed out, hunters like to talk, so I wouldn't be surprised if John didn't hear a story or two about the Campbell's over the years and just put it together with what he already knew of Mary and her family. I highly doubt John ever told anyone his dead wife was Mary Campbell of the Campbell's who were cutting the heads of vamps on the Mayflower, but probably listened very closely if a Campbell was mentioned. 

I actually think that might be a big reason why John kept Sam and Dean away from other hunters, for the most part. So they wouldn't learn about Mary since he was so keen on keeping her memory pristine for them. When they started talking about John never wanting them to go to hunters' gatherings in Celebrating the Life of Asa Fox I started thinking of Gordon's comment about how there was a lot John never told them about the life and it all just fell into place for me. I don't know if that's what actually happened or not, but it's my theory anyway.

Possibly.  I guess I always just thought he kept them away from other hunters because he knew what happened with Gordon going after Sam would happen if other hunters got to know too much about them, or that he didn't trust any other hunters other than Caleb, Pastor Jim, and Bobby around his sons, because he didn't like the way they did things or something along those lines, but I suppose wanting to protect Mary's memory might have been a motivation.  It just never occurred to me, because with all the times they've spent around hunters since John's death, it was never mentioned, and the only way they found out was because Cas sent Dean to the past to find out.  

[DittyDotDot]

3 minutes ago, CluelessDrifter said:

Possibly.  I guess I always just thought he kept them away from other hunters because he knew what happened with Gordon going after Sam would happen if other hunters got to know too much about them, or that he didn't trust any other hunters other than Caleb, Pastor Jim, and Bobby around his sons, because he didn't like the way they did things or something along those lines

Well, I did say it was only a part of the reason. I'm sure John had many reasons for why he kept them away, but I think it makes sense that if he knew about the Campbells and didn't want Sam and Dean to know about the Campbells, he would keep them away from hunters who also knew about the Campbells. 

The thing is, I don't think the Campbells were really well-known in the hunter community, Elkins said he'd never heard of them when Dean tried to steal the Colt from him. I'd guess they tried to keep to themselves mostly since Samuel didn't trust other hunters around his family, but it had to be inevitable that he would run across other hunters on the job and the Campbell family was bigger than just Mary, Samuel and Deanna. So, it's not like every hunter has stories of the Campbells, but I wouldn't be surprised if John didn't run across one or two who did. And, I wouldn't expect most of Sam and Dean's current contacts to know anything about Mary's family since they all died over 40 years ago. I don't think any current hunter would have stories to tell, but back when John was first hunting I can imagine there being a few.