All Episodes Talk: Saving People, Hunting Things

[AwesomO4000]

8 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Also, I super ship Samwena. I can't help it. As much as I hated Oh Brother Where Art Thou for Dean/Amara reasons I loved the dynamic between Sam and Rowena. I mean yes, Sam was a numbnut for going with her and not waiting for Dean but they definitely spark.

But she's so evil ; ). Now if she hadn't been introduced as so awful maybe it might be different, but Sam upon meeting her literally watched a young woman die horrifically due to Rowena. And nothing Rowena did in this season really changed that. I mean if you think about it, Rowena literally tried to get Sam possessed by Lucifer*** - because how else was Lucifer supposed to get out of that cage without a meatsuit in Rowena's original plan? - so really it would be almost a Ruby redux, and I want Sam to have moved beyond that... Now if you want to somehow imagine Sam gets soulless again... that crackship I'm all on board for, because Rowena and soulless Sam? That's an amoral power couple waiting to happen. I think there's some fanfic potential there, maybe? Poor Sam if his soul got returned though... maybe Cas could do a memory wipe for him.

*** Which what? Did Rowena just plan to rule by his side or was she expecting "more" and they'd just use Sam's body for it... Could Sam kick Lucifer out (after the season 9 stuff?). Or in Rowena's plans would Sam just get walled in a fantasy world while Lucifer took him over. Nope nope nope... Sam should want nothing to do relationship-wise with someone who wanted to do that to him. He's been there, done that, got the Lucifer-as-Jessica in his nightmares scars to prove it.

[catrox14]

8 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

But she's so evil ; ). Now if she hadn't been introduced as so awful maybe it might be different, but Sam upon meeting her literally watched a young woman die horrifically due to Rowena. And nothing Rowena did in this season really changed that. I mean if you think about it, Rowena literally tried to get Sam possessed by Lucifer*** -

I knoooowwwwwwwwwwwwww. It's awful. She's awful. I just like them together. It's my crack ship, I'M SORRY!!!! LOL

I would never want them to actually be together in a relationship, but a little tete a tete? I dunno. I mean Ruby was less trustworthy than Rowena thus far. She did help him with Dean in Regarding Dean and they have that creepy Lucifer True Face thing. 

I think Jared and Ruthie just an interesting energy.

[AwesomO4000]

Okay... How about a little Buffy, the Vampire Slayer "Taabula Rasa" type episode? I could live with that. As long as Sam could be appropriately horrified when his memory returned, of course. ; )

[catrox14]

5 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Okay... How about a little Buffy, the Vampire Slayer "Taabula Rasa" type episode? I could live with that. As long as Sam could be appropriately horrified when his memory returned, of course. ; )

I can get on board with that. LOL

[Katy M]

8 hours ago, companionenvy said:

mean, I guess when you're dealing with a being of God level power anything is theoretically possible, but I think it would have been harder than taking an intact soul out of heaven (and yes, I agree that Mary being in heaven was a retcon, but I accept that "Home" was written before a lot of the rules of the verse had solidfied, and don't mind the change). In any case, I figured the souls were gone unless the show decided to tell us otherwise, and I suppose that Dean assumed they were gone too. 

I don't think it was a retcon.  they have stressed time and again that they don't know what happens to souls when they burn their bones.  I realize that's not wha happened in home, but Missouri was just guessing when she used the term "destroyed herself."  They didn't know what happened after that.  We didn't know. Therefore it can't really be a retcon.

[catrox14]

57 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I don't think it was a retcon.  they have stressed time and again that they don't know what happens to souls when they burn their bones.  I realize that's not wha happened in home, but Missouri was just guessing when she used the term "destroyed herself."  They didn't know what happened after that.  We didn't know. Therefore it can't really be a retcon.

 It didn't seem to me Missouri was guessing at all. Since a ghost/spirit is the soul/energy staying behind and not going with a reaper, which is what Tessa said, then ghost!Mary had to be living in that house since her death. This implies her spirit/soul burned up which IMO means she was never in Heaven. How could she be if her soul/spirit was destroyed?

Quote

MISSOURI: Well, there are no spirits in there anymore, this time for sure.

SAM: Not even my mom?

MISSOURI: No.

SAM: What happened?

MISSOURI: Your mom’s spirit and the poltergeist’s energy, they cancelled each other out. Your mom destroyed herself goin’ after the thing.

SAM: Why would she do something like that?

MISSOURI: Well, to protect her boys, of course. [SAM nods, with tears in his eyes. MISSOURI goes to put her hand on his shoulder, but she stops herself.] Sam, I’m sorry.

[Pondlass1]

Wow me too!!  Maybe instead of regurgitating old Supernatural plots they could look to Buffy for inspiration.  LOL. That was one funny episode.

[Katy M]

23 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

It didn't seem to me Missouri was guessing at all. Since a ghost/spirit is the soul/energy staying behind and not going with a reaper, which is what Tessa said, then ghost!Mary had to be living in that house since her death. This implies her spirit/soul burned up which IMO means she was never in Heaven. How could she be if her soul/spirit was destroyed?

I'm not denying it was Mary.  Of course it was Mary and she'd been in the house all that time. But, how would Missouri have any special knowledge that when ghosts go after each other like that, that they cancel each other out permanently. How does she know that whatever they do doesn't just send them to where they were supposed to be in the first place?  Which perhaps burning bones does.  Missouri is not ominiscient, and therefore, anything that she said that she has no direct knowledge of doesn't count as complete canon that would be considered a retcon.

 

Don't forget that earlier that same episode, she said the house was clean.  Not the most reliable psychic in the world.

Edited February 12, 2018 by Katy M

[catrox14]

36 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I'm not denying it was Mary.  Of course it was Mary and she'd been in the house all that time. But, how would Missouri have any special knowledge that when ghosts go after each other like that, that they cancel each other out permanently. How does she know that whatever they do doesn't just send them to where they were supposed to be in the first place?  Which perhaps burning bones does.  Missouri is not ominiscient, and therefore, anything that she said that she has no direct knowledge of doesn't count as complete canon that would be considered a retcon.

 

Don't forget that earlier that same episode, she said the house was clean.  Not the most reliable psychic in the world.

I'm the last person to defend Missouri cause I always thought she was a fraud, but the show says no she was a legit psychic, so ghost/spirit behavior would be Psychic 101 for her, so knew enough about spirits to know that one attacking the other would kill it. And there is precedence in the show for this kind of behavior in 1.01 when Sarah Shahi's ghost children killed her ghost by burning her up.  Missouri not knowing that Mary was in the house was nothing but plot contrivance to show that Sam had more powers than Missouri just like it was plot contrivance that Sam couldn't pick up on John being around but that didn't mean Sam didn't have any psychic powers.

Missouri herse

[companionenvy]

Sure I guess Missouri could have been wrong, but she at least stated it as fact, and Sam and Dean accepted it as such -- and then never mentioned it again, in all the discussion over souls/heaven/hell/purgatory, or after Mary's resurrection. 

As of "Home" Sam and Dean didn't know what happened to people when they died, other than that some of them apparently became ghosts or spirits of some kind. So, while they got that Mary had sacrificed whatever remained of her existence, their relatively muted response makes sense. But once they found out that Heaven was real, they should have been devastated at the idea that their mother had destroyed her soul, or at the very least should have mentioned the events of "Home" before, for instance, asking Ash if he had seen John and Mary in heaven. Taken as a whole, then, I'd consider it a retcon. Watching "Home" now takes a lot of fanwanking, and in all of the many opportunities to mention it afterwards, the show basically pretended it never happened. For me, the fact that the characters behavior, in universe, suggests no memory of an event that should be relevant to them in a variety of circumstances qualifies as a retcon even if technically the metaphysics could work if we just assume Missouri was wrong. 

[catrox14]

@Katy M  I never said you said it wasn't Mary. Why do you think that's what I'm saying?

I'm just saying that IMO Mary's soul was implied to have been completely destroyed in Home, so she couldn't have been in Heaven for Amara to take her out of Heaven. IMO that is a retcon in the show.

IMO, that is a different matter than Amara being taking souls from others and keeping them inside her.  I know Amara talked about being hungry as a child but it was never made clear that she was using the souls for food. When she talked to Dean in Oh Brother Where Art Thous she said. 

Quote

Dean: Whatever. That mess is your mess. It’s between you two. You’re taking people’s lives. You’re taking their souls.

Amara: I consumed their souls. They aren’t gone. They’re a part of me and, in that way, they live forever.

So to me if they are a part of her, then she can egest them. She's God. She can do anything she wants. It's just like in s11 when Chuck conveniently couldn't rebuild Gabriel for plot. It's all plot contrivance and IMO that what makes it a plot hole now.

Edited February 12, 2018 by catrox14

[gonzosgirrl]

Eh, they also failed to mention that Missouri was a hunter, and an active enough one to affect her son's childhood. Dabb & Company don't so much retcon as pull crap out of their asses as necessary to the plot.

[catrox14]

There are retcons that completely alter canon  i.e. Buck Lemming reapers being angels, burned angel wings no longer being a sign of an angel's true death, etc. And those that from a viewers perspective reframes the character or SL to make a current plot work. I've said elsewhere retcon isn't a dirty word nor a criticism of the writing necessarily. There are good retcons and bad retcons.  IMO a plot hole is not a retcon, but retcons are used to fill plot holes.

[Katy M]

33 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

the show for this kind of behavior in 1.01 when Sarah Shahi's ghost children killed her ghost by burning her up

And we know for a fact that she didn't go to Hell? That's what it always looked like to me, when it happened.

 

36 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

ut the show says no she was a legit psychic, so ghost/spirit behavior would be Psychic 101 for her, so knew enough about spirits to know that one attacking the other would kill it.

You can be a legit pscychic and still be wrong about stuff.  Sam and DEan are legit hunters, but they still make mistakes about stuff.

[Pondlass1]

All I know is that I can't get as much enjoyment as I used to from re-watching early seasons because I now know that what used to be a big deal isn't any more.  No one is who we thought they were.  Nothing really means anything.The early seasons have lost  meaning or impact now, in fact I get sad when I re-watch.

However, it's a tribute to the Js and Misha that we still want it to be all about them. This isn't and never will be an ensemble show. We care about these brothers despite their foibles and flaws.

 With imaginative and clever writing the Js could still get the negotiated time off. It's not impossible. I could live with a Dean, Sam or even Castiel centric episode once per season.  

This season is better than last, but they've gone overboard so many plots and resurrected characters it's drowning out  focus and consequence.

[companionenvy]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

So to me if they are a part of her, then she can egest them. 

 

I tried to avoid belaboring the analogy because it can lead in some really gross directions but if we think of Amara consuming the souls as a parallel to eating, we can't "give back" food we've already eaten except in...um...unpleasant ways. And while some of it...passes through us, so to speak, we're also retaining nutrients, so we could say that what we've eaten is still a part of us. 

Quote

She's God. She can do anything she wants. It's just like in s11 when Chuck conveniently couldn't rebuild Gabriel for plot. It's all plot contrivance and IMO that what makes it a plot hole now.

It seems that in SPN-verse, Guck is extremely powerful but not all powerful, so I assume Amara would be the same. 

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, Katy M said:

And we know for a fact that she didn't go to Hell? That's what it always looked like to me, when it happened.

All I know is that the woman in white ghost was destroyed by her ghost children. I'm not sure there is any indication she went to either Heaven or Hell then since I don't know if Heaven and Hell was even being dealt with in the pilot.  I legit don't remember it being a theme. It may have been but I don't remember.

So for me, Woman in White didn't necessarily go to Hell or Heaven, she was just burned up by her ghost kids.

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, companionenvy said:

As of "Home" Sam and Dean didn't know what happened to people when they died, other than that some of them apparently became ghosts or spirits of some kind. So, while they got that Mary had sacrificed whatever remained of her existence, their relatively muted response makes sense. But once they found out that Heaven was real, they should have been devastated at the idea that their mother had destroyed her soul, or at the very least should have mentioned the events of "Home" before, for instance, asking Ash if he had seen John and Mary in heaven.

But Dean especially knew of the consequences if things went the other way, too. So he, at least, might've been potentially if not happy, then maybe relieved that at least Mary's soul wasn't in hell. They themseles later talked about non-existence maybe being better than the alternative (in "The Song Remains the Same").

And they do sometimes learn things go differently from what they expect. For a long time, they had assumed that burning bones or whatever a ghost was attached to would mean that the person/soul woud be gone, but that didn't turn out to be the case, because Bobby first ended up in hell (unfairly) and then in heaven after Sam and Dean burned the flask and set his ghost free.

Souls are supposed to be strong things and difficult to destroy, so maybe it could be that when Mary clashed with the evil spirit that not much of her soul was left - maybe not enough to be detected by Ash when Sam and Dean asked in "Dark Side of the Moon" - but maybe it eventually healed and went to heaven and/or was later whole enough to be a heaven soul again. And this might account for the discrepancy for why it wasn't detectable. It might also account for John, since we saw John's soul, so it presumably went somewhere, but maybe it wasn't healed enough yet  to be a soul detectable by Ash when Sam and Dean asked Ash if he'd seen / detected them.

[catrox14]

33 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

I tried to avoid belaboring the analogy because it can lead in some really gross directions but if we think of Amara consuming the souls as a parallel to eating, we can't "give back" food we've already eaten except in...um...unpleasant ways. And while some of it...passes through us, so to speak, we're also retaining nutrients, so we could say that what we've eaten is still a part of us. 

I'm not saying you're not right. And this is my whole point and why IMO, it's a plot hole.

She says she consumed them. It is unclear if she ate them to survive or simply to hold their energy so she could destroy Guck's creation and make him pay attention to her.

They could have changed form and become all part of Amara's energy which if that's the case then theoretically she should be able to reverse engineer that energy cause she's God.

Guck didn't say he couldn't rebuild Gabriel, he said it would take more time than they had with Amara  on the attack..for plot reasons. And the reason why he couldn't fix Michael, apparently. To me that implied he could do it but it would be a big project.

[companionenvy]

33 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

And they do sometimes learn things go differently from what they expect. For a long time, they had assumed that burning bones or whatever a ghost was attached to would mean that the person/soul woud be gone, but that didn't turn out to be the case, because Bobby first ended up in hell (unfairly) and then in heaven after Sam and Dean burned the flask and set his ghost free.

I wondered about that too, but based on the lore, it makes sense that burning the bones would cause the soul to move on, rather than to vanish. A ghost is just a soul lingering on Earth. If you sever their attachment to this world, they'll go upstairs or downstairs, as the case may be. Or so it would seem. Do we have confirmation that Sam and Dean thought that burning the bones destroyed the soul? Or did they just not give it a lot of thought, beyond that it meant the ghost was no longer a problem for humans?

This actually brings up another question I had. We knew that creatures go to purgatory when they die. Or, at least, purgatory is full of monsters. But how far does the definition of "monster" extend? We know that vampires, who were once regular humans, wind up there. Evidently, humans who became ghosts after death don't. What about werewolves? How about shifters, who as far as we know (I think) have no quality that would make them necessarily evil? Does someone with a better memory than I do remember what types of monsters Dean saw in purgatory? 

33 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Guck didn't say he couldn't rebuild Gabriel, he said it would take more time than they had with Amara  on the attack..for plot reasons. And the reason why he couldn't fix Michael, apparently. To me that implied he could do it but it would be a big project.

The fact that he can't snap his fingers and instantly restore Gabriel and Michael in itself implies that he isn't omnipotent, even if he could have done it eventually. Omnipotent beings don't have limits. 

But now, here's the real question: Do y'all think Guck could create a rock so big that even Guck couldn't lift it :)

[Katy M]

21 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

The fact that he can't snap his fingers and instantly restore Gabriel and Michael in itself implies that he isn't omnipotent, even if he could have done it eventually. Omnipotent beings don't have limits. 

That fact and the fact that he couldn't kill Amara.  Or trap her, even, without help. Man, I so hate that they retconned Chuck into God.  That's my least favorite thing about the whole show.  And that's saying a lot considering how I feel about Season 9.

[gonzosgirrl]

Given what we've seen of resurrected Mary, I'm not 100% disinclined to believe the Mary we saw in heaven with Zachariah in DSOTM was the real deal. #Kidding #Kinda #NotReally

[Katy M]

22 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

This actually brings up another question I had. We knew that creatures go to purgatory when they die. Or, at least, purgatory is full of monsters. But how far does the definition of "monster" extend? We know that vampires, who were once regular humans, wind up there. Evidently, humans who became ghosts after death don't. What about werewolves? How about shifters, who as far as we know (I think) have no quality that would make them necessarily evil? Does someone with a better memory than I do remember what types of monsters Dean saw in purgatory?

I don't think it matters if they're evil. It's just where monsters go when they die. So, yes to werewolves and shifters.  Benny said he was drinking donated blood before he died the first time and he still went to Purgatory. I don't think there's a moralily reading before they go.

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

All I know is that the woman in white ghost was destroyed by her ghost children. I'm not sure there is any indication she went to either Heaven or Hell then since I don't know if Heaven and Hell was even being dealt with in the pilot.  I legit don't remember it being a theme. It may have been but I don't remember.

I don't think they mentioned it one way or another in the Pilot. Sam did exorcise a demon to Hell three episodes later, though.  but, my point is that there is no evidence that those three souls in Pilot were destroyed and didn't just travel on to where they were supposed to go.  We don't know what happened to them one way or the other.  So, if we are eventually told that they ended up on top of Mount Everest yodeling for eternity, while stupid, that wouldn't be a retcon.  And before anybody feels the need to point this out to me, I am well aware that Mount Everest is not in the Alps, so probably not a lot of yodeling going on.

[catrox14]

FWIW, in Home, Missouri did sense there were two presences in the house. She couldn't identify one of them as Mary and neither could Sam until the last moment before Ghost!Mary revealed herself.

 

10 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

And they do sometimes learn things go differently from what they expect. For a long time, they had assumed that burning bones or whatever a ghost was attached to would mean that the person/soul woud be gone, but that didn't turn out to be the case, because Bobby first ended up in hell (unfairly) and then in heaven after Sam and Dean burned the flask and set his ghost free.

To me this is still a retcon.

 

20 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

The fact that he can't snap his fingers and instantly restore Gabriel and Michael in itself implies that he isn't omnipotent, even if he could have done it eventually. Omnipotent beings don't have limits.

Either God is omnipotent or he's not God, IMO. It seems more likely that Chuck was lying about him needing more time vs lying about having the power to do it. Maybe he just didn't want Gabriel or Michael in the fight for...reasons so it's easier for him to tell the unwashed masses that he doesn't have time rather than explain why he won't do it  right then and there. And for an omnipotent being time is fluid I would think. My point is that Chuck and Amara have the power to create life and destroy it.

On the ghost topic, the idea of ghosts being attached to people or places was not a new thing in the show. Wasn't it said in Home that it was simply that the ghost wouldn't move on because of unfinished business, which is why Mary was at home in Lawrence, and the Woman in White was able to go between the bridge where she killed herself and back to her house where she killed her kids? That the place didn't matter as much as the ghosts unfinished business upon death? Which was kind of confirmed with Dean in 2.1. Tessa didn't say Dean would have to stay in the hospital just that he would be unable to get back in his body.  The Woman in White was mobile enough to get into cars but she was attached to her children who she killed in her house.  The guy in Route 666 they burned but funny enough in Buck Lemming's first episode, they made it so they had to destroy the ghost truck by luring it to holy ground...and they never wrote another episode until s7.  I'm sure there is nothing to that lore only being different in the episode they wrote versus the ghost lore from before. But true enough, I guess they reached back to their own retcon in s1 to retcon s7 and s8 for Bobby reasons. LOL (Yes I'm being a little snarky to the writers).  

IMO, the whole flask thing was a plot contrivance because Ghost!Bobby could have just been attached to the boys themselves because or even just the Impala since he'd been in it and he had unfinished business with the boys. The flask was never necessary really except as a way to explore Dean's alcohol abuse as a coping mechanism, and Dean's attachment to Bobby because he kept the flask. It wasn't even needed really to keep Ghost!Bobby mobile given the Woman in White. 

Sure it's written as something the boys didn't know so that's the explanation which IMO doesn't change that it's still a retcon IMO.

In RetCon Taxi Driver, they needed Bobby in Hell so Sam could rescue him as part of the trials. So they retroactively made angels into reapers so they could have a rogue reaper who was taking souls to wherever Crowley demanded (and risk the wrath of Death, I guess, cause surely he would have a thing or two to say about that, but I digress).

[Katy M]

2 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Either God is omnipotent or he's not God, IMO. It seems more likely that Chuck was lying about him needing more time vs lying about having the power to do it. Maybe he just didn't want Gabriel or Michael in the fight for...reasons so it's easier for him to tell the unwashed masses that he doesn't have time rather than explain why he won't do it  right then and there. And for an omnipotent being time is fluid I would think. My point is that Chuck and Amara have the power to create life and destroy it.

So, was he also lying about not being strong enough to lock Amara up?  Having needed all the archangels help to do it back in the day?  Come to think of it, was he lying about the fact that Gabriel and/or Michael would have even made a different in present time.  I'll agree with you that God is ominipotent. But, the mere fact that Chuck couldn't do anything about Amara already proves that this iteration of him wasn't.  In fact, he was apparently powerless to either know, or stop, Sam from setting her free in the first place. 

[ahrtee]

47 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

This actually brings up another question I had. We knew that creatures go to purgatory when they die. Or, at least, purgatory is full of monsters. But how far does the definition of "monster" extend? We know that vampires, who were once regular humans, wind up there. Evidently, humans who became ghosts after death don't. What about werewolves? How about shifters, who as far as we know (I think) have no quality that would make them necessarily evil? Does someone with a better memory than I do remember what types of monsters Dean saw in purgatory? 

I may be misremembering, but I thought Purgatory was the domain (more or less) of Eve, the "mother of monsters."  So all the monsters there would be her creations (or their offspring, like vamps and werewolves who were originally human.)  That would let out ghosts; were hellhounds created by demons or just used by them?  Leviathan were locked up there by God, so they didn't have to be created by Eve.  

[catrox14]

27 minutes ago, Katy M said:

So, was he also lying about not being strong enough to lock Amara up?  Having needed all the archangels help to do it back in the day?  Come to think of it, was he lying about the fact that Gabriel and/or Michael would have even made a different in present time.  I'll agree with you that God is ominipotent. But, the mere fact that Chuck couldn't do anything about Amara already proves that this iteration of him wasn't.  In fact, he was apparently powerless to either know, or stop, Sam from setting her free in the first place. 

Chuck was at full power when he said he didn't have time to rebuild Gabriel and Raphael. Amara's attacks on him didn't start until after All in the Family.   There was no reason for him to say he didn't have time other than plot contrivance. To me it's either that he really did need more time even as an omnipotent being because reasons.

Logistical possibility:

Maybe Chuck only had the power to do it with Amara locked away because her energy was negative and his was positive. So perhaps her existence in this world, slowed his process of rebuilding Gabriel and Raphael. Why he didn't bother with a fast healing of Michael is an entirely different and more stupid kettle of fish. Other than plot and possible lack of actor availability for Dick, Jake, Matt Cohen and someone to play a newly vesseled Raphael. Of course, they could have just had Jensen play Michael...but you know...reasons. LOL

Other reasons, Chuck is basically an asshole, IMO.  He leaves his messes for his children to clean up. He put it on Michael to cast Lucifer into Hell instead of doing it himself. So why wouldn't he get all of his eldest children to lock her away? And not because he doesn't have the power but because he doesn't want to accept the responsibility for his actions.  Also, maybe all he did was put the Mark on her and Lucifer making her his responsibility...for reasons.

Chuck ditched out on humanity twice now. Sure he says 'The world is in good hands Dean and Sam' but basically it's because the show can't have God or Amara or always powered up angels around so they nerf them all in some way or just exclude them with contrived reasons. IMO, Chuck gets nerfed by being a dick. No wonder most all the angels are dicks. Like father, like children LOL.

Edited February 12, 2018 by catrox14

[Katy M]

2 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Chuck was at full power when he said he didn't have time to rebuild Gabriel and Raphael. Amara's attacks on him didn't start until after All in the Family.  There was no reason for him to say he didn't have time other than plot contrivance. To me it's either that he really did need more time even as an omnipotent being because reasons.

But, if you're ominipotent, nothing is going to be able to weaken you. 

 

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Chuck ditched out on humanity twice now. Sure he says 'The world is in good hands Dean and Sam' but basically it's because the show can't have God or Amara or always powered up angels around so they nerf them all in some way or just exclude them with contrived reasons. IMO, Chuck gets nerfed by being a dick. No wonder most all the angels are dicks. Like father, like children LOL.

Which is why they should have never brought angels on in the first place, and especially not God.

[catrox14]

33 minutes ago, Katy M said:

But, if you're ominipotent, nothing is going to be able to weaken you. 

 I'm not defending the writing here at all. "We Happy Few" was a disaster of lore IMO.

I'm just saying that if Chuck couldn't do it in a timely fashion for whatever biological, energy, practical reasons then n MAYBE it's because of Amara's influence since it was shown that Chuck and Amara needed to be in balance for the universe to not be destroyed. 

TA: It was in We Happy Few that Chuck said he couldn't bring back archangels.

Quote

CHUCK: Well, Michael’s in no condition to fight, and it’s outside of my power to bring Gabriel and Raphael back.
SAM: But you restored Castiel.
CHUCK: Archangels are different. They’re the stuff of primordial creation. Rebuilding them, that’s – It’s time we don’t have.
SAM: So what do you need to win?
CHUCK: Whaddaya got?

Maybe what he meant is that the time factor was for the humans and not him.

I still stand by my opinion that it is a plot hole about the souls in Amara because it's been unaddressed. I find it a plot hole that Dean would not have at least inquired as their status. If the people are dead already could she let them go to Heaven or Hell if that was their original location.

It's plot contrivance that he couldn't rebuild Gabriel and Raphael in time for her arrival.  Michael was just stupid because all he had to do was make Crowley take him out of the Cage and heal him like he did Lucifer.

That's all I've been trying to say here. LOL.  And we can agree to disagree if it's retcons or not :)

Edited February 12, 2018 by catrox14

[ahrtee]

8 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Maybe what he meant is that the time factor was for the humans and not him.

...

It's plot contrivance that he couldn't rebuild Gabriel and Raphael in time for her arrival.  Michael was just stupid because all he had to do was make Crowley take him out of the Cage and heal him like he did Lucifer.

Well, from an astronomical POV (not a scientist, so I may be wrong)...if he created the archangels from the "primordial stuff of creation," it was most likely right after the Big Bang, so all that stuff was nearby--prime building material right at hand.  Now, after billions of years of an expanding universe, the primordial stuff is pretty far away from us; and I'm guessing deadlines don't normally factor in to omnipotent beings (that is, he's not used to having to retrieve/build something in the next couple of hours.)  Of course, being omnipotent I assume means that he can stop or rewind time, but maybe he forgot that point.  :)  

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Well, from an astronomical POV (not a scientist, so I may be wrong)...if he created the archangels from the "primordial stuff of creation," it was most likely right after the Big Bang, so all that stuff was nearby--prime building material right at hand.  Now, after billions of years of an expanding universe, the primordial stuff is pretty far away from us; and I'm guessing deadlines don't normally factor in to omnipotent beings (that is, he's not used to having to retrieve/build something in the next couple of hours.)  Of course, being omnipotent I assume means that he can stop or rewind time, but maybe he forgot that point.  :)  

I would have far preferred the explanation that he locked away the primordial ooze in the Empty and that only Death had access to it and since Dean killed Death WHOOPS it's a no go. That's my new headcanon LOL. Like seriously. Why didn't someone think of that!

[ahrtee]

8 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I would have far preferred the explanation that he locked away the primordial ooze in the Empty and that only Death had access to it and since Dean killed Death WHOOPS it's a no go. That's my new headcanon LOL. Like seriously. Why didn't someone think of that!

Or maybe he used it all up and would have to whip up another batch, which would take a lot more time. :)

[gonzosgirrl]

Just now, ahrtee said:

Or maybe he used it all up and would have to whip up another batch, which would take a lot more time. :)

I now have the image of Chuck 'whipping up a batch of ooze' burned into my brain, and it ain't something I ever needed to imagine. Thanks a bunch. :P

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I now have the image of Chuck 'whipping up a batch of ooze' burned into my brain, and it ain't something I ever needed to imagine. Thanks a bunch. :P

LOL

[companionenvy]

In terms of standard Judeo-Christian theology, G-d is omnipotent by definition (although even there, there are some parts of the Bible in which that gets slightly complicated - if there had been a fandom in the ancient world, it would have gone nuts over the Lol!Canon of G-d debating his actions with Abraham). But while SPN follows some of the broad outlines of that theology, they've made it clear that the Bible gets "more wrong than it gets right." 

There are other religions and mythologies in which gods are part of a pantheon, and even the chief deity, if there is one, is just the most powerful of that group and not omnipotent in the sense that Western monotheism would use the world. Those gods have awesome power -- including, often, the power to create mankind and do pretty much whatever they like with us -- but can still be thwarted by other supernatural beings and occasionally a particularly wily human. That seems to be closer to what's going on in the SPN mythos.

[Jeddah]

9 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

if there had been a fandom in the ancient world, it would have gone nuts over the Lol!Canon of G-d debating his actions with Abraham).

 

Thanks to this post I am going to shout “Lol!Canon” next time Abraham comes up in my Sunday School class.

[catrox14]

28 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

In terms of standard Judeo-Christian theology, G-d is omnipotent by definition (although even there, there are some parts of the Bible in which that gets slightly complicated - if there had been a fandom in the ancient world, it would have gone nuts over the Lol!Canon of G-d debating his actions with Abraham). But while SPN follows some of the broad outlines of that theology, they've made it clear that the Bible gets "more wrong than it gets right." 

There are other religions and mythologies in which gods are part of a pantheon, and even the chief deity, if there is one, is just the most powerful of that group and not omnipotent in the sense that Western monotheism would use the world. Those gods have awesome power -- including, often, the power to create mankind and do pretty much whatever they like with us -- but can still be thwarted by other supernatural beings and occasionally a particularly wily human. That seems to be closer to what's going on in the SPN mythos.

Okay, well I've only ever been talking about SPN God. I figured that's what we were all talking about and the power of Chuck/God in the SPN verse.

That said, I would 100% sit down with each author of each book of the Bible and nitpick the crap out of it. Just like I do the writers of the show. LOL.

Edited February 12, 2018 by catrox14

[MysteryGuest]

20 hours ago, Myrelle said:

Then why won't the writers do something with this, FCOL. That library that Dean was allowed a glimpse of in Advanced Thanatology is loaded with excellent storyline potential-just the library, itself, screams that the Winchesters are not your average human being-not by a long shot.

This is the million dollar question.  They have a fandom that is crazy about the main characters, and a show that's about the supernatural...they literally could write anything.  Why they insist on sticking with the same stories is beyond me.  You look at shows like American Horror Stories or Stranger Things, and there's obviously an audience out there for scary stuff.  Why don't they ever write scary anymore?  With all the whining of the angels and demons, it's more like a soap opera than a show about the supernatural.  They are either too damn lazy, which is my personal vote, or they simply do not have the talent to write anything else.  It's frustrating, to say the least.

[Wayward Son]

10 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Oh my bad. I got the season wrong. It doesn't materially alter my point that angels were a concept  in the show before s4. Didnt you just say that he was a true vessel?

According to a season 4 special the behind the scenes attitude to angels was as follows. 

 

- Sera Gamble wanted them to become a part of the show from early on. That is why her episodes such as Faith and Houses of the Holy touch on the issue of faith in the supernatural verse.

- Eric Kripke was utterly against the idea from seasons 1-3. IIRC he felt introducing all powerful good beings would take away from Sam and Dean. 

- During the summer between season 3 and 4 he watched something with morally ambiguous angels (its been a while and I can’t remember what). He returned declaring an angel was going to rescue Dean from hell, but to get around his earlier worries they’d be dicks and not proper allies. 

- He’d always intended for Lucifer to be unleashed, but in the original plan they’d have focused on him as king of hell / king of demons rather than as a fallen angel. 

 

So basically prior to season 4 angels in the supernatural verse only existed in the wishes of Sera Gambles mind. Lucifer would have existed but in an entirely different way to the one we actually got. 

[catrox14]

7 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

According to a season 4 special the behind the scenes attitude to angels was as follows. 

 

- Sera Gamble wanted them to become a part of the show from early on. That is why her episodes such as Faith and Houses of the Holy touch on the issue of faith in the supernatural verse.

- Eric Kripke was utterly against the idea from seasons 1-3. IIRC he felt introducing all powerful good beings would take away from Sam and Dean. 

- During the summer between season 3 and 4 he watched something with morally ambiguous angels (its been a while and I can’t remember what). He returned declaring an angel was going to rescue Dean from hell, but to get around his earlier worries they’d be dicks and not proper allies. 

- He’d always intended for Lucifer to be unleashed, but in the original plan they’d have focused on him as king of hell / king of demons rather than as a fallen angel. 

 

So basically prior to season 4 angels in the supernatural verse only existed in the wishes of Sera Gambles mind. Lucifer would have existed but in an entirely different way to the one we actually got. 

I KNOW all that history. That doesn't alter my point at all. 

Canonically, in show angels were introduced as a concept in s2. Kripke, the showrunner, did not kill the script where in angels were important to Sam. ANGELS in the show, as an idea came about BEFORE s4. That's all I've been saying.

[ahrtee]

3 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Canonically, in show angels were introduced as a concept in s2. Kripke, the showrunner, did not kill the script where in angels were important to Sam. ANGELS in the show, as an idea came about BEFORE s4. That's all I've been saying.

Well, just to play devil's advocate here, they introduced the idea of angels in Houses of the Holy specifically to *disprove* their existence, by showing that Father What's'it was a ghost, not an angel (though they did leave it open to some kind of higher power at the end, I admit.)  Ditto Faith, which wasn't about faith in angels or god, more (in the end) about the power that *having* faith might have for yourself, not of having a Deux Ex Machina save the day.  It seems to me Kripke did a pretty good job (up till season 4) of denying/disproving the existence of angels.  

[catrox14]

quoting myself from the episode.

Just to clarify things here. 

I was addressing the assertion in the Devil's Bargain thread that angels were not in the show mythology until s4. My  point was only that within the show's narrative structure, angels were talked about before s4, whether they existed or not in Dean and Sam's universe, they were a thing the show brought up in s2 (not s1, as my quote says, I got the season wrong)

 

2 hours ago, ahrtee said:

Well, just to play devil's advocate here, they introduced the idea of angels in Houses of the Holy specifically to *disprove* their existence, by showing that Father What's'it was a ghost, not an angel (though they did leave it open to some kind of higher power at the end, I admit.)  Ditto Faith, which wasn't about faith in angels or god, more (in the end) about the power that *having* faith might have for yourself, not of having a Deux Ex Machina save the day.  It seems to me Kripke did a pretty good job (up till season 4) of denying/disproving the existence of angels.  

On 2/13/2018 at 1:17 PM, DittyDotDot said:

Sorry something got sniped from my previous post--IMO, the show was never building to Sam and Dean being vessels for Micheal and Lucifer until S5. The show spent five years building to an apocalypse in which Sam and Dean would avert in some way, which is what they did. Angels weren't even considered to be a part of the mythology until S4 and the vessel thing grew out of the angels being brought into the mythology. If they had not sent Dean to Hell, I highly doubt we would've ended up with a Micheal at all.

 

 

On 2/13/2018 at 2:06 PM, catrox14 said:

 

The concept of angels was presented in s1 in Houses of the Holy. Sure it turned out that wasn't an angel but the idea was present. Kripke claims 5 year plan or even if it was just a 2 year writer's strike induced scheme, in show it was traced all the way back to John and Mary getting together, and making all the choices necessary for them have two boys who would be the True Vessels for Michael and Lucifer.

So to me, Crowley making a mobile prison in Nickifer, doesn't make him a "true" vessel. And I don't think that really is Dabb's intention here. If anything I think he's setting up Lucifer to need Sam again or at least a Campbell meaning Mary.  Of course, Jack could be Lucifer's vessel.

[DeeDee79]

14 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

During the summer between season 3 and 4 he watched something with morally ambiguous angels (its been a while and I can’t remember what). He returned declaring an angel was going to rescue Dean from hell, but to get around his earlier worries they’d be dicks and not proper allies. 

This is interesting. I do wish that they would have a supernatural entity that's actually good on this show. The angels are almost as bad if not worse than the demons on the show.

[catrox14]

4 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

This is interesting. I do wish that they would have a supernatural entity that's actually good on this show. The angels are almost as bad if not worse than the demons on the show.

At this point I think Dean and Sam count as supernatural entities. They just don't have powers LOL. I'm only partly kidding

[DeeDee79]

2 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

At this point I think Dean and Sam count as supernatural entities. They just don't have powers LOL. I'm only partly kidding

Since they seem to be pretty much immortal at this point that’s not entirely off base!

[gonzosgirrl]

Interesting article from TVLine.com about the 07/08 writers' strike and how it affected the TV landscape. It doesn't mention Supernatural specifically but it got me wondering. I wasn't watching then, but I've read that the original storyline for Dean's deal/Hell etc was changed pretty dramatically from Sam going full-on darkside to save/rescue Dean. True? And if so, I wonder how it would've changed things going forward. Would the angels/Heaven have still come into play eventually? Would we even have made it to 13 seasons and counting?

[catrox14]

20 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Interesting article from TVLine.com about the 07/08 writers' strike and how it affected the TV landscape. It doesn't mention Supernatural specifically but it got me wondering. I wasn't watching then, but I've read that the original storyline for Dean's deal/Hell etc was changed pretty dramatically from Sam going full-on darkside to save/rescue Dean. True? And if so, I wonder how it would've changed things going forward. Would the angels/Heaven have still come into play eventually? Would we even have made it to 13 seasons and counting?

Yes that is all true. This is a wonderful article for the 200th.

I think awhile back in the Writers' or Media thread maybe, this was discussed but I'll put this here again for reference.  IMO this was a really interesting read. I mean some good meaty stuff.  Kripke wanted Good Dean vs Evil Sam as well. 

Variety "The Oral History of Supernatural".

http://variety.com/2014/tv/spotlight/supernatural-oral-history-200-episodes-ackles-padalecki-kripke-1201352537/
 

Quote

 

Kripke: I think the truncated season actually ended up helping the mythology. We were a little aimless as we had just lost the Yellow-Eyed Demon, the great big bad, and we hadn’t introduced a new big bad yet. Because we had less episodes, we had to focus quickly on what was really important: Dean’s deal with the demons and the fact that he had a ticking clock and that he was going to get dragged down to hell.

Ackles: Fortunately, for a show like ours, dying and going to hell does not necessarily mean the end… I don’t even know how many times I’ve died on the show, but I will say that it was shocking, like “oh my God, how is Dean going to get out of this predicament? How is Sam going to help Dean? How is this going to continue?” It was exciting. By this point I knew the kind of writer that Kripke was becoming and he was really settling into the position of taking these guys on a journey. And I was not only impressed immensely by it, but I respected it and I trusted him to take us down a road that was going to be good for the story, good for the show and good for these characters.

Ultimately, it wasn’t Sam who saved his brother from hell in season four, but an angel named Castiel (Misha Collins).

Kripke: If you had asked me in season one, were there going to be angels in Supernatural, I would have said “absolutely not, you’re fired.” Up to that point I always felt like I didn’t want any supernatural good guys in the show. If there was any force of good, it was going to be Sam and Dean, and they were going to be overwhelmed and outgunned. And as we were kicking towards the end of season three and we were doing lots of demon stories, I was worried that we were overplaying the demon stuff. But the idea that angels could be dicks and that they didn’t have to be this warm fuzzy helpful force, they could actually be a really interesting antagonist, once I kind of realized that, I said, “I’ve never seen that depiction of angels on television before.  It wasn’t just these two boys versus all these demons; it became Sam and Dean trapped in the middle of this massive war where you had two sides battling, and humanity, represented by the boys, were caught in the middle, so how do they play both sides against the other? It balanced the mythology in a way that I think made it much more satisfying.

 

Edited February 15, 2018 by catrox14
clarification

[gonzosgirrl]

It really is an interesting read, thanks! It doesn't definitively address whether we would've had an angel saving Dean if not for the strike, but it does seem to lean that way. So was Sam going darkside (becoming the Boy King etc) just fanon or was that really going to be a thing?

[catrox14]

12 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

It really is an interesting read, thanks! It doesn't definitively address whether we would've had an angel saving Dean if not for the strike, but it does seem to lean that way. So was Sam going darkside (becoming the Boy King etc) just fanon or was that really going to be a thing?

I think given that Kripke wanted Evil Sam vs Good Dean (it's in the article) by the end of the show (or at least by the end of his tenure) I think Sam going darkside was always planned. 

Quote

In Season Five, the war between heaven and hell came to a head after Sam unwittingly unleashed Lucifer, kickstarting the apocalypse.

Kripke: The thing I remember most about that season was how exhausted I was going through it… I knew I wanted some sort of apocalyptic ending where evil Sam had to fight a good Dean. One of the things that was really hard about that season is, it’s one thing in season four when you’re promising the apocalypse: Is it going to happen, can the boys stop it? It’s a whole different matter when you’re saying in season five, “okay, the apocalypse is happening,” because you still are on a budget. There’s an incredible amount of off-camera, “oh no, there’s been an earthquake!” stuff on the news. It’s really difficult to mount something of that scop