All Episodes Talk: Saving People, Hunting Things

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I'm not sure that you are going to get too much better than that, 

I believe you are right though for me Mamma Mia doesn`t even remotely hit the criteria I wanted. Though these days, I`d be happy with some regular badassery already. 

[pixelcat]

11 hours ago, shang yiet said:

I can't remember the last time Sam had a flashy saving the day scene and he's due one more than Dean who should be riding high from his flashy Amara saving the day scene. Besides, we all know speech making is Dean's area of expertise while Sam can never convince anyone of anything.

I don't know if you'd consider it flashy, but he saves Dean at the end of "Red Meat".  After bleeding quite a bit too.

[catrox14]

43 minutes ago, pixelcat said:

I don't know if you'd consider it flashy, but he saves Dean at the end of "Red Meat".  After bleeding quite a bit too.

LOL that's quite the soft sell on Sam in Red Meat:

In this order

1) Fought two werewolves
2)shot in the gut
3) nearly bled out
4) was asphyxiated to unconsciousness
5)wakes up and fights off two more werewolves
6) literally walks a mile whilst still bleeding to the Impala
7) Drives x number of miles to the hospital
8) arrives in time to shoot the werewolf whilst said werewolf is literally choking Dean

All of it accomplished with no supernatural help or intervention. LOLOLOL

I think it counts. 

[AwesomO4000]

I agree with you, catrox, on that one, but I'm still not sure what was so bad about Dean's win in "Mamma Mia" myself.

6 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Though these days, I`d be happy with some regular badassery already.

I'm sure it will be coming. Dean had a whole bunch of it in the beginning of season 8 and a majority of season 9 and 10 while Sam was busy being fairly useless. Even when Sam was supposed to be helping/saving Dean, it usually ended up being the other way around ("The Werther Project", "Brother's Keeper") so it'll come back around.

I thought I also made a pretty good argument for marksman Dean in the Phoenix episode through "Mommy Dearest."

[Aeryn13]

Quote

but I'm still not sure what was so bad about Dean's win in "Mamma Mia" myself.

I liked the little moment when he got to be smart and knocked out Lady Deadeyes but it was just a small moment, it wasn`t as flashy and focused as the poker scene in Curious Case. If I had to compare them, one would be a car and one would be a bicycle. A nice one to be sure but not really a substitute for a car.  

Quote

I'm sure it will be coming. 

In the beginning of last Season I thought so, too, but was quite disappointed in the end. Ironically, that was one worry I never had in Seasons 1 and 2. Those were practically a feast in that regard. 

Quote

I thought I also made a pretty good argument for marksman Dean in the Phoenix episode

I admit that was a nice one, at least that shootout part. That said, I wouldn`t say no to them picking up the marksman thing again in another episode.  

[mertensia]

Not all moments can be big, and in fact it would get really boring if they were. 

[Aeryn13]

I know that but for me the ratio doesn`t work for Dean`s character. I get more satisfying "yay" moments for side characters in ensemble shows than I do here with such a small cast for a supposed main character.

Granted, action-wise this show is far behind anyway. On the CW and on other networks. For some reasons really good action scenes on SPN always stand out because they are so few and far between. Maybe it is due to the nature of two humans against supernatural beings with technically more power but I`m not advocating for all flippy martial arts or comic book stuff, all the time. You can have good action in other ways. But it`s not an action show per se. 

I thought in the past this show got by with a certain naive charme. I feel this has gone missing so what is left is...not much. The emotional values and messages they present, I find pretty horrifying and off-putting. The plots ain`t anything to write home about so it`s not a plot show either.

And you ought to tick at least one of these boxes IMO. Rare shows manage all three or at least two.   

Edited November 11, 2016 by Aeryn13

[mertensia]

I find that much of the show runs true emotionally. I mean, sure, if you firmly believe that Dean (or Sam)  should forever remain stuck in amber (or aspic) with no emotional growth since season one you're going to be unhappy. 

But then I notice I seem to be out of step with this board; I thought Mary's trying to come to grips with everything and failing until she had to leave rang true.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I mean, sure, if you firmly believe that Dean (or Sam)  should forever remain stuck in amber (or aspic) with no emotional growth since season one you're going to be unhappy. 

I don`t want characters to remain in statis. In fact when a character starts out with edges and major flaws, I`m perfectly okay with it because growing them from this place is what the show`s (or a storys` in general) journey is for. And I kinda think the brothers did change over the years, just not for the better. They are worse off in codepedency than IMO they ever were.

And while the show gives the lipservice on how much havoc that wreaks here and there, overall they try to make it seem like it`s such a wonderful familial bond of "aww". Dean mainly gets the "boohoo princess, family is supposed to make you miserable so suck it" sentiments. So on the one hand he SHOULD cling to them and define himself just by their happiness but on the other hand he is unhealthily clingy when he does it. Oh, and he should not under any circumstances be dare to hurt by any of their behaviour ever. That is wrong of him.

The reverse is okay but he is the caretaker or something so in that role you shut up, do your job and be godamn happy about it. THAT is the kind of message I find fucked up. I didn`t think this was the message so much in the first 2-4 years but nowadays it is and I can`t get onboard with that.

I see the family relationship on this show as a weakness plenty (for Dean and Sam both to be sure) but I no longer see it as a strength for a counterweight. IMO the character have learned to kinda function despite it. They are emotionally stunted and/or regressed but they make do with it and have devolved some weird Stockholm syndrome to convince themselves everything is better. Not the journey I wanted or expected when the show started.         

At least this Season they seem to go light with the interpersonal conflict and manufactured angst between the brothers so there aren`t all those "we neeeed each other" scenes when I have to ask myself "why? to make each other even more miserable?"  When they get along, so to speak, I still think they don`t really fit but at least I`m not slapped in the face with it every other episode. 

[shang yiet]

Next time Sam has a 'healthy' reaction to Dean's death/disappearance, I'll wait for fans to rip him apart for being a bad brother.  

Sam gets the 'How dare you go to college and abandon your brother' nonsense. Never mind that it was a healthy thing to do. And it's considered progress that Sam has now accepted his destiny is hunting and being with his brother because he 's not allowed to abandon Dean, No one is allowed to leave Dean because of his abandonment issues. Who cares that family makes Sam miserable too?

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Next time Sam has a 'healthy' reaction to Dean's death/disappearance, I'll wait for fans to rip him apart for being a bad brother. 

Looking for someone who has disappeared and not reacting in a "really? my life was finally good, damn" manner if they actually come back isn`t unhealthy. Those reactions actually wouldn`t have been co-dependent but very normal, so it is deeply ironic that after everything else on the show, they picked the one thing that wouldn`t have been over the top as a "fix" it. Seriously, not the apocalypse-starting stuff but the thing that would have been relatable behaviour in the normal bounds of human interaction? That`s where you draw the line, show? Sigh.    

[SueB]

Ah. "Sam" vs "Dean".

[shang yiet]

For what it's worth, I cheered when brotherly love saved the day in last season's finale. I still think what Dean said to Amara -'Sam needs me and I need him' - is heartwarming and normal and not a sign that Dean is somehow enslaved or repressed by Sam in any way.

[companionenvy]

I think SPN has to walk a fine line between celebrating the brotherly relationship that is the heart of the show and acknowledging that there are some unhealthy aspects of that relationship -- namely their near-total inability to conceive of or live a functional life without the other, leading them to take actions that are either (quite literally) self-destructive or that pose a grave danger to others. 

I agree that the show doesn't always do a great job of walking that line. It does seem a bit hypocritical for the show to, one one hand, frequently reinforce the harm caused by the brothers' co-dependency, but on the other, to condemn Sam for moving on with his life after Dean went to Purgatory (as opposed to condemning him for ignoring Kevin, which is fair). Similarly, I'm not sure why Dean stopping Sam from closing the gates of hell  is pretty much depicted as fine, whereas Dean agreeing to keep Sam alive via what he thinks is the aid of a sympathetic angel is resoundingly criticized. I do actually think the original 5 year arc brought this dichotomy to a pretty satisfying resolution in which Dean does let Sam go for the good of the world, and appears poised to go on to live a normal life of his own -- but at the same time, the brother's relationship is key to saving the world. Obviously, that had to be undercut for the show to continue for one more year, let alone 7 and counting, but I hope that the ultimate finale strikes  a similar balance.

[AwesomO4000]

Nevermind... Just rehashing old ground anyway.

The latest Walking Dead episode has sapped my will to discuss anyway.

Edited November 14, 2016 by AwesomO4000

[companionenvy]

AwesomeO, I agree to an extent, although I do, actually, think Sam was very much in the wrong in Season 10, since his recklessness was pretty clearly putting others at serious risk. Generally, when Dean has taken extreme risks for Sam, he has (as far as he knew) only been putting himself on the line.

Sam's actions, at times, have also shown a willingness to cross the moral event horizon that I don't think Dean's ever have. The good side of Sam's less black and white view of morality is that he has traditionally been more willing than Dean to avoid prejudging supernatural beings. The bad side is that he finds it easier to persuade himself of the justifiability of his own questionable actions. 

I do agree, though, that the show's (and Dean's) apparent position that Sam's "failure" to look for Dean in S8 was a fault and betrayal puts Sam in something of a can't win situation -- and probably contributed to his recklessness in season 10, as what was actually a healthy response had been treated as a terrible mistake. Thus, he overcompensated the next time he went into "save Dean" mode. Although again, I think Sam actually does have a ruthlessness and a coldness that Dean doesn't, which permits him to do things that Dean won't. What bugs me is that it seems to me to be stacking the deck that whenever Sam takes that kind of step, it turns out he was in the wrong, as if he is being cosmically punished for his crime, which is a fairly un-nuanced position. Sometimes, you do the wrong thing and it pays off. Sometimes, you don't have the luxury of doing the right thing. That doesn't mean there are lines that shouldn't be crossed for any reason, and Sam crosses one of them when he kills the nurse (or, in S3, when he is willing to sacrifice the virgin -- which actually would have been the right call, it turns out, although that's assuming Ruby was telling the truth). 

I've been rewatching parts of season 4 recently, and it struck me that there are actually several instances in which Sam's powers are the only thing that saves Sam, Dean, or someone else. In fact, when Sam briefly swears off using his powers, the show is very quick to create situations in which his powers are the only way out (i.e, to defeat Samhain). Yet the show takes a pretty consistent line on the idea that Sam's powers are a Very Bad Thing -- and, of course, they prove to be just that, just like Ruby proves to be pure evil even though she'd done more than enough for Sam to, IMO,  be justified in granting her a lot of trust. 

[AwesomO4000]

Thank you for your excellent response, @companionenvy. I feel bad now that I edited my post out - I was worried that I would sound like I was treading old and tired ground again. But I think your post makes enough sense, that others could figure out what my post was.

And I do agree that Sam is generally more willing to be risky than Dean, but as you say, the deck generally seems cosmically stacked against Sam.

12 hours ago, companionenvy said:

Generally, when Dean has taken extreme risks for Sam, he has (as far as he knew) only been putting himself on the line.

Usually yes, but not always. Gadreel for example. Yes, Kevin was killed, but that could've turned out to be even worse if the angel turned out to be actually evil - like another Zachariah for example. And killing Death? That could've been extremely bad, throwing the whole life and death thing out of balance somehow on a global level, but apparently nope.

And arguably taking on the mark of Cain could've been seen as reckless, especially considering the history of Cain, but Dean did it anyway, because it was necessary for killing Abaddon. The show just decided that in Dean's case, it was a necessary evil, and so there somehow weren't any cosmic repercussions - well at least not any that could be attributed to Dean (that honor fell to Sam again).

It seems to me that the show seems to take some perverse pleasure in deciding that Sam's actions are somehow more worthy of cosmic retribution, even when it could just as easily go the other way.

Edited to add: Watching "Reading Is Fundamental" today... there was another incident of Dean potentially being reckless that I had momentarily forgotten about. Cracking open the tablet. Thunder rumbles and lightening crashes. Dean asks "That sound like someone saying 'No, wait stop' to you?" Sam says "yeah." Dean shrugs and breaks it open anyway. So Dean does reckless things in the name of saving the world, too (not just saving Sam). Dean just generally happens to be luckier with his risks in that he ends up being right - i.e. the tablet was helpful in killing the leviathan rather than harmful in general - but it could've easily gone the other way if the writers wanted it to. They just don't generally seem to choose to do so in Dean's case.

And with all of these examples, I'm almost thinking now that Dean takes just as many risks as Sam does. He just seems to be luckier.

Edited November 14, 2016 by AwesomO4000

[ahrtee]

16 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Edited to add: Watching "Reading Is Fundamental" today... there was another incident of Dean potentially being reckless that I had momentarily forgotten about. Cracking open the tablet. Thunder rumbles and lightening crashes. Dean asks "That sound like someone saying 'No, wait stop' to you?" Sam says "yeah." Dean shrugs and breaks it open anyway. So Dean does reckless things in the name of saving the world, too (not just saving Sam). Dean just generally happens to be luckier with his risks in that he ends up being right - i.e. the tablet was helpful in killing the leviathan rather than harmful in general - but it could've easily gone the other way if the writers wanted it to. They just don't generally seem to choose to do so in Dean's case.

And with all of these examples, I'm almost thinking now that Dean takes just as many risks as Sam does. He just seems to be luckier.

OTOH (I watched "Reading is Fundamental" today, too...) when Dean made his comment, Sam just said "yeah."  Then they both shrugged and continued.  Sam didn't say, "hey, maybe we shouldn't do this," or "Maybe this isn't such a good idea," or even make a move to stop him.  So I'd say they were equally reckless in that.  

[catrox14]

I dunno. It seems to me both are reckless. It's kind of part and parcel of hunting life. I mean don't you kind of have to be reckless and hard core to do what they do? They are reckless in their own ways about different things IMO. I guess it's a matter of degree and who pays for their combined and individual reckless choices.  I'm not even sure they are particularly sane when I think about it for 5 freaking minutes. LOL.

[DeeDee79]

On 11/12/2016 at 7:33 PM, SueB said:

Ah. "Sam" vs "Dean".

Sadly it seems that most episode discussion eventually turns out this way *sigh*

[pixelcat]

I just wanted to say "Thanks" to all the folks that took the time to create a discussion thread for each and every episode, and to everyone that posts in them.  I missed out on TWOP for Supernatural (but I read the crap out of the Bitterness Thread for "Lost" there), so love to read the takes on each episode here. 

I recently took up TWD (again) and went to their message board so I could read what folks thought on each, but the first three seasons only have one discussion for the overall season. I'm so glad that didn't happen here!

[Frost]

On ‎11‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 11:33 PM, companionenvy said:

I do agree, though, that the show's (and Dean's) apparent position that Sam's "failure" to look for Dean in S8 was a fault and betrayal

Does anyone know the show runners' purpose in that whole "Sam hits dog / moves in with Amelia" storyline?   Was she supposed to be Sam's equivalent to Lisa?  Did the writers truly believe viewers would have no problem with Sam apparently not looking for Dean?  I'm trying to figure out what the end game was supposed to be, and did viewer reaction to Amelia change that end game?  To me, the season seemed to start out in one direction and then abruptly changed with Amelia's dead husband not being dead after all.

[companionenvy]

Well, as I've noted on these boards before, I didn't have a problem with Sam not looking for Dean. Sam had, IIRC, no idea where Dean was, and no leads. All of the allies from whom he might have once sought help were dead or MIA. Sam himself had jut gotten through with Hallucifer, and had before that spent well over a century in actual Hell. The last time he had pulled out all the stops to save his brother, it had resulted in his alliance with Ruby, and thus the Apocalypse. The last time Dean had pulled out all the stops to ave him, it had been via demon deal, and thus also resulted in the Apocalypse. I'll agree that the best thing for Sam to do would have been to find a happy medium between obsession and resignation, and moved on with his life while also doing some research into where Dean might be and how to save him, but I can very much sympathize with Sam deciding that he was just done, and not going down that road again. That doesn't get him off the hook for abandoning Kevin, who was his responsibility. 

I'll also add that the next time Sam pulled out all the stops to save his brother, it led to a second apocalypse. 

But I agree that the whole Amelia arc was a total bust, and her dead husband not being dead was possibly the stupidest twist this show has ever done. I'll buy people coming back via supernatural means, because those are the rules by which the show operates. After all, you can't jump the shark if you never come back down :)

But to believe that Sam happens to hook up with a normal woman who just so happens to be quite possibly the only modern American military widow to ever discover that her presumed-dead husband was actually alive months (or years?) after the fact strains all credibility. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

25 minutes ago, Frost said:

I'm trying to figure out what the end game was supposed to be, and did viewer reaction to Amelia change that end game? 

I don't know about your other questions - I think there are others on this board who can answer/speculate about them far better than I!  :)  But as to this one, I would say No - the end game from the show runners' perspective did not change simply for the reason that the storyline was introduced in flashbacks at the beginning of the season - and after Sam had already left Amelia in "real time."  

[DittyDotDot]

8 hours ago, Frost said:

Does anyone know the show runners' purpose in that whole "Sam hits dog / moves in with Amelia" storyline?   Was she supposed to be Sam's equivalent to Lisa?  Did the writers truly believe viewers would have no problem with Sam apparently not looking for Dean?  I'm trying to figure out what the end game was supposed to be, and did viewer reaction to Amelia change that end game?  To me, the season seemed to start out in one direction and then abruptly changed with Amelia's dead husband not being dead after all.

TPTB have never really addressed it. It seems they thought what they were trying to do was pretty straightforward and didn't need any explanation. I believe they thought we would just understand Sam wasn't giving up on Dean, but believed Dean was dead and letting him rest in peace rather than start another apocalypse to bring him back from the dead. 

Personally, I don't think they changed course on Amelia's husband being alive. I think that was planned from the beginning. They generally have up to the mid-season finale (8-9 episodes) mapped out, and a couple in the bag, before the show starts airing each year. Course corrections usually happen a couple episodes after they come back from hiatus, IMO. I do have a theory Benny was supposed to be more of a problem they didn't follow through with in the second half because of his popularity, though.

I think they were trying to say all the saving Sam and Dean have done with each other over the years has caused more problems than not and they needed to learn to knock that shit off. I think Amelia was supposed to be a way for Sam to hide from his life. I don't think we were supposed to like her and want her to stay around, but were supposed to be rooting for Sam to wake up and see this wasn't his life. So, in some ways, I think Amelia was Sam's Lisa, but in other ways she wasn't.

That's not to say I think they did it well, but I think that's what they were going for, anyway. But, it's all speculation because it seemed the show just clammed up about the whole thing after the hiatus and never really explained itself on that front.

Edited November 30, 2016 by DittyDotDot

[Frost]

Thanks for the thoughts!  I agree that Sam didn't have any hope of finding Dean, it just seemed like the writers had Sam seem kind of sad and then hit a dog and ended up latching onto this veterinarian.  It seemed so random to me, I couldn't wrap my head around it.   Whatever the show was going for didn't translate onto the screen for me, otherwise I wouldn't still be trying to puzzle it out years later.

I don't know, I think the show made a mistake in killing off Sarah.  One, because that's something I will never forgive Crowley for and the show wants to turn him into a loveable rogue sometimes.  Second, if she were alive and Sam had gone back to her in the wake of the Leviathans that could have been a very powerful story.  I would have been invested in the outcome, rather than rolling my eyes at Sam and this random woman frolicking in the sunlight.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Frost
Double negative

[DittyDotDot]

20 minutes ago, Frost said:

I don't know, I think the show made a mistake in killing off Sarah.  One, because that's something I will never forgive Crowley for and the show wants to turn him into a loveable rogue sometimes.  Second, if she were alive and Sam had gone back to her in the wake of the Leviathans that could have been a very powerful story.  I would have been invested in the outcome, rather than rolling my eyes at Sam and this random woman frolicking in the sunlight.

Well, they killed Sarah after the Amelia debacle. I always thought it would've made more sense he go hang with Jodi or something. The show tried really hard to say Sam had no one, but that's not really true, IMO. There were a few people out there still. But, hey, that's the story they wanted to tell, I guess.

[ahrtee]

20 minutes ago, Frost said:

Thanks for the thoughts!  I agree that Sam didn't have any hope of finding Dean, it just seemed like the writers had Sam seem kind of sad and then hit a dog and ended up latching onto this veterinarian.  It seemed so random to me, I couldn't wrap my head around it.   Whatever the show was going for didn't translate onto the screen for me, otherwise I wouldn't still be trying to puzzle it out years later.

I don't know, I think the show made a mistake in killing off Sarah.  One, because that's something I will never forgive Crowley for and the show wants to turn him into a loveable rogue sometimes.  Second, if she were alive and Sam had gone back to her in the wake of the Leviathans that could have been a very powerful story.  I would have been invested in the outcome, rather than rolling my eyes at Sam and this random woman frolicking in the sunlight.

I'll move this to UO if anyone wants to discuss more, (because apparently it's a *very* UO) but I never really got the "Sarah and Sam forever" bit.  They never played it as any great love affair, just a one-time date and kiss that maybe, "another time, another place" could have gone somewhere, but there was never any hint that Sam even thought about her after they left.  Maybe it's just because I didn't really like the actress, though the character was interesting.  But if the show *had* given some clue that he'd even thought of Sarah, then yes, it would have been more logical/better that he'd gone off to see her in the wake of losing Dean.  I think it probably would have been harder for him to leave her than Amelia, though, and Dean might not have wanted to take Sam away if he was happy/settled, so that would have messed with their getting together, back on the road so fast.   Besides, it seems that they wanted something for Dean to be mad about, since Sam was going to be mad about Benny.   

 

2 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Well, they killed Sarah after the Amelia debacle. I always thought it would've made more sense he go hang with Jodi or something. The show tried really hard to say Sam had no one, but that's not really true, IMO. There were a few people out there still. But, hey, that's the story they wanted to tell, I guess.

IA with this completely.  He may have lost Dean and Bobby, but there were others he could have gone to--they did know other hunters, Sam could have contacted some of his college friends (at least Zach and Becky from Skin who already knew about him); and Jody in particular. At the time, I'd worked out a story  where he'd gone to Jody and they'd considered possibilities--after all, Dean hadn't exploded, just disappeared--and the last time that had happened with Chronos, he and Jody got him back.  My headcanon had him thinking:  "Dean's gone.  There aren't any body parts so he's not necessarily dead.  He had his hands on Dick, like he had with Chronos.  Dick is gone too.  Where would Dick have gone when he died?  Purgatory!"  and then he would have spent at least *some* time trying to break into Purgatory again.  He still had the spell and could get the components; and if they wanted to keep Dean gone for a year, it's actually fact that the next eclipse wasn't going to be for another year, which Sam could easily have found out.  After all, Sam's a *very* smart guy!  From there, they could have him do anything--latch up with Amelia or go back to Sarah without it being so OOC--because he *had* tried, and had hit a dead end.  But as Dittydotdot said, that's the story they wanted to tell.  

[Frost]

24 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Well, they killed Sarah after the Amelia debacle.

I couldn't remember the order.   I know Sarah was just in one episode but I felt she had a real connection with Sam - enough so that I remember her with fondness, anyway.  There were other options from the previous seasons as well.  I guess they wanted a completely unknown character.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Does anyone know the show runners' purpose in that whole "Sam hits dog / moves in with Amelia" storyline? 

That`s when Carver came in with IMO the very honest goal of wanting to break the codependency. Every single interview at that Comic Con harped on how Sam was super-mature about handling it and Dean was basically a ninny for being hurt. They course-corrected later on when that message went over very badly but initially the purpose was "yay, for healthy coping". And Amelia was supposed to be a "true love connection". Carver harped on how mature and deep a bond that was, too. Again, initial reaction was... less than enthused.

Not that much later another CW show, Vampire Diaries, did a storyline where one brother disappeared into a mysterious "nothingness" and was presumed dead but because the entire premise of the show is rooted in the supernatural, it wasn`t considered an entirely lost cause. We found the remaining brother seemingly having moved on with a la-di-da attitude and a nice normal girlfriend, having washed his hands of it all. So far, so incredibly familiar.

It was later revealed that said brother HAD looked and researched but was so fundamentally broken, he couldn`t function anymore without hope and he had moved on to denial but that wasn`t working either. That made it incredibly powerful to me.

What Supernatural did was have the reunion right away and tell bits and pieces in soft-lensed flachbacks. Sam never looked, not even under the next stone. They covered it in two sentences "hit a dog and met a girl". Later in an episode when Sam "had enough" of Dean being hurt about it, he just he had explained everything - nope - and to drop it or else. They invented a heretofore not heard about and never taken serious promise to cover their bases. Said woman came off abrasive and unlikeable and their connection just never seemed to work. 

All in all, it wasn`t handled with any finesse or grace or sympathy. So when their message got rejected, the writers ran screaming in the other direction and pumped the codependency up several thousand notches.   

[MysteryGuest]

Well, if their idea was to show some sort of growth in regard to the brothers' co-dependency issues, they failed miserably, IMO.  All they did was make Sam look like a complete dick for just walking away from Dean and Kevin.  And when Dean actually came back, Sam didn't seem all that thrilled to see him, and copped an attitude pretty quickly.  I guess a guilty conscience will do that.  That entire episode still pisses me off to this day.  I'm a Dean girl, so that absolutely colors my opinion, but if I were a Sam girl I'd be just as pissed that they fucked with his character so horribly.

[enaiowen]

5 hours ago, MysteryGuest said:

And when Dean actually came back, Sam didn't seem all that thrilled to see him, and copped an attitude pretty quickly.  I guess a guilty conscience will do that.  That entire episode still pisses me off to this day.  I'm a Dean girl, so that absolutely colors my opinion, but if I were a Sam girl I'd be just as pissed that they fucked with his character so horribly.

Yes.  This is my problem with that storyline in a nutshell. 

I honestly didn't have an issue with Sam not looking because, for me, it was pretty clear he was devastated and at a complete loss.  There's only so many times you can watch someone you love be torn away from you and stay sane.  Sam wasn't exactly the poster child for mental health at that point so the idea that he suffered some sort of breakdown is not difficult for me to believe and I do think the clues were there.

What I take issue with is the nasty, how dare you be alive and screw things up for me, reaction we got from Sam.  I could put some of that down to realizing just how badly he'd messed up and taking his anger at himself out on his brother if I had ever seen anything but annoyance that Dean was alive, but his complete lack of any sort of acknowledgement that Dean had reason to be hurt or honest attempt to explain himself just makes him come across as petty and resentful, with a complete disregard for anyone's feelings but his own.  And I will never understand the thinking there.

I love both brothers.  I always have.  But they did some real damage to Sam's character IMO by having him behave that way and it has taken a long time to recover.

Edited November 30, 2016 by enaiowen

[AwesomO4000]

9 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Every single interview at that Comic Con harped on how Sam was super-mature about handling it and Dean was basically a ninny for being hurt. They course-corrected later on when that message went over very badly but initially the purpose was "yay, for healthy coping".

Except they added in the abandoning Kevin thing which was decidedly not mature or responsible. There was no codependency there, just someone who had obviously been taken by Crowley with a powerful tablet no less. So not looking for Kevin was not only a crappy thing to do, but irresponsible from a supernatural standpoint, considering Crowley with a powerful tablet and the prophet to translate it was a potentially dangerous thing. So just shrugging his shoulders at Kevin's abduction - who Sam knew was at that moment alive and with Crowley - was not exactly a "mature" thing to do. And considering the show then hung a lampshade on that exact thing ("Eeeeeat me."), I'm not sure how Carver could then at the same time suggest/argue "maturity"... especially when everything else Sam did - abandoning Kevin, abandoning hunting, and instead driving aimlessly (and apparently recklessly) instead screamed "running away" and hiding in delusion - which is the opposite (at least in my opinion) of "mature."

I generally thought that the "Maturity" thing was more damage control after the fact, myself. Because I can't see how Carver could actually believe that what he was showing onscreen - especially with Sam abandoning Kevin and the dialogue even lampshading that... plus how Sam acted after Dean returned - was Sam being "mature." If Carver wanted to show Sam as mature - then show him as mature. It would've taken a few short lines of dialogue. Instead of having Sam say *shrug* "I didn't think it was my problem anymore," have Sam say "Dean, look, I considered trying to do something to find you, but look what happened last time we tried that. Your deal. My getting involved with Ruby to try to save you. I didn't want to make that kind of mistake again." And then adding "And I had to try to find Kevin." Boom - reasonable and mature explanation. And then Dean might've looked a little more like the "ninny" you said they were implying he was, because Dean would've had less reason to be hurt and be questioning Sam's love for him. But then where would the "fun" be in that? For me,  I have a different theory about it - see below.

13 hours ago, Frost said:

  I'm trying to figure out what the end game was supposed to be,

For me, I suspect it was mostly done for the "angst" and to create conflict - which for me is why they also had Sam act "annoyed" at Dean's return, so that Dean would have a reason to be hurt - except that in my opinion, the conflict wasn't really organic at all. And for me, neither was the Amelia and Sam's "great romance", as they appeared more to be damaged people escaping with each other than two people actually connecting with each other. And the ridiculous "OMG Sam's never had such things as birthday parties and picnics before" (yeah, right - I didn't forget Jessica, Carver, and you just had Sam mention her again recently) and all the sunlit memories hyping of it just made it even more awkward and forced to me. Sam didn't even seem to connect much to the dog. He connected more with the memory of Bones, the dog he had for like a week when he was about 12, than he seemed to with the actual dog he had for how many months?

Nah, it was mostly for angst as was the whole Benny, the vampire with a heart of gold, thing... where Sam "let's give the monsters the benefit of the doubt" Winchester all of a sudden hates Benny on sight... No mention of flashbacks to Ruby or any reasonable or sympathetic reason Sam might be suspicious of Benny. Nope, just hate on sight... for the drama and conflict of it all. So, to me, Sam's characterization (and story arc) was sacrificed for the sake of the conflict.

5 minutes ago, enaiowen said:

What I take issue with is the nasty, how dare you be alive and screw things up for me, reaction we got from Sam.  I could put some of that down to realizing just how badly he'd messed up and taking his anger at himself out on his brother if I had ever seen anything but annoyance that Dean was alive,

But if Sam was happy that Dean was back and was happy to be hunting with him again and apologetic about Dean feeling abandoned, then we couldn't have all the angst and conflict of Dean being hurt and the "better brother" Benny thing, just so we could have the big "I was just guilty because I let you down" and the "of course I put you above Benny and everyone else" big ending thing that I assume we were supposed to be so relieved / overjoyed about after all of the angst and conflict. Bah humbug (I hate season 8 and what Carver did to Sam in it for the sake of his angst and conflict.)

[Boopsahoy]

6 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Bah humbug (I hate season 8 and what Carver did to Sam in it for the sake of his angst and conflict.)

I agree wholeheartedly! Totally turned me off Sam for quite a while!

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I generally thought that the "Maturity" thing was more damage control after the fact, myself. Because I can't see how Carver could actually believe that what he was showing onscreen - especially with Sam abandoning Kevin and the dialogue even lampshading that... plus how Sam acted after Dean returned - was Sam being "mature."

But it was the party line before a single second of footage from the Season aired. I can totally believe Carver (and other writers) are tone-deaf about their message and can not accurately predict reactions to something they write. It happened before and since Season 8. Only when the reactions come in - and you have to allow for a time-lag between written/shot and aired episodes for course-corrections to actually set in - they go "oh...really?" and try to reframe it, rewrite ir or retcon it. It`s a predictable pattern.

Was it also supposed to create angst and conflict? Hell yes. The Carver years basically lived on the principle of the main conflict arising from secreths and lieths. Maybe he is a closeted Smallville fan. Whereas during Kripke`s reign the main angst came from outward influences more. There was the big John secret in Season 2 and the Sam/Ruby secret in Season 4 but overall the characters angsted about Sam`s dark destiny or Dean`s deal or being chosen as vessels or the nopacolypse. Sure, they disagreed and Season 1 especially had its fair share of Dean and Sam holding different viewpoints. But it wasn`t because of lying and secrecy. They knew where the other stood.

Gamble`s years, hm, we had soulless Sam as a secret for a while but it wasn`t too comparable to Carver. She also had the most of "the Winchesters really don`t matter to this plot" stuff. Season 6 was ultimately about Cas/Crowley vs. Raphael and Season 7 about the Leivathans. Plotwise, I could easily rewrite those Seasons with not a single Winchester in it and keep the main story intact. The main story just didn`t have much screentime. 

Quote

What I take issue with is the nasty, how dare you be alive and screw things up for me, reaction we got from Sam.  I could put some of that down to realizing just how badly he'd messed up and taking his anger at himself out on his brother if I had ever seen anything but annoyance that Dean was alive,

Ironically, the attitude was so mindblowingly bad that I thought Dean actually started to become his own person in response. I mean, it even penetrated the haze of codependency for him and I thought "hell yes, finally, you are on the right track". Then they totally switched gears and during the second half of the Season the character was browbeaten into a worse version than he had ever been codependent-wise.

I thought the Gadreel thing was a horrible violation but it didn`t surprise me after this trajectory. It was like an addict being on the verge of getting clean and then having the mother of all relapses. No wonder the next stop is a near fatal overdose that maybe wouldn`t even have happened if they had remained the same steady addict and never sniffed at being clean. . 

Edited November 30, 2016 by Aeryn13

[MysteryGuest]

I've never really had an issue with the co-dependency thing, because without it, we don't really have a show.  Neither Sam nor Dean was ever going to be written off the show, so all of the machinations about should they or shouldn't they save each other just seemed rather silly to me.  Of course they're going to save each other, whatever the cost.  And I'm fine with that within the confines of this particular story...two brothers, united against every evil thing out there.  

It's when they try to go against that, as they did in season 8, that I have the problem.  It's just absolutely out of character for either brother to act that way, and they did a disservice to the character of Sam by having him make the decisions he did.  His reaction to Dean's return was all wrong, his leaving Kevin to fend for himself was absolutely something he wouldn't do, and his jealousy of Benny was just bizarre.  

[mertensia]

To fix it all they would l d have needed was one simple line: You were gone, Cas was gone, Kevin was gone-and I just couldn't deal any more.

It's what most of us fanwanked, after all.

[Aeryn13]

The annoyed reaction would have needed to go as well. And the subsequent episodes with "meet up/use the help of old friend..." It made the concept of "all alone with noone to turn to" look really silly when they pulled people like Martin out of the woodwork later on. Like his existance was only convenient when they needed someone to sic on Benny. Then of course Garth came back. Jody pops up here and there. But sure when Dean (and Cas) was in Purgatory and Kevin was missing, there was noone in the whole wide world the writers could have brought in for a team-up and/or support. 

[AwesomO4000]

22 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Gamble`s years, hm, we had soulless Sam as a secret for a while but it wasn`t too comparable to Carver. She also had the most of "the Winchesters really don`t matter to this plot" stuff. Season 6 was ultimately about Cas/Crowley vs. Raphael and Season 7 about the Leivathans. Plotwise, I could easily rewrite those Seasons with not a single Winchester in it and keep the main story intact. The main story just didn`t have much screentime. 

I was thinking about this and ultimately decided that maybe that was actually one of the reasons that I liked season 6 and season 7 - even more than season 4 actually (probably 3 overall also, despite some of my favorite eps being in that season). For me, after all of the world altering destiny stuff from the previous 3 seasons - and especially Sam messing things up so badly in season 4 (or at least taking much of the blame) - I liked that the entire universe didn't revolve around Sam and Dean for a little while. I liked that Dean (and Sam when his soul was returned) were once again about saving people, hunting things and fixing the wrongs of the world but weren't the be-all end-all of the world going to crap plot in the first place. In fact, as you pointed out, they weren't the main players in that. But somehow despite that, they still ended up fighting for and saving the world a few times. They were heroes without being part of the reason the stuff got messed up in the first place. The world said "you don't matter in the great scheme of things" and the Winchesters responded "we don't care what you think. We're saving you anyway." There were still heroic sacrifices anyway (Sam taking on his hell memories to help Dean. Dean ending up in purgatory for his part in killing Dick Roman) and lots of smaller, but important wins happened (working to convince Castiel to put the purgatory souls back, stopping Eve, stopping the Leiathans "Soylent Green" plot), but the world going to hell in hand basket plot didn't revolve around Sam and Dean. The Winchesters were once again doing the work without the credit, but just getting the satisfaction of saving people.

Also in season 6 and 7, when the brothers were about saving each other, there were some consequences, but it wasn't of the world screwing up variety. They were allowed to be that way without the "lessons" of the "see what happens - you start an apocalypse" message we got from the Carver, and to a lesser extent, the Kripke years. I agree with @MysteryGuest. I don't mind the codependency. It actually makes sense to me based on the brothers' history in how they were brought up and everything that happened to them. So when the show fights against that tendency and tries to throw in morality plays and consequences, it ultimately doesn't ring true for me (like season 8) or just seems petty (Sam starting the apocalypse in season 10 - which for me somewhat marred an, up until that point, fairly good season). (Warning my opinion coming up...) If you're going to have your characters be codependent - then let them be codependent and don't passively-aggressively bitch about it by punishing the characters for the personality traits that you gave them. And, yes, I include Carver in this. He wrote "Mystery Spot" after all, where Sam was extremely codependent, but it was ultimately Gabriel who was shown to be one of the bad guys in the scenario, and Sam "won" when he was given Dean back in the end. And then Carver's supposed attempt to "correct" this codependent tendency was worse - in my opinion - than the actual codependency, because the characters ended up being not what they were written as to begin with and there was no organic transition.

2 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

The annoyed reaction would have needed to go as well.

Agreed, but as I said, then Carver couldn't have all of his "conflict" between the brothers with Dean legitimately feeling hurt... or well he could, but it would've maybe made Dean look a little bad and/or off, and for the most part, it's often Sam's characterization that's compromised on the alter of brotherly angst.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

If you're going to have your characters be codependent - then let them be codependent and don't passively-aggressively bitch about it by punishing the characters for the personality traits that you gave them.

I hate the codependency but I have to agree with this insofar as: "either go big or go home". If for whatever reason (I believe it was chicken-shitness) you don`t really plan to fix the codependency, then yes, don`t punish/mock/belittle the characters for the way you made them. Trying to have it both ways make for an incredibly confusing message. Either the characters are supposed to be this way or not.

Billie the new reaper is a good example of this for me. The character hasn`t had many appearances yet but they`ve become rather predictable: she saunters in, she says no to helping, she sasses, she makes barbs about codependency being bad, pathetic and selfish and then she helps anyway for some flimsy reason or other.

Now I even agree that certain acts are utterly pathetic but if the writers celebrate those acts and behaviour, then stuff a random insert character calling them out on it like an asshole.    

Quote

Agreed, but as I said, then Carver couldn't have all of his "conflict" between the brothers with Dean legitimately feeling hurt... or well he could, but it would've maybe made Dean look a little bad and/or off,

The majority of responses I see now to 8.A describe Dean as basically super-abusive and horrible during that time. IMO it was due to the major shift in the middle of the Season with Sam becoming so victimized and physically weak during the trials. In a weird way Season 8.A and Season 8.B Sam portray a stark Madonna-Whore-complex with the character. Or, going by chronological order that would be Whore-Madonna-complex. 

[shang yiet]

Quote

I honestly didn't have an issue with Sam not looking because, for me, it was pretty clear he was devastated and at a complete loss.  There's only so many times you can watch someone you love be torn away from you and stay sane.  Sam wasn't exactly the poster child for mental health at that point so the idea that he suffered some sort of breakdown is not difficult for me to believe and I do think the clues were there.

Neither did I have an issue with Sam not looking. He thought Dean was dead and tried to move on in a mature way by not trying to make any stupid demon deals. Yet it seemed the writers actually disapproved of this maturity by throwing the Kevin issue back at his face and implying he was trying to hide away in a fantasy world like that old man (Mike Farrell).

Sam's reaction after Dean returned muddied things a bit for me. I thought he had done something on the sly after all to get Dean back and was feeling guilty. I don't know if the writers were planning a twist and just gave up after the Amelia backlash.

Now Dean's reaction I could have done without. He and Sam made a deal not to look for each other so why is it so bad that Sam honoured that deal? Why have Dean and Bobby pick at that scab? Why couldn't Dean just be glad Sam was able (on the surface) to move on despite his sorrow and found someone (Amelia) to help him? Dean could count on Lisa as a refuge yet I felt Dean seemed rather cool towards Amelia.

I disliked the Benny the Better Brother angle too. Any other season there would have been nothing to argue about, just 'Bye, Benny. Thanks and see you around!' If Sam was too overly suspicious, Dean was a bit too trusting, he the same person who killed Amy.

[Demented Daisy]

4 hours ago, Dobian said:

This main story arc isn't really cutting it, it feels like they are just making it up as they go.

Funny, I feel the exact opposite.  During the Carver years, with the episode after episode of "Well, this didn't work, so let's try this", I feel like Dabb has a distinct direction he wants to go.  Yeah, he's got several balls in the air, but I don't feel like he's dropping them.  For a couple of episodes, I wondered if they had given up on the idea of the BMoL, but then Mr. Ketch came back.  I suspect the second half of the season will focus more on them than Lucifer.  

Now, that's not to say that I'm overjoyed with the season so far.  In comparison, I'd say it's better than 8 and 9, on par with 10 and the first half of 11, but not as good as the second half of 11.  I wish the individual episodes had better writing, but the season arc is... palatable.

[DittyDotDot]

8 hours ago, ahrtee said:

My question here is:  is everyone *so* unhappy with this whole season so far?  

The first couple episodes I found very entertaining and interesting and, for the first time in years, I was really excited about the show and had it as a priority to watch. It's gotten progressively less so as the season has waned on. However, I'm past the point of getting worked up over this show. Back in S8, I was rightly pissed off at times, but over the course of a couple years of disappointment and frustration I've gotten to where I just go with it. For me, if they can give me two or three episodes that spark my interest a season, I call it a win.

TBH, I didn't think LOTUS was all that bad--sure, the plot contrivances were many, but that's hardly a new thing on this show--it's just that I have a hard time getting invested in the big-scale problems on this show. For me, I prefer the quiet little backwoods and unknown stories. I think the show is at it's best when it ignores national and global issues and focuses on one family or town each week. I think they wanted to go back to basics this season, but didn't want to leave those viewers who like the big-scale stories out in the cold, so they're making sure there's something for everyone. And, I'm guessing the Devil's spawn, the MoL and Mary's return will all start to come together now and it'll become a more cohesive arc. Or maybe I'm just hoping the first half here was mostly set up and the payoff is yet to come.

38 minutes ago, Demented Daisy said:

Funny, I feel the exact opposite.  During the Carver years, with the episode after episode of "Well, this didn't work, so let's try this", I feel like Dabb has a distinct direction he wants to go.  Yeah, he's got several balls in the air, but I don't feel like he's dropping them.  For a couple of episodes, I wondered if they had given up on the idea of the BMoL, but then Mr. Ketch came back.  I suspect the second half of the season will focus more on them than Lucifer.  

Now, that's not to say that I'm overjoyed with the season so far.  In comparison, I'd say it's better than 8 and 9, on par with 10 and the first half of 11, but not as good as the second half of 11.  I wish the individual episodes had better writing, but the season arc is... palatable.

I agree with this. Even though I'm not drawn to the Lucifer or the MoL storylines, I don't find them offensive or poorly executed as of yet. And, I do believe Dabb has a vision of where he's going, I'm just not sure he has a vision for the overall show. As in, what kind of show does he want it to be. I think that's been the biggest problem for years now. The show can be, and is, so many different things that it no longer seems to have much of an identity. I don't want them to slap a label on it or anything, but I'd like to see the writers get back on the same page so the episodes aren't so uneven. 

Edited December 14, 2016 by DittyDotDot

[Dobian]

I have found the one-off episodes this season to be very entertaining for the most part. It's the main arc ones that for me have been a bit lacking.  Will see how it goes.

[sarthaz]

Rewatching Season 11 on TNT, and it's clear to me that the problem isn't too much Lucifer in Season 12.  It's too much Lucifer that isn't Mark Pellegrino (or Misha mimicking him).  Don't get me wrong, I'm tired of Lucifer, and they ruined his character by making him a whiny bitch who's cartoonishly evil instead of the master empathic manipulator he should be; but if the first few episodes of this season were Mark Pellegrino throwing a big scorched Earth temper tantrum, I'd be 10 times more interested in it.

And I agree that they've lost the focus of the show. After stopping the foretold Apocalypse and reuniting God and the Darkness (not to mention countless other big events), everything else just seems so small.  So they should embrace the small.  Stop trying to make something bigger and badder, and go back to helping regular people in small town America.  I'm sure that's more expensive to film, and you need J2 on set, but it makes for a much better show.

[Dobian]

@sarthaz, yes this show misses a lot by not having Mark Pellegrino playing Lucifer.  He is a good actor who is both menacing and charismatic at the same time (unlike some tv villains...JDM...cough....Negan...cough).  I like Rick Springfield but you could see it just wasn't the same with him playing the role.  I enjoyed last season's arc more than any since season 5.  The whole apocalypse premise and who God turned out to be was completely doofy, but they made it fun and engaging with a good payoff at the end.  You're right that when you go big like that it's almost impossible to follow up.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Dobian

[MysteryGuest]

While I agree that Mark Pellegrino makes a much better Lucifer, I really don't want to watch him for half an episode, either.  That's the problem.  When we had Lucifer in the past, he had a few interesting scenes, usually with Sam or Dean.  He was never the central character of the episode like he has been for the past two weeks.  And he isn't even interesting now, he's just annoying.  

Obviously, I watch for Jensen and Jared, so when their characters become secondary to the storyline, there had better be a pretty interesting lead character, or it's not going to hold my interest.  I personally don't find Lucifer to be interesting anymore, so these last two episodes were painful to watch.  I'm hoping they'll get back on track with more Winchester centric episodes after the hiatus.  

I want the show to continue.  I think there are still interesting stories to be told about the lives of these two brothers.  I hope the writers and show runners are up to the task.  If they're not, and if the actors want more time off, which equates to even less screen time, that doesn't bode well for the future of the show.  And that makes me sad.

[companionenvy]

To me, one of the major problems with SPN is that if it was going to continue for this long, it had to at some point make the leap from being a show about two brothers to something closer to an ensemble show (albeit with Sam and Dean still as the main leads), and it has never figured out how to do that effectively. Instead, it has increased screen time for certain characters without actually giving them anything particularly interesting to do. For instance, I still care about Cas, but while he gets screen time, he hasn't had anything approaching an interesting storyline for ages -- plus, they've neutered him to a painful extent, to the point where he's either hapless comic relief or a broody sad-sack. His plans pretty much always fail, and while the show pays lip service to caring about his emotional state, the fact that, after all the attention S4 and 5 gave to Cas's faith and the search for God, he didn't even get a conversation with Chuck speaks volumes about how little attention his characterization is actually getting.

Crowley is even worse. Crowley was great in small doses as the clever antagonist who might occasionally have a little more to him, emotionally speaking, then the average demon (i.e, curing Bobby's paralysis). But as a more frequent player, he's a loss: he's done way too many awful, awful things for us to really care about him, yet he has also been defanged to the point where he isn't scary. 

In fact, in looking at Cas, Crowley, and Lucifer, there's a real pattern of the show robbing characters of the gravitas they once possessed. Cas has plenty of comic moments in S4 and 5, but part of the reason they work is because they are so at odds with his usual demeanor and stature; even after he is largely depowered, Cas is a pretty formidable character (I'm thinking in particular of the scene where he cuts off Pestilence's finger). Now, his otherwordliness has basically been reduced to "still doesn't get human interaction." Crowley used to be in control; now he has mommy issues. As for Lucifer - rewatching S5, it actually surprised me how good  a character he was. Lucifer was evil, but also compelling enough that you could see why someone might follow him. He was a manipulator who, on some level, bought into his own manipulations -- he harbored a childish jealousy that his father had chosen humanity over him, but also a more serious belief that humanity was a blight on an otherwise magnificent creation.  Also remember that he weighed NOT having the showdown with Michael in the end, and it was Michael who insisted on playing out the battle. Now, he's just a brat throwing a temper tantrum.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

To me, one of the major problems with SPN is that if it was going to continue for this long, it had to at some point make the leap from being a show about two brothers to something closer to an ensemble show 

This is the show most afraid to veer from status quo. Other than perhaps crime procedurals - and even they do it occassionally - I can think of no other show that never once tried anything different. I`m not saying I was always right on board with everything every other show did in changing it up but at least I can respect them for trying.

Now obviously with SPN the actors want different as in less and less shooting hours so the writers have to attempt something but they still do so in the same construct it has always been. And that can`t work. The early Seasons had probably twice the screentime of the brothers that they do now. That means the episodes, both standalone and mytharc, could be structured differently. That is no longer feasible so they try their hand at simply padding.You can get away with actors schedules changing in ensemble shows but with a main cast of two, it is impossible.

Not to mention the repetitiveness problem. When a show starts, the (fictional) world is your playground. Nothing has been done with the characters yet so everything is new and fresh. Since, again, they won`t do anything radically different, I feel confident to say that I have seen everything they can do with the characters within the constraints of their narrative. And I have seen it several times. Yes, theoretically there would still be new things to explore with the brothers. Or new beats to play with them. But every single one I can think of would veer too far from the beaten path and for that reason I think they will not do it.      

[companionenvy]

Agreed, Aeryn. Pretty much every time the show does something that might change up the dynamic, they make it go away ASAP. That's why the boys haven't had a love interest in years, why Cas and Dean's relationship is practically defunct (I don't actually think it is fear of Destiel related backlash at all, but of jeopardizing the "brother bond" focus), why Crowley is still breathing, and why what seem to be game-changing climaxes almost always wind up being resolved or somehow minimized ASAP.

This actually was not true of the show in its first 5 seasons. From previous comments, I suspect I liked season 4 and 5 much more than you did, even apart from Swan Song (which I adored), but love it or hate it, the show had a major change in focus and scope between season 3 and 4 with the introduction of the angels and apocalypse plot, as well as in putting the brothers so at odds with each other (which I don't always think was handled as well as it might have been, but largely worked). Of course, sometimes shows try game-changers and they go south -- but I can't think of a show I've liked that has lasted more than a few seasons without doing something to change the dynamic in profound ways. 

And the thing is, I don't believe that the show is so played out that there aren't ways of livening it up. In my version of this season, for instance, Dean and Sam, realizing pretty early that the British MoL are bad news, decide they need to organize the hunter community to stand against them -- and work with/warn the non-evil supernatural beings now under threat. Instead of going off after Lucifer (who would be dead, in my version) with Crowley, Cas could be helping Sam and Dean on their search for hunters/supernatural allies while partnering with Mary, who, in this scenario, would still hurt Dean by deciding she couldn't really deal with being around the boys yet, but would gravitate toward Cas because of their shared fish-out-of water qualities. A healthy chunk of the episodes would consist of Sam and Dean (and Mary and Cas, in the B-plots) on the search for a different hunter/ally; the two halves of team Winchester would also, of course, intersect a fair amount, allowing the show to give some time to the emotional ramifications of Mary's presence. In the meantime, we'd get to actually see Mary's struggle to cope with her return, which would also give Cas some new emotional territory to work with.

Instead, we're back to fighting Lucifer, and there is no evidence that the MoL is going to turn out to be anything more interesting than another Big Bad. I hope I'm wrong; guess we'll see in the back half of the season.