rue721 April 5, 2017 Share April 5, 2017 Just now, DittyDotDot said: way better than him just ending up dying alone in the future because he was too scared to die in the past Yeah, but they could have at least tried taking Fiona out of the past rather than sending Gavin back there. That's what I would have wanted to do if I were Gavin -- to try and SAVE Fiona, not doom myself along with her! 1 Link to comment
catrox14 April 5, 2017 Share April 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, rue721 said: don't see what harm there is in thinking about getting anti-Hell insurance. There are tons of stupid things that could land you in Hell, or that Gavin could have worried would land him in Hell. Premarital sex, cussing, having the wrong religion or no religion, asking a Crossroads Demon to make you the best pianist of all time, whatever. As far as I know, Gavin never actually did anything cruel or horrible to anybody in his life. Given his lack of a tendency toward murdering, raping, pillaging, etc, I think he probably didn't do awful stuff because he didn't really have it in him, not because of the threat of Hell. This isn't the same thing as crossroads deal. In a crossroads deal, they get what then want and they know they will pay the price. Gavin was looking to NEVER pay a price for his actions. . Gavin wanted a get out of Hell free card. He was pre-emptively asking not for absolution and forgiveness, but to not suffer any consequence for actions he might make that he knew would be Hell-worthy. For all we know, Gavin was a serial killer. We don't know either way because they ignored the character for two years. Sam and Dean had to call Crowley to find him. He could have been living a quiet life and still been murdering people and how would we ever know. Altering a timeline is selfish (HELLO BARRY ALLEN). It has consequences for anyone in that timeline. Just like the Titanic episode. Link to comment
DittyDotDot April 5, 2017 Share April 5, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, rue721 said: Yeah, but they could have at least tried taking Fiona out of the past rather than sending Gavin back there. I'm not sure they had the ability to do that, but even so, like I said slippery slope. Go get Fiona, then Fiona wants to save her sister and her sister wants to save her husband, the husband wants to save their kids...where does it stop? Everyone dies eventually, past, present or future. For all we knew Gavin or Fiona could've gotten hit by a bus the very next day if they'd stayed in the future? Personally, I would've done what Gavin did. I don't think I could live with the knowledge that my trying to hang on to my life may be causing others to lose theirs. If there was a guarantee that me staying in the present wouldn't hurt anyone else, sure. But, there are no guarantees in this life so I would want to make sure I could live with myself. Edited April 5, 2017 by DittyDotDot 1 Link to comment
rue721 April 5, 2017 Share April 5, 2017 19 minutes ago, catrox14 said: Altering a timeline is selfish (HELLO BARRY ALLEN). It has consequences for anyone in that timeline. Just like the Titanic episode. Everything always has consequences, though. That's unavoidable. And in this case, maybe those consequences could have been good on net, and the future could have ended up better because Gavin didn't die so young -- who knows. Maybe the future would have been even better if Fiona hadn't died young, either. Different doesn't necessarily mean bad. (Although most likely, it would have been a wash. A little better, a little worse, basically same difference. I don't think either Fiona or Gavin were all that important either way). That's why I wanted the timeline to change with Gavin's sacrifice -- and end up WORSE, with two vengeful ghosts (both Fiona and Gavin) now haunting the museum instead of just one. [cue saaaaaad trombone]. But I guess I like that kind of humor in general. That's also why I love Bad Day at Black Rock so much ;) 19 minutes ago, catrox14 said: Gavin wanted a get out of Hell free card. He was pre-emptively asking not for absolution and forgiveness, but to not suffer any consequence for actions he might make that he knew would be Hell-worthy. I just don't see what's wrong with that. Who wouldn't want that in their back pocket? I figure, "Hope for the best, but plan for the worst." YMMV. 2 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said: I'm not sure they had the ability to do that, but even so, like I said slippery slope. Go get Fiona, then Fiona wants to save her sister and her sister wants to save her husband, the husband wants to save their kids...where does it stop? Everyone dies eventually, past, present or future. For all we knew Gavin could've gotten hit by a bus the very next day if he'd stayed in the future? Personally, I would've done what Gavin did. I don't think I could live with the knowledge that my trying to hang on to my life may be causing others to lose theirs. If there was a guarantee that me staying in the present wouldn't hurt anyone else, sure. But, there are no guarantees in this life so I would want to make sure I could live with myself. If they can drop someone in the past, they can pick someone up. At the very least, they could try. Or honestly, they could have killed Fiona in a humane/merciful way before the people on the ship could attack her, or they could have sunk the ship before it left port or they could have killed all her tormentors before they had a chance to attack her. Crowley and Rowena have both killed for less, and that would have put a stop to more suffering overall. I can't buy into the slippery slope argument, because I don't see what awful outcome the slippery slope is causing the slide down into. They're just rescuing people (Fiona and Gavin, and the present-day victims). I guess that could have bad consequences in some way, but I don't think it's especially likely to cause bad consequences. Personally, I would have been like FUCK Y'ALL if they wanted me to go down with that ship. There were so many other ways to try solving that problem, but it just so happened that the most ~convenient~ was to use a sacrificial lamb. Yeah nope. I'd be like, go be the sacrificial lamb yourself if you're so eager for someone to die for this gambit. I've even got the sacrificing knife all ready for you. Fuckers. LOL sorry, I didn't really realize I felt so strongly. ;) But anyway, I also think people have a personal duty to look after themselves. Imagine how fast you'll be screwed and/or dead if you abdicated responsibility for yourself! And if you don't look out for yourself, then who else has to? Who else WILL? I think self-sacrifice can easily devolve into passivity and dependence at best and self-indulgent martyrdom at worst. Gavin wasn't being a self-indulgent martyr or anything, but I do think that he owed his life (and Fiona's) a bit more consideration. Hmmm. Weird, I feel like I was just possessed by an angry ghost version of Nietzsche right there. *Shake it off* ;) 1 Link to comment
DittyDotDot April 5, 2017 Share April 5, 2017 (edited) 31 minutes ago, rue721 said: If they can drop someone in the past, they can pick someone up. You would think so, wouldn't you, but I'm betting that spell was a one-way trip. 31 minutes ago, rue721 said: I can't buy into the slippery slope argument, because I don't see what awful outcome the slippery slope is causing the slide down into. They're just rescuing people (Fiona and Gavin, and the present-day victims). I guess that could have bad consequences in some way, but I don't think it's especially likely to cause bad consequences. If you keep plucking people from the past, then whose going to be left to make sure the future happens? I mean, it seems like it would be easy and it may appear to you that Gavin and Fiona aren't important, but you really have no idea how many lives they touched or mattered in. That was kinda the whole point of the episode. Gavin being plucked from the past didn't seem to matter at all on the surface, but apparently it made a huge difference in Fiona's life. Basically, it sounds like playing God, to me, and that's a very slippery slope, IMO. 31 minutes ago, rue721 said: But anyway, I also think people have a personal duty to look after themselves. Definitely. I think I'm looking after myself best by making sure I'm living a life I can actually live with. I just think there's more ways to look out for one's self than simply keeping my body alive. Edited April 5, 2017 by DittyDotDot 1 Link to comment
rue721 April 5, 2017 Share April 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said: If you keep plucking people from the past, then whose going to be left to make sure the future happens? I mean, it seems like it would be easy and it may appear to you that Gavin and Fiona aren't important, but you really have no idea how many lives they touched or mattered in. It sounds like playing God, to me, and that's a very slippery slope, IMO. I only see it as playing God to the extent that making virtually any decision is playing God. Bringing a new person into the world is a huge decision that could have consequences forever, and IMO is much closer to playing God than just trying to keep people alive or depositing them in a new place is. But people still have babies every day, and that's not considered a slippery slope into anything. So why would this much tamer version of "playing God" be? Anyway, not being able to save everybody isn't an argument for saving nobody IMO. 6 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said: I think I'm looking after myself best by making sure I'm living a life I can actually live with. I just think there's more ways to look out for one's self than keeping them physically alive. I think you're equating going off to die with saving people. I don't. I thought it was a pointless waste of life to let Gavin go to the boat. They're lucky that it at least kept Fiona from becoming a ghost, considering there was no guarantee even of that. And that was the ~best~ they could hope for given the "plan" they went with -- they're just lucky that they happened to get their Best Case Scenario outcome. The fact that nobody fought to save Gavin is disturbing IMO, and I hold Gavin as culpable as any of the others (or more so) for not fighting to save his life. IMO there was every possibility that everyone could have been saved, including him. I don't believe that he was doomed. I don't believe Fiona was doomed, either. But everyone treated them like they were. Why focus on saving her from her tormentors on the boat -- why not focus on saving her life? In other words, actually save HER? She wouldn't have been a ghost if she had lived, either. And I'm just not a trusting or noble person I guess, because in Gavin's place, there is NO WAY that a group of people could have been sitting around all telling me it would be for the best if I just sacrificed myself and I would have consented. Let alone volunteered. Yeah sure, it would be AWESOME for everybody if I just got fucked wouldn't it? Of course it would be, people are always wanting you to get fucked for their benefit. But, well, too bad. Especially given that particular circumstance, since it seemed anything but certain that Gavin joining Fiona in death was the best plan they could come up with, let alone the only plan. I'm sure it was meant to seem heroic and noble, but to me, it was depressing to watch everyone give up so easily on Gavin (and Fiona). In my mind it's like, fine if everyone else were to give up on me like that, but I am damn sure not going to do the same, let alone HELP them throw me away. It's difficult to relate to Gavin, given that he seemed completely gung ho. All I can imagine is that he was a terrible problem solver, a terrible pessimist, and/or had a death wish... 1 Link to comment
SueB April 5, 2017 Share April 5, 2017 4 hours ago, DeeDee79 said: It's true that Ketch was the only one to state that but events following have shown the boys signing up to the BMOL's practices ( albeit reluctant or eager ) which came on the heels of a fight in which their mother was a part of and the overall narrative hasn't given us anything to show that Ketch's viewpoint is just biased in her favor as of yet. For those reasons I choose to believe that this is the narrative that the writers have chosen to take due to her being the elder Winchester until the writing states otherwise. When exposed to the black and white moral code of BMoL, Sam and Dean objected in the car and then told Mick they were "done". Further, they had Dean flashback to when they saved Magda, as part of his rationale that the BMoL moral code is unacceptable. They continued to show that the BMoL killed Magda and by having Dean just tell us they 'saved her', it's now UNAMBIGUOUS, that the boys don't know Ketch killed Magda. You can choose to believe whatever you want, but the narrative has: - The BMoL are taking actions explicitly denounced by the Winchesters in the latest episode. - They were planning on stopping their work with the BMoL based on discovering this indiscriminate killing practice and ONLY agreed to a second chance because Mick saved Claire. They've stated they won't give the BMoL a second chance. - The 'shades of grey' has been a series long development with Dean unambiguously reaffirming that the black and white moral code is wrong. So, if the basis of your argument is that the writers are saying Ketch is a reliable viewpoint because the 'boys signing up to the BMOL's practices", then that argument falls apart with the "Ladies Drink Free" episode. 3 Link to comment
DeeDee79 April 5, 2017 Share April 5, 2017 1 hour ago, SueB said: When exposed to the black and white moral code of BMoL, Sam and Dean objected in the car and then told Mick they were "done". Further, they had Dean flashback to when they saved Magda, as part of his rationale that the BMoL moral code is unacceptable. They continued to show that the BMoL killed Magda and by having Dean just tell us they 'saved her', it's now UNAMBIGUOUS, that the boys don't know Ketch killed Magda. You can choose to believe whatever you want, but the narrative has: - The BMoL are taking actions explicitly denounced by the Winchesters in the latest episode. - They were planning on stopping their work with the BMoL based on discovering this indiscriminate killing practice and ONLY agreed to a second chance because Mick saved Claire. They've stated they won't give the BMoL a second chance. - The 'shades of grey' has been a series long development with Dean unambiguously reaffirming that the black and white moral code is wrong. So, if the basis of your argument is that the writers are saying Ketch is a reliable viewpoint because the 'boys signing up to the BMOL's practices", then that argument falls apart with the "Ladies Drink Free" episode. The basis of my statement is from Ketch's exchange with Mick. The part of my quote which you've bolded is just to state events that have followed after said conversation. I wasn't speaking of the latest episode because it has nothing to do with what I was stating. I understand that everyone won't be in agreement but I stand by my opinion. Link to comment
DittyDotDot April 5, 2017 Share April 5, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, rue721 said: I think you're equating going off to die with saving people. No, I'm really not. I'm saying, if the choices were living in the future knowing it would cause others to be dead or returning to the past where I might end up dead, but I might not, I'd try the latter. There is a chance for me to live in the past, but no chance for those other people if I stayed in the future. And, I definitely wouldn't want to live with the knowledge a bunch of people died so that I could live. I'd rather throw caution to the wind and take a chance that I might survive the past. 1 hour ago, rue721 said: Anyway, not being able to save everybody isn't an argument for saving nobody IMO. I wasn't suggesting it was. 1 hour ago, rue721 said: The fact that nobody fought to save Gavin is disturbing IMO, and I hold Gavin as culpable as any of the others (or more so) for not fighting to save his life. IMO there was every possibility that everyone could have been saved, including him. I don't believe that he was doomed. I don't believe Fiona was doomed, either. But everyone treated them like they were. Personally, I thought they just didn't have any solutions or options to offer at that time. Maybe there was another option out there, but unfortunately, none were known at the time. The only options on the table at that moment were for Gavin to stay in the present and let the other people be dead or for Gavin to return to the past where he might die, but he might not. Sometimes all you have are shitty cards, but you have to play the cards you're dealt. Doesn't mean you're going to lose, though. Edited April 5, 2017 by DittyDotDot Link to comment
SueB April 5, 2017 Share April 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said: The basis of my statement is from Ketch's exchange with Mick. The part of my quote which you've bolded is just to state events that have followed after said conversation. I wasn't speaking of the latest episode because it has nothing to do with what I was stating. I understand that everyone won't be in agreement but I stand by my opinion. Well I'm confused. Yes, Ketch made a statement to Mick but what is the basis of your opinion that Ketch's assessment of Mary is reliable? For example, basis for my opinion that Ketch is a both a psychopath and does not have a reliable perspective: - Him beating the vampire for information and Dean (our protagonist) stopping him and getting the information based on offering to kill her quickly. - Ketch's speech to Dean about hunting providing an outlet for his need to kill. - Making the assumption that he and Dean are alike in the "need to kill". Dean, later in that episode, minimizes the violence with the vampire. Link to comment
RulerofallIsurvey April 5, 2017 Share April 5, 2017 11 hours ago, DittyDotDot said: like I said slippery slope. Go get Fiona, then Fiona wants to save her sister and her sister wants to save her husband, the husband wants to save their kids...where does it stop? Outlander. ;) 7 hours ago, DittyDotDot said: No, I'm really not. I'm saying, if the choices were living in the future knowing it would cause others to be dead or returning to the past where I might end up dead, but I might not, I'd try the latter. There is a chance for me to live in the past, but no chance for those other people if I stayed in the future. And, I definitely wouldn't want to live with the knowledge a bunch of people died so that I could live. But they didn't die so Gavin could live. They died either way. They all did. And as you said, everyone has to die sometime. I thought it was a given that Gavin was going back to die on the ship (they were sending him back to the ship which sank, so...) The only difference being that he would be there to stop Fiona getting raped and turning into a vengeful spirit. Still - I guess they could always show in a future ep that they sent Gavin back to his room, instead of the ship, where he met Fiona and they both decided not to board the ship - or at least that ship. That would actually be nice, I think. Link to comment
catrox14 April 5, 2017 Share April 5, 2017 24 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said: Outlander. ;) But they didn't die so Gavin could live. They died either way. They all did. And as you said, everyone has to die sometime. I thought it was a given that Gavin was going back to die on the ship (they were sending him back to the ship which sank, so...) The only difference being that he would be there to stop Fiona getting raped and turning into a vengeful spirit. Still - I guess they could always show in a future ep that they sent Gavin back to his room, instead of the ship, where he met Fiona and they both decided not to board the ship - or at least that ship. That would actually be nice, I think. I don't think that is likely because Rowena made sure he was sent back to the ship. That was her vengeance for Crowley using Oscar in Rowena's spell to remove the MoC. 2 Link to comment
DittyDotDot April 5, 2017 Share April 5, 2017 12 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said: But they didn't die so Gavin could live. They died either way. They all did. No, the deaths in the present were reversed because Fiona never became a ghost and killed them. Granted they didn't die so he could live, but they died because he wasn't in the past. Not going back to the past would mean Gavin would have to live the rest of his life knowing that he could've changed that for them. All I was saying is, I wouldn't want those deaths on my conscious, especially when I could've done something about it. It's like standing by and watching while someone has a heart attack. It's not my fault he had a heart attack, but if I had called 911 he might have had a shot. At least I could say I did something instead of stand by and watch. 13 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said: I thought it was a given that Gavin was going back to die on the ship (they were sending him back to the ship which sank, so...) Weren't they sending him back to when he was plucked out? Which was him packing the night before he boarded the ship. He very well might have still got on that ship and died, but I don't think it was a given. He still had options and knowledge to change things. Maybe he grabbed Fiona and put put them both on a life boat? The only things that were givens IMO were: a) the ship was going to sink and; b) if Gavin didn't go back, Fiona would eventually become a vengeful spirit and kill some folks. Armed with that knowledge, any number of things could've happened differently. Link to comment
RulerofallIsurvey April 5, 2017 Share April 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said: No, the deaths in the present were reversed because Fiona never became a ghost and killed them. okay, nm. I had a brain fart and thought you meant the people in the past died so Gavin could live. (Too many frustrating computer issues this morning.) 3 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said: Weren't they sending him back to when he was plucked out? Yeah, I don't remember exactly now. I thought, like @catrox14 said above that Roweena sent him back to the ship - and that was made clear at the end of the episode that she did it specifically so he would die as revenge for Crowley making her kill Oscar. 1 Link to comment
DittyDotDot April 5, 2017 Share April 5, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said: Yeah, I don't remember exactly now. I thought, like @catrox14 said above that Roweena sent him back to the ship - and that was made clear at the end of the episode that she did it specifically so he would die as revenge for Crowley making her kill Oscar. Oh, I understood Rowena thought she had made sure Gavin died as a screw you to Crowley, I'm just saying that it doesn't mean she was right. Armed with the knowledge Gavin had, any number of things could've happened differently, IMO. Perhaps Gavin not only saved the people in the present, but he and Fiona in the past while still keeping the timeline intact. That would be the best screw you to fate ever, IMO. Edited April 5, 2017 by DittyDotDot Link to comment
Katy M April 5, 2017 Share April 5, 2017 1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said: Perhaps Gavin not only saved the people in the present, but he and Fiona in the past while still keeping the timeline intact. Impossible. What if they had had children? Or even one child. That would mess up everything, because if that child (or children) got married, it would probably be to someone who would have married someone else. The whole population would be different. We need only watch My Heart Will Go On (and don't even get me started on that epi) to see how this would be a bad idea. One of the few parts I did like of that episode was what Atropos said. I'm going to use quotes, but I'm probably paraphrasing a bit. "You changed the future. You can not change the past. That is going too far." Link to comment
catrox14 April 5, 2017 Share April 5, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, DittyDotDot said: Oh, I understood Rowena thought she had made sure Gavin died as a screw you to Crowley, I'm just saying that it doesn't mean she was right. Armed with the knowledge Gavin had, any number of things could've happened differently, IMO. Perhaps Gavin not only saved the people in the present, but he and Fiona in the past while still keeping the timeline intact. That would be the best screw you to fate ever, IMO. Rowena as a pretty strong resume of success with spells. Rowena's spells thus far that have worked.: --attack dog worked everytime and even on Cas, a freaking angel. --Hex bag that killed a demon --Turned Olivette into a hamster --Removal of the Mark of Cain --Kills three witches that didn't want to join her MEGA!Coven! --Spell to bring Lucifer into the not!Cage or whatever that was --resurrection spell that has let her live 300 years --Partial win with the power of the other witches to take out Amara. It didn't kill Amara but it did weaken her. --Made the soul bomb that went into Dean which would have killed Amara and Dean --Held Lucifer in a trap for a short time, partial win --Spell to weaken and speed Lucifer's vessel decay and sent him to the bottom of the ocean --She was going to redirect Lucifer back into the cage, but Crowley altered her spell Two spells that didn't work --Trying to kill Dean in Inside Man (but the Mark of Cain wouldn't allow it) --Trying to kill Crowley with the Hex bag. ( My headcanon remains that she was actually trying to power Crowley back up because she wanted her son to be more powerful and to turn against the Winchesters) Given Rowena's track record in the show, I'm inclined to think she successfully put Gavin on that ship where she wanted him to be. The only way IMO that didn't happen is if Crowley interfered. Thus far that doesn't seem to be the case. Edited April 5, 2017 by catrox14 2 Link to comment
DeeDee79 April 5, 2017 Share April 5, 2017 18 hours ago, SueB said: Well I'm confused. Yes, Ketch made a statement to Mick but what is the basis of your opinion that Ketch's assessment of Mary is reliable? Ketch made the statement but Mick didn't dispute it. My basis and my overall opinion is that we're supposed to believe that the BMOL feels that Mary is the best Winchester hunter. We have seen snippets of Mary hunting and she appears to be capable of pulling off dangerous hunts on her own with the exception of the hunt involving the yellow eyed demon. Overall it is my opinion and I don't expect everyone to agree as I already stated. 1 Link to comment
SueB April 5, 2017 Share April 5, 2017 1 hour ago, DeeDee79 said: Ketch made the statement but Mick didn't dispute it. My basis and my overall opinion is that we're supposed to believe that the BMOL feels that Mary is the best Winchester hunter. We have seen snippets of Mary hunting and she appears to be capable of pulling off dangerous hunts on her own with the exception of the hunt involving the yellow eyed demon. Overall it is my opinion and I don't expect everyone to agree as I already stated. Mick didn't support it either. The specific conversation: Quote Mick: And how's Mary? Ketch: Excellent. As always. Mick: She say anything about her boys? Ketch: As I've said many, many, so many times, we don't need them. We already have the best Winchester. Mick: Yes. But that's not your call, is it? Or mine. *MICK PULLS OUT A LETTER ON THE TYPEWRITER, PRESUMABLY FROM THE HOME OFFICE, AND PRESENTS IT TO KETCH AS IF IT IS PROOF* Mick: The old men want them on board. As far as London's concerned, where Sam and Dean Winchester go, the rest of the American Hunters will follow. *KETCH SMIRKS AND NODS, UNCONVINCED* Ketch: Hmm So, the box score in terms of who is the best Winchester in terms of written dialog in that scene: Ketch: Mary Mick: Undeclared. Ketch clearly has been pissing on him about ignoring Sam and Dean and Mick basically tells him to shut up and color because neither of their opinions matter, only the "old mens'" opinions matter. BMOL "Old Men": Sam and Dean are the ones who matter. Now technically, they are saying Sam and Dean set the standard for the rest of the hunters (versus using the word "best"). And the rest of the hunters barely know Mary. She clearly knows some but doesn't have the boy's reputation. And the leadership at the BMoL know this. So... if your point is thats Ketch thinks Mary is best and because Mick doesn't explicitly say he personally disagrees, this means that the BMoL think Mary is the best ... I'd say the evidence points in the other direction. Ketch is alone in his POV and everyone else know (BMoL leadership and American Hunters) that Sam and Dean are the best. But ultimately, your point was that the writers have built her up to be literally the BEST hunter based on the words of Mr. Ketch. @DeeDee79 Quote How could she be the "best Winchester" after over 30 years out of practice outside of the writers wanting to build her up? Beyond the "old men" of the BMoL clearly disagreeing with Mr. Ketch, we've got the fanboy/fangirl hunters in "Celebrating the Life of Asa Fox." In that episode there were two distinct scenes indicating that Sam and Dean are legendary hunters in America. Yes, the writers have shown Mary as competent. But they've also shown Mary trying to get an edge by using the BMoL gear. Her "I'm trying to catch up on three decades" statement in The Raid was NOT just about the boys. She was shown to be very self-critical of her performance in "American Nightmare". She's drank the BMoL Kool-Aid and declared it the "better way". The BMoL ENABLE her in her success. She's had several without them but clearly her comfort zone is to have them backing her. Sam and Dean, OTOH, are taking their tips on cases but they clearly don't want their physical backup. Bottom Line: While I agree that the writers have provided Mary with some mad hunting skillz, I think the statements of Mr. Ketch are decidedly NOT meant to be interpreted as Mary being the better hunter than Sam and Dean. 2 Link to comment
DeeDee79 April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 3 hours ago, SueB said: Mick didn't support it either. The specific conversation: So, the box score in terms of who is the best Winchester in terms of written dialog in that scene: Ketch: Mary Mick: Undeclared. Ketch clearly has been pissing on him about ignoring Sam and Dean and Mick basically tells him to shut up and color because neither of their opinions matter, only the "old mens'" opinions matter. BMOL "Old Men": Sam and Dean are the ones who matter. Now technically, they are saying Sam and Dean set the standard for the rest of the hunters (versus using the word "best"). And the rest of the hunters barely know Mary. She clearly knows some but doesn't have the boy's reputation. And the leadership at the BMoL know this. So... if your point is thats Ketch thinks Mary is best and because Mick doesn't explicitly say he personally disagrees, this means that the BMoL think Mary is the best ... I'd say the evidence points in the other direction. Ketch is alone in his POV and everyone else know (BMoL leadership and American Hunters) that Sam and Dean are the best. But ultimately, your point was that the writers have built her up to be literally the BEST hunter based on the words of Mr. Ketch. @DeeDee79 Beyond the "old men" of the BMoL clearly disagreeing with Mr. Ketch, we've got the fanboy/fangirl hunters in "Celebrating the Life of Asa Fox." In that episode there were two distinct scenes indicating that Sam and Dean are legendary hunters in America. Yes, the writers have shown Mary as competent. But they've also shown Mary trying to get an edge by using the BMoL gear. Her "I'm trying to catch up on three decades" statement in The Raid was NOT just about the boys. She was shown to be very self-critical of her performance in "American Nightmare". She's drank the BMoL Kool-Aid and declared it the "better way". The BMoL ENABLE her in her success. She's had several without them but clearly her comfort zone is to have them backing her. Sam and Dean, OTOH, are taking their tips on cases but they clearly don't want their physical backup. Bottom Line: While I agree that the writers have provided Mary with some mad hunting skillz, I think the statements of Mr. Ketch are decidedly NOT meant to be interpreted as Mary being the better hunter than Sam and Dean. You can have your perceived bottom line but honestly I'm not interested in an ongoing debate with you on this. As I've stated more than once this is my opinion and I feel that you're trying to point out how your opinion is the correct one while mine is in the wrong which is not cool. Agree to disagree; I'm done debating my stance. 1 Link to comment
SueB April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 1 minute ago, DeeDee79 said: You can have your perceived bottom line but honestly I'm not interested in an ongoing debate with you on this. As I've stated more than once this is my opinion and I feel that you're trying to point out how your opinion is the correct one while mine is in the wrong which is not cool. Agree to disagree; I'm done debating my stance. No problem. I'm not interested in discussing this topic anymore either. 1 Link to comment
DeeDee79 April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 3 hours ago, SueB said: No problem. I'm not interested in discussing this topic anymore either. Cool beans :^) 1 Link to comment
rue721 April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 8 hours ago, catrox14 said: Given Rowena's track record in the show, I'm inclined to think she successfully put Gavin on that ship where she wanted him to be. The only way IMO that didn't happen is if Crowley interfered. Thus far that doesn't seem to be the case. I agree re Rowena's track record and also what her plan was...I think she also specifically made it impossible for Crowley to interfere. She literally froze him in his tracks. And she also made him feel very powerless, so even if he could possibly have done or could still do something, I think he believes that he can't (and so he hasn't). 11 hours ago, DittyDotDot said: No, the deaths in the present were reversed because Fiona never became a ghost and killed them. Granted they didn't die so he could live, but they died because he wasn't in the past. Not going back to the past would mean Gavin would have to live the rest of his life knowing that he could've changed that for them. All I was saying is, I wouldn't want those deaths on my conscious, especially when I could've done something about it. It's like standing by and watching while someone has a heart attack. It's not my fault he had a heart attack, but if I had called 911 he might have had a shot. At least I could say I did something instead of stand by and watch. I disagree -- the people in the present died because Fiona became a vengeful spirit. Not because Gavin wasn't in the past. So their goal was to keep Fiona from becoming a vengeful spirit. They had to save Fiona, but that didn't necessarily have anything to do with Gavin directly. As far as I know, their plan to keep her from becoming a vengeful spirit was to rewrite the past, but STILL have her die tragically young and just as she was starting out her life and blah blah blah, only this time have her die with a man beside her (Gavin), since they assumed that that would at least keep her from being raped before the ship went down. I thought that plan was just awful, not least because it didn't involve actually trying to save her. It also still maintained a strong possibility for her becoming a vengeful spirit, because she would still die. The best insurance to her not becoming a vengeful spirit would be to have her not die and not have the chance to become a spirit at all. Anyway, regardless, their plan seemed like a lose-lose for everybody. To me, that's not taking the deaths off anybody's conscious. OK, three of the victims (in the present) would live. But what about Fiona's death, or Gavin's? They all just off Fiona and Gavin, and Gavin let them write them off. Hate that. To me, that's less like calling 911 for someone who's in trouble, and more like ignoring them and letting them die because that's more convenient, or even to the indirect benefit to you/the people you care about. Like letting "nature take its course" and letting the runt of the litter starve because that means more milk for the other, stronger kittens. Link to comment
catrox14 April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 54 minutes ago, rue721 said: I disagree -- the people in the present died because Fiona became a vengeful spirit. Not because Gavin wasn't in the past. So their goal was to keep Fiona from becoming a vengeful spirit. They had to save Fiona, but that didn't necessarily have anything to do with Gavin directly. Quote Gavin. I must speak with you. [ Wind howling ] [ Whoosh ] [ Whooshing ] [ Exhales ] Fiona. Gavin. You abandoned me. YouWhere were you? I came to your room. I -- It wisnae my fault. I was sent somewhere else. I hid myself aboard The Star, and you wernnae there to protect me. The crew, they came to scorn me and mock me and worse. Use me in a way no woman should be used. The other passengers Did no one help you? All did nothing. And Mistress Allaway, our teacher? She said I deserved it for throwin' myself at you. Teachers -- they claim to love children, and then they betray them. I cou'dna punish her, but others will pay her debt. Gaving: Her life aboard that ship was so unbearable, she felt death would be a relief Read more: http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=supernatural&episode=s12e13 It's a stupid script from the minds of BuckLemming, I think the intention in the writing is that Gavin HAD to be her escort on that ship to prevent her from being raped which is why she became a vengeful spirit. Link to comment
Katy M April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 9 hours ago, rue721 said: As far as I know, their plan to keep her from becoming a vengeful spirit was to rewrite the past, but STILL have her die tragically young and just as she was starting out her life and blah blah blah, only this time have her die with a man beside her (Gavin), since they assumed that that would at least keep her from being raped before the ship went down. I thought that plan was just awful, not least because it didn't involve actually trying to save her. It also still maintained a strong possibility for her becoming a vengeful spirit, because she would still die. The best insurance to her not becoming a vengeful spirit would be to have her not die and not have the chance to become a spirit at all. Anyway, regardless, their plan seemed like a lose-lose for everybody. They weren't rewriting the past. They were putting the past back to how it was supposed to be. Pulling Gavin to the future is what rewrote the past. And, you can't keep her from dying. She's going to die at some point anyway. This was the 1700s. So, yes, she was more likely to be raped without a man to protect her. 2 Link to comment
rue721 April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 11 minutes ago, Katy M said: They weren't rewriting the past. They were putting the past back to how it was supposed to be. Pulling Gavin to the future is what rewrote the past. And, you can't keep her from dying. She's going to die at some point anyway. This was the 1700s. So, yes, she was more likely to be raped without a man to protect her. We don't know that any given timeline is how it's "supposed to be." For all we know, Gavin was "supposed" to travel into the future and have ten kids and become president, and all that is ruined now because he went back in time again. There's no way to know what the "one true fate" for anyone or everyone is supposed to be. 8 hours ago, catrox14 said: It's a stupid script from the minds of BuckLemming, I think the intention in the writing is that Gavin HAD to be her escort on that ship to prevent her from being raped which is why she became a vengeful spirit. I agree that that was the intention, I just think the idea is bullshit. If nothing else, these were terrible people on that ship, and Gavin is in no way a hard target, and he's very passive. Maybe things would have gone down differently with him there, but I have a hard time believing they would have gone WELL. Link to comment
Katy M April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 Just now, rue721 said: We don't know that any given timeline is how it's "supposed to be." For all we know, Gavin was "supposed" to travel into the future and have ten kids and become president, and all that is ruined now because he went back in time again. There's no way to know what the "one true fate" for anyone or everyone is supposed to be. Yes, we do, because there's not supposed to be time travel. Up until season 7, Cas said it was impossible to change the past. And even after that, that's why the Titanic had to be resunk. 2 Link to comment
catrox14 April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 2 minutes ago, rue721 said: agree that that was the intention, I just think the idea is bullshit. If nothing else, these were terrible people on that ship, and Gavin is in no way a hard target, and he's very passive. Maybe things would have gone down differently with him there, but I have a hard time believing they would have gone WELL. I don't disagree that it is bullshit writing but it is what they wrote. It seemed to me you were debating that the characters were being cruel and thoughtless to Gavin and they should come up with something different.I was responding to that . There solution was to put Gavin back to where he should never have been removed. I guess it's more of I blame the writer for that dumb idea that the characters. I don't see it as the characters being cruel to Gavin. Link to comment
catrox14 April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 21 minutes ago, Katy M said: Yes, we do, because there's not supposed to be time travel. Up until season 7, Cas said it was impossible to change the past. And even after that, that's why the Titanic had to be resunk. To add to your point, in the episode in which Gavin is brought to the future ,Dean and Sam told Crowley he had to go back to his own time. Quote DEAN You get that he's got to go back, right? To his own time? CROWLEY If the lad goes back, his destiny is to board a ship bound for America. That ship went down in a storm. All hands were lost. He had one chance in this world to change his life. You want that to all end in tragedy? DEAN Well, I don't know what to tell you. Them's the rules. He goes back. SAM The lore all says the same thing -- you change any one thing in the past, the ripple effect impacts everything that follows. CROWLEY Please. No one bends the rules like you two bend the rules. He's one misfit kid. He impacts no one. SAM You don't bend that rule, okay? You don't. We'll take him back to the bunker, figure out the spell. That's the way it's got to be. CROWLEY Can I at least say goodbye? I'll cheer the day when the last trace of humanity leaves me. Feelings. IMO, this episode was meant to setup further rancor between Rowena and Crowley and get Gavin out of the show. Sam and Dean should have told Crowley when he showed up when Gavin called him, that he should be the one to set it right, since this whole thing is on Crowley's head for not returning Gavin to his timelineas he promised in 9.21. Link to comment
rue721 April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 42 minutes ago, Katy M said: Yes, we do, because there's not supposed to be time travel. Up until season 7, Cas said it was impossible to change the past. And even after that, that's why the Titanic had to be resunk. But there IS time travel, so timelines aren't static within the show's world like they are in ours. In a world with time travel there are going to be infinite possible timelines, and I don't see how any single one of them can be considered the definitively "correct" timeline. Gavin going back was a rewrite of the past into a different timeline than the one they were in during the decision-making process. The whole point of him going back was to create a new future timeline -- one that would apparently change who lived and who died in the past and the futrue. They weren't "fixing" a timeline, they were changing their timeline. 37 minutes ago, catrox14 said: I don't disagree that it is bullshit writing but it is what they wrote. It seemed to me you were debating that the characters were being cruel and thoughtless to Gavin and they should come up with something different.I was responding to that . There solution was to put Gavin back to where he should never have been removed. I guess it's more of I blame the writer for that dumb idea that the characters. I don't see it as the characters being cruel to Gavin. I thought the writing made the characters look lazy and callous to Gavin, but I also thought that Gavin was letting himself down by not fighting harder for himself or Fiona. Even if everyone else didn't give a shit, he needed to at least TRY to come up with a solution that would leave everyone (not just the three future victims) better off. His decision to abandon hope for himself and Fiona because it's a "happy ending" for them to be together in death or whatever frustrates me. It made me exasperated at Gavin. All that said, I didn't think it was a terribly written episode, especially considering who wrote it. I don't need to agree with every characters' every decision for me to consider it pretty good writing lol Link to comment
DittyDotDot April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 10 hours ago, rue721 said: I agree re Rowena's track record and also what her plan was...I think she also specifically made it impossible for Crowley to interfere. She literally froze him in his tracks. And she also made him feel very powerless, so even if he could possibly have done or could still do something, I think he believes that he can't (and so he hasn't). Well, I wasn't suggesting that Rowena's spell that sent Gavin to the past didn't work, I was just simply saying Gavin may have used the knowledge he procured in the present to change how the past played out AFTER the spell was cast. TBH, I don't think Gavin was successful, but whether he was or not is actually immaterial to my point. All I'm saying is, maybe Gavin wasn't just simply going back to die. Maybe he truly thought he could fix things and fix other things too? Just because it was a long shot--a really, really long shot--doesn't mean he was giving up and throwing his life away. I mean, this is basically what Sam and Dean do with their own lives week in and week out. They don't know how it's going to turn out and, more often than not, they figure they'll be dead at the end of it, but not trying would be worse than being dead. It's unfortunate Gavin wasn't one of the leads so he could've beaten the odds like Sam and Dean usually do, but I don't think it was any different than Dean agreeing to be a soul bomb or Sam deciding to be the bait to trap the devil. I don't disagree with you the writing was bullshit, I just don't think Gavin was a big old chump in the deal is all. Well, no more a chump than I thought Sam was being when he thought it was a good idea to let the devil possess him or Dean when he thought blowing himself and God's sister up was a good idea. 10 hours ago, rue721 said: I disagree -- the people in the present died because Fiona became a vengeful spirit. Not because Gavin wasn't in the past. So their goal was to keep Fiona from becoming a vengeful spirit. They had to save Fiona, but that didn't necessarily have anything to do with Gavin directly. Well, my understanding was Fiona didn't become a vengeful spirit in the original timeline and since the change was that Gavin wasn't there, I'd say it had a lot to do with Gavin directly. I don't know what Gavin did precisely--maybe he just hid Fiona, maybe he fought off the other guys--but apparently his presence on that boat was what changed things for Fiona. But, that's my big issue with the episode. No one should've been aware of the changes to the timeline in the present. Sam and Dean not only shouldn't have known about the deaths not happening in the present, but they shouldn't have known that Gavin was supposed to be on that ship in the first place. But, this is why time travel episodes drive me nuts! So, whatever. 1 Link to comment
rue721 April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 3 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said: All I'm saying is, maybe Gavin wasn't just simply going back to die. Maybe he truly thought he could fix things and fix other things too? Just because it was a long shot--a really, really long shot--doesn't mean he was giving up and throwing his life away. Mayyyyyyybe Gavin wasn't just simply going back to die, but literally all the characters, including Gavin, framed the plan as him going back to die (with Fiona). So while I can accept that you have a fanwank that he held out some hope for himself and Fiona, even if it was a small hope, I don't think the actual episode gives much support to that reading. 5 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said: Well, my understanding was Fiona didn't become a vengeful spirit in the original timeline and since the change was that Gavin wasn't there There's no way that they could know this, because just because they didn't know of her being a vengeful spirit in other timelines (which by definition they should know nothing about) doesn't mean she wasn't. They had the theory that if Gavin were on the boat with her, that things would go well enough for her that she'd be at peace when they died. How strong that theory was is debatable, but in any case, it was just a theory. Link to comment
Katy M April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 39 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said: But, that's my big issue with the episode. No one should've been aware of the changes to the timeline in the present. Sam and Dean not only shouldn't have known about the deaths not happening in the present, but they shouldn't have known that Gavin was supposed to be on that ship in the first place. But, this is why time travel episodes drive me nuts! So, whatever. Yes, time travel is the worst. No show or movie ever accounts for all everything. And, it drives me crazy!!!! The only time travel movies I can stand are the Back to the Future ones because at least Doc Brown takes the ramifications seriously and lectures about not thinking fourth dimensionally. Link to comment
DittyDotDot April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 (edited) 45 minutes ago, rue721 said: Mayyyyyyybe Gavin wasn't just simply going back to die, but literally all the characters, including Gavin, framed the plan as him going back to die (with Fiona). So while I can accept that you have a fanwank that he held out some hope for himself and Fiona, even if it was a small hope, I don't think the actual episode gives much support to that reading. Again, I think you're still missing my whole point, I'm not holding out hope for Fiona and Gavin at all. Like I said, I'm pretty sure they did die on that ship. I have no illusions that Gavin was successful or that everything worked out for the best. What I thought we were discussing was whether Gavin was a defeatest fool or not. IMO, from Gavin's POV--not how other characters presented the situation, but putting myself in Gavin's shoes--I don't think he was simply going out to the forest to die. It certainly looks that way to the outsider, but I was only speaking to how Gavin may have been viewing it. I think he was probably viewing it the same way Sam did at the end of S5 or Dean did at the end of S11. 45 minutes ago, rue721 said: There's no way that they could know this, because just because they didn't know of her being a vengeful spirit in other timelines (which by definition they should know nothing about) doesn't mean she wasn't. They had the theory that if Gavin were on the boat with her, that things would go well enough for her that she'd be at peace when they died. How strong that theory was is debatable, but in any case, it was just a theory. Right, I agree with you they SHOULDN'T have known of the other timelines--read the paragraph below the one you quoted--but the episode specifically has them knowing of the alternate timelines. For whatever reason, Sam and Dean knew Fiona wasn't a vengeful spirit before Gavin was taken out of the past and they were aware she no longer was a vengeful spirit when he was returned to the past, so it wasn't just a theory they were working on. Edited April 6, 2017 by DittyDotDot 1 Link to comment
rue721 April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 (edited) 35 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said: IMO, from Gavin's POV--not how other characters presented the situation, but putting myself in Gavin's shoes--I don't think he was simply going out to the forest to die. It certainly looks that way to the outsider, but I was only speaking to how Gavin may have been viewing it. I think he was probably viewing it the same way Sam did at the end of S5 or Dean did at the end of S11. I am not missing your point. I am saying that from Gavin's POV, as that POV was presented in the actual episode, he WAS going back to die. The plan was for him to die with Fiona. I appreciate that in his shoes, YOU would have been going back with the idea that maybe there was still hope. That's fine. HE wasn't. He was martyring himself. 35 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said: Right, I agree with you they SHOULDN'T have known of the other timelines--read the paragraph below the one you quoted--but the episode specifically has them knowing of the alternate timelines. For whatever reason, Sam and Dean knew Fiona wasn't a vengeful spirit before Gavin was taken out of the past and they were aware she no longer was a vengeful spirit when he was returned to the past, so it wasn't just a theory they were working on. Yes, I read that paragraph, thank you. They had a theory that she (and Gavin and nobody else on the boat) would come back as vengeful spirits if she and Gavin died on the boat together. Then, at the end of the episode, their theory was proven correct by the lack of boat-related vengeful spirits. It was still a theory. There is no way for them to have known if there were any boat related vengeful spirits not only because they should not have known about other timelines, but because there is no way for them to know everything in ANY timeline (including whatever timeline they are currently in). She could have been ghosting it up for hundreds of years within their own timeline and they wouldn't necessarily have known about it, simply because they don't know about every ghost. ETA: and they surely had no idea what would happen to every other dead person on that boat once Gavin got added into that mix. Maybe they would produce a bunch of vengeful spirits out of Fiona's frustrated (potential) tormentors, who knows. ETA2: they were all going to have to gamble one way or another, since they couldn't know for sure what sending Gavin back would actually do until after they did it. That's why they were even checking the news stories at the end, as silly as that scene was. From a practical standpoint, I think they made a riskier and also less rewarding bet than they had to anyway. But their bet did pay off as much as it could have paid off, so I guess there's that. Edited April 6, 2017 by rue721 Link to comment
SueB April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 (edited) Time travel episodes and the show's apparent "lesson's learned" from the incident: 1) In the Beginning:- Purpose of travel: to CHANGE the past- Stated "lesson": the past can't be changed- Counter-indications: Libby Walsh WAS killed versus making a deal with YED -- so the past DID in fact change. Worse, we don't know if putting Mary in front of YED was in fact what caused her to be forced into a demon deal in the first place.- Later Season retcon data: a) The marriage of Mary and John Winchester was a high priority to get the two bloodlines together - it's possible the trip was REALLY to ensure YED saw Mary and the Angels manipulated the circumstances** while simultaneously drumming in "you can't change your destiny" to Dean b) Michael erased Mary and John's memories of Dean's appearance -- but Mary said "You!" in the nursery, so they DIDN'T erase her memory of the deal in the first place- mid-S12 (as of EP12.16 time) perspective: The Angels had no problem dicking with the past if it suits their purpose.**THIS IS A POSSIBLE TEMPORAL PARADOX EVENT WITH MAJOR IMPLICATIONS TO THE WORLD - it ENABLED the Angel-sponsored Apocalypse attempt 2) Future's End:- Purpose of travel: to go to the FUTURE so Dean would CHANGE the 'past' (which was the 'now' at the time of the episode)- Stated "lesson": the future isn't set in stone, they can change it- Counter-indications: Well, the big showdown DID happen in Detroit and the Croatoan virus WAS the big demon plan. However, Dean ultimately chose to work with Sam and change the 'past' differently than what the Angels wanted- Later Season retcon data: None.- mid-S12 perspective: Angels are still dicks. These events did not happen as of yet. Theories remain that it will STILL happen someday but they appear diminishing as time progresses. 3) The Song Remains the Same:- Purpose of travel: to CHANGE the past- Stated "lesson": you can't change destiny if the Angels don't want it- Counter-indications: None. The past was not changed. HOWEVER, this was the formation of "Team Free Will" -- who orchestrated the defeat of the Angel's apocalyptic plan.- Later Season retcon data: None. - Mid-S12 perspective: Angels are still dicks. Free Will still matters. No change.4) My Heart Will Go On:- Purpose of travel: CHANGE the past, get souls for Cas' 'war machine'- Stated "lesson": Do NOT dick with the past, it has unforeseen negative consequences. - Counter-indications: None. The past was corrected. The boys got to retain the "lesson" but that was it. It was an affirmation of the basic Sci-Fi trope, often associated with Star Trek and Back to the Future in pop-culture.- Later Season retcon data: None.- Mid-S12 perspective: Don't change a major event in the past. 5) Frontierland:- Purpose of travel: Get something USEFUL from the past that won't alter future events- Stated "lesson": This kind of Star Trek IV "Save the Whales" time travel is acceptable because events are so isolated that the natural flow of events BEFORE the time travel should not be disrupted.- Counter-indications: By actually killing the Phoenix themselves versus just sneak in for ashes, they CAUSED the Phoenix to get killed because Samuel Colt would not have been involved if they hadn't gone to get the gun. The implications are that Sam and Dean HAD to time-travel in order for the events, as they understood them, to occur.** Minor implications from the involvement of Western Union to deliver the package (thus invoking the Marty McFly letter manuever). - Later Season retcon data: None- Mid-S12 persepctive: A little tweek in the past that resulted in the timeline continuity being essentially unaffected is okay.** Temporal Paradox that has not yet been shown to have any impact 6) Time After Time: - Purpose of travel: Unintentional ride-along with a god of Time, invoked the Marty McFly letter maneuver to aid in returning - Stated "lesson": The Biff strategy was working (petty on games where Chronos already knew the outcomes) is a successful money making adventure. Also, this appears to be another one of these "Dean was MEANT to go there"** because Leila remembered him getting choked. - Later Season retcon data: None - Mid-S12 perspective: First, you can't really get out of time-travel when you have a time-travel god. Second, the Biff strategy works and the Marty McFly letter maneuver is a useful trick. ** Temporal Paradox that has not yet been shown to have any impact 7) As Time Goes By: - Purpose: To hide the MoL key from Abaddon - Stated "lesson": Don't dick with the past even if it screws your family's life over. Henry was did NOT go back, Sam and Dean were put on the Angel apocalypse path, and billions of lives were saved. - Later Season retcon data: None - Mid- S12 perspective: Add that soul/blood/angel feather spell into the tool bag but use CAREFULLY. 8) King of the Damned: - Purpose: Get leverage over Crowley - Stated "lesson": You shouldn't dick with time but Crowley did because the ship went down -- so saving Gavin was akin to "Star Trek IV: Save the Whales" in Crowley's mind.** - Later Season retcon data: Sam and Dean didn't hunt down Gavin because they figured it was a "Save the Whales" deal and Crowley was helpful in killing Abaddon.** - Mid-S12 perspective: Well, no 'good deed' goes unpunished. Saving Gavin created Vengeful Ghost Fiona and innocents die.** Temporal paradox was created, we don't know HOW Bobby got the intel of where Fergus was buried, didn't seem to affect the Bobby story that we know of. 9) The Vessel: - Pupose: Retrieve a "Hand of God" - Stated "lesson": It worked, although ultimately the "Hand of God" was of no value. Because the German ship had a hole punched into it, the Delphine's use of the Hand of God, which was done ONLY because she realized what was happening, LIKELY was influenced because Dean was there to provide a warning of what was going on. Delphine MIGHT have used it on her own. - Later Season retcon data: none - Mid-S12 perspective: Star Trek IV: Save the Whales is still a useful tool with carefully controlled circumstances 10) Family Feud: - Purpose: Restore the timeline so Fiona doesn't become a vengeful spirit - Stated "lesson": Star Trek IV: Save the Whales is not always a successful manuever** - Later Season retcon data: too early - Mid-S12 perspective: Time travel is VERY tricky. Even a "Star Trek IV: Save the Whales" maneuver can result in innocent deaths.** Temporal paradox of "King of the Damned" likely okay now Thus, from all of this, I believe that if Sam and Dean were to state their time-travel philosophy as of mid-S12 it would be: 1) Don't mess with the past in a major way 2) Even "Save the Whales" maneuvers are dicey SueB lessons learned note: If you demonstrate Time Travel as a story telling tool, you'll revisit that well many times over the course of a long-running series Edited April 6, 2017 by SueB 4 Link to comment
DittyDotDot April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 (edited) 24 minutes ago, rue721 said: I am not missing your point. I am saying that from Gavin's POV, as that POV was presented in the actual episode, he WAS going back to die. The plan was for him to die with Fiona. I appreciate that in his shoes, YOU would have been going back with the idea that maybe there was still hope. That's fine. HE wasn't. He was martyring himself. I don't think it was stated from Gavin's POV either way. That was my point. Your making an interpretation just like I did. 24 minutes ago, rue721 said: They had a theory that she (and Gavin and nobody else on the boat) would come back as vengeful spirits if she and Gavin died on the boat together. Then, at the end of the episode, their theory was proven correct by the lack of boat-related vengeful spirits. It was still a theory. There is no way for them to have known if there were any boat related vengeful spirits not only because they should not have known about other timelines, but because there is no way for them to know everything in ANY timeline (including whatever timeline they are currently in). She could have been ghosting it up for hundreds of years within their own timeline and they wouldn't necessarily have known about it, simply because they don't know about every ghost. As I said, they shouldn't have known, but the did. They knew that Gavin had been on that boat before he was plucked from the past. They specifically talk about it in the episode. That's how they knew Gavin had something to do with current deaths to begin with. Edited April 6, 2017 by DittyDotDot Link to comment
Katy M April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 (edited) @SueB I would add to your list, As Time Goes By. Henry came forward into the future to protect an object. Dean wouldn't allow him to go back in time and mess with the timeline. Now, I don't know what my point was, other than that I have less of a problem with future time travel than past time travel. So, maybe my point is the one I made earlier. You don't mess with the past. EVER! And also, in In the Beginning, the past had been changed when Dean went back, but it was changed to what it already was. As in, in the original timeline Dean had already had to have been there for all that to happen. So, in essence, he didn't actually change anything. Edited April 6, 2017 by Katy M Time travel induced headache. 1 Link to comment
rue721 April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 3 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said: As I said, they shouldn't have known, but the did. They knew that Gavin had been on that boat before he was plucked from the past. They specifically talk about it in the episode. That's how they knew Gavin had something to do with current deaths to begin with. They knew (inexplicably) that Gavin had been on the boat in an alternate timeline. But they didn't know the full consequences of him being on the boat (and whether the boat's sinking produced any vengeful spirits or not in that scenario), just like they didn't know the full consequences of him NOT being on the boat until 200+ years or whatever after it sunk and they finally discovered the haunting in the museum. They had to theorize on what the full consequences of him being on the boat would be. They were making a gamble. When they checked the news sources or obits or whatever they were checking online at the end of the episode, that was them checking on the outcome of their bet. 5 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said: I don't think it was stated from Gavin's POV either way. That was my point. Your making an interpretation just like I did. Well of course I'm making an interpretation, you're making an interpretation, we're all making interpretations. That's what makes discussion interesting :) I can't dig through the transcript at the moment, so can't pull specific dialogue, but I do think the episode was very clear about what the plan was and what GAVIN'S plan specifically was -- to join Fiona on the boat in order to act as a human shield against rape, and then to die with her when the boat sunk. That was the plan HE suggested and that Sam and Dean encouraged him to carry out, from what I remember. That's what the saccharine ending with Fiona and Gavin melding together in a brilliant glow was about, too, AFAIK. That's also what Rowena was referring to to Crowley when she said that Gavin wasn't like them, and then what she was referring to at the bus station when she talked about Crowley watching his son die. All of the characters, including Gavin, seemed to be on the same page as to what choice he was making, what his/their plan was, etc. If you think Gavin secretly had some other plan up his sleeve, that's fine. I do not think that interpretation is supported by anything in the episode, and actually is counter to Gavin's characterization within the episode (in that he apparently wasn't very devious and that he apparently had purely noble motives), although maybe you have backup evidence? Link to comment
SueB April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Katy M said: @SueB I would add to your list, As Time Goes By. Henry came forward into the future to protect an object. Dean wouldn't allow him to go back in time and mess with the timeline. Now, I don't know what my point was, other than that I have less of a problem with future time travel than past time travel. So, maybe my point is the one I made earlier. You don't mess with the past. EVER! And also, in In the Beginning, the past had been changed when Dean went back, but it was changed to what it already was. As in, in the original timeline Dean had already had to have been there for all that to happen. So, in essence, he didn't actually change anything. I had a premature posting moment. It happens. I've finished the list (see above). Edited April 6, 2017 by SueB Link to comment
DittyDotDot April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 3 hours ago, rue721 said: Well of course I'm making an interpretation, you're making an interpretation, we're all making interpretations. That's what makes discussion interesting :) And, that's all I was pointing out. IMO, you were stating you interpretation as fact and insisting any other was delusion fanwank. 1 Link to comment
rue721 April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 (edited) 46 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said: And, that's all I was pointing out. IMO, you were stating you interpretation as fact and insisting any other was delusion fanwank. I don't think it's delusional, but I do think the theory that Gavin wasn't planning to die with Fiona is fanwank. It's an explanation of Gavin's decisions and motivations that is not only not included in the episode but that is implicitly contradicted within the text of the episode. That doesn't make it wrong, but it does make it unsupported by canon and not itself canon IMO. I'm fine with bygones being bygones, but if we're going to discuss whether Gavin's decision to go back in time was defeatist or not, then we need to be speaking with the same premises in mind regarding what the choice to go back to the ship meant -- and if your premise is that he wasn't planning to actually die with Fiona on the ship, then that is a premise that I: 1. did not initially understand you were speaking from; and, 2. cannot agree with based on the text of the episode. YMMV. ETA: I don't want to fight. Please feel free to PM. Edited April 6, 2017 by rue721 Link to comment
catrox14 April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 5 minutes ago, rue721 said: I don't think it's delusional, but I do think the theory that Gavin wasn't planning to die with Fiona is fanwank. It's an explanation of Gavin's decisions and motivations that is not only not included in the episode but that is implicitly contradicted within the text of the episode. That doesn't make it wrong, but it does make it unsupported by canon and not itself canon IMO. I'm fine with bygones being bygones, but if we're going to discuss whether Gavin's decision to go back in time was defeatist or not, then we need to be speaking with the same premises in mind regarding what the choice to go back to the ship meant -- and if your premise is that he wasn't planning to actually die with Fiona on the ship, then that is a premise that I: 1. did not initially understand you were speaking from; and, 2. cannot agree with based on the text of the episode. YMMV. FWIW, I posted the various dialogue from both episodes if that helps the discussion. I look at it this way: Gavin and Fiona were fated to die on that ship in their shared timeline in the past. It's not as though this condemned Gavin to a new and worse fate than he had originally. It put him back to face the fate he was already destined to meet. It was Fiona's fate that was altered because Gavin was removed from his timeline and never put back . IMO, it wasn't was cruel or heartless of anyone to realize this was the solution, nor that Gavin was a fool nor miserable in his life here. I think he was a bit lonely and felt felt he was out of his time, but definitely NOT suicidal. Gavin didn't do this TO DIE, he did it to course correct Fiona's altered fate. YMMV 2 Link to comment
DittyDotDot April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, rue721 said: I don't think it's delusional, but I do think the theory that Gavin wasn't planning to die with Fiona is fanwank. It's an explanation of Gavin's decisions and motivations that is not only not included in the episode but that is implicitly contradicted within the text of the episode. That doesn't make it wrong, but it does make it unsupported by canon and not itself canon IMO. The only motivation that was explicitly stated in the episode, as I recall, was that Gavin wanted to spare Fiona from being a vengeful spirit. Anything other than that would be unsupported by canon and left up to interpretation. It's all fanwank, even your assessment that Gavin was a defeatist fool. 2 hours ago, rue721 said: I'm fine with bygones being bygones, but if we're going to discuss whether Gavin's decision to go back in time was defeatist or not, then we need to be speaking with the same premises in mind regarding what the choice to go back to the ship meant -- and if your premise is that he wasn't planning to actually die with Fiona on the ship, then that is a premise that I: 1. did not initially understand you were speaking from; and, 2. cannot agree with based on the text of the episode. YMMV. TBH, I have no idea what Gavin was planning or if he was planning anything at all. That's why I continually used the words "maybe" or "perhaps." I just don't think just because he decided to go back means he was totally throwing in the towel. I think it more likely that, while he realized death was the most-probable outcome, he still had a small glimmer of hope he'd figure a way to survive. And, IMO, that's what was conveyed on screen when Gavin says, "Hopefully this is all for the best." Edited April 6, 2017 by DittyDotDot Link to comment
MysteryGuest April 6, 2017 Share April 6, 2017 (edited) I'll have to watch the damn episode again, but I never felt there was any ambiguity about what Gavin and Fiona's fates were. They were both going to die when the ship sank, but Fiona would be spared the raping and abuse, and the people in the present day would be spared since she wouldn't go vengeful. I honestly didn't think that Gavin would even remember having been in the present, as that would be a bit cruel. I think they were just sent back to live out the lives they were intended to live, and unfortunately in their cases, they weren't going to have a long, happy life. Gavin seemed willing to accept this fate since he felt responsible for what happened to Fiona, he could save the people that she'd been killing, he wasn't really happy living in the present, and he could at least be together with Fiona in whatever afterlife he believed in. Edited April 6, 2017 by MysteryGuest 3 Link to comment
rue721 April 11, 2017 Share April 11, 2017 Brought from the Spoilers & Spec thread (no spoilers included): 18 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said: Actually, for me, it's an interesting reversal of the usual kids trying to grow up and leave the nest while the parents don't want to let go quite yet thing, because neither Sam or Dean really got to experience that "nest," but instead were pretty much thrown too much into a more grown up situation from the start. So they actually want to connect with their "Mom" emotionally for a bit to see what they had missed in terms of parental emotional support, but unfortunately Mary isn't equipped to give that to them, so she is trying to compensate by giving them a "good, safe life" even though in Sam and Dean's world that really doesn't exist anyway and probably isn't really what they want at the price it would cost. I agree with this. Although, I don't think they're even asking for anything as onerous as emotional support -- I think they just literally want to be around her, spend time with her. IMO that's why Dean sounded so bitter when he told her that he knew she didn't just want space, she wanted space *from them.* I think that Mary's quest to change their "world" is a sort of implicit criticism of Sam and Dean as they are, like they aren't the men she had hoped they would be or living the lives that she had hoped they would live, and this "no more monsters, no more hunting" quest is her attempt to change that (and change them). IMO Dean actually confronted her about that really early on when he told her he was actually proud of them and their work, and found it meaningful. But Mary didn't listen, and IMO that is undermining her relationship with them. I mean, with pretty much every decision she makes, she is making it clear that she can't love them as they are. Which is fair enough, in that I guess she really can't. But that isn't doing much for their relationship, lol. Mary needs to live her own life, move on from the past, and all that, if she wants to heal. But given what her capabilities seem to be, IMO she probably can't do that if her sons stay in her life. They're always going to be a link to her past and a life she can't have...so right now, I'm figuring that Mary and her sons are ultimately going to be more or less estranged. I think that, ultimately, either she's not going to need to move on anymore for some reason (like she dies), or she's going to have to leave them behind in order to move on. Anyway, in terms of how all the SLs are fitting together right now -- I'm also having a hard time understanding how much of their decision to get tangled up with the BMOL is due to Mary's entanglement with the org and how much is what they would have been doing anyway, even if Mary weren't in the picture. 4 Link to comment
Katy M April 11, 2017 Share April 11, 2017 I've decided I think they did this season all backwards. I think the BMOLs should have just come due to the disappearing sun situation and then made nice to start with. Then, they could kidnap and torture Sam (if TPTBs think that was really necessary) round about now when they are turning on them. Or, and I like this idea better, Amara should have brought Mary back, but not sent Dean to the cemetery figuring they'd catch up later. That's really weak, but I'm sure the writers could figure out some reason that Dean wasn't sent there. Anyway, the BMOLs find her first and figure out who she is. They show her tons of proof of how her sons have turned out all evil. Freeing Lucifer, freeing the Darkness, Bank robbery spree. It's all there and can be twisted. Possibly Mary is even brought into the torture session while Sam is drugged and he manages to say something even further damaging to their rep. Mary then, mid-season starts working with the BMOLs and then comes to find out maybe they weren't being 100% truthful and she has to figure out what's real and what isn't, and blah blah blah. 5 Link to comment
rue721 April 11, 2017 Share April 11, 2017 28 minutes ago, Katy M said: I've decided I think they did this season all backwards. I think the BMOLs should have just come due to the disappearing sun situation and then made nice to start with. Then, they could kidnap and torture Sam (if TPTBs think that was really necessary) round about now when they are turning on them. Or, and I like this idea better, Amara should have brought Mary back, but not sent Dean to the cemetery figuring they'd catch up later. That's really weak, but I'm sure the writers could figure out some reason that Dean wasn't sent there. Anyway, the BMOLs find her first and figure out who she is. They show her tons of proof of how her sons have turned out all evil. Freeing Lucifer, freeing the Darkness, Bank robbery spree. It's all there and can be twisted. Possibly Mary is even brought into the torture session while Sam is drugged and he manages to say something even further damaging to their rep. Mary then, mid-season starts working with the BMOLs and then comes to find out maybe they weren't being 100% truthful and she has to figure out what's real and what isn't, and blah blah blah. You're right -- that would have been a fantastic SL. It would have made so much more sense for the BMOL to be kidnapping Sam *now* (if at all), not for them to do that in the very beginning and THEN have a long lull where they all make nice and then have ANOTHER turnabout where the BMOL go after the Winchesters again. Doing it in such a weird, circular way like they did is too Looney Tunes IMO. Like Sam and Dean are Bugs Bunny and the BMOL are Elmer Fudd. I think you're also right that it would have been interesting if Mary had allied with the BMOL first, before even meeting her sons. That would have made her torn loyalties, wariness, and willingness to drink the BMOL Kool Aid make at least a bit more sense IMO, and would have made a mission of "save her sons from becoming scumbags" make so much more sense, too. Wow, too bad! 3 Link to comment
rue721 April 11, 2017 Share April 11, 2017 39 minutes ago, Katy M said: They show her tons of proof of how her sons have turned out all evil. Freeing Lucifer, freeing the Darkness, Bank robbery spree. It's all there and can be twisted. Possibly Mary is even brought into the torture session while Sam is drugged and he manages to say something even further damaging to their rep. Giving another, plausible but very dark/sordid take on their lives would have been a really interesting route IMO...I loved it when Henriksen did it, so I'd love if the BMOL did it, too. Like if they actually were GOOD at the recruitment and propaganda, and if they actually had an interesting take on Sam and Dean (and on American monster hunting). I don't like the idea of Mary sitting in or even joining in on Sam's torture, though. That's just too disturbing. Hmm. Link to comment
Katy M April 11, 2017 Share April 11, 2017 5 minutes ago, rue721 said: I don't like the idea of Mary sitting in or even joining in on Sam's torture, though. That's just too disturbing. Hmm. Yeah, I didn't really mean for her to be joining in on the torture. Just knowing about it and coming in at the tail end. Maybe even being the one to get them to stop, but not for Sam, personally, just because torture is wrong in general. Then, Sam would have seen her, not known all that and thought she was actively involved. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.