All Episodes Talk: Saving People, Hunting Things

[gonzosgirrl]

Posting from The Thing thread just in case.

Anybody remember Taxi Driver? Sam decided on the spot that he was going through to Purgatory alone. He didn't really give Dean an option or an explanation beyond 'you know I have to do this alone', which was nonsense. He had to get the soul out of hell, but there was nothing stopping him having protection/backup to do it. He wasn't alone fighting the Hellhound, he is just the one who killed it. They both planned and captured Crowley to cure him. And if Dean had been stubborn and gone along anyway, they would've been stuck, because the plan went awry, as plans often do. So while it might have been frustrating for Dean, it was the right thing to do. And I don't recall anyone saying Sam was a dictator, or comparing him with John.

[Myrelle]

26 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

And I don't recall anyone saying Sam was a dictator, or comparing him with John.

Especially not the writers of that one.

[DittyDotDot]

41 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Posting from The Thing thread just in case.

Anybody remember Taxi Driver? Sam decided on the spot that he was going through to Purgatory alone. He didn't really give Dean an option or an explanation beyond 'you know I have to do this alone', which was nonsense. He had to get the soul out of hell, but there was nothing stopping him having protection/backup to do it. He wasn't alone fighting the Hellhound, he is just the one who killed it. They both planned and captured Crowley to cure him. And if Dean had been stubborn and gone along anyway, they would've been stuck, because the plan went awry, as plans often do. So while it might have been frustrating for Dean, it was the right thing to do. And I don't recall anyone saying Sam was a dictator, or comparing him with John.

Who is calling Dean a dictator or comparing him to John? Granted, I skimmed the last page of the thread, but before that it seemed most were saying that was a well-thought out and reasoned plan. The only part I thought was foolish was that he was rushing to open the rift and agreeing to everything Ketch said, because, that didn't seem very well thought out or reasoned.

[gonzosgirrl]

37 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Who is calling Dean a dictator or comparing him to John? Granted, I skimmed the last page of the thread, but before that it seemed most were saying that was a well-thought out and reasoned plan. The only part I thought was foolish was that he was rushing to open the rift and agreeing to everything Ketch said, because, that didn't seem very well thought out or reasoned.

Davy Perez, for one.

[AwesomO4000]

59 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Who is calling Dean a dictator or comparing him to John?

Well, I said that Dean's leaving Sam behind, while yes, it was a good idea, seemed like a way also for Dean to make sure that Sam seemed relatively safe. And that Dean took Ketch, because, as Dean said, he didn't have to worry about Ketch being killed - to me - seemed a bit reminiscent of John choosing to leave the boys behind in season 1 "because it's safer," but in reality one of the reasons John did it is because he could be a little more reckless without having to worry about someone he loved being there to potentially get hurt / tell him to be careful / etc. (And we know this was likely the case with John, because John looked like he'd been caught when Dean called him out on this very thing). And for me, this would also explain why Dean wouldn't mention Castiel or want to wait for him to get back before he went into the rift, because Castiel, too, is someone Dean sees as family and that he would need to worry about and who would in turn worry about Dean and maybe ask him to be careful.

That was my comparison of Dean to John in this situation. Both John and Dean would rather risk themselves or someone like Ketch on a potentially dangerous mission, but not someone they loved. So with Sam and Castiel in the bunker there as back up if something goes wrong, Dean is then freer to take more risks and potentially be a bit more reckless, because he doesn't have to worry about Sam or Cas either getting hurt by or objecting to any risky tactics he might want to take... with the added benefit that if it does go wrong, Sam and Castiel are there as back up... either to try to come save him if possible or to try to finish the mission.

So I did directly compare some of Dean's tactics and potential motivation here to John's in season 1 in respect to being reckless, but I didn't say or imply that Dean was being a dictator. I also said that that was my interpretation of Dean's actions - i.e. that because Dean was pointing out that he didn't care if Ketch got killed or not, it looked to me that some of Dean's motivation was leaning towards Dean feeling freer to be a bit more risky rather than just simply that it was the most tactical plan... Which it was a solid, tactical plan, but so would have been Dean having Sam stay behind and calling in Castiel to go with him. The difference, for me, is that one plan - the Ketch plan - also allows Dean to potentially take more risks than the one where he'd take Castiel or Sam along (depending on who stayed behind as back up).

But I also said that that was my interpretation and definitely not one that anyone else had to agree with.

Did that answer the question or confuse you even more? ; )

[SueB]

8 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

I agree that MoC Cas and Dean would have been an even fight, actually it was the one instance where Dean proved to have the superior physical strength. However, IMO Castiel’s intention was to restrain not beat on MOC Dean. 

 

My original post was to @gonzosgirrl whose post characterisated Castiel as a recurring physical abuser of Dean until he finally got his comeuppance when MOC Dean gave him a beating back. I was asking  when exactly did these frequent beatings of Dean occur. As far as I recall their fights have been. 

 

• The alley scene in Point of No Return (I already conceded Cas was wrong here) 

• The Crypt Scene in Goodbye Stranger (IMO its pretty gross to blame Cas for this, or see it as some sort of reflection of their relatjonship, since he’d been subjected to months of torture, brainwashing and conditioning prior to this) 

• The fight between MoC Dean and Cas in the bunker. This was actually a fight where Dean was the physically stronger one, but even if he hadn’t been IMO Cas’ aim was to restrain rather than gratuitously beat on Dean. 

 

Are there any significant Cas vs Dean scenes I’m missing which warrant this characterisation of him as Dean’s long term abuser?   Because IMO one scene eight seasons ago isn’t enough to deem it an abuser - victim dynamic. 

I don't see Cas-Dean as an abuser-victim dynamic.  But if you are looking for a beatdown reference, Cas under the 'rabid dog' spell beat the snot out of Dean and Dean wouldn't let him heal him because of some misguided "I deserved it" guilt. 

Generally, it's such a power mismatch, I don't think a fight between them is viable.  We've had more fights or physical damged inflicted between Dean and Sam with Dean doing more hitting than Sam. 

[catrox14]

Speaking of power imbalances, I've always wondered if in s4, Sam could have killed Dean with his mind if he tried.  I'm not being snarky either.

[Wayward Son]

26 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Speaking of power imbalances, I've always wondered if in s4, Sam could have killed Dean with his mind if he tried.  I'm not being snarky either.

I don’t think so? Did we ever see Sam exhibit control over anything other than demons? 

 

This isn’t an attempt to be snarky either. I honestly don’t remember him using his abilities on humans or non demonic supernatural creatures (vampires, werewolves etc). 

[catrox14]

21 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I don’t think so? Did we ever see Sam exhibit control over anything other than demons? 

 

This isn’t an attempt to be snarky either. I honestly don’t remember him using his abilities on humans or non demonic supernatural creatures (vampires, werewolves etc). 

It seems to me that he was basically able to kill a soul in essence by killing a demon, which is a twisted soul. Maybe he just didn't know he could do it? Or didn't consider it possible? I dunno.  

[Wayward Son]

1 hour ago, SueB said:

I don't see Cas-Dean as an abuser-victim dynamic.  But if you are looking for a beatdown reference, Cas under the 'rabid dog' spell beat the snot out of Dean and Dean wouldn't let him heal him because of some misguided "I deserved it" guilt. 

Generally, it's such a power mismatch, I don't think a fight between them is viable.  We've had more fights or physical damged inflicted between Dean and Sam with Dean doing more hitting than Sam. 

Ah yes I’d forgotten about the attack dog spell. Although I personally wouldn’t use it against Cas either since once again he was forced into it against his will. 

 

IMO I agree that it doesn’t show us a victim-abuser dynamic. I’d say if one wants to be cynical it shows Cas can be an unreliable ally as it is all too easy for external forces to use him against Dean. 

[companionenvy]

On the Dean-John comparison, I don't think that is automatically, always a horrible thing. While it is clear the boys' had a terribly damaging childhood, for which John is primarily to blame, John wasn't a monster. He loved his sons, and even some of his flaws are within the realm of sympathetic human behavior. I'd count his sense that he had to work alone because his worry for Sam and Dean stopped him from doing what he needed to do among those sympathetic flaws -- the mistake that brings him over the line into terrible dad territory was in straight-up disappearing and refusing to communicate at all with his sons. Dean isn't doing that; he's explaining himself to Sam, and Sam grudgingly accepts it. 

I also think it would take a lot more specific parallels before I'd call Dean making a unilateral decision "acting like John" in any meaningful way. Both Sam and Dean have gone beyond each other's backs, and both have at times given the other a version of the "Look, this is what we're going to do" conversation. The latter can be positive or negative, depending on circumstances, but it doesn't rise to the level of John, who was more commander than father during his sons' childhood and then tried to retain a chain of command structure that was no longer appropriate once they entered adulthood.

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, companionenvy said:

I also think it would take a lot more specific parallels before I'd call Dean making a unilateral decision "acting like John" in any meaningful way

They started this attempt to make Dean like John or rather a false equivalency,  in s12 when Sam yelled at Dean for how he was behaving towards Jack and that it was just like John.

Edited April 10, 2018 by catrox14

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, companionenvy said:

On the Dean-John comparison, I don't think that is automatically, always a horrible thing. While it is clear the boys' had a terribly damaging childhood, for which John is primarily to blame, John wasn't a monster. He loved his sons, and even some of his flaws are within the realm of sympathetic human behavior. I'd count his sense that he had to work alone because his worry for Sam and Dean stopped him from doing what he needed to do among those sympathetic flaws -- the mistake that brings him over the line into terrible dad territory was in straight-up disappearing and refusing to communicate at all with his sons. Dean isn't doing that; he's explaining himself to Sam, and Sam grudgingly accepts it. 

I also think it would take a lot more specific parallels before I'd call Dean making a unilateral decision "acting like John" in any meaningful way. Both Sam and Dean have gone beyond each other's backs, and both have at times given the other a version of the "Look, this is what we're going to do" conversation. The latter can be positive or negative, depending on circumstances, but it doesn't rise to the level of John, who was more commander than father during his sons' childhood and then tried to retain a chain of command structure that was no longer appropriate once they entered adulthood.

I agree with this.

I also wasn't meaning to infer that Dean was acting just like John either, so I hope it didn't come across that way. For example, I don't consider what Dean did in "The Thing" to be a unilateral decision like John generally made. I was referring to what I saw as Dean's motivations and actions in this case reminding me of John doing similar things in season 1. It's the somewhat reckless - to me - feeling to it, too that I'm seeing as similar. However I think that this is partly motivated by Mary being involved - and so unusual circumstances - whereas John was much more apt to act somewhat recklessly even on a more routine case... and also not explain himself and/or give a unilateral decision/command on top of that.

[SueB]

56 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

They started this attempt to make Dean like John or rather a false equivalency,  in s12 when Sam yelled at Dean for how he was behaving towards Jack and that it was just like John.

That was 13.4

[catrox14]

8 minutes ago, SueB said:

That was 13.4

Typo. I was intending early s13. Doesn't really change my point.

[DittyDotDot]

5 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Speaking of power imbalances, I've always wondered if in s4, Sam could have killed Dean with his mind if he tried.  I'm not being snarky either.

I'm not sure if he could've killed him with his mind, but I don't think he needed his hand of Ipec if he wanted to kill Dean. The demon blood had him all juiced up and created a power imbalance between them just with his fists, IMO.

[Katy M]

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 10:48 AM, catrox14 said:

I understood you are talking about s8 being different. I'm saying that in Lily Sunder my headcanon is that because of what happened with Lily Sunderrs kid the angels decided to not kill anymore nephelim since it turned out they killed an innocent human child , and another angel for no reason. So the angels  or Heaven just opted for ignoring nephilims or they really couldn't find them. The only reason Metatron went after the nepbilim in s8 was for his spell. IMO Castiel just didn't know about her or maybe that was the only living nephilim on Earth at that time.

I don't think they knew that they had killed an innocent child, though.  This was news to Cas in the present, so I'm not sure why other angels would have known.

As far as the Nephilim in Season 8, I'm not sure why Metatron knew about her, but I can believe nobody else did.  She wasn't doing anything to call attention to herself.  The angels didn't know that Lily Sunder's child wasn't a Nephilim (at least from outside of the house), and Cas didn't know the waitress was one until MEtatron told him (again, I don't know how he knew*), so per canon on both episodes, they are not readily identifiable to angels.  

Cas wasn't keen on killing her, but Cas has come a long way in just doing his own thing and not what he's supposed to. So, I'm not sure there's a retcon involved.

*Maybe Metatron was her father.  That would explain him knowing.

Edited April 14, 2018 by Katy M

[Katy M]

Quote

Why would he? He didn't have any reason to lie. I'm pretty sure back in s4 that Kripke's script was intending for Cas to be telling the truth about the angels.

I don't think that Cas necessarily had to mean that there was never one angel on earth for however long he said.  I think he mainly meant that this was the first time (in however long he said) that there were lots of angels on earth for an extended period.  I'm sure there were times when one or two angels came down for a mission here and there and that would not negate the spirit of what Cas meant.

I don't think he was lying.  I think what he said was confirme din the Song Remans the same when Uriel told Anna that they were under strict orders not to come down. Yet, there he was.  I won't get into the ridiculousness of reapers being angels, but obviously they would have been exempted. 

[AwesomO4000]

Brought over from the "Spoilers With Speculation" thread. No spoilers:

49 minutes ago, Castiels Cat said:

...The angels were a hierarchy all about following the plan.

All we know is that Zechariah was charged with getting Dean to say yes.  Since we do not see him pull out a bullet sheet of detailed instructions we have to assume that he made decisuons,as to how to get Dean how to say yes much as,we watched Cas make decisions as to how to teach Dean how to lead. Cas also did not receive a detailed bullet list of how to proceed.

We saw in great detail how Zachariah was.

We have very little information on Michael. All we know is the one episode with Matt Cohen and how he personally treated Dean despite the fact that Dean defied his role in heaven's plan.  In my opinion Michael behaved like a gentleman. 

Considering he might have killed every single person Dean cared about l, killed people in front of Dean for sport, had angels do any number of horrible things for funsies... 

I know people love to hate on him but I see no rationale for it and the evidence is circumstantial.

Zachariah deserves all the hate.  Raphael is despicable.  Lucifer is awful.  Peiole love Gabriel and he killed Dean gazillion times tortured and killed innocents for fun, is lazy and selfish...

Michael... a bit stiff.  Workaholic Maybe.  Too much into duty.  )_(

We didn't physically see Michael in "Point of No Return," but that was him in the beginning of the episode, talking to Zachariah and giving him a "second chance." The message Michael was giving Zach - that same message which casually killed the two people in the bar - was that he (Michael) was resurrecting Adam or that he wanted Adam resurrected. It wasn't Zachariah's idea. Michael gave it to him.

And based on the conversation Zach was having with the dead-man-walking business man, it didn't sound like Michael cared all that much how Zachariah got things done, only that he got results. In my opinion, that doesn't make Michael blameless. It just makes him someone who passes the buck to keep from getting his own hands dirty. Michael was either aware of Zach's tactics or he just didn't care enough to monitor him. Either way, Michael is responsible for Zach's tactics. In my opinion, just because Michael didn't do the torturing himself doesn't mean he isn't responsible. Since angels supposedly follow orders, Michael could've given instructions as to what Zachariah couldn't do, and we saw no repercussions for Zachariah torturing Sam and Dean (as early as "Sympathy for the Devil" - where Sam would've been dead if not for Castiel.), so I have to assume Michael didn't care if Zach used those kinds of tactics.

I hate on Michael, because I think he's awful. He had many chances to stop what was happening and he used every one to make sure they happened... even manipulating things when they weren't going in that direction to make sure they would. He wouldn't listen to Dean's very reasonable arguments to not let the apocalypse happen. In my opinion, "I was just following orders" is - in general - not an excuse used by good people to describe good actions.

As for Gabriel, I don't think he's all that lovable either: the Sam/Gabriel shipping is weird, in my opinion, considering how much Sam was traumatized by what Gabriel did in "Mystery Spot." However, I think Gabriel is more self aware at least. Even as he talks about just desserts, he knows he isn't the picture of virtue, nor does he strive to be. He considers himself a "rebel," and likes that status. I wouldn't call him good though. He's not much better than any of the other archangels and shows the same arrogance.

[SueB]

12 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Brought over from the "Spoilers With Speculation" thread. No spoilers:

We didn't physically see Michael in "Point of No Return," but that was him in the beginning of the episode, talking to Zachariah and giving him a "second chance." The message Michael was giving Zach - that same message which casually killed the two people in the bar - was that he (Michael) was resurrecting Adam or that he wanted Adam resurrected. It wasn't Zachariah's idea. Michael gave it to him.

And based on the conversation Zach was having with the dead-man-walking business man, it didn't sound like Michael cared all that much how Zachariah got things done, only that he got results. In my opinion, that doesn't make Michael blameless. It just makes him someone who passes the buck to keep from getting his own hands dirty. Michael was either aware of Zach's tactics or he just didn't care enough to monitor him. Either way, Michael is responsible for Zach's tactics. In my opinion, just because Michael didn't do the torturing himself doesn't mean he isn't responsible. Since angels supposedly follow orders, Michael could've given instructions as to what Zachariah couldn't do, and we saw no repercussions for Zachariah torturing Sam and Dean (as early as "Sympathy for the Devil" - where Sam would've been dead if not for Castiel.), so I have to assume Michael didn't care if Zach used those kinds of tactics.

I hate on Michael, because I think he's awful. He had many chances to stop what was happening and he used every one to make sure they happened... even manipulating things when they weren't going in that direction to make sure they would. He wouldn't listen to Dean's very reasonable arguments to not let the apocalypse happen. In my opinion, "I was just following orders" is - in general - not an excuse used by good people to describe good actions.

As for Gabriel, I don't think he's all that lovable either: the Sam/Gabriel shipping is weird, in my opinion, considering how much Sam was traumatized by what Gabriel did in "Mystery Spot." However, I think Gabriel is more self aware at least. Even as he talks about just desserts, he knows he isn't the picture of virtue, nor does he strive to be. He considers himself a "rebel," and likes that status. I wouldn't call him good though. He's not much better than any of the other archangels and shows the same arrogance.

Let's not forget how he creepily straightened Dean's jack as he eyed his future meat-suit.  Yeah, I'm not Team Michael.  

[Myrelle]

Spoiler

 

Well, redemption is being handed out right and left this season. And even Lucifer got his shot at it in S11 and if how Lucifer and Chuck described him in that same season is the truth, he could be a completely different character with a different outlook on things, if he returns. He might not even remember much.

But he's still an archangel and he would definitely discover that he had powers of some sort as he healed, if not sooner, and/or if they weren't made completely dormant from his time in the cage.

 

spoiler tagging just to be safe.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Myrelle

[ILoveReading]

From @Reganne in the bitter spoilers thread.  No spoilers in the post.

Quote

And that never would have happened if Sam wasn't born.  Yes, it isn't Sam's fault what happened, but the narrative of the series makes it clear that Dean had a happy family life with John and Mary prior to Sam's birth.  The reason why Mary died was because Azazel was there for Sam in the first place.  It's like in Changing Channels with the game show.  The question asked to Dean was "Would your mother and father still be alive if your brother was never born" and of course the correct answer to that was a big fat "YES".

It's been awhile since I watched Changing Channels but IIRC the question was asked in Japanese and Dean didn't even know what he was being asked and just said yes in the hopes of avoiding the ball buster. 

As for the Sam being born ruining Dean's childhood I disagree.

The blame for that lands on Mary and John,

Mary is a hunter who made a deal.  She should have taken precautions to protect her family.  As its now canon she never stopped hunting, its even worse that she didn't use never did this.

John parentified Dean and made him responsible for Sam and drilled it into him that only Sam matters.

As for Dean's childhood, we really don't know much about it.  I don't think it was a miserable existence like Max's but I don't think it was prefect, either.  Canon has told use it wasn't.

John and Mary didn't even like each other, Heaven forced them together to make sure Sam and Dean were born.   It's canon they fought and we know that John moved out.  Dean's role as care taker and peacemaker started long before Mary died.  Mary was lying to John and doing things behind his back. "It wasn't perfect until after she died."  Word Dean spoke. 

Also Dean's not the most reliable narrator as we've seen from ep 12.02 when he realized Mary didn't make all those meals he remembered having as a child.

So even if Sam was never born, there is no guarantee Mary and John wouldn't have split up permanently on Mary walked away bored of being a wife and a mother  Both scenarios are entirely plausible based on what canon told us.

But Canon has told us that Mary's deal was the best thing ever becasue if Sam and Dean handn't been born the the apocalypse would have happen. 

[Reganne]

24 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

From @Reganne in the bitter spoilers thread.  No spoilers in the post.

It's been awhile since I watched Changing Channels but IIRC the question was asked in Japanese and Dean didn't even know what he was being asked and just said yes in the hopes of avoiding the ball buster. 

As for the Sam being born ruining Dean's childhood I disagree.

The blame for that lands on Mary and John,

Mary is a hunter who made a deal.  She should have taken precautions to protect her family.  As its now canon she never stopped hunting, its even worse that she didn't use never did this.

John parentified Dean and made him responsible for Sam and drilled it into him that only Sam matters.

As for Dean's childhood, we really don't know much about it.  I don't think it was a miserable existence like Max's but I don't think it was prefect, either.  Canon has told use it wasn't.

John and Mary didn't even like each other, Heaven forced them together to make sure Sam and Dean were born.   It's canon they fought and we know that John moved out.  Dean's role as care taker and peacemaker started long before Mary died.  Mary was lying to John and doing things behind his back. "It wasn't perfect until after she died."  Word Dean spoke. 

Also Dean's not the most reliable narrator as we've seen from ep 12.02 when he realized Mary didn't make all those meals he remembered having as a child.

So even if Sam was never born, there is no guarantee Mary and John wouldn't have split up permanently on Mary walked away bored of being a wife and a mother  Both scenarios are entirely plausible based on what canon told us.

 

I figured Dean didn't know what he was saying in Changing Channels.  That doesn't change the fact that the show answered yes to the question about John and Mary still being alive if Sam wasn't born.  It was a question that was answered without a doubt.  Mary and John would still be alive if Sam wasn't born.

 

Even if John and Mary had split up at some point, Dean still would have had both of his parents to look after him and he wouldn't have been burdened with having to look after Sam if he didn't exist.  John wouldn't have been vengeful after a yellow eyed demon all his childhood either.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Reganne

[ILoveReading]

1 minute ago, Reganne said:

I figured Dean didn't know what he was saying in Changing Channels.  That doesn't change the fact that the show answered yes to the question about John and Mary still being alive if Sam wasn't born.  It was a question that was answered indefinitely.  Mary and John would still be alive if Sam wasn't born.

I didn't take it as the show trying to make a statement.  Gabriel was manipulating things.   He had an agenda of trying to get them to say yes to their respective arch angels.   Anything said/done in that episode IMO is part of that agenda. 

As for Mary and John, Billie;s death books show us this isn't true.  Mary could have been killed on a hunt leaving John and Dean behind and them never knowing what happened to her.  John could storm out of house and had a car accident.

[Reganne]

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

I didn't take it as the show trying to make a statement.  Gabriel was manipulating things.   He had an agenda of trying to get them to say yes to their respective arch angels.   Anything said/done in that episode IMO is part of that agenda. 

As for Mary and John, Billie;s death books show us this isn't true.  Mary could have been killed on a hunt leaving John and Dean behind and them never knowing what happened to her.  John could storm out of house and had a car accident.

This isn't the only time the show has said something similar.  Like with Demon Dean who said "I chose the King of Hell over you.  Maybe I was just...tired of babysitting you.  Or always having to yank your lame ass out of the fire, since...forever.  Or maybe it was the fact that my mother would still be alive if it wasn't for you.  That your very existence sucked the life out of my life."

 

Or Lisa who said "And long as he's in your life (referring to Sam) you're never going to be happy."

 

As far as them dying another way, it's possible but the possibilities are endless.  They could die when he's in his 20's, 30's etc.  He could have lived a full life with them both.  Or maybe one of them died and the other looked after Dean.  All and all though, at least that Dean wouldn't be burdened to give up his childhood to look after Sam if he didn't exist.

[mertensia]

10 hours ago, Reganne said:

I figured Dean didn't know what he was saying in Changing 

 

Even if John and Mary had split up at some point, Dean still would have had both of his parents to look after him and he wouldn't have been burdened with having to look after Sam if he didn't exist.

Actually you don't know that. I can see either-or, frankly, both- being all passive aggressive about just who Dean was supposed to be living with, etc. 

[Reganne]

1 minute ago, mertensia said:

Actually you don't know that. I can see either-or, frankly, both- being all passive aggressive about just who Dean was supposed to be living with, etc. 

I'm pretty sure, but yes it's all hypothetical.  However, there is far more of a chance that Dean would have had a better childhood if Sam wasn't born.

[ILoveReading]

8 minutes ago, Reganne said:

I'm pretty sure, but yes it's all hypothetical.  However, there is far more of a chance that Dean would have had a better childhood if Sam wasn't born.

Now that we know what Mary is really like, I don't agree. 

I fully believe she would have gotten bored and left at some point.

[Reganne]

2 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Now that we know what Mary is really like, I don't agree. 

I fully believe she would have gotten bored and left at some point.

Then hypothetically it would have been John and Dean without John feeling the need for hunting for revenge.

[AwesomO4000]

From the "Bitter Spoilers" thread. No spoilers:

6 hours ago, Castiels Cat said:

Nobody erased Dean's 40 years of hell memories nor did we get 2 seasons of plot involving it.  We got one bro talk, one episode with Alastair who Dean did not kill by the way and the rest was through Jensen's acting, changing Dean to show he had changed.  The show basically ignored it.  

There is no comparison between the treatment of how Dean was effected by his experience in Hell and how Sam was affected. 

Which isn't what I was saying in my post?

The post I was answering was asking how Sam could remember hell - with respect to seeing Lucifer's face - and still be functional.

My answer was that since the writers showed Dean coming back from his 40 years of hell experiences remembering them and still being functional, having Sam being semi-functional with his hell experiences was something I would expect from the writers.

I then explained why I thought Sam and Dean's hell experiences were different and how I imagined them to be different. With it basically boiling down to I imagine Dean's to be more brutal with torture all the time while Sam's I imagine were some physical torture but likely more mind games and psychological torture.

And as far as I've seen, Sam did not have his hell memories erased. I postulated that maybe Castiel muted them some, but Sam still has them. The witch in "Man's Best Friend With Benefits" (ugh) used one of Sam's hell memories to torment him. Sam also recognized his "vision" in early season 11 as being from the cage. So the show's evidence seems to be saying that Sam still has his hell memories in some form or another.

There was no mention of how long the story arc was or anything like that, but since you brought it up...

Not better addressing Dean's time in hell was just one of quite a few things that did not work for me about season 4. Some other things being too much time wasted on a red herring (the angels being killed) and not enough time showing Sam's Point of View to help us understand what was going on... and the POV we did see was either given a bit late or came out of left field and left me saying "huh?" ("Chris Angel..." was an awful episode in my opinion and the ending made little sense in terms of motivation.) And simultaneously mostly ignoring Dean's hell time while piling as much overkill of misery on Dean as possible was to me a weird choice. If you want to show Dean getting snowed under with misery, you've set up a perfectly good reason - hell - so why not use that rather than add on a bunch of other unnecessary crap too. Okay show I get it. Dean is suffering more than any human being ever. What is the point of most of this other crap - like Dean breaking the first seal - if your just going to end up dropping it later anyway? And the development leading up to the hell reveal was off too: did Dean remember right away? Or did he remember gradually? Or did the fear ghost (another awful episode) or Uriel do it? Who knows, because I couldn't tell. (Dean's behavior in "Lazurus Rising" didn't make sense to me if Dean remembered right away, so...) And lastly, the season was so relentlessly grim, there wasn't anything to distract me from those other problems I had.

[gonzosgirrl]

From spoiler thread

39 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

Lucifer already lost the manipulation battle with Sam before Dean and Cas showed up.  Sam didn't fall for his lies.   Dean and Cas had no chance against Lucifer.    Threatening to kill Dean was the only card Lucifer had left to play (at least until they broke canon and made it possible for angels to possess angels).  That was why Lucifer toyed with them.  Sam didn't say yes then either.  

When Sam went to talk to Lucifer it was to get information.  He and Dean wanted to know how Lucifer and the archangels helped God defeat Amara.  They had no intention to let Lucifer out.  Dean didn't answer the phone and the Duo wrote that time was running out, it was now or never so Sam went ahead with the plan.  I don't see how it was hubris.  Dean had already told Sam that he couldn't kill Amara.  He apologized for laying the burden on Sam.  So Sam stepped up and did the one thing that terrified him more than anything because he thought that was what God and Dean wanted him to do.  I never interpreted as anything but Sam and Dean trying whatever they could to save the world.

I'm not going to dispute  this, as I think it's shining the best possible light on how this episode played out and that's okay. But I don't recall the bolded in the episode. Granted, I was so freaking annoyed at the 'smiting sickness' (aka plotonium poisoning) sidelining Dean and no acknowledgment at all* of his returning to Hell that I may have missed something. But I don't recall any now or never explanation of why Sam couldn't wait for Dean.

 

*Except for the Jensen-added hesitation at the doorway

[Katy M]

18 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I'm not going to dispute  this, as I think it's shining the best possible light on how this episode played out and that's okay. But I don't recall the bolded in the episode. Granted, I was so freaking annoyed at the 'smiting sickness' (aka plotonium poisoning) sidelining Dean and no acknowledgment at all* of his returning to Hell that I may have missed something. But I don't recall any now or never explanation of why Sam couldn't wait for Dean., 

Rowena said it was now or never.  There was no explanation as to why, though.  If she had said, I found a spell to keep Lucifer contained, but it has to be performed at noon exactly 300 years after the date that Saint Patrick banished the snakes from Ireland, it would clearly have been malarkey, but Sam has always been ridiculously trusting of baddies that he's using, so would have at least made his actions understandable to the audience.

[Casseiopeia]

2 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

From spoiler thread

I'm not going to dispute  this, as I think it's shining the best possible light on how this episode played out and that's okay. But I don't recall the bolded in the episode. Granted, I was so freaking annoyed at the 'smiting sickness' (aka plotonium poisoning) sidelining Dean and no acknowledgment at all* of his returning to Hell that I may have missed something. But I don't recall any now or never explanation of why Sam couldn't wait for Dean.

 

*Except for the Jensen-added hesitation at the doorway

Rowena said that it was now or never.  No other explanation.  It was stupid and typical of their writing.  Their script called for Sam and Dean to end up in different places.  We the audience don't need to understand why they make the decisions they make, as long as character A ends up in scenario C.     Apparently that was all we needed to know.

[gonzosgirrl]

Thanks @Katy M and @Casseiopeia - I had forgotten Rowena said that. Now that you've pointed it out, I do remember wondering why Sam wouldn't question that kind of urgency when, as you say, there was no other explanation offered. Sigh.

[Etoile]

I think the reason why Sam goes without waiting for Dean and agrees to Rowena's urgency (that we know is manifactured because she wants Lucifer free) is to be found in these lines of dialogue (from the transcript of 11.09 at Wikipedia ). 

Quote

 

Rowena: You and your blood-thirsty brother say we’re partners in this holy war against Amara and yet [Rowena shows Sam her chained hands], trussed like a chicken.

Sam: You’re sitting there with the Book of the Damned and the means to read every word, and you think I’m going to set you free? Do I look crazy?

Rowena: Well, you do have unresolved issues with your domineering older brother and the abandonment by your father. 

 

Like we have been discussing in other places those are triggering words for Sam  and his desire to always prove himself. And if I remember correctly he reacts to those words in the actual scene although I'm not sure. Funny thing is the same happens in 13.20 and it spurs the kid's table comment from Sam. Gabriel tells Sam something about big brothers always knowing best when Dean goes after Loki alone. 

[devlin]

I personally think it would be an interesting exploration into the character of Sam to work through why in dreamscapes he has a pathological need for others to see him as more important and heroic than dean. For example in the last episode it was Mary thanking sam for saving her and that she knew he would come but she could barely remember dean’s name. He doesn’t normally exhibit this in real time, is it a subconscious need stemming from what he perceived johns treatment of the two of them?

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, devlin said:

I personally think it would be an interesting exploration into the character of Sam to work through why in dreamscapes he has a pathological need for others to see him as more important and heroic than dean. For example in the last episode it was Mary thanking sam for saving her and that she knew he would come but she could barely remember dean’s name. He doesn’t normally exhibit this in real time, is it a subconscious need stemming from what he perceived johns treatment of the two of them?

I'm curious why his dream had Mary calling Dean her little piglet. That actually really irritated me TBH. That's not actually much of a compliment.

[AwesomO4000]

Hee. I'm sorry, @catrox14, I don't mean to make light of your legitimate complaint. It just reminds me of one of my favorite scenes from "A Christmas Story"... "Mommy's little piggie!" (The mom was just so happy she got the picky kid to eat.)

[Katy M]

5 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I'm curious why his dream had Mary calling Dean her little piglet. That actually really irritated me TBH. That's not actually much of a compliment.

Maybe that's actually true and John had told them at some point in time.

[Aeryn13]

I thought the dream had that simplistic carricature way to depict Dean and Mary struggling to even remember he existed with the "oh, and Dean, yeah that other guy" did make me roll my eyes. 

Because I do agree. Despite the eye-rolling and bitch-facing in real life, Sam doesn`t treat Dean as such a super-loser as he does in his dreams. And the Mary thing may have come from his expressed jealousy in the grief episode. 

In reality, this dream is chumpy either way. Mary wouldn`t give a nice, warm speech to either of them.

[Katy M]

1 minute ago, Aeryn13 said:

I thought the dream had that simplistic carricature way to depict Dean and Mary struggling to even remember he existed with the "oh, and Dean, yeah that other guy" did make me roll my eyes. 

Because I do agree. Despite the eye-rolling and bitch-facing in real life, Sam doesn`t treat Dean as such a super-loser as he does in his dreams. And the Mary thing may have come from his expressed jealousy in the grief episode. 

In reality, this dream is chumpy either way. Mary wouldn`t give a nice, warm speech to either of them.

I think it all comes down to the inferiority complex Sam has always felt around Dean.

[belbar]

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

I think it all comes down to the inferiority complex Sam has always felt around Dean.

Bingo.

[SueB]

From spoilers... on something not remotely spoilerish

Quote

What Kripke said in hindsight is speculatory because he did not write it and the guy does not have a track record of stoccking to plans. REVOLUTION was whiplash inducing.  I think he is an idea mam who does not tbink very hard about things.

His original pitch was a rip off of the Night Stalker and I believe that the first script did not have a brother so the story was always a work in progress and the writers strike or the studio are always convenient scapegoats.  

Without Jensen Ackles or Kim Manners I seriously doubt the show would have been as I'm good as it became.  Jensen built the character of Dean far beyond the cardboard construct of bullet point characteristics imagined by Singer and Kripke and Manners had rare vision and a deep well of knowledge to draw upon.  And their contributes along with some good writing talent elevated the show to something quite special.

Kripke has a career because of it.  I doubt lightening will strike twice for him though although he did try to replicate Dean in Revolution with Monroe. 

Apparently he wrote a movie in production starting Cate Blanchett?!!  

I think we may not be having the same conversation... so I just want to clarify....

I THINK we are talking about how the Angels came to be (and the S5 Apocalypse story).  And yes, Kripke wrote that.  Specifically, he wrote "Lucifer Rising", which introduced the Angels and "God has work for you to do". "Sympathy For the Devil", which has Dean as Michael's vessel, and "Swan Song" (which was the culmination of S5 Apocalypse).  

 

So... I'm not sure what the disagreement is.  If you are saying Kripke is a lousy writer/showrunner/etc...   No problem.  Your opinion and all that.  If you are saying Kripke didn't come up with the S4/S5 Apocalypse, I think he was not only the show-runner at the time but personally penned the key episodes.  I don't think that's revisionist history on his part at all.  

Or am I confused on your point?

[Casseiopeia]

Quoting Castiels Cat 

What Kripke said in hindsight is speculatory because he did not write it and the guy does not have a track record of stoccking to plans. REVOLUTION was whiplash inducing.  I think he is an idea mam who does not tbink very hard about things.

His original pitch was a rip off of the Night Stalker and I believe that the first script did not have a brother so the story was always a work in progress and the writers strike or the studio are always convenient scapegoats." 

You are correct Kripke did not write it because the strike prohibited the original story from being written.  The writers were on strike.   These are well chronicled interviews with the producers, writers and staff.  Jensen recently brought it up at a convention.  The strike altered a lot of how Supernatural had been intended to be told from midseason 3 on.  

 

Yes in the beginning Kripke pitched a different script (pretty much an outline) to the WB.  They thought he had a good idea but they asked him to tweak it a little.  So he came back with ghost hunting brothers.  That is typically how a series comes to fruition.  A guy has an idea and a bunch of studio heads think there is something to it.  They bring in other people like David Nutter (who reached out to Jensen) and who directed and helped write the first script.   Auditions, more tweaking, directors, producers etc etc.  I'm going to assume this is how pretty much every new show gets started.  After the initial launch though from all accounts Kripke ran a pretty tight writers room and had complete creative control.  However you feel about him EK brought Supernatural to Warner Bros, it's his baby and it has been on the air for 13 seasons.  He must have done something right.

Revolution was a collaboration between Kripke and JJ Abrams in the beginning.  Kripke didn't have the same creative control that he had on SPN.  NBC kept bringing in more producers and writers as the ratings plummeted.  It was a great concept that was poorly cast (Charlie was even worse than Claire) and had too many cooks in the kitchen.  It wasn't sustainable.

NBC must have thought that EK had the talent to launch another show because he got Timeless on the air too.  It is actually a pretty good show but it suffers from poor time slots.  Monday at 10 pm didn't work.  And now it's on Sunday at 10 pm.  It's too bad because it really deserved a better night and time.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Casseiopeia

[catrox14]

2 hours ago, Castiels Cat said:

What Kripke said in hindsight is speculatory because he did not write it and the guy does not have a track record of stoccking to plans. REVOLUTION was whiplash inducing.  I think he is an idea mam who does not tbink very hard about things.

I'm sorry but this makes no sense. Kripke himself said what his intentions were. How can that possibly be speculatory when it came from the show creator and head writer and EP?  Just because he didn't write it, doesn't mean he didn't have the plan and everything changed. You don't have to believe him or those here that are supporting that he said it. You can read it right here for yourself.

Via SuperWiki

Quote

The strike finished on February 12th 2008 and four more episodes were filmed making a shortened season of sixteen episodes. 3.12 Jus in Bello - which introduced Lilith ended up airing after 3.11 Mystery Spot as a lead into another short break before the final four episodes for the season aired.

Kripke has discussed that the major effect on the plot arcs, was that the final episodes focused on the approach of Dean's deal deadline. Bela's story arc was also truncated. Kripke said of the main arc "We didn't have time to tell the story about Sam's powers and all that had to move to season 4. In the original versions we were thinking of before the strike, Sam was going to save Dean, and in typical Supernatural fashion, it was going to cost the boys dearly. But because we didn't have the time to develop Sam's powers there wasn't really anybody left to save Dean, so Dean had to go to Hell.

He continued; "Yes, we were going to save Dean, maybe even before the Season finale, but at the cost that Sam was now this fully operational dark force. Then Sam wants to make an assault on Lilith and he's working on his powers, and that's a big problem with Dean. So we get to end up roughly in the same place we were going to end up anyway, it's just instead of at the end of Season 3, it's later." (Source:Supernatural: Official Magazine Issue 8)

On March 3 2008, for the first time Supernatural's renewal for the next season was confirmed before the season ended.

http://www.supernaturalwiki.com/index.php?title=Supernatural:_Official_Magazine

[gonzosgirrl]

From the episode thread:

4 minutes ago, belbar said:

Editing has been terrible the last two seasons.  There have been real good performances totally wasted because of it. It's a shame. And weird too because aren't these people the same that do the vimeo promotional clips? those are great. I don't know what the deal is.

Nowhere was this a higher crime than in Regarding Dean. Breaking up Dean's mirror scene should've been a fire-able offense, IMO.

[BabySpinach]

5 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

From the episode thread:

Nowhere was this a higher crime than in Regarding Dean. Breaking up Dean's mirror scene should've been a fire-able offense, IMO.

Yeah, it totally kills what should have been a long, uncomfortable single take on Dean's crumbling mind. It also reminds me of 7x13 when Dean's first sex scene in forever was cut in between some poor guy getting tossed into a wall and getting his hands and feet cut off in spectacular gory fashion. What exactly were we supposed to take away from those two tonally opposite scenes being smashed together besides whiplash? Or is it punishment for daring to enjoy the eye candy?

[gonzosgirrl]

3 minutes ago, BabySpinach said:

Yeah, it totally kills what should have been a long, uncomfortable single take on Dean's crumbling mind.

Exhibit A.

[belbar]

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Nowhere was this a higher crime than in Regarding Dean. Breaking up Dean's mirror scene should've been a fire-able offense, IMO.

Totally agree.  Precisely I was thinking about that scene when writing my comment.

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Exhibit A.

It gets me every single time I watch it. Thank you.

[AwesomO4000]

8 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

It also reminds me of 7x13 when Dean's first sex scene in forever was cut in between some poor guy getting tossed into a wall and getting his hands and feet cut off in spectacular gory fashion. What exactly were we supposed to take away from those two tonally opposite scenes being smashed together besides whiplash? Or is it punishment for daring to enjoy the eye candy?

I actually thought that this editing had a purpose. Both of those women were Amazons. The "violence" of the sex foreshadowed the violence that awaited the men after they had sex with the Amazon. I remember at the time some fans thinking that the scene of actual violence should have maybe been even more violent in order to up the contrast, but I actually think the scenes were supposed to be parallels, somewhat foreshadowing what would happen and comparing the coldness of both acts on the part of the Amazon.

We didn't know at the time that the Amazons were just having sex because they were performing a function - for them it was clinical - just like the violence of what we find out later is the daughters killing the father is clinical... just something that had to be done to move on and become a real Amazon. For them, the sex and the violence were both a means to an end, so cutting the two scenes together foreshadowed that the sex was actually almost an act of violence... the Amazon having sex knew what would later happen to Dean because of it, and the exuberance of her "attack" in the bedroom paralleled the exuberance of the violence of the guy getting killed which is what she knew would be happening to Dean in a few days.

Or that was my interpretation of it anyway. Maybe someone else has a different interpretation or opinion.