My question is how many people are just tired at this point, you know? Going through another round of the versus wars of S4 (with extra ammunition now for the Sam-hating side, whether it was what he was saying or not) just to wait for them to "fix" what Carver re-broke is exhausting lol. And, for me at least, the difference between this and S4/5 is that at least back then you could feel how palpable the love was, even under the darkest circumstances. Now, maybe it's the writing, maybe the actors are more bored, maybe I just am, but I don't even feel like Sam likes Dean. Does he care about the Mark of Cain that is branded on to Dean's arm? That seems like something that should be cared about, and the nonchalance is disconcerting.
Also, I take issue massive issue with the line about Dean only being willing to sacrifice if he doesn't get hurt, because we know (and Sam knows) that's bullshit. That line reminds me of Dean randomly blaming Sam for having no soul, so I'll let it slide on writer fuckery lol
( ... )
On another note, did you read the Fangasm review of the episode? I think it articulated really well why it's okay that people are upset about the change in dynamic between them (and there will be a change -- the writer of this episode retweeted an anti-codependency tweet from one of the Destiel crowd lol)
I've seen the fangasm review recced, but I haven't read it yet. I've been SO wary of reading reviews because I'm not sure how even handed it will be. I like anything that sees both sides. But if it's about being annoyed and upset with the show then I'm worried it will make me feel even worse that I'm not exactly upset by the turn of events. I mean - I COULD be. In fact, I could be absolutely devastated. If this is not about ultimately building a better relationship I will be totally devastated. If this ends up being a shout out to destiel fans (because now that Dean feels that Sam doesn't love him he might turn to Cas because will tell him what he did was actually right and Sam will be further discredited and it will be absolutely horrible. Dammit. First time in all the discussions I'm actually feeling depressed about this).
I don't mind them exploring the co-dependency between them. I WILL mind if it's about tearing it all down so that there's nothing left but an empty partnership. Doing ridiculous things to save
( ... )
Oh no, the Fangasm ladies love the bros and the show, so it's not negative like that. I had just been trying to articulate why I felt sad about what could be changing (even if it's for the better) and they did it in terms that made me feel better in an "I'm not alone and I shouldn't feel bad!" way. That make sense? Lots of love there.
The thing is that Dean has a hard time hearing what Sam says unless Sam says what he wants to hear. Way back in season one in Salvation (I think) Sam talked about how once it was over and they got the "Thing that killed Mom and Jess" (because at the time Sam and Dean didn't know what had killed them)that he was relieved and could go back to school and his life. Dean got all hurt and felt rejected even though Sam told him that he didn't want Dean out of his life, that they were brothers and that they could still have a relationship. Yes, it would be a more normal sibling relationship where they call each other once a week, and see each other on birthdays and holidays and sometimes take vacations together, but it would be a relationship. But all Dean heard was that Sam was rejecting him.
I don't really get the "contrived" objection. Of course the situation was set up to put certain stressors on Dean in order to explore certain themes and character stuff, but that's what writing does. And though I think the execution has not been optimal, I don't think the themes weren't themes of the show or that the character traits of Dean that went into that decision weren't long-established and very legitimate avenues for exploration. So "but he had to do it or Sam would die and the show would be over" is to me a particularly pointless crossing of Watson and Doyle wires. Dean still made a free-will choice in universe, and it was one that was, to me at least, a consistent one with interesting implications.
My current thinking is that what Carver is doing is something more like a conscious remix. Maybe not the best choice for a continuator (though not necessarily a bad choice either -- I think it's very hard to go this long without repeating oneself, so one might as well do something with the repetition) and I definitely think the writing bench is weak, but I'm not sure that in the dialectic between Kripke and Carver I won't end up siding with Carver on some points. I think some of the rocks he's turning over were worth turning.
Fundamentally, though, I'm a Gamble girl. It's fine to see some of Kripke's family dysfunction obsession reexamined, but I'd be a lot more interested in a version of s9 that was exploring the things I think Gamble would have gotten out of it: Sam's body/self issues, Dean's dehumanizing identification of himself as a killer. Her seasons sucked on the pacing, way too much crammed into s6 and left dangling, way too little in s7 and left unresolved, but I think her take on the individual characters was fascinating.
This might sound harsh, but I really think that Gamble loved these characters as much as Kripke did, even with subtle yet real differences. I don't feel that love from Carver. I know it sounds stupid, but it's the magic ingredient for me and it's missing in this current storytelling.
I get the feeling that Carver may actually have looked at the dynamics and the characters and felt appalled. And part of me finds that very off-putting, but part of me gets why it would happen, though I think it does give a certain coldness.
Another reason I like Gamble so much is that I feel like Kripke had to idealize in order to love, and Gamble managed to have a fundamentally darker vision than he did without losing that connection. I think Carver's darker vision is fair enough, but he DID pay for it with a certain gut-level connection. Maybe just distance; if Gamble had come back after being away for years it might have been the same for her.
Oh YAY! Someone else who liked Gamble's years. What little I know is that Gamble lost control in late season six early season seven due to the belief that she wasn't handling the budget correctly. So I actually don't blame her as much as others do for the problems in season seven. Now Bob Singer, who took over part of the show runner responsibilities without ever putting himself on the line for the criticisms, him I have issues with.
Agreed re: Sera. She understood Sam and Dean very well and especially their darker parts. I often wonder how these last two seasons would have gone with her at the wheel.
I'm not upset about Sam's reaction to the MOC because Dean KNOWS Sam was inhabited by an angel that killed Kevin and is completely disinterested in the fact that part of Gadreel got left behind. This is not unilateral on Sam's part
( ... )
Also, I take issue massive issue with the line about Dean only being willing to sacrifice if he doesn't get hurt, because we know (and Sam knows) that's bullshit. That line reminds me of Dean randomly blaming Sam for having no soul, so I'll let it slide on writer fuckery lol ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I've seen the fangasm review recced, but I haven't read it yet. I've been SO wary of reading reviews because I'm not sure how even handed it will be. I like anything that sees both sides. But if it's about being annoyed and upset with the show then I'm worried it will make me feel even worse that I'm not exactly upset by the turn of events. I mean - I COULD be. In fact, I could be absolutely devastated. If this is not about ultimately building a better relationship I will be totally devastated. If this ends up being a shout out to destiel fans (because now that Dean feels that Sam doesn't love him he might turn to Cas because will tell him what he did was actually right and Sam will be further discredited and it will be absolutely horrible. Dammit. First time in all the discussions I'm actually feeling depressed about this).
I don't mind them exploring the co-dependency between them. I WILL mind if it's about tearing it all down so that there's nothing left but an empty partnership. Doing ridiculous things to save ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Fundamentally, though, I'm a Gamble girl. It's fine to see some of Kripke's family dysfunction obsession reexamined, but I'd be a lot more interested in a version of s9 that was exploring the things I think Gamble would have gotten out of it: Sam's body/self issues, Dean's dehumanizing identification of himself as a killer. Her seasons sucked on the pacing, way too much crammed into s6 and left dangling, way too little in s7 and left unresolved, but I think her take on the individual characters was fascinating.
Reply
Reply
Another reason I like Gamble so much is that I feel like Kripke had to idealize in order to love, and Gamble managed to have a fundamentally darker vision than he did without losing that connection. I think Carver's darker vision is fair enough, but he DID pay for it with a certain gut-level connection. Maybe just distance; if Gamble had come back after being away for years it might have been the same for her.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I often wonder how these last two seasons would have gone with her at the wheel.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment