A whole lot of people - pretty much all people, to a certain degree - repeat their mistakes and have trouble seeing/breaking out of destructive behavior.
And that's what makes this vicious cycle Sam and Dean are in *somewhat* plausible. But, again, it's almost rote now. What I'd like to see is an acknowledgment of the deception/lies/desperate codependency and an effort made to break it (on Dean's behalf at least). And even if it ends in failure (as it has at every previous turn) at least there's been a semblance of character growth. The fact is that the end result doesn't have to be different--i.e. the Winchesters will always put each other before all else, have major guilt issues and self-sacrifice (Sam), and lose their moral compasses when it comes to family (Dean)--but a story is about the struggle and effort, and that doesn't happen void of self-realization. Even in failure heroes are still heroes bec. they keep going even when they hate themselves, doubt themselves, think themselves weak. And that makes the victory earned. So, what I'm trying to say is that it's the nuances, the characterization turns, and the effort that matter even if the overall plot remains the same.
I want my needs met, and I'll demand that when I'm up to it, and if it's not what people in power want, I probably won't get it, but it doesn't mean my needs are any less valid or deserving....
I didn't say anything about validity of ideas/needs/wants of fandom nor was it my intention to imply that the writers were intentionally telling fandom to screw itself. I think we're very valid, and it's clear with the advent of social media that, as a whole, the SPN viewing audience is heard. However, I think there's a slight difference between being heard and being able to completely change the network writing process.
Subtext is one thing. I agree, it can easily be slid in pretty much anywhere. But what I was talking about was slotting large chunks of back story, past events, references to canon, specific incidents/conflicts that re-frame and contextualize the current story. The point I was trying to make was that I think there's just a lot of canon details 8 seasons in, and, for the casual viewer, holding all of those pieces simultaneously in order to makes sense of the current story is a lot to ask. I think instead of alienating/overwhelming viewers by becoming something akin to "Lost" (OK, I'm being dramatic but I hope you know what I'm getting at), TV executives look to sell as show that are a mix of things, one of which being accessible bec. they rely on not only keeping viewers but attracting more.
it really feels like that's not that much of a significant problem
An interesting SPN example of network "input" (back in the Dawn O. days) was Bela Talbot. Her character was network driven, not showrunner/writer derived. Kripke admitted in later interviews that the network wanted a greater female presence in the show and someone to balance out Ruby's entrance. I always found it curious that Bela never really worked out on screen due to really poor execution even though, I think, on paper she had the trappings of a great character. I've always wondered why that was. I'm a great believer that the best things happen organically (like tying angles into the mytharc even though in S3 Kripke was vehemently denying heaven/angels/anything other than scrappy hunters battling the supernatural) and can't be forced. :)
no subject
And that's what makes this vicious cycle Sam and Dean are in *somewhat* plausible. But, again, it's almost rote now. What I'd like to see is an acknowledgment of the deception/lies/desperate codependency and an effort made to break it (on Dean's behalf at least). And even if it ends in failure (as it has at every previous turn) at least there's been a semblance of character growth. The fact is that the end result doesn't have to be different--i.e. the Winchesters will always put each other before all else, have major guilt issues and self-sacrifice (Sam), and lose their moral compasses when it comes to family (Dean)--but a story is about the struggle and effort, and that doesn't happen void of self-realization. Even in failure heroes are still heroes bec. they keep going even when they hate themselves, doubt themselves, think themselves weak. And that makes the victory earned. So, what I'm trying to say is that it's the nuances, the characterization turns, and the effort that matter even if the overall plot remains the same.
I want my needs met, and I'll demand that when I'm up to it, and if it's not what people in power want, I probably won't get it, but it doesn't mean my needs are any less valid or deserving....
I didn't say anything about validity of ideas/needs/wants of fandom nor was it my intention to imply that the writers were intentionally telling fandom to screw itself. I think we're very valid, and it's clear with the advent of social media that, as a whole, the SPN viewing audience is heard. However, I think there's a slight difference between being heard and being able to completely change the network writing process.
Subtext is one thing. I agree, it can easily be slid in pretty much anywhere. But what I was talking about was slotting large chunks of back story, past events, references to canon, specific incidents/conflicts that re-frame and contextualize the current story. The point I was trying to make was that I think there's just a lot of canon details 8 seasons in, and, for the casual viewer, holding all of those pieces simultaneously in order to makes sense of the current story is a lot to ask. I think instead of alienating/overwhelming viewers by becoming something akin to "Lost" (OK, I'm being dramatic but I hope you know what I'm getting at), TV executives look to sell as show that are a mix of things, one of which being accessible bec. they rely on not only keeping viewers but attracting more.
it really feels like that's not that much of a significant problem
You might find this an interesting read. :)
An interesting SPN example of network "input" (back in the Dawn O. days) was Bela Talbot. Her character was network driven, not showrunner/writer derived. Kripke admitted in later interviews that the network wanted a greater female presence in the show and someone to balance out Ruby's entrance. I always found it curious that Bela never really worked out on screen due to really poor execution even though, I think, on paper she had the trappings of a great character. I've always wondered why that was. I'm a great believer that the best things happen organically (like tying angles into the mytharc even though in S3 Kripke was vehemently denying heaven/angels/anything other than scrappy hunters battling the supernatural) and can't be forced. :)