Lack of trust based on things you know of Carver from before this season? I guess I just don't know enough about either Carver or the season to tell the difference between "Benny was always going to fall off the wagon" and "they changed their minds about Benny drinking blood". And I don't know how we'd ever know the difference. How could that ever fit the definition of an asspull or a retcon? It's pure and simple something that hasn't happened yet. An asspull/retcon would be "he's been killing humans all this time" and even so, given his limited screentime, I'd still not be able to tell the difference--how are you able to differentiate?

Also we seem to be firmly in the "But what really happened over the hellatus? What's motivating the boys to act like this?" territory, in which the show has put us more than once before (soul-loss, hell-torturing, blood-drinking, Crowley-bonding), and I still don't know if there's more to the story or if this is all the explanation we get.

Unrelatedly, I think Show should GIVE THE FUCK UP and spell Cas right. Sheeit. The majority has spoken, and...hmm. Let me try it and see how it works.

I was staring at my TV wondering what a cass was, I thought we were just watching a promo for Supernatural.

I don't feel like explaining more than I have. If I have not been clear, I'm sorry for not having been clear.

I apologise--I missed the part about retcons. Not trusting them to right the boys correctly, and thinking there are retcons in the future of characters who don't even have continuity yet are pretty distinct to me.

I'm not sure why I'm all Carver-defensive, really. I was sad when he left for Being Human. I like his Supernatural work. But I don't feel I know shit about him as a showrunner or a plotter of half a season, much less a season.

But the reason it got my antennae up is that I see retcon used a lot to describe "plot turns that are wrong/I don't like" and I am grasping at decimated-style straws for definition of the term. If there is no continuity, there isn't a retroactive violation/contortion of same. And how can we possibly know what's an asspull 6 episodes in, when we barely have any information? I'm fairly certain this much has been plotted out without major input from fan reaction, so there's no reason to pull anything out of various orifices. It's just the story.

Things that pissed me off: Kearney, MO is about 30 minutes north of KC. Yes,there are some rednecks there, but it's basically almost a 'burb of KC. It is NOT the South with the sweet tea everywhere and Confederate flags. Although I am sure there are a few and it's a touch of redneck. But it's not SWIMMING in it!

Also, Smart!Sam SHOCKED that brother fought and killed brother in the Civil War? What the fuck EVER.

I liked Garth. The talking with his mouth open while he was eating was nast, though. And why the SWEET HELL was post-coital Sam wearing a T in bed? Any sane woman having sex with him would want that lovely torso on full display. No matter HOW quick and torrid the sex. NUH-UH.

Smart!Sam SHOCKED that brother fought and killed brother in the Civil War? What the fuck EVER.

Is that a big deal? I mean, it's clearly American history, but why couldn't a book smart person not know it? The show's writers were clearly writing like their audience didn't know.

Is that a big deal?

Going though American high school? Yeah. The Civil War is not my thing in history but the "brother fought brother on opposite sides" was always a big deal. I get they were info dumping but to me it was a noticeably off note that Sam was the one surprised to learn this tidbit.

I'd be surprised if anyone could have gotten through high school American History and not heard the phrase "brother against brother" in reference to the Civil War, although I suppose some people might not believe that was literally descriptive.

So, if it's that obvious a fact, how come the writers (presumably American) don't feel it's well known? Or are you saying that if you're bright (and law-oriented) you'd definitely know?

(He's the one that called Roanoke, so obviously he knows something about white people in funny clothes)

So, if it's that obvious a fact, how come the writers don't feel it's well known?

Honestly? I think the writers thought it was such a good, clever line that they had to shove it in the script. It's really well known.

(He's the one that called Roanoke, so obviously he knows something about white people in funny clothes)

Exactly. He's smart. Both of those dudes are.