THIS IS NOT PLATONIC. IT IS ROMANTIC. "TE AMO" IS NEVER PLATONIC LOVE. THAT'S "TE QUIERO."
Subtitles say "don't do this, Cas" in Spanish. Yet Dean's dubbing actor says "yo a ti, Cas." That's "& I you, Cas."
How could this have happened? Well.
It is RUMORED via solid leaks that Jensen did ADR for the phone call scene–aka had to record the sound of him crying later to cover something. This would likely have been covering a "me too."
Also, remember: the ep was originally titled "The Truth" & this changed to "Despair."
Seriously, the subtext of 15x18 is so blinding, & the dialogue & juxtaposition of actions is so blatant. The personification of Death squeezes Dean's heart & taunts him to give in & die, & the man he loves saves him. Both silencing Dean & killing him after this... UNREAL.
HOW DO YOU WATCH/READ THIS & THINK THAT DEAN DYING WAS ALWAYS MEANT TO BE THE ULTIMATE END GOAL, LET ALONE EVERYTHING ELSE THE SHOW PRESENTS
My brain breaks lol
"Don't you think it's finally time? Time for the sweet release of Death?"
The point is that it shouldn't have been
Like, hello
Dean is death-defying & rule-breaking all while constantly struggling to accept that he's worth being those things, & actual Death tries to tell him he isn't, & then the man he loves says "you ARE worth that & I love you," & then... DEAN FUCKING DIES ANYWAY?
Supernatural s15 hits iTunes. Sales are extremely low. Random fans go to look at it out of morbid curiosity, and they scroll down the episode list.
"Wait a second. Episode 21?" they say. "What's that?"
They click.
+
Black screen, with a voice:
"You know what people forget about writers?"
Scene opens.
It's Chuck sitting in a robe on a balcony. He's sipping wine in one hand, & in the other, he's reading a paperback book. Supernatural: The End. The cover is a gravestone that says “Winchester."
Chuck:
"We rarely tell people how far we've written ahead."
He finishes reading the last page & puts the book down in his lap calmly. He looks directly into the camera, raises his glass in a toast, & smirks.
Something fundamentally bothers me about people's repetitive insistence that heroic characters are incapable of retiring, as a way to defend death as being a logical ending for a story.
I think this has become a disturbing trend, & I think the message it sends is a bad one.
+
Heroism has or is quickly becoming synonymous with "selflessness to the point of destruction." A character is shown to be traumatized, burdened, struggling with suicidal ideation... & we are expected to NOT want to see them triumph rather than die or regress? Why?
This is not the deep or interesting concept people think it is. The idea of "a hero would never retire because they ALWAYS want to help" fundamentally forgets that humanizing a character is multifaceted & it includes these aspects: humans get tired, & there are many ways to help.