Let’s Talk About Storytelling
Hi @ronon-dex thanks for your super polite reply to this post! I was initally going to respond in the post, but it sort of turned into this whole meta, so I thought I’d transfer it here.
You do realize that the hero's journey and narrative symmetry doesn't ACTUALLY end with the characters in the exact same place, right? It ends with them going back to "normal" but with things changed.
I'll give you a good example of the heroes journey and narrative symmetry: Frodo in lotr. He starts out living in hobbitton happy, but he wants to leave and see the world and go on an adventure. He does that, but spends most of his journey wanting to come home. Only when he returns home he is so irrevocably changed that he can't find happiness in his home anymore and needs to leave.
Another good example of storytelling from the lord of the rings: Aragorn starts out denying his family legacy, and hiding from his destiny as a ranger. His story arc is about learning to accept his destiny, and take responsibility to be king. In the end, he grows as a character and becomes king. Now would his story have been satisfying if he'd gone back to be a ranger?
Another example, this time of bad storytelling, is Jaime Lannister, specifically in the Game of Thrones TV show. He starts off completely devoted to Cercei, and it's shown to be an unhealthy relationship. His character arc is about branching out as a person and separating himself from his toxic relationship with his sister. In the end, he dies with his sister, the thing he'd been fighting against the entire show. This was widely regarded to be a poor ending for his character.
So why is Jaime’s ending bad, when Frodo’s is good? Well the difference here is chnage, and satisfaction of story arc.
The Frodo ending works because while Frodo is off on his journey, all he wants is to go home, and when he gets that, it's not something he can have anymore. There's change in that storyline, even if on the surface it seems like he's come full circle, things are DIFFERENT. The plot of the story had an effect. Is it a happy ending? No. It’s tragic, but it fits in with the themes of the story.
Jaime’s ending doesn’t fit because nothing changes, and it doesn’t make sense in the story. The mesage of his story wasn’t “nobody can change” it was “anyone can change”, then it was destroyed when he doesn’t. Jaime could have had a tragic ending that made narrative sence, but his ending did not.
So does Supernatural’s ending fit with the story of Supernatural? No. Sam and Dean aren’t the people they were when that was their ending, but they're shoved back into it like round pegs into square holes. Does it sort of fit? Sure. But poorly.
Sam's character arc throughout the show has been him learning not to deal in absolutes. He believes that he can either be a hunter and have Dean in his life, or have a family, but he learns that he can have both through Eileen. So for him to end up with the white picket fence, alone, without his connection to hunting and his brother is dissatisfying.
Dean's story arc was about him learning that he wasn't just "daddy's blunt instument". That he was his own person, had his own fate and could be happy. So to have him die young while hunting is dissatisfying.
Now aside from the characters' arcs being left in the dirt from the ending, you also have the overarching message of the show.
For multiple seasons the message of the show was about carving your own path making your own destiny. So how exactly does them deciding to go full circle make any sense? I suppose you could say that the overall message of the show is "you can't fight fate", except its explicitly not, considering they defeated literal God the episode before.
Finally, since most people seem to think our problem with the end is about destiel, let's make a more narratively satisfying conclusion without it, hm?
First of all, don't have Cas confess his love in episode 18. If you're not going to follow it up in any way, then you shouldn't bring it up in the first place.
Sam marries Eileen, and they have a kid or two. They don't stay in the bunker, but they stay close, maybe they move into Lebanon. They still hunt, because Sam finds satisfaction in it, but it's no longer the sole focus of their entire lives. He get’s a melding of the two worlds he always thought couldn’t meet.
Dean settles into the bunker, but starts taking online classes, maybe he starts working in the mechanic shop in town. Cas and Jack live with him, because even without romance they're still family. Dean hunts a lot less, but starts coordinating hunters from the bunker. On weekends, he visits Sam, Eileen and the kids. He does what he always wanted but never expected to do: grows old and happy, surrounded by family.
Now look me in the face and tell me that's less satisfying then "Dean dies in a random hunt, Sam gives up hunting and marries a faceless woman".
