Jack: Well, we have movie nights on Tuesdays. Dean usually picks. I've seen Lost Boys like 36 times.

— 14.16 'Don't Go into the Woods'

Over twenty damn years of seeing the Lost Boys script like this 😖 here's a nice one:

Bonus: Lost Boys, the first draft:

To say that someone has “gone down swinging” is usually intended as a compliment, suggesting that while he has failed, he has at least given his best shot -- unlike those who have “gone down looking,” who are viewed as having declined to make any attempt at all. In other words, whether one succeeds is less important than whether one has made a public display of effort in doing so. This mindset reaches beyond baseball, but how it functions may best be examined through examples from the sport. For instance, when star hitters Carlos Beltran, then of the New York Mets, and Ryan Howard of the Philadephia Phillies made the respective final outs for their teams in the 2006 and 2010 National League Championship Series by striking out looking, fans excoriated them: by not swinging, they hadn’t appeared to “go down fighting” or even to “try” at all, putting into question the players’ desire to win, their ability to madter pressure situations, and implicitly their masculinity (cf. Rhoden D1, Donnellon). Indeed, many appeared more upset that their stars hadn’t swung than their teams had been eliminated.

Of course, this ideology is as absurd as it is common. A batter gets no bonus for having swung at a third strike rather than having let it pass. While a player might be justly criticized for failing to swing at a pitch in the middle of the strike zone, swinging at pitches on its edges (as were the pitches to Beltran and Howard) is usually counterproductive. Ted Williams, perhaps the greatest hitter of all time, notes in his The Science of Hitting that:

A good hitter can hit a pitch that’s [directly] over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot. . . . [M]ore often than not, you hit a bad pitch in a tough spot and nothing happens. Nothing. And when you start fishing for the pitch that’s an inch off the plate, the pitcher -- if he’s smart -- will put the next one two inches off. Then three. And before you know it you’re making fifty outs a year on pitches you never should have swung at. (25).

Granted, if one does not swing, one has no chance to get a hit -- but if one does swing, the pitch cannot be called a ball, and the player cannot draw a walk. For a pitch on the edges of the strike zone -- where, given the inherent margin of error and subjectivity of the umpires’ calls, it might be ruled either a ball or a strike -- the batter’s swinging and either putting a weakly hit ball in play or missing it entirely may well lead to a worse result than letting the pitch pass. The aforementioned Ryan Howard exemplified this all too well a year after his season-ending 2010 strikeout when he made the Phillies’ final out in the 2011 playoffs by flailing at another tough pitch, subsequently not only hitting an easily fieldable ground ball but tearing his Achilles tendon while dashing out of the batter’s box. “Going down looking,” then, is not a failure to “give it your best shot,” as many claim, because letting the pitch go may well be the hitter’s “best shot.”

Those who adhere to the ideology of “going down swinging,” however, refuse to acknowledge this. They also grant too little rhetorical respect to “drawing a walk,” even though a walk is clearly more valuable than a strikeout of any kind. The walk appears to them an undeserved reward, gained by good fortune and evasion rather than by honest effort. For instance, when a federal judge declared a mistrial in the initial perjury case of alleged steroid-user Roger Clemens, headline writers exploited the obvious pun by writing that Clemens had “walked” (Keidel). This wordplay was not intended to credit Clemens -- indeed, most showed nothing but contempt for him -- but to suggest that the pitching legend had not deserved the positive outcome he’d receieved. Had he “gone down swinging,” with an impassioned, heartfelt denial of the charges instead of relying on strategic stonewalling and legal manueuvering, he might have garnered more respect.

The movie "The Thing" is incredibly gruesome. I watched it with my hands over my eyes most of the time. There were definitely some tentacle-y looking things though that I saw through my fingers. Mostly, though, it's one of those movies where you don't know who to trust and who is your friend, regardless of whether or not they look like your friend.

I've only watched a couple of episodes this season so I don't really know what's going on, but this theory would go right along with what happened in the movie "The Thing". In that film we were left with two guys who were unsure if either of them was a 'thing' or was who they appeared to be. They just had to sit there looking at each other and freezing to death...or not, depending on the true identity.

Ohhhh, that is interesting. I don’t know the original movie *hides* But the theme ans the movie then, I guess mostly was meant to parallel the main story of the episode in which we had a Goddess appearing disguised in human form. Then again, it would also nicely mirror the storyline playing out with Aesmodeus and Gabriel. Super curious to watch the movie now. Sounds gruesome though. :)

-----

michellethetvaddict replied to your photoset  “13x17 “The Thing” To be Gabriel or not to be Gabriel that is the...”

I love everything about this theory and fully support it. I'd be super surprised, though, if Dabb & Co. came up with this. *fingers crossed*            

Aww thank you dear! I don’t think this is actually in the cards to be the case, but it was fun thinking out of the box for a bit. :)

-----

awed-frog replied to your photoset  “13x17 “The Thing” To be Gabriel or not to be Gabriel that is the...”

I love this theory, and I'm sold on the Gabriel!Michael theory, but if that's what happened, I'd rather the guy in the Bunker was actually Michael, and also the only one who can defeat the other Michael. If so, Dean would have to talk our Michael into possessing him so that he (Dean) has enough juice to off AU!Michael. That scenario would mean Jack is out, of course, but then again, can he really stay around as an all-powerful character? That's always trick to write.  

That is what I would like most as well, if Dean agreed to possession with Michael without any blackmail or such kind wold be involved. And I would like it if then Michael and Dean would defeat AU!Michael together. Who knows maybe then Jack will have to go against his father and kill him. It’s either Jack against AU!Michael or Michael!Dean against Lucifer. Or it’s is something thrown together or something COMPLETELY different lol.

----

trainedunprofessional replied to your photoset  “13x17 “The Thing” To be Gabriel or not to be Gabriel that is the...”

This is complicated to me because I've only seen the Scooby ep lately, but I *think* I followed most of it. I'm wondering about vessel consent issues though...and how that would work with both Asmodeus & Michael in the same vessel. Or is Asmodeus still an angel, just fallen...? I can't remember...          

I think I probably didn’t make it clear enough in that crazy ramble. :) Basically I don’t think Aesmodeus would be in the same vessel as Michael. We have seen him shapeshift and I think he would have simply disguised himself as Gabriel and Gabriel/Michael the other way around - as we know and with that any other archangel as well - could disguise himself as well. Or he wouldn’t have to, as he would have simply not been n the room any longer. But I have truly been writing out a ton of crazy here so you would likely find “plotholes” in the theor here and there. :)

----

stopmakingfaces replied to your photoset  “13x17 “The Thing” To be Gabriel or not to be Gabriel that is the...”

Very interesting read, I like it.  My only quibble is whether Asmodeus is the long con kind of player.  I had thought the sewn mouth was to a) keep the angel trapped b) keep him silent since Gabriel is the Herald I always wondered if he had special (but undeclared) vocal spells.                    

The title was fitting, because I've always thought the characters in the movie Tombstone were really fake, too.  Like the dime novel version of the Wild West rather than the reality.  Totally agree with you saying the characters were "cardboard-y"...especially the ghoul guy.  Which I guess technically makes sense since he was a fake Western icon wearing the clothes but without the history.

only the original poster can appeal. if you've reblogged something that's flagged you can't do anything about it.

ok, good, that explains why the reblogs I found flagged in my archive have no appeal button available. 

@eiael-thinks​ nope, I haven't read the book. From what I understand, the movie and the book are pretty different from each other, so I'm just basing this on the movie. (I really like Kubrick films...though I do understand that he was an asshole to work for...and I know he most definitely did his own thing regardless of what anyone else said, so I totally believe they're different.)