Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: Hello, and welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind Listener Mail.
Speaker 2: My name is Joe McCormick. My regular co host Robert
Speaker 2: Lamb is out on the day that I'm recording this,
Speaker 2: so I'm going to be reading and responding to some
Speaker 2: listener messages solo today, but Rob should be back with
Speaker 2: me for tomorrow's episode. We read listener mail every Monday
Speaker 2: on Stuff to Blow Your Mind. And if you would
Speaker 2: like to get in touch but you've never done it before,
Speaker 2: why not give it a try. You can reach us
Speaker 2: at contact at Stuff to Blow your Mind dot com.
Speaker 2: That's contact at Stuff to Blow your Mind dot com.
Speaker 2: Any and all types of messages are welcome. If you
Speaker 2: have feedback on a recent episode, want to provide a
Speaker 2: correction or add your thoughts on something we discussed, if
Speaker 2: you'd like to share something random that you think we
Speaker 2: would find interesting, or if you want to suggest a
Speaker 2: topic for us to go in the future. Even if
Speaker 2: you just want to say hi, tell us about your
Speaker 2: experience listening to the show, Send it on in. It's
Speaker 2: contact at stuff to Blow your Mind dot com. Okay,
Speaker 2: I'm going to kick things off with some responses to
Speaker 2: our episodes on the Moons of Uranus. Let's see so.
Speaker 2: In that series on the Moons of Uranus, we talked
Speaker 2: about how difficult it is to come up with a
Speaker 2: visual representation of the Solar System that faithfully communicates the
Speaker 2: size of objects and the true scale of the distances
Speaker 2: between them while being comprehensible all at once. You can't
Speaker 2: really do it in say, a single page illustration in
Speaker 2: a book, but a number of listeners got in touch
Speaker 2: about various, often very clever ways people have tried to
Speaker 2: demonstrate the scale of the Solar System using videos or
Speaker 2: interactive media. So this message is from Shana. Shana says, Hello,
Speaker 2: Robin Joe. I'm currently listening to the Moons of Earnest
Speaker 2: part one. It felt the need to email this before
Speaker 2: I forgot. While there are no pictures that can show
Speaker 2: the true distance of planets in our Solar system, a
Speaker 2: few years ago some folks created a giant scale model
Speaker 2: in Nevada and created a short film about it. Here's
Speaker 2: the description directly directly from them quote. On a dry
Speaker 2: lake bed in Nevada, a group of friends built the
Speaker 2: first scale model of the Solar system with complete planetary orbits,
Speaker 2: a true illustration of our place in the universe. And
Speaker 2: if folks listening want to look this up. The video
Speaker 2: is called two Scale the Solar System and it's currently
Speaker 2: on YouTube, at least it was when I recorded this.
Speaker 2: Shana says, it's very cool and I think y'all would
Speaker 2: enjoy the video. Well, yes, thank you for sending this, Shana.
Speaker 2: I think this is totally a very excellent mini documentary.
Speaker 2: It's by a couple of filmmakers named Wiley Overstreet and
Speaker 2: Alex Garage, and it's definitely worth a look. So they
Speaker 2: stage this in a place called Black Rock Desert. Again,
Speaker 2: this is in sort of the northwest corner of the
Speaker 2: US state of Nevada, and in order to build a
Speaker 2: scale model of the Solar System with the Earth pegged
Speaker 2: to the size of a marble, they figure out that
Speaker 2: they need about seven miles of flat ground to represent
Speaker 2: the orbital plane of the Sun and all of its
Speaker 2: major planets. And they do this, as they say in
Speaker 2: the description, in a dry lake bed, measuring out the
Speaker 2: distances with what looks like surveying equipment and then marking
Speaker 2: the orbital pathways with tire tracks. So they're out there
Speaker 2: like driving a van around in these giant circles, around
Speaker 2: in the sand, and in line with our original point
Speaker 2: in the episode, it is shocking to see suddenly how
Speaker 2: far out they have to drive after Saturn. Of course,
Speaker 2: the distances increase as you go out from Earth in
Speaker 2: Mars to Jupiter and Saturn. After Saturn to mark the
Speaker 2: orbit of Uranus and then of Neptune, the distances are gargantuan,
Speaker 2: and in the end, the radius of the orbit of
Speaker 2: the little ball representing the planet Neptune is five point
Speaker 2: six kilometers or three point five miles, so the full
Speaker 2: diameter of the model is about seven miles and absolutely
Speaker 2: no disrespect at all to what they did here, which
Speaker 2: again is excellent, but I think it still sort of
Speaker 2: fails to capture both the scale of the distance and
Speaker 2: the scale of the objects all at once, because when
Speaker 2: you zoom out enough to see the full orbit of Neptune,
Speaker 2: the differences in size between the objects and the model
Speaker 2: become impossible to detect. In fact, they're impossible to zoomed
Speaker 2: much further in than that. They're all just points of
Speaker 2: light traveling around in ellipses in the distance. So I
Speaker 2: certainly don't think this is a failure on the part
Speaker 2: of the filmmakers. I suspect that there is just like
Speaker 2: literally no way to do this given the resolution human vision.
Speaker 2: Another message on this subject from Brian. Brian says, greetings,
Speaker 2: I recently enjoyed your Moons of Urines podcasts, and my
Speaker 2: memory was pricked by one of the comments you made
Speaker 2: during the first episode. You were talking about how difficult
Speaker 2: it is to accurately represent both size and distance for
Speaker 2: depictions of the Solar System. I've seen several videos of
Speaker 2: various attempts, and then I think he's referring to the
Speaker 2: one I just described with a beach ball sized Sun
Speaker 2: leading to a neptune multiple miles away. But there is
Speaker 2: one easy to access source that blew my mind, and
Speaker 2: for a brief description, Brian provides a link here. This
Speaker 2: is a website by a designer named Josh Wirth, and
Speaker 2: it's called If the Moon Were Only One Pixel, a
Speaker 2: tediously accurate map of the Solar System, and it begins
Speaker 2: with a sort of palm of the hand sized representation
Speaker 2: of the Sun and then to scroll a horizontal scroll
Speaker 2: through space at accurate scale distances until you reach accurate
Speaker 2: scale illustrations of the planets, and as the title indicates,
Speaker 2: Earth's moon is one pixel. If you actually do this,
Speaker 2: the amount of scrolling required is ludicrous. You will go plaid.
Speaker 2: Brian continues, this site does a fantastic job at really
Speaker 2: demonstrating the space between worlds. It's almost impossible to not
Speaker 2: fast click the scroll bar, even though you skip over
Speaker 2: some of the author's commentary, just because there is so
Speaker 2: much empty space. After scrolling and scrolling through endless amounts
Speaker 2: of space, you finally get to Jupiter and then look
Speaker 2: at the scroll bar and realize you've not even gone
Speaker 2: one quarter of the way through. This site goes out
Speaker 2: to Pluto for your reference. There are lots of informative,
Speaker 2: pithy and imaginative comments along the way, but I challenge
Speaker 2: anyone to just scroll using the aero button. You won't
Speaker 2: be able to do it. This site really slams home
Speaker 2: how much of space is well space. Even in our neighborhood,
Speaker 2: things are so far apart as to be unreachable, and
Speaker 2: that's just our solar system. The end of the scroll
Speaker 2: slaps you in the face with the fact that after
Speaker 2: all that, to get to the next checkpoint, meaning the
Speaker 2: next star, the closest star to our solar system, you'd
Speaker 2: need to repeat the entire scroll six seven hundred and
Speaker 2: seventy one more times. I'd highly encourage you to play
Speaker 2: around for a bit on this site. It's very instructive
Speaker 2: and fun. Brian, Thank you Brian once again. Yeah, I
Speaker 2: think this is an excellent model, but of course it
Speaker 2: still does not allow you to take it in all
Speaker 2: at once, which just might not be a thing humans
Speaker 2: can do. All right, Getting a little bit away from
Speaker 2: the scale question. Just to other topics raised in our
Speaker 2: Moons of Urinus series. This is from Jim. Jim says, Hi, guys,
Speaker 2: guy love the new series. Early in the episode, Joe
Speaker 2: was talking about planetary distances. I was curious if you've
Speaker 2: ever discussed the Titious Bode law. That spelled titi Us
Speaker 2: and then Bode is bode. I don't know if that's
Speaker 2: a bode or boda. I'm just gonna say bode, And
Speaker 2: Jim says, which is a mathematical formula that predicts planetary
Speaker 2: distances from the Sun. Jim, yes, we actually have discussed
Speaker 2: the Titius Bode law before. I think it came up
Speaker 2: in our series on hypothetical Solar System objects that either
Speaker 2: don't exist because they never existed, or maybe once existed
Speaker 2: but no longer exist. That series was called The Lost
Speaker 2: Daughters of aten at e n. If you want a
Speaker 2: deeper treatment, you can go check out those episodes. But
Speaker 2: the short version is that the titious Bode is a
Speaker 2: peculiar observation that you can predict the approximate mean orbital
Speaker 2: distance of all the planets out to Uranus with a
Speaker 2: simple mathematical formula. It's got a few variables based on
Speaker 2: planet order and the distance of an astronomical unit. And
Speaker 2: this was written about in the eighteenth century by two
Speaker 2: German astronomers named Johan Daniel Tischius and Johann elert Bode.
Speaker 2: The two Johans and this formula. Yeah, it is a
Speaker 2: really interesting observation. So it gets very close to predicting
Speaker 2: the orbital distances of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.
Speaker 2: There are some cases where it's a little bit off,
Speaker 2: but it's very close. And at the time of its
Speaker 2: original publication there was an interesting complication, which was that
Speaker 2: the prediction seemed to break down because it predicted a
Speaker 2: planet orbiting at two point eight astronomical unit, so two
Speaker 2: point eight times the distance between the Earth and the Sun,
Speaker 2: and that would be between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter,
Speaker 2: where no planet was known at the time. However, this
Speaker 2: failure was reversed with the discovery of the dwarf Planet
Speaker 2: Series in eighteen oh one, which we now know to
Speaker 2: be the largest object in the asteroid belt. So series
Speaker 2: and the asteroid belt roughly correspond to the gap in
Speaker 2: the predicted sequence between Jupiter and Mars. Tisitius Bode then
Speaker 2: also racked up a victory when Uranus was discovered. This
Speaker 2: was actually earlier, this was in the late eighteenth century,
Speaker 2: but Tisiu's boat had a victory with the discovery of
Speaker 2: Uranus because what do you know, it was very close
Speaker 2: again to what the formula predicted for the next planet
Speaker 2: after Saturn. But despite this really impressive record, and despite
Speaker 2: the unfortunate use of the word law sometimes in its
Speaker 2: name people say the Titius Bode law. Other people just say,
Speaker 2: like the Titius Bode rule or Titius Bode or something.
Speaker 2: It is not a law of nature. It totally fails
Speaker 2: to predict the orbit of Neptune. And as best I
Speaker 2: can tell, last time I looked into this. Experts in
Speaker 2: astrophysics are not aware of any reason this formula had
Speaker 2: to be true or had to hold true, meaning it
Speaker 2: is not derived from any fundamental facts about how solar
Speaker 2: systems generally form, or any laws of physics that would
Speaker 2: apply to all planets and stars in the galaxy. It's
Speaker 2: probably just a really strange, fascinating coincidence that you can
Speaker 2: put together a mathematical formula that happens to tell you
Speaker 2: where most, but not all, of the big things in
Speaker 2: our solar system are. So maybe the two Johanns were
Speaker 2: kind of doing the number twenty three, but in space,
Speaker 2: all right. This next message about moons of Uranus is
Speaker 2: from Eric. Eric says, Hi, Robin Joe, thanks for the
Speaker 2: episodes about Uranus and its moons. I've been meaning to
Speaker 2: read A Midsummer Night's Dream but haven't gotten around to
Speaker 2: it yet, So I didn't know any thing about the
Speaker 2: characters for whom many of the moons are named, but
Speaker 2: it shed some light on an urban fantasy book series
Speaker 2: that I love, called The Dresden Files. The author borrows
Speaker 2: mythology from nearly everywhere on the internal principle that all
Speaker 2: mythology is actually true. Some of the Midsommer characters, including
Speaker 2: Mab and Titania, feature prominently. Then Eric says, you mentioned
Speaker 2: Messier and his comet addiction in the first episode, and
Speaker 2: to refresh, Yeah, this is referring to the French astronomer
Speaker 2: Charles Messier, one of the people William Herschel wrote to
Speaker 2: in seventeen eighty one about his discovery of Uranus. At first,
Speaker 2: William Herschel thought that it wasn't a planet but a
Speaker 2: comet or something. And Messier was so famous for finding
Speaker 2: comets that he was nicknamed the Ferret of comets by
Speaker 2: the French King Louis the fifteenth But back to Eric's message,
Speaker 2: Eric writes, comics were kind of a big deal in
Speaker 2: the eighteenth and nineteen century, in that weird period in
Speaker 2: which people understood that heavenly bodies obeyed natural laws, but
Speaker 2: they still kind of liked astrology. After Halley, people realized
Speaker 2: that more of the fuzzy blobs they spotted were comets,
Speaker 2: so there was kind of a rush to be the
Speaker 2: first to spot the next comet. Charles Messier was one
Speaker 2: of those, and he created the Messia catalog, which includes
Speaker 2: Andromeda M thirty one, the crab Nebula M one, and
Speaker 2: over one hundred other objects. Interestingly, he cataloged these objects
Speaker 2: not because he thought them interesting, but because they weren't comets.
Speaker 2: It was basically his oops list, so he wouldn't waste
Speaker 2: time looking at fuzzy blob number thirty one night after
Speaker 2: night in the hope that it would turn out to
Speaker 2: be a comet. It's ironic that today amateur astronomers typically
Speaker 2: spend far more time looking at the things on his
Speaker 2: list than searching for comets. In fact, there are certain
Speaker 2: times of year when some amateur astronomers will try to
Speaker 2: complete a Messia marathon, in which they tried to spot
Speaker 2: each of the one hundred and ten Messia objects in
Speaker 2: a single night. I've never done it because I'm a very,
Speaker 2: very lazy amateur astronomer. Thanks for the great episodes. While
Speaker 2: I would be perfectly happy to have you put out
Speaker 2: episodes on space objects every week, I think it's better
Speaker 2: for all of your other listeners to space out pun
Speaker 2: unintended these types of episodes. Hope you were all well, Eric,
Speaker 2: Thank you Eric. Okay, this next message comes from Constantine
Speaker 2: and it concerns our episodes. On the beaver, and also
Speaker 2: a little bit on the moons of Uranus. Constantine says, gents,
Speaker 2: thank you for reading my email last week. I have
Speaker 2: gained tremendous cool points in my household after that. Mind you,
Speaker 2: those points are self assigned, but they are valued just
Speaker 2: the same. Yeah. As a reminder, Constantine wrote us a
Speaker 2: really excellent, highly detailed message about Greek pronunciation in English,
Speaker 2: especially as it applies to the names of planets. Constantine says,
Speaker 2: I didn't think I would be writing in so soon again,
Speaker 2: but I have a small complaint to register with the authorities.
Speaker 2: How can you have not one, but two beaver episodes
Speaker 2: and not mention that this mighty, mighty rodent is the
Speaker 2: national animal of Canada. The beaver even appears on our
Speaker 2: nickel see attached. All right, so I am looking at
Speaker 2: a picture of the beaver side the beaver face I
Speaker 2: guess of the Canadian nickel. This one is minted nineteen
Speaker 2: sixty five, and I'm going to put on my art
Speaker 2: critic hat for the Canadian nickel. I have to say
Speaker 2: I sense a lot of pathos in this beaver. This
Speaker 2: beaver looks far less whimsical and substantially more aggressive than most.
Speaker 2: So it is head down, ears, back muscles tensed, four
Speaker 2: paws in advance, with claws digging into the wet log below.
Speaker 2: The beaver, I would say, on the nickel looks not
Speaker 2: like a herbivorous rodent, but like a predator preparing to strike.
Speaker 2: But it's a beaver, so what is it going to strike?
Speaker 2: Like a willow stump? And then there's another layer of
Speaker 2: emotion underneath the predatory pose. There is a thwarted, frustrated
Speaker 2: sadness in its posture. It even made me think of
Speaker 2: the Rilka poem The Panther, which is about a panther
Speaker 2: kept in a zoo in Paris, and in the translation
Speaker 2: by Stephen Mitchell, the poem begins his vision from the
Speaker 2: constantly passing bars has grown so weary that it cannot
Speaker 2: hold anything else. It seems to him there are a
Speaker 2: thousand bars, and behind the bars no world. So I
Speaker 2: was thinking about this, and finally it hit me. I
Speaker 2: think the beaver inside the nickel wants to break out
Speaker 2: everywhere it goes. Maybe it hears the sound of water running,
Speaker 2: the trickling sound that that drives the beaver mad, and
Speaker 2: it knows it must find and plug the leak. But
Speaker 2: to do that it has to escape the confines of
Speaker 2: the coin, and maybe one day it will. So back
Speaker 2: to Constantine's message, sure, America has its eagle and the
Speaker 2: UK has its lion, but we knooks wear the best smile,
Speaker 2: with debucktoothed beaver as our national animal of choice, so
Speaker 2: beware lest you upset us, and we wave our sticks
Speaker 2: at you. Ah. Very nice. Despite this regal creature being
Speaker 2: part of everyday Canadian life, I was shocked to learn
Speaker 2: that the beaver has a cloaca. Even my wife, the veterinarian,
Speaker 2: was surprised that that detail did not make it into
Speaker 2: her curriculum at VET school. And now I work this
Speaker 2: fact into every conversation I have with folks back in
Speaker 2: our maple leaf land. By the way, I forgot to
Speaker 2: mention in my email on Uranus that in Greek we
Speaker 2: call the eight planets of the Solar system by the
Speaker 2: Greek god names. So it is Hermes that would be Mercury, Aphrodite,
Speaker 2: that would be Venus, Gaya that would be Earth. Though
Speaker 2: Constantine us last time that in Greek Gaya is pronounced
Speaker 2: ye Ares, which is Mars, Zeus, which is Jupiter Chronos
Speaker 2: which is Saturn Uranus and Poseidon, which is Neptune. Take
Speaker 2: that Romans. As for the planet Pluto planet in quotation marks,
Speaker 2: I guess because of Pluto no longer being considered a
Speaker 2: major planet for whatever reason, it went rogue and goes
Speaker 2: by both Hades and Pluto in Greek, and that is
Speaker 2: the real reason that the Greek illuminati had Pluto acted
Speaker 2: from the pantheon of planets. I'm just saying, don't cross us.
Speaker 2: Things happen, stay groovy. Cheers regards Constantine. All right, thank you, Constantine.
Speaker 2: All right, I'm going to do a little bit of
Speaker 2: weird house cinema response. This is about our episode on
Speaker 2: The Super Mario Brothers nineteen ninety three. It is from
Speaker 2: Andrew says, Hi, Robert and Joe love the show. Thank
Speaker 2: you for all your hard work and making it happen.
Speaker 2: But after the most recent weird house I had to
Speaker 2: leap to the defense of a film that, if not
Speaker 2: great or even really good, was one of my favorites
Speaker 2: of all time. I loved the Super Mario Brothers movie
Speaker 2: when I was a kid. It's hard to overstate just
Speaker 2: how cool and grown up it felt to my seven
Speaker 2: year old brain. I saw it in the theater with
Speaker 2: my best friend at the time, and it became regular
Speaker 2: viewing for me after my father rented it on VHS
Speaker 2: and copied it to our Beta Max. A few years ago,
Speaker 2: it was available to stream and I watched it again
Speaker 2: with my kids, and yeah, it's not good. There's still
Speaker 2: a lot to love, the chemistry between John Leguizamo and
Speaker 2: Bob Hoskins, despite both allegedly being drunk for much of
Speaker 2: the production, all the stoogely antics of Iggy and Spike,
Speaker 2: the big dopey grin, all the goombas have, But yeah,
Speaker 2: it's a mess. You talked in the podcast about what
Speaker 2: a challenge it would have been to develop a plot
Speaker 2: around something as narratively thin as a Mario game. However,
Speaker 2: to place the film in context, there were already at
Speaker 2: least three separate Super Mario cartoons available for Saturday morning
Speaker 2: viewing on cable at the time of its release. Those
Speaker 2: of us who watched them were already accustomed to these
Speaker 2: characterizations and stories in Mario's world. The film just gave
Speaker 2: us an edgier take on everything, which fit perfectly with
Speaker 2: the zeitgeist of the early nineties. You know, off, Mike
Speaker 2: Rob and I were discussing other adaptations of Super Mario
Speaker 2: Brothers to different media, and he shared with me something
Speaker 2: that I think somebody sent him on the discord. So
Speaker 2: I don't actually remember at this point what the media was,
Speaker 2: but it was a Super Mario Brothers cartoon that may
Speaker 2: have been from Japan that I think predates the live
Speaker 2: action movie, and I just watched a clip from part
Speaker 2: of it. It is the Super Mario Brothers hiking through
Speaker 2: the desert with some kind of blue pet, like a
Speaker 2: blue dog like creature at their side, and there's a
Speaker 2: musical number and the lyrics in translation include lines like
Speaker 2: don't cry any more, baby, I'm right here for you.
Speaker 2: We are super, but I don't know. We're super, but
Speaker 2: what to do with my love?
Speaker 1: Now?
Speaker 2: If only the live action movie had had more of
Speaker 2: that painful, yearning emotional core to it. You know, I
Speaker 2: can almost hear Bob Hoskins saying it, We're super, but
Speaker 2: I don't know what to do with my love Anyway.
Speaker 2: Back to Andrew's message, Andrews says the film also gave
Speaker 2: me one of my first cultural Easter egg hunts. There
Speaker 2: were the big obvious references to the game franchise, like
Speaker 2: pipe travel, the red and green coveralls, the mushrooms, jump boots, etc.
Speaker 2: But there were also a number of more subtle nods
Speaker 2: as well. The cartridges they load into their boots have
Speaker 2: faces painted on them like bullet bills. The brutalist architecture
Speaker 2: inside Koopa's tower invokes blocks that make up the fortress
Speaker 2: levels in Super Mario Brothers three, and the lady in
Speaker 2: red in the movie is called big Bertha, like the
Speaker 2: large angry fish that tries to swallow you whole in
Speaker 2: some of the water levels. Some of these references seem
Speaker 2: a little lazy in retrospect, but I can still remember
Speaker 2: how exciting it seemed for me as a child to
Speaker 2: keep noticing these details. So yeah, it's definitely not a
Speaker 2: great film, But contrary to your assessment, I think there
Speaker 2: was a lot there for children of the decade to
Speaker 2: latch onto, particularly at a time when there was a
Speaker 2: very different standard for what was appropriate for kids to see.
Speaker 2: In spite of all its shortcomings, Super Mario Brothers nineteen
Speaker 2: ninety three is easily one of my favorite films just
Speaker 2: in terms of how much enjoyment I got out of
Speaker 2: it when I was young and remember, this was considered
Speaker 2: to be the first ever game to film adaptation, and
Speaker 2: none of us had any idea what that was supposed
Speaker 2: to look like. There was no formula for a feature
Speaker 2: like this, so the filmmakers chucked us into a bizarre,
Speaker 2: violent world with sticky reptilian sexuality and alternately gross and
Speaker 2: imposing locales. That's a huge swing, and even if it
Speaker 2: didn't totally connect, it's still infinitely more interesting than almost
Speaker 2: any video game movie that came after. Finally, I'm convinced
Speaker 2: there is a deep bonus joke hidden behind the layers
Speaker 2: of membranous fungus and garbage. You remarked on how all
Speaker 2: the cars have mad Max spikes and shoot sparks and
Speaker 2: have old skeletons hanging off of their grills. You probably
Speaker 2: also notice that they all have electrical leads that contact
Speaker 2: metal cages above the streets like bumper cars, and that
Speaker 2: the police car that Mario and Luigi Steele loses power
Speaker 2: once they exit the city. It would seem that the
Speaker 2: people of dino Hattan are pioneering the electric car, presumably
Speaker 2: because the descendants of dinosaurs would be reluctant to develop
Speaker 2: fossil fuel sources parentheses. You and I know that oil
Speaker 2: is the remains of oceanic plants, animals, and bacteria. But
Speaker 2: I'll bet the filmmakers didn't. Thank you again for all
Speaker 2: you do to make my work days more bearable and
Speaker 2: educate me on subjects I had never even heard of. Andrew, Well,
Speaker 2: thank you so much, Andrew, I point taken. You know,
Speaker 2: whatever the film's shortcomings, I think I hope it came
Speaker 2: through at least that it was worthy of a deep,
Speaker 2: deep look. And I still stand by my comment that
Speaker 2: I would read a book length work going into the
Speaker 2: making and significance of Super Mario Brothers. The movie. It is,
Speaker 2: if nothing else, and absolutely fascinating. How did this happen? Artifact? Okay,
Speaker 2: I think we're going to call it there for today.
Speaker 2: We will have more listener mail to feature next Monday.
Speaker 2: On Tuesdays and Thursdays of each week we do our
Speaker 2: core stuff to blow your mind episodes, which are most
Speaker 2: often about science and culture in some way. On Wednesdays
Speaker 2: we do a short feature called The Art Fact or
Speaker 2: the Monster Fact, and on Fridays we do our series
Speaker 2: called Weird House Cinema that's a more relaxed atmosphere where
Speaker 2: each week we just watch and discuss a strange film,
Speaker 2: good or bad, well known or obscure, as long as
Speaker 2: it's weird. And on Saturdays we run an episode from
Speaker 2: the vault. If you are not subscribed to the show,
Speaker 2: do it, do it now. We're called Stuff to Blow
Speaker 2: Your Mind and you can find us wherever you get
Speaker 2: your podcasts. Look us up, hit subscribe, keep getting us
Speaker 2: in your feet huge thanks to our excellent audio producer,
Speaker 2: JJ Posway. If you would like to get in touch
Speaker 2: with us with feedback on this episode or any other,
Speaker 2: to suggest a topic for the future, or even just
Speaker 2: to say hello, you can email us at contact at
Speaker 2: stuff to Blow your Mind dot com.
Speaker 1: Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production of iHeartRadio. For
Speaker 1: more podcasts, my Heart Radio to the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.