Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. Listener mail.
Speaker 2: My name is Robert.
Speaker 3: Lamb and I am Joe McCormick, and it's Monday, the
Speaker 3: day of each week that we read back messages from
Speaker 3: the Stuff to Blow your Mind mail bag. If you
Speaker 3: have never gotten in touch and you would like to,
Speaker 3: why not give it a shot. You can email us
Speaker 3: at contact at stuff to Blow your Mind dot com.
Speaker 3: Whatever you want to send is fine. Obviously a lot
Speaker 3: of people send in feedback to recent episodes. Maybe they
Speaker 3: have something interesting they want to add to something we
Speaker 3: talked about, or a question about the subject matter. Corrections
Speaker 3: are welcome as well. Any of that. Just send it
Speaker 3: on in. Or if you just want to say hello,
Speaker 3: tell us how you listen to the show, where you're from,
Speaker 3: and so forth, that's all fair game too. Send it
Speaker 3: on in contact at stuff to Blow your Mind dot com.
Speaker 3: Let's see, Rob, do you mind if I kick things
Speaker 3: off with this message for Steve about our series on
Speaker 3: the on Horse Hooves.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's have it, Steve.
Speaker 3: Says, Hi again, Robert and Joe in Your Hooves Part two,
Speaker 3: Episode Robert briefly mentioned the discovery that five fingers become
Speaker 3: one in horse embryos during one of the phases of
Speaker 3: their growth. I have to stop you right there, Steve.
Speaker 3: That was me that said that, not Robert. But you know,
Speaker 3: people mix us up sometimes It's okay, it happens. Yeah,
Speaker 3: we're not wearing name tags. Steve goes on. Though quite interesting,
Speaker 3: this revelation did not surprise me because it seems like
Speaker 3: I've read about similar discoveries regarding the development of embryos
Speaker 3: and all kinds of different animals, not specifically about fingers,
Speaker 3: but a general pattern of growth that seems to repeat
Speaker 3: known evolutionary developments, beginning from the very simple and progressing
Speaker 3: to more complex forms, almost like a reenacted history of
Speaker 3: a given animals deep evolutionary past up to its present
Speaker 3: physical paradigm or morphological configuration. This possibility is fascinating, but
Speaker 3: I don't know if there's a biological term for it,
Speaker 3: or if it is something that has even been rigorously
Speaker 3: examined as a legitimate part of the gestation slash growth
Speaker 3: process of embryonic science. I'm not a biologist or a scientist,
Speaker 3: but I have been a student of human anatomy and
Speaker 3: how it affects external form. Having professional experience as both
Speaker 3: a biomedical designer of three D printed titanium surgical guides
Speaker 3: and as a figurative sculptor. From this perspective, I can
Speaker 3: imagine how there might be structural slash shock absorbing advantages
Speaker 3: to merging five fingers together from one in your example
Speaker 3: of a horse hoof, if some traces of the other
Speaker 3: four remain integrated with the whole. This is a crude analogy,
Speaker 3: but if you try to break five sticks in a half,
Speaker 3: it can be more difficult than breaking one, because there
Speaker 3: is potentially more flexibility in the separate thin sticks than
Speaker 3: one thick one. At the risk of betraying my profe ignorance,
Speaker 3: I also wonder if there is some kind of potential
Speaker 3: energy conservation in the storage of DNA derived information used
Speaker 3: by nature to control embryonic development from simple to more
Speaker 3: complex states inherent in the DNA simply stacking revised versions
Speaker 3: of itself on top of older versions. Thank you as
Speaker 3: always for the fantastic content, and congrats again to Joe
Speaker 3: on being a new dad. Happy Father's Day, Steve. Oh,
Speaker 3: thank you Steve well. Regarding your question about animal embryos
Speaker 3: sort of repeating their evolutionary history as they develop. We
Speaker 3: could come back one day and do a deeper dive
Speaker 3: on this, but I'll try to do the very short
Speaker 3: and simple version. There is actually an obsolete hypothesis in
Speaker 3: the history of evolutionary theory, no longer held to today,
Speaker 3: associated most with the German naturalist Ernst Heckel, that proposes
Speaker 3: that as an animal embryo develops, it essentially goes through
Speaker 3: all of its ancestral forms from quote lowest to highest.
Speaker 3: So a developing horse embryo would at some point to
Speaker 3: sort of become a fish and then become a primitive tetrapod,
Speaker 3: et cetera. This idea was summarized in the slogan that
Speaker 3: quote ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny ontogeny meaning the development of an
Speaker 3: individual organism, phylogeny meaning its evolutionary history. We note today
Speaker 3: that as a blanket statement, this hypothesis was not correct.
Speaker 3: In fact, it seems that while Ernest Teckel was a
Speaker 3: great illustrator, he probably fudged some of his drawings of
Speaker 3: animal embryos to make them better fit with his hypothesis.
Speaker 3: But a few general comments about this idea. First of all,
Speaker 3: in evolution, there is not actually a higher or lower.
Speaker 3: You can order your ancestors or the ancestors of a
Speaker 3: species chronologically, but that progression is not actually like climbing
Speaker 3: a mountain of sophistication or refinement to quote high higher forms.
Speaker 3: At each stage, the organism is simply adapting to its
Speaker 3: environment and whatever pressure has happen to weigh upon it
Speaker 3: at that point in time. But even more importantly, scientists
Speaker 3: have discovered that ontogeny, the growth of an individual organism,
Speaker 3: is something that itself evolves like, so how an organism
Speaker 3: grows is something that can be selected for, and different
Speaker 3: organisms go through different kinds of developmental stages that are
Speaker 3: selected for the needs of the species. But it is
Speaker 3: true that organisms in development often do manifest particular features
Speaker 3: that look like the embryonic forms of distant ancestors, even
Speaker 3: if those forms are not found in adults of the
Speaker 3: embryo's own species. Hence, you get horse embryos with five
Speaker 3: distinct toes before they vanish and then become more like
Speaker 3: the horse hoof that it will have when it's after
Speaker 3: it's born, or you get things like a rob You
Speaker 3: mentioned this example, when it came up in the episode
Speaker 3: Untold Nostrils and Dolphins. Dolphin embryos will first have a
Speaker 3: more frontally positioned nostril that gradually moves to become a
Speaker 3: top facing blowhole as the embryo develops. But this kind
Speaker 3: of thing is contingent. These are isolated examples of where
Speaker 3: that happens, and as a general rule, an organism does
Speaker 3: not have to go through all of the past stages
Speaker 3: of its evolutionary history during growth. Sometimes it shows some
Speaker 3: of them, and so the interesting question becomes in the
Speaker 3: cases when it does. Why is that? I don't know
Speaker 3: enough to comment on your idea about like the efficiency
Speaker 3: of information storage in DNA, whether it's more efficient to
Speaker 3: just like stack the new plan on top of the
Speaker 3: older I couldn't say, but it could be interesting to
Speaker 3: come back and look at that someday.
Speaker 2: Absolutely all right. The next message comes to us from
Speaker 2: Jamie concerning our episodes on Dreams and if memory serves this,
Speaker 2: I think this came out after the first episode, but
Speaker 2: before the second. Yeah, Jamie writes, Dear Robert and Joe,
Speaker 2: I'm enjoying the pod as always, and especially your recent
Speaker 2: episode on Dreams. It reminded me that, as Frank Herbert
Speaker 2: tells us, dreams our messages from the deep. I wonder
Speaker 2: if Herbert was drawing in this as in so much
Speaker 2: of the Doom series on Islamic tradition, in which there
Speaker 2: is a long history of the interpretation of dreams. In fact,
Speaker 2: there is a hattoth Or tradition in which the prophet
Speaker 2: Muhammad is said to have said a good vision is
Speaker 2: from Allah and a bad dream is from Satan, with
Speaker 2: various later scholars developing methods for distinguishing good from bad dreams.
Speaker 2: If this sounds very similar to Homer's Gates of Horn
Speaker 2: and Ivory, I think that's probably because, rather than being
Speaker 2: some kind of opponent or negation of classical antiquity, much
Speaker 2: of early Islamic thought and civilization was actually a continuation
Speaker 2: of it. Looking forward to the next installment, best wishes, Jamie, Well,
Speaker 2: thanks for Jamie where of course, we're always up for
Speaker 2: any questions or comments concerning Dune And now this particular quote.
Speaker 2: Joe and I were just talking about this off mic
Speaker 2: before we came in here, but this quote is from
Speaker 2: the recent Part one movie adaptation, but does not occur
Speaker 2: in the actual Frank Herbert novel.
Speaker 3: Or at least we couldn't find evidence of it. I
Speaker 3: think it is not in the novel. I saw some
Speaker 3: website in my quick googling here saying it was just
Speaker 3: unique to the film, but it is how the Dnievil
Speaker 3: New movie begins.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Now that's not to say dreams are not important
Speaker 2: within the novel Dune, and then ultimately within the larger
Speaker 2: series of Dune novels that Frank Herbert wrote, dreams do
Speaker 2: play an important role there, and of course he does
Speaker 2: draw tremendously on Islamic culture and Islamic ideas, including I think,
Speaker 2: the importance of dreams. At the same time, he also
Speaker 2: ends up drawing heavily on like Jungian ideas of concerning
Speaker 2: like dreams. So I think likely with this quote that
Speaker 2: they put together for the film, they are you know,
Speaker 2: they're hinting at both of those.
Speaker 3: Now, Jamie, As for your quote from the Hadith, I
Speaker 3: was interested in this, so I went and looked it
Speaker 3: up in a couple of online databases for the hadith,
Speaker 3: which are collections of the sayings and sometimes the deeds
Speaker 3: of the prophet Muhammad, organized by like which teacher or
Speaker 3: companion of the prophet recorded or narrated them. So when
Speaker 3: I dug this up on an English language resource called
Speaker 3: the Prophetic Hadith Encyclopedia, it records two very similar sayings
Speaker 3: next to each other. One of them is passed on
Speaker 3: by Abu Qatada, which says a good vision is from
Speaker 3: Allah and a bad dream is from the devil. If
Speaker 3: any one of you sees something which he dislikes, he
Speaker 3: should spit on his left three times and seek refuge
Speaker 3: with Allah from the devil, then it will not harm him.
Speaker 3: And then there's a second recorded similar to the second
Speaker 3: half of that. This one is attributed to the version
Speaker 3: told by Jabir that says, if any one of you
Speaker 3: sees a dream which he dislikes, then let him spit
Speaker 3: three times on his left side, seek refuge with Allah
Speaker 3: from the devil three times, and then change his sleeping position.
Speaker 3: And the interpretive material with it says that this last
Speaker 3: piece of advice probably means if you're sleeping on one side,
Speaker 3: roll over to the other side. And it struck me
Speaker 3: as interesting because the advice attributed to the prophet here
Speaker 3: for repelling a nightmare, which may well be from Satan,
Speaker 3: is a mix of the sacred and the mundane, like
Speaker 3: it says to take refuge with Allah to be protected
Speaker 3: from the devil, but also to roll over onto your
Speaker 3: other side. Oh yeah, and also to spit three times
Speaker 3: on the left side. So yeah, scholars of the Hadith
Speaker 3: or Islamic history, if you're listening, you've got any contexts
Speaker 3: on this kind of advice, I'd be curious if there's
Speaker 3: anything more to know about this.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, because we in the second episode in our
Speaker 2: dream series, we get into some Islamic dream traditions, but
Speaker 2: they are keyed into a very particular time and place
Speaker 2: within the Islamic world. So there's so much that we
Speaker 2: did not research or cover for that part of the episode.
Speaker 2: All right, so we skip ahead to some Weird House
Speaker 2: Cinema messages.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, okay, So to kick things off on Weird
Speaker 3: House Cinema, I'm going to mention that we heard back
Speaker 3: from Michelle who wrote in and we read her message
Speaker 3: on a previous Listener mail episode where she described a
Speaker 3: movie that she had seen about a woman who left
Speaker 3: her human boyfriend in favor of a relationship with a robot.
Speaker 3: Gave us some plot details and so forth, and we
Speaker 3: were trying to figure out what the movie was. We failed.
Speaker 3: We also tried to see if AI could help us
Speaker 3: with the task. AI also failed. But then we read
Speaker 3: the message out and it turns out that one of
Speaker 3: the listeners who got in touch with the potential answer
Speaker 3: was on the money. Michelle says, thanks guys, and Chris.
Speaker 3: Chris was the listener who wrote in about this. The
Speaker 3: Creation of the Humanoids is the movie I was thinking of.
Speaker 3: This was the one from the nineteen sixties, was not
Speaker 3: in black and white as she originally said. I think
Speaker 3: this one is in color. But Rob you said this
Speaker 3: one looked like it was worth a look.
Speaker 2: I believe Michael Weldon's write up of it said it
Speaker 2: was fun and hey, it has Dudley man Love in it,
Speaker 2: with that cinematic charisma like that in the cast. You
Speaker 2: can't dismiss it. You've got to go in for a
Speaker 2: closer look.
Speaker 3: Don't you sometimes wish it had been Dudley man Love
Speaker 3: in the role in two thousand and one, Like he's
Speaker 3: the one going through the stargate, He's there in the
Speaker 3: baroque French room and all that.
Speaker 2: Man, If only, if only it could have been your
Speaker 2: stupid mind. This the next one comes to us from Kelsey.
Speaker 2: Kelsey says, Hello Robin Joe. While I love the regular
Speaker 2: feed of science efacts and tellings, I normally only half
Speaker 2: listened to the Weird House Cinema episodes, as I have
Speaker 2: never had the attention to watch movies, and especially ones
Speaker 2: with strange plots, weird storylines, etc. However, when I saw
Speaker 2: Blade come across this week, I knew I had to
Speaker 2: listen see. I am a young millennial whose mother had
Speaker 2: a strange fascination with Wesley Snipes. So when these movies
Speaker 2: came out, and when we subscribe to mail order Netflix
Speaker 2: in the following years, my mom insisted that her children
Speaker 2: watch them with her. Now, my sister and I are
Speaker 2: neither quite thirty years old yet, so this places us
Speaker 2: in the under ten category when these movies were released.
Speaker 2: This may not seem strange except for the fact that
Speaker 2: I was raised in a very Christian conservative household where
Speaker 2: Harry Potter and the Da Vinci Code were banned. I
Speaker 2: was shocked when you describe the amount of cursing in
Speaker 2: the movie, as in our household, even euphemisms for such
Speaker 2: as darn or frick were off limits. Anyways, I guess
Speaker 2: it goes to show you how much influence Wesley Snipes
Speaker 2: has in the world. Ps. I also had a garage
Speaker 2: TV growing up with that my dad would often watch
Speaker 2: while working on cars, tractors, et cetera. I believe it
Speaker 2: was the style that they built in VCR.
Speaker 3: Sincerely, Kelsey, is this because I mentioned that I watched
Speaker 3: Blade on a garage TV?
Speaker 2: I think you did. Yeah, that was as an episode
Speaker 2: from last year that we reran recently.
Speaker 3: Well, I love this email. So yeah, Harry Potter, the
Speaker 3: Da Vinci Code demonic, absolute hard. No, but Blade the
Speaker 3: R rated non stop swearfest with like beheadings and people
Speaker 3: like melting into piles of blood. That's good.
Speaker 2: Well, you know where Blade stands, you know where he stands,
Speaker 2: and it is just it's a captivating performance. It's just
Speaker 2: as we discussed at length in that episode. I mean,
Speaker 2: Wesley Snipes just absolutely brings it.
Speaker 3: Who could disagree? But wait, Kelsey says she she says
Speaker 3: these movies so not just Blade. It sounds like she's
Speaker 3: talking about the Blade franchise. Like, Kelsey, if you if
Speaker 3: you want to reply to us again, do you mean
Speaker 3: that your mom also Netflix ordered Blade two and Blade
Speaker 3: three and so forth. I don't know if there ever
Speaker 3: was a Blade four, Like did you see them all?
Speaker 2: No, there was no four. There was there was Blade one, terrific,
Speaker 2: Blade two, incredible, Blade three almost entirely disappointing outside of
Speaker 2: like one or two lines from Blade. Then there was
Speaker 2: a TV series which I haven't seen, that does not
Speaker 2: have Wesley Snipes in it. And then I think there
Speaker 2: may have been some animated stuff as well, and so
Speaker 2: forth here and there. But you know, we're on the
Speaker 2: we're on the cusp of getting a new Blade film.
Speaker 2: His fingers crossed that they can they can make it work.
Speaker 2: It sounds like it's off to they keep changing who's
Speaker 2: involved in it, and there have been some shakeups with it,
Speaker 2: but I mean, at hard it sounds like they're going
Speaker 2: back to some of the core material concerning this character.
Speaker 2: And yeah, I'm fingers crossed that it's great.
Speaker 3: I actually saw Blade two since we recorded that episode.
Speaker 3: A friend of mine was like, well, you've got to
Speaker 3: see it, and he brought it over for us to watch.
Speaker 3: It was fantastic fun. But that movie is so two
Speaker 3: thousand and two.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I haven't watched it in many years at
Speaker 2: this point, but I mean, it's got that Del Toro
Speaker 2: charm to it. Like Del Toro's monsters definitely occupy the
Speaker 2: film monsters that you're supposed to be a sympathetic for
Speaker 2: on some level, but they also are entirely monstrous. Yeah,
Speaker 2: there's a lot to love in there, but there are
Speaker 2: some aspects of it there maybe a little rougher around
Speaker 2: the edges. I know that del Toro was never completely
Speaker 2: satisfied with some of the CGI elements and so forth.
Speaker 3: Everything CGI heavy from the early two thousands will, I think,
Speaker 3: always have that issue.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well you need to see Blade Trinity and complete
Speaker 2: the journey.
Speaker 3: Okay, speaking of dated visual effects, do Rob do you
Speaker 3: mind if I finish up with this message from Jeff
Speaker 3: go for it. A quick note, this was a very
Speaker 3: long email, so it's edited a bit for length. Sorry
Speaker 3: about that. Jeff just took a few things out and
Speaker 3: tightened it up. Jeff says, greetings regarding the series on
Speaker 3: three D movies, your description of the mask this is
Speaker 3: the one from the sixties, not the Jim Carrey reminded
Speaker 3: me of the best implementation of three D I've ever seen.
Speaker 3: The Magic Journeys three D movie at Epcot in the
Speaker 3: early nineteen eighties, Epcot was still a place of wonder
Speaker 3: and cutting edge tech. I was fascinated by the touchscreen
Speaker 3: GUI interface. I guess that's gooey gooey interface on the
Speaker 3: world key park information Kiosks, which did Google Maps tricks
Speaker 3: years before the first Macintosh, was a thing, offered a
Speaker 3: search engine, played video, and operated like a modern website.
Speaker 3: You could also make restaurant reservations via video phone parentheses.
Speaker 3: Pretty Much every conversation began with the Epcot representative explaining
Speaker 3: that yes, I am a real human, and yes I
Speaker 3: can see you just like you can see me. While
Speaker 3: Blade Runner and other films were telling us that the
Speaker 3: future would be nothing but boundless misery, Epcot attractions matter
Speaker 3: of factly explained that in the twenty first century, you'll
Speaker 3: go to school at the bottom of the ocean, call
Speaker 3: your friends terraforming the desert via three D phone, visit
Speaker 3: your relatives on holidays in suburban space stations, etc. Everyone
Speaker 3: would be living the dream, a fulfilling life with plentiful resources.
Speaker 3: Integrated into all the fantasy was real life, impressive tech
Speaker 3: that actually worked. Magic journeys was featured in the Journey
Speaker 3: into Imagination pavilion in the now corrupted and renamed Future
Speaker 3: World section of the park. Isn't that the name of
Speaker 3: the sequel to Westworld?
Speaker 2: Ah? Yeah, yeah, yeah, it is Future World, but a
Speaker 2: different attraction.
Speaker 3: Yeah okay. Jeff goes on where the other attractions focused
Speaker 3: on specific elements of future living. The imagination Pavilion explained
Speaker 3: that those innovations would be impossible without human creativity and
Speaker 3: abstract thinking. Your description of the mask reminded me of
Speaker 3: a sequence of eerie floating masks from the film, which
Speaker 3: begins as a dreamy, trippy flight of wonder and at
Speaker 3: the halfway point turns decidedly creepy and weird. House. One
Speaker 3: scene in particular featured a witch shooting lightning bolts from
Speaker 3: her fingers directly at the audience, and to my eyes,
Speaker 3: the bolts seem to end just inches in front of
Speaker 3: my nose. Usually at least one small child would start
Speaker 3: crying loudly at that point. I've never before or since
Speaker 3: seen an effect that seemed to jump so far out
Speaker 3: of the screen. And then Jeff provides some links to
Speaker 3: like a podcast I think about this three D film
Speaker 3: in a video showing samples from it. Jeff goes on
Speaker 3: the eight millimeter film to YouTube conversion leaves a lot
Speaker 3: to be desired, but I assure you the visuals were stunning.
Speaker 3: The deliberate slow pace created the feel of altered consciousness,
Speaker 3: although this does not translate at all in a crappy
Speaker 3: two D resolution, and you might be tempted to hit
Speaker 3: the two X speed button. However, the music is worth
Speaker 3: experiencing properly. It was similarly bizarre, featuring rich eighty synth
Speaker 3: and freaky lyrics about quote splashing in the stream of
Speaker 3: an unremembered dream end quote, the atoms that repose in
Speaker 3: the heartbeat of a Rose. Disney would never make anything
Speaker 3: so meditative and aggressively weird these days, and then an
Speaker 3: unrelated Jeff also recommends an Amazon Prime video series called
Speaker 3: Jean Claude Van Johnson, which is about Jean Claude Van
Speaker 3: dam quote. The premise is that JCVD, the actor, was
Speaker 3: also a secret agent in real life. It's an action
Speaker 3: comedy that is both a parody and a celebration of
Speaker 3: the actor in his movies VANDAM is hilarious in multiple
Speaker 3: roles and a surprisingly effective actor and good sport. You
Speaker 3: can easily binge the whole series in a weekend, and
Speaker 3: then he goes on to say some things. Apparently it
Speaker 3: also ends in a cliffhanger. But to wrap it up,
Speaker 3: Jeff says finally, in regards to attempts to conceptualize distance
Speaker 3: between the planets discussed in the Urinus episodes, on the
Speaker 3: Washington Mall in DC, beginning near the Air and Space Museum,
Speaker 3: there is a one to ten billion scale model of
Speaker 3: our solar system. The Sun is about the size of
Speaker 3: a grapefruit, and following the trail along the sidewalk, you
Speaker 3: quickly run into the inner planets, with information stations and
Speaker 3: size comparisons at each one. By the time you get
Speaker 3: to Neptune, it's easy to forget why you were walking
Speaker 3: in that direction in the first place, especially with all
Speaker 3: the exciting distractions in DC. Thanks for continuing to present
Speaker 3: us with diverse information pour into our brains while stuck
Speaker 3: in traffic and doing otherwise tedious chores. You are appreciated, Jeff. Well,
Speaker 3: thank you. Jeff. I had never seen this movie. I
Speaker 3: think I went to Epcot as a young child, but
Speaker 3: if I saw this, I don't remember it. So I
Speaker 3: looked up like a YouTube rip of this film. Obviously,
Speaker 3: as you say, you can't really get the feeling of
Speaker 3: what it would be like with three D. But the
Speaker 3: Witch was extremely funny. She's kind of like the you know,
Speaker 3: she's like the Wizard of Oz Witch, like green makeup
Speaker 3: and the long fingernails and stuff. Beyond that, I did
Speaker 3: get to the part you were talking about with the
Speaker 3: masks flying out of the screen. There's like an onny
Speaker 3: mask asteroid that blasts at you. Later, there is also
Speaker 3: a clown segment that has strong resemblance to when Trumpy
Speaker 3: does magic things in Pod People, but with clowns running
Speaker 3: out of the screen and screaming at you. And also,
Speaker 3: I don't know if this is like a sign of
Speaker 3: a neurological disorder on my part, but when I watched
Speaker 3: this movie, I could literally smell cigarettes. I don't know why.
Speaker 2: I'm always impressed anytime I learned something new about the
Speaker 2: like the history of Epcot and so forth. And I
Speaker 2: got to go to Epcot in the last year for
Speaker 2: the first time, and you know, I know, they are
Speaker 2: aspects of Epcot that folks like to rag on here
Speaker 2: and there, but I really enjoyed it. I also admire
Speaker 2: this kind of like this retro now retro optimistic vision
Speaker 2: for the future, you know, in which technology, like you say,
Speaker 2: is going to make everything brighter. I also thought about
Speaker 2: it a lot when we were discussing the black Hole.
Speaker 2: Like I say, I guess it's the imagineer's fingerprints on
Speaker 2: that one, but I feel like it has strong epcot energy,
Speaker 2: even if it's ultimately telling a darker story away from Earth.
Speaker 2: They don't really talk about Earth much in that. They're
Speaker 2: just like, oh, you know, things are the same, it's
Speaker 2: going great. But what what what they mean by boring
Speaker 2: is like amazing. You have no idea. It's just it's
Speaker 2: only boring to them because they're used to all the
Speaker 2: flying cars and so forth.
Speaker 3: And telepathic clowns screaming in your face. Yes, but I
Speaker 3: don't know. Sometimes I think on weird house cinema, it
Speaker 3: might be fun to feature more like non narrative films,
Speaker 3: things like this that on some like special episodes. I
Speaker 3: don't know, that could be a fun different kind.
Speaker 2: Of thing to do, like an amusement park films like
Speaker 2: the like.
Speaker 3: What were service industry training films or anything? Anything sufficiently weird.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, it's sufficiently weird. Then it's you know, we're
Speaker 2: already halfway there, right, all right. Well, on that note,
Speaker 2: we're going to go and close it out for today,
Speaker 2: but hey, write in. We'd love to hear from you
Speaker 2: any questions or comments about past president or future episodes
Speaker 2: of Stuff to Blow your Mind, Weird House, Cinema, Artifact,
Speaker 2: Monster Fact, other episodes of listener Mail. It's all fair game,
Speaker 2: so sent them in and you'll find these episodes on
Speaker 2: Mondays in the Stuff to Blow Your Mind podcast feet.
Speaker 3: Huge thanks to our excellent audio producer JJ Posway. If
Speaker 3: you would like to get in touch with us with
Speaker 3: feedback on this episode or any other, to suggest topic
Speaker 3: for the future, or just to say hello, you can
Speaker 3: email us at contact at stuff to Blow your Mind
Speaker 3: dot com.
Speaker 1: Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production of iHeartRadio. For
Speaker 1: more podcasts from my Heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.