Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: Hey you welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind listener Mail.
Speaker 2: My name is Robert Lamb.
Speaker 3: And I am Joe McCormick. And on listener Mail episodes,
Speaker 3: we read back some of the messages that you have
Speaker 3: sent into the Stuff to Blow your Mind email address.
Speaker 3: If you've never gotten in touch before and you would
Speaker 3: like to, why not give it a try this week?
Speaker 3: You can write us at contact at stuff to Blow
Speaker 3: your Mind dot com. We appreciate messages of all types,
Speaker 3: especially if you have something to add to a topic
Speaker 3: we've recently talked about on the show. If you have
Speaker 3: just something interesting you want to share with us, whether
Speaker 3: even if it's totally random, that's always fine. If you
Speaker 3: have corrections, if you have comments, if you have questions,
Speaker 3: if you want to suggest a topic for the future,
Speaker 3: or suggest a movie for Weird House Cinema, whatever it is,
Speaker 3: send it our way contact at stuff to Blow your
Speaker 3: dot com. And if you write in, there is a
Speaker 3: chance that your message may be featured on a future
Speaker 3: listener Mail episode like this one.
Speaker 2: That's right, We read all of it. We don't always
Speaker 2: have time to respond directly to it and not everything
Speaker 2: gets onto the podcast, obviously, but we will read anything
Speaker 2: you said us.
Speaker 3: A very weird house heavy batch this time, which is fine,
Speaker 3: so be it. But I think first maybe we should
Speaker 3: get into some responses to our episodes of Star Trek Week.
Speaker 2: That's right, We're just coming off of Star Trek Week,
Speaker 2: the first Star Trek Week celebrated here on stuff to
Speaker 2: blow your mind. But if folks loved it, we'll come
Speaker 2: back and do it again next year.
Speaker 3: All right, rob do you mind if I do this
Speaker 3: one from Elena?
Speaker 2: Yes, Elena, that you do mind? Well, I do mind,
Speaker 2: but I'm swallowing my feelings on this one.
Speaker 3: Right, Okay, This is from Elena. Subject line Turkish Star Trek. Hello,
Speaker 3: Robert and Joe. I just listened to the episode about
Speaker 3: the Star Trek Salt Monster, one of the most memorable
Speaker 3: monster designs in the show in my opinion, and the
Speaker 3: creepy moths. This is referencing the first of two core
Speaker 3: episodes we did during Star Trek Week, where we talked
Speaker 3: about the first ever episode of Star Trek, the first
Speaker 3: one ever on TV called The Man Trap, which was
Speaker 3: about a salt vampire, a shape shifting creature that sucked
Speaker 3: the salt out of your body through with like suckers
Speaker 3: that attached to the face, and that, of course led
Speaker 3: us to a biology conversation about moths that in various
Speaker 3: ways will parasitize you for salt, will suck salt from
Speaker 3: your tears or even from your blood. So Elena goes
Speaker 3: on to say it immediately reminded me of oh Mayer
Speaker 3: the Tourist in Star Trek, a nineteen seventy three Turkish film.
Speaker 3: It's a parody movie that takes major plot inspiration from
Speaker 3: the Man Trap episode years ago. I managed to watch
Speaker 3: it with English subtitles and it was a fun experience.
Speaker 3: I also recall scenes borrowed from other notable episodes, like
Speaker 3: a fight scene between Kirk and what was supposed to
Speaker 3: be the Gorn Rob. I dug up some screenshots from
Speaker 3: Omer the Tourist in Star Trek. I attached them in
Speaker 3: the outline for you to see. Here, we have a
Speaker 3: I think this is supposed to be Spock in a
Speaker 3: yellow shirt, but he does have the pointy years in
Speaker 3: Spock's hair, so I think that's him. We got some
Speaker 3: like muscly shirtless guy in a speedo. I don't know
Speaker 3: what that's supposed to be. The poster appears to have
Speaker 3: Godzilla on it. I don't know if that's a mashup
Speaker 3: of Godzilla and Gorn.
Speaker 2: Yeah, some sort of fire breathing reptile.
Speaker 3: And also some characters standing around in what might be
Speaker 3: Roman ruins that they're using as a set here. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: that's an interesting choice. But also having some Star Trek
Speaker 3: uniforms in colors that I don't remember from the show,
Speaker 3: like we've got a you know, you've got your red
Speaker 3: shirts and you've got your yellow shirts. Here we have
Speaker 3: a brown shirt and then kind of a teal green skirt.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, this looks interesting. I have to
Speaker 2: admit this one was not on my radar. I'm familiar
Speaker 2: by reputation with like Turkish Star Wars and some other
Speaker 2: b cinema examples from Turkish film, and there are a
Speaker 2: few Turkish movies that are still on the list for
Speaker 2: Weird House Cinema. Oh yeah, but we haven't really gotten
Speaker 2: around to them just yet. We'll have to remedy that
Speaker 2: in the months ahead.
Speaker 3: Elena says. Since it was released before Star Trek the
Speaker 3: Motion Picture, it's technically the first movie set in the
Speaker 3: Star Trek universe. Amazing. This is probably too strange even
Speaker 3: for weird house cinema. Oh, Elena, you should listen this Friday,
Speaker 3: by the way, but I wanted to share this oddity
Speaker 3: from Turkish cinema anyway, Elena.
Speaker 2: This is exactly the sort of weird house cinema listener
Speaker 2: mail I like to receive. Yeah, clue me in about
Speaker 2: something weird out there that was totally not on my radar.
Speaker 3: Exactly. Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: All right. We also heard from Jared Jared Wrightson and
Speaker 2: says thank you for Star Trek week. Listening to the
Speaker 2: episodes really brought back memories of sitting around the TV
Speaker 2: watching Star Trek with my dad, both the original series
Speaker 2: and the next generation. Sadly, he passed away due to
Speaker 2: complications of COVID in twenty twenty, but this week's episode
Speaker 2: brought back some great memories of him. My dad was
Speaker 2: a diehard Trekie, so much so that I did not
Speaker 2: watch a Star Wars movie until I was an adult,
Speaker 2: as it was considered not as good in our house.
Speaker 2: I think his love for Star Trek was influenced by
Speaker 2: his love of other non sci fi shows such as
Speaker 2: westerns and cereals. Such as Bonanza and gun Smoke. Something
Speaker 2: about the portrayal of flawed characters coming together to do
Speaker 2: what was right struck a chord with him and for me,
Speaker 2: really formed a perspective on life that I did not
Speaker 2: fully recognize until adulthood. As an adult, I have learned
Speaker 2: what a cultural stepping stone Star Trek truly was, and
Speaker 2: knowing when and where my father grew up in rural Appalachia,
Speaker 2: watching shows like Star Trek would have been considered progressive
Speaker 2: for the time and place, with different ethnicities being portrayed
Speaker 2: and given rank and importance on the crew. Star Trek's
Speaker 2: decision to step in that direction help the generation of
Speaker 2: TV watchers become more accepting of others, even if they
Speaker 2: were aliens. Thanks again, Live Long and prosper Jared.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think this is a common reception experience that
Speaker 3: the people report, even outside of not just being in
Speaker 3: rural Appalachia, I mean all over.
Speaker 2: I think, yeah, absolutely. And also the connection to Westerns
Speaker 2: is definitely worth noting as well. I don't know how
Speaker 2: much we stress that in our episodes during Star Trek Week,
Speaker 2: but Star Trek does come out of the world of
Speaker 2: TV Westerns in many respects. I mean a lot of
Speaker 2: the players, of course, were in westerns. Many of the
Speaker 2: Riders had worked in westerns, and a good bit of
Speaker 2: that Western DNA as president in the show.
Speaker 3: I think you can say that about Star Wars as well.
Speaker 3: I mean, yeah, yeah, some ways, it's got some gunslinger
Speaker 3: stuff in there.
Speaker 2: I mean, really, the TV and film westerns cap a
Speaker 2: huge shadow. I mean, you hear folks like John Carpenter
Speaker 2: for instance, Yeah, you know, very few of his films
Speaker 2: are one hundred percent Westerns. I think he has like
Speaker 2: what one full blown Western in the filmography, but he
Speaker 2: credits Westerns like across his filmography for being a heavy
Speaker 2: influence on at least the sort of the form and
Speaker 2: function of the pictures.
Speaker 3: That's right. I think for a lot of the directors
Speaker 3: working in roughly that generation growing up with Westerns, it
Speaker 3: was just it was an influence on all of them,
Speaker 3: even if it wasn't totally their thing. So it's kind
Speaker 3: of like, even if you're not a diehard Star Wars
Speaker 3: or Star Trek fan, you know, most people making films
Speaker 3: coming up nowadays have some of that influence on their childhood,
Speaker 3: right right, all right. This next message is from Bert
Speaker 3: Bert says, Hey, Robert and Joe love the show. It
Speaker 3: keeps the long drives between job sites interesting. If you
Speaker 3: think I have some worthwhile thoughts here, I'd be honored
Speaker 3: if you include it in one of your listener mail episodes.
Speaker 3: I was listening to the Transporters and Consciousness Star Trek
Speaker 3: episode and I thought that the swamp Man thought experiment
Speaker 3: was interesting but flawed. A quick refresher. This is the
Speaker 3: thought experiment by the philosopher Donald Davidson, which was saying, Okay,
Speaker 3: imagine I go out walking in a swamp. I get
Speaker 3: struck by lightning. My body is completely obliterated, there's nothing left,
Speaker 3: and just by coincidence, a tree nearby is also struck
Speaker 3: by lightning, and it gets turned into an exact atom
Speaker 3: for Adam replica of my body, and it can go
Speaker 3: about my business and do everything I do. It acts
Speaker 3: exactly as I would in every scenario. It's a perfect
Speaker 3: copy of me. But Davidson's argument was, despite the fact
Speaker 3: that swamp man is a perfect copy of me and
Speaker 3: can behave exactly as I would, it actually does not
Speaker 3: have thoughts and the signifiers of its mental activity that
Speaker 3: it thinks, you know when it thinks about a dog.
Speaker 3: This is not really about adult because it has never
Speaker 3: met a dog. So it was interrogating the idea of
Speaker 3: what the aboutness of our thoughts really is. So Bert's
Speaker 3: response continues, the Swampman copy might never have experienced a
Speaker 3: dog or the original version's friend John, but it has
Speaker 3: all of the memories from the original. It has the
Speaker 3: memories of the experience, the memories of interactions with other minds,
Speaker 3: the memories of petting the dog. It has the knowledge
Speaker 3: and the feeling of what the experiences were like. Without
Speaker 3: that knowledge, it would not have the image or concept
Speaker 3: of what a dog or a friend is. So the
Speaker 3: recreated Swampman or Spock or McCoy is created a thinking
Speaker 3: being with the full knowledge and experience of what the
Speaker 3: original new and experienced. Yeah, Bert, I think this is
Speaker 3: a common response, and this is what a lot of
Speaker 3: Davidson's critics would argue. And this is sort of along
Speaker 3: the lines of what Daniel Dinnett was arguing in response
Speaker 3: to the idea. But Bert goes on to say, there
Speaker 3: is a second flaw. If this Sampman did not have
Speaker 3: the connections to understand what a dog or a friend
Speaker 3: or a coffee cup is then he would not be
Speaker 3: able to speak intelligently. He might call a dog a rocket,
Speaker 3: or a friend a dandelion, but it's extremely unlikely he
Speaker 3: could formulate a legible sentence. I think Davidson and Dinnett
Speaker 3: we're both off the mark on this one. Both Davidson,
Speaker 3: Swampman and Dinnet's objections to it are much more applicable
Speaker 3: to large language model ais. An AI can be programmed
Speaker 3: with definitions and with photos describing to it what things are,
Speaker 3: but it will have no actual experience, not even secondhand experience.
Speaker 3: It can know, but until it actually has the experience,
Speaker 3: it cannot truly understand. But as Dinnet points out, if
Speaker 3: it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and
Speaker 3: looks like a duck, most people would say it's a duck,
Speaker 3: which changes the question from is an AI thinking before
Speaker 3: it experiences? To are there any differences between what an
Speaker 3: aides before it experiences and what it does after? It
Speaker 3: also adds the question if there are, do the differences matter?
Speaker 3: That's probably more than long enough for one email. Hope
Speaker 3: you found it interesting, bert.
Speaker 2: Oh, Yes, absolutely, thanks for writing in Bertie. We touched
Speaker 2: on how this philosophical discussion may or may not apply
Speaker 2: to AI a little bit in the episode, but you know, clearly,
Speaker 2: as you point out here, you can really go into
Speaker 2: the deep end on this one as well.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think this is actually a very good question. Clearly,
Speaker 3: we learn from experience, and is there some quality, some
Speaker 3: important quality to the nature of our experience which enables
Speaker 3: us to learn and understand which cannot really be achieved
Speaker 3: by feeding a machine like discrete, separate little images that
Speaker 3: are not actually part of a continuous experience like we
Speaker 3: believe we have so like our experience of seeing and
Speaker 3: interacting with dogs throughout our life, is there something actually
Speaker 3: importantly different about that than just like having a large
Speaker 3: language model associate the word dog and other words in
Speaker 3: a cloud around the word dog with lots, you know,
Speaker 3: millions of different pictures of dogs. Is there actually something
Speaker 3: importantly different there in those two different kinds of learning.
Speaker 3: I don't know exactly what it would be, but it
Speaker 3: strikes me as totally plausible that there's something important missing
Speaker 3: that contributes to what we mean when we say understanding
Speaker 3: that's missing from the training model of these AIS, but
Speaker 3: is present in the human beings experience of the world.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, I mean we have skin in the game,
Speaker 2: and there are different ways to interpret how that applies.
Speaker 2: All right, up, next we go. We got a very
Speaker 2: nice email from Alec, who writes in and says, Hi,
Speaker 2: Robert Joe at all. My name is Olt. I'm a
Speaker 2: grad student at U Chicago studying the evolution and mechanics
Speaker 2: of the mammal middle ear. I am defending later this
Speaker 2: fall and have been doing a lot of reflecting on
Speaker 2: the things that have kept my love of science alive,
Speaker 2: and thus wanted to extend my deep gratitude for your show.
Speaker 2: I have been listening since I was an undergrad, and
Speaker 2: your topics and the way you approach your topics, particularly
Speaker 2: your deep dives into how fictional organisms would function based
Speaker 2: on real biology, have always kept my basic curiosity and
Speaker 2: need to learn alive, even against grad school burnout. I
Speaker 2: don't think it is an exaggeration to say the stuff
Speaker 2: to Blow your mind podcast has played a pivotal role
Speaker 2: in my development as a scientist. Thank you for the
Speaker 2: great work you do. Cheers Alec. At ps. Have you
Speaker 2: considered an episode on why elves, vulcans, etc. Have powenty
Speaker 2: years from the folklore perspective. Where does that originate from
Speaker 2: a biological perspective? What's the adaptive significance?
Speaker 3: Great questions? Has this come up on the show before?
Speaker 3: I would be surprised if it hadn't.
Speaker 2: I was actually researching this a little bit prior to
Speaker 2: Star Trek week because I was considering it as a topic.
Speaker 2: So may come back to this sooner rather than later.
Speaker 3: But also, Alex, thank you so much for the message.
Speaker 3: This kind of stuff, it feels so nice, warms my heart. It. Yeah,
Speaker 3: it really really does mean a lot to hear things
Speaker 3: like this, So thank you so much, and best of
Speaker 3: luck with your thesis or dissertation defense. All right, this
Speaker 3: next message, let's do some of the responses to our
Speaker 3: Saint Swithin episode. This one comes from Francois subject line
Speaker 3: about Saint Swithin's revenge and apologies in advance. I'm gonna
Speaker 3: have to read some French in this one. My pronunciation,
Speaker 3: I'm sure is going to be abysmal, but I'll do
Speaker 3: my best, Francois says, Dear Robert and Joe, I just
Speaker 3: listened to your podcas cast about Saint Swithin, and when
Speaker 3: you read the saying Saint Swithin's day. If thou dost
Speaker 3: reign for forty days, it will remain Saint Swithin's day.
Speaker 3: If thou be fair for forty days, twill reign ne
Speaker 3: mere and Francois says, I thought, oh, it is an
Speaker 3: Irish Saint Medard. Imagine my delight when you referenced our
Speaker 3: Saint Medard. This is easily the second most used meteorological
Speaker 3: saying in France. However, the version you used is different
Speaker 3: from the one I know, and because I heard it
Speaker 3: multiple times on TV, it is the official version. It
Speaker 3: says see plu a la Saint Medard il pluvera forty
Speaker 3: jour plutard a muang ke la sam Barnabie luis coup
Speaker 3: le erb sioux lapide and so Francois here has a translation,
Speaker 3: which is, if it rains on Saint Medardas day, it
Speaker 3: will rain forty days later, unless Saint Barnabas pulls the
Speaker 3: r from below his feet, literally cuts the grass beneath
Speaker 3: his feet. Francois says, this side steps the issue of
Speaker 3: forty days of uninterrupted rain. Oh yeah, as we discussed
Speaker 3: in the episode, that that's totally very implausible and that's
Speaker 3: basically never gonna happen. It side steps the issue of
Speaker 3: forty days of uninterrupted rain. It just says that if
Speaker 3: it rains on the eighth of June, it will rain
Speaker 3: on the eleventh or eighteenth of July, a much likelier coincidence.
Speaker 3: I must admit that I found the version you used
Speaker 3: is the one on Catholic dot net. In English, in
Speaker 3: case you wonder, the most used meteorological saying in France
Speaker 3: is Noel albacon paquet autisson meaning Christmas on the balcony,
Speaker 3: Easter by the fire, often nowadays parodied as a niege,
Speaker 3: and November Noel and December meaning snow in November, Christmas
Speaker 3: in December. Thank you for your podcast, best regards, Francois
Speaker 3: and then final ps, still awaiting your take on Podawn, which,
Speaker 3: by the way, that's the French title of Donkey Skin
Speaker 3: with Catherine Deneuve. We will get there eventually. It's on
Speaker 3: the list, Yes.
Speaker 2: I am. I have to say. It looks like as
Speaker 2: of this Friday we will already be diving into our
Speaker 2: horror selections for October. But usually our pattern is that
Speaker 2: once we get out of October, it's time for a
Speaker 2: little palate cleansing, so maybe a little fantasy and definitely
Speaker 2: a little noir. So I don't know, maybe that'll be
Speaker 2: the time of donkey skin.
Speaker 3: M Yeah, but I like your parody saying about December,
Speaker 3: if I understand it correctly, by the way I mean.
Speaker 3: It is often a joke we have around here in
Speaker 3: the American Southeast that like, yeah, it's going to be
Speaker 3: hot on Christmas Day, which it sometimes is.
Speaker 2: All Right, This next one comes to us from Hugh.
Speaker 2: Hugh says Robert, Joe and JJ. Hello there. It's been
Speaker 2: a while since I've written. You guys have been doing
Speaker 2: such a great job that I have had few questions
Speaker 2: and little of use to add. Your recent episode on
Speaker 2: Saint Swiven made me think of that an exploration of
Speaker 2: the history of sainthood might be an interesting subject. It
Speaker 2: turns out that during the early Middle Ages there were
Speaker 2: many many local, regional, and magical saints chosen by communities
Speaker 2: large and small. The official saint was part of the
Speaker 2: Church's move to homogenize doctrine and consolidate power during the
Speaker 2: Late Middle Ages. In early modern times, this is all
Speaker 2: as far as I can remember, you understand, but you
Speaker 2: get the idea keep up the good work here.
Speaker 3: Oh that's interesting, So, Hugh, if I understand you, right,
Speaker 3: the idea is that sainthood begins as a more grassroots
Speaker 3: or organic phenomenon, and then later there's the idea of
Speaker 3: the church should really be, you know, having a system
Speaker 3: to decide who is and isn't a saint, which would
Speaker 3: play into Saint Swithin by the way, because as we discussed,
Speaker 3: he's called Saint Swithin, but he was never actually officially
Speaker 3: canonized by the Catholic Church and not an official Catholics.
Speaker 2: Right right, Yeah, yeah, So it's certainly a fascinating topic.
Speaker 2: It would just be a matter of figuring out the
Speaker 2: exact sort of the exact form the question takes. I
Speaker 2: guess for treatment on stuff to blow your mind, but
Speaker 2: I'm always fascinated by this sort of topic. So yeah,
Speaker 2: well I've put it on the list.
Speaker 3: I mean, we could look at it in a larger sense,
Speaker 3: going just beyond the Catholic thing of like who is holy?
Speaker 3: Like why do we decide that certain people are holy? Yeah?
Speaker 2: And then what's left of the real person once we've
Speaker 2: made them holy? Yeah. We got into that a little
Speaker 2: bit and two previous episodes where we talked about saints. Yeah,
Speaker 2: so yeah, this is this topic probably has legs.
Speaker 3: All right. This next message comes from Kieran. Kieran says, Hi,
Speaker 3: Joe and Rob, this is Kieran from New Zealand. With
Speaker 3: all this talk of Wallace. This is in response in
Speaker 3: part by the way to our episode episodes on Alfred
Speaker 3: Russell Wallace and the Wallace line. Kieran says, with all
Speaker 3: this talk of my mind immediately jumped to a potential
Speaker 3: candidate for weird house cinema, and that is the fantastic
Speaker 3: two thousand and six film called The Fall. In the film,
Speaker 3: it features a fictional Wallace and his monkey sidekick named Darwin.
Speaker 3: Now one quick note, I had I looked this movie up,
Speaker 3: and Kieran, I don't. I hesitate to correct you because
Speaker 3: you've seen the film and I haven't. But when I
Speaker 3: looked it up, it seems to me like it might
Speaker 3: be the other way around, that there's a Darwin character
Speaker 3: with a monkey named Wallace. But again I haven't seen it,
Speaker 3: so maybe there's something I'm missing. Anyway, Kieran continues Wallace
Speaker 3: and Darwin feature and story in a story within the
Speaker 3: story in the film, though not main characters. They play
Speaker 3: an important part in the events of the imaginary story
Speaker 3: featured in the film. It's honestly one of the most
Speaker 3: visually beautiful films I've ever seen, A criminally underrated masterpiece
Speaker 3: with plenty of interesting content to fulfill the weird house quota.
Speaker 3: Is this by the same director of The Cell with
Speaker 3: Jennifer Lopez and Vincent and Afrio.
Speaker 2: It absolutely is. Yes, Tarsian Tarsi singh. I think he
Speaker 2: just goes by Tarsan. Yeah, and I have I have
Speaker 2: seen The Fall. It's I have not seen it since
Speaker 2: it came out. It had a young Lee Pace in
Speaker 2: it before Lee Pace got completely ripped. A great actor.
Speaker 2: Lipace a big fan and enjoying really enjoying him on
Speaker 2: foundation of late. But yeah, the Fall, I remember, like
Speaker 2: The Cell being just a you know, a visual treat,
Speaker 2: but I don't remember much about the plot. It's just
Speaker 2: been too long since i've seen it.
Speaker 3: Well, I'll have to check it out. Thanks for the recommendation, and.
Speaker 2: It's very possible we might come back and do The Cell. Yeah,
Speaker 2: The Cell is one I do remember getting very excited
Speaker 2: for when it came out, and and certainly the visuals
Speaker 2: did not disappoint at the time.
Speaker 3: If I recall correctly, that was one of the movies
Speaker 3: that Roger Ebert really went out on a limb for.
Speaker 3: He was like, this is awesome. You've got to see it.
Speaker 2: Sure enough to sell four stars.
Speaker 3: All right, let's see. Karing goes on to say, one
Speaker 3: of the things I also love about Weird House is
Speaker 3: how both of you have an immense talent for unpacking
Speaker 3: a film and succinctly describing its concepts and themes. Therefore,
Speaker 3: another film I would love to hear given the Weird
Speaker 3: House treatment is a childhood favorite of mine. It's Terry
Speaker 3: Gilliams The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. Many consider this film
Speaker 3: to be an utter folly in the gilliam film catalog,
Speaker 3: but I have a serious soft spot for this one.
Speaker 3: It too, can be considered visually to be a ravishing spectacle,
Speaker 3: full of amazing practical effects, brilliant sets, puppetry, costumes, and
Speaker 3: so much more that leaves one thinking, how on earth
Speaker 3: did they manage to get all this shot? This must
Speaker 3: have been a nightmare to film, which apparently it was.
Speaker 3: There's also an interesting tension I am sure you would
Speaker 3: both like between the black and white childhood idea of myth, imagination, heroism,
Speaker 3: and fantasy, and the adult gray world of reason, rationality, bureaucracy,
Speaker 3: political expediency, and so forth. I really feel you would
Speaker 3: both do an excellent job at unpacking this film with
Speaker 3: its warts and all, discussing its production, themes, story, and
Speaker 3: the rollicking good time it truly is. Thanks so much
Speaker 3: for your excellent show, your gifts for science communication, your
Speaker 3: respect for differing worldviews, and your love of pop culture
Speaker 3: always keeps the show fun. Keep up the good work, Yours, sincerely, Kieran. Well,
Speaker 3: thank you so much for all the kind words. Kieran,
Speaker 3: It's been a long time since I've seen Baron Munchausen.
Speaker 3: I remember back when I saw it, I both found
Speaker 3: it difficult to watch and also really respected it, and
Speaker 3: I think I had that thought about it more than
Speaker 3: one Terry Gilliam film. It was some Gillian films I
Speaker 3: just straight up love, but this one I remember thinking
Speaker 3: it had some parts that were not the most gripping,
Speaker 3: but also it had a lot of just weird integrity,
Speaker 3: strange performances, like when it like Robin William This plays
Speaker 3: the Man in the Moon on it and he's so
Speaker 3: weird in it, and yeah, I don't know, there's been
Speaker 3: a lot that I've forgotten about it by this point,
Speaker 3: but I would like to go back and revisit it totally.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we've never done a Terry Gilliam film for Weird
Speaker 2: House Cinema, and it's of course he's on my mind
Speaker 2: anytime we're coming up with selections. But I guess I
Speaker 2: kind of have a certain amount of decision fatigue when
Speaker 2: it comes to him, because he's made so many iconically
Speaker 2: weird films like do I go with Brazil? Do I
Speaker 2: go with Time Bandits? Do I go with this selection?
Speaker 2: Do I maybe go a little further back, or do
Speaker 2: I know, take a chance on one of the more
Speaker 2: recent pictures, you know, because there's going to be something.
Speaker 2: He's one of those directors where even in his quote
Speaker 2: unquote lesser works, there's going to be something to talk about.
Speaker 2: There's going to be some nugget of absolute gold in there.
Speaker 2: So yeah, for that reason, never actually selected something from
Speaker 2: his filmography. Jabberwakee, that's another one.
Speaker 3: I saw that one when I was way too young.
Speaker 3: I did not I did not fully get the vision
Speaker 3: I think at the time. But yeah, I think when
Speaker 3: I saw that, I had also seen Monty Python in
Speaker 3: The Holy Grail when I was really too young to
Speaker 3: have seen that, and I was like, I just wanted
Speaker 3: another movie like that, and Jabberwaukee was like weirder than
Speaker 3: what I was bargaining for.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, when you talk about the vision with
Speaker 2: Terry Gilliam, it's always a mad vision, So I think
Speaker 2: it's always going to be a little bit challenging one
Speaker 2: way or another.
Speaker 3: All Right, you want to do some straight up weird
Speaker 3: house messages.
Speaker 2: Sure, Sure, let's see what do we have here. This
Speaker 2: one comes to us from Scott subject line mor Locke perspective.
Speaker 2: This is, of course a response to our episode on
Speaker 2: the nineteen sixty film adaptation of The Time Machine. Hi,
Speaker 2: Robert Joe. You'll doubtless here from many people on this,
Speaker 2: but there is a story of the time traveler's adventures
Speaker 2: from the Morlocks perspective. David Lake's nineteen eighty one novel
Speaker 2: The Man Who Loved Morlocks. It's been a while since
Speaker 2: I read it, but must confess it didn't seem highly memorable,
Speaker 2: in part because the Morlocks weren't presented as sufficiently alien
Speaker 2: in their psychology and culture as I would have expected
Speaker 2: from post humans after eight hundred thousand years of evolution. Instead,
Speaker 2: they seem more or less like very normal human beings
Speaker 2: who had simply been misunderstood by a plundering traveler. But
Speaker 2: perhaps other readers have different and more positive reviews.
Speaker 3: Scott, Yeah, you know, I'm actually of two minds about
Speaker 3: the idea of taking, you know, doing a whole treatment
Speaker 3: of a story where you flip the hero villain dynamic.
Speaker 3: You know, there's like that classic example we've talked about
Speaker 3: on the show before. I've actually not read this novel,
Speaker 3: but there's that famous take on Lord of the Rings
Speaker 3: which flips it all around, which is like from the
Speaker 3: Orc's perspective, and the org are actually like nice people
Speaker 3: who are just like trying to live in peace, and
Speaker 3: they are being brutally assaulted by the wizards and the elves,
Speaker 3: and so it's the kind of thing where that can
Speaker 3: be really interesting if you have an interesting take on it.
Speaker 3: But it could also be too easy, right you could
Speaker 3: just say, like I'm just gonna flip everything and then
Speaker 3: maybe not bring a lot of imagination to it. It
Speaker 3: literally is just flipping everything. I'm not acute, by the way,
Speaker 3: I haven't read this book, so I'm not accusing David
Speaker 3: Lake of doing that. I don't have an opinion on it,
Speaker 3: but I can see how a hero hero villain flipping
Speaker 3: novel could easily be actually kind of unremarkable or uninteresting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you would have to play it just right, and
Speaker 2: and they're different. It also comes down to like, exactly
Speaker 2: what sort of story are you trying to tell? What
Speaker 2: sort of points are you trying to make about the
Speaker 2: more locks or or the other factions or characters in
Speaker 2: the narrative. So yeah, yeah, I was not familiar with
Speaker 2: this book though, or really this particular author. I noticed
Speaker 2: that he also wrote another book, The Truth about Weena,
Speaker 2: from nineteen ninety eight.
Speaker 3: I wonder if that's a Is that a sequel to the.
Speaker 2: I guess so, or at least it's you know, it's
Speaker 2: within the time Machine universe.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I may have already said this a minute ago,
Speaker 3: But the more I'm thinking about it, the more it's
Speaker 3: just like, for a story to work this way, you
Speaker 3: have to find some way to make it original. It
Speaker 3: can't just be the same story. But actually the bad
Speaker 3: guys are the good guys, you know, it would need
Speaker 3: to bring something new or creative.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, we can all think of stellar examples
Speaker 2: of this. For example, one that we've mentioned on the
Speaker 2: show many times is John Gardner's Grindle, which tells the
Speaker 2: story of Bailwil from the monstrous perspective. But yeah, like
Speaker 2: that's an excellent treatment, an excellent use of this basic
Speaker 2: flip the script method. So not every not every flipping
Speaker 2: of the script is going to be as good as Grindle.
Speaker 3: And it's basically a new story. It's yeah, just yeah,
Speaker 3: all right. This next message is from Matt subject line
Speaker 3: of Vertue. Hey, Robin, Joe, Matt here, just listen to
Speaker 3: your Vault episode on Black Sabbath. And I was wondering
Speaker 3: if you have seen the twenty twenty three Oh, by
Speaker 3: the way, that's the Mario Bava film Black Sabbath, not
Speaker 3: the band, though the band got their name from the
Speaker 3: title of the film, seeing it on a marquee, but yes,
Speaker 3: let's see, Matt says, I was wondering if you have
Speaker 3: seen the twenty twenty three French horror film The Verduolac,
Speaker 3: directed by Adrian bo. It is a weird and creepy
Speaker 3: new adaptation of Alexei Tolstoy's story. I loved the Black
Speaker 3: Sabbath vignette, but it's interesting to see the story through
Speaker 3: the lens of a modern filmmaker. I was particularly weirded
Speaker 3: out by the use of vampire folklore regarding the chewing
Speaker 3: of garments on a different Black Sabbath topic. I have
Speaker 3: seen two different versions, both of which I believe were
Speaker 3: dubbed into English. It's been some years since I watched it,
Speaker 3: but I think the alternate version of the telephone, which
Speaker 3: is one of the segments in the movie, the more
Speaker 3: jallowy one with less supernatural elements. Matt says it removed
Speaker 3: all reference to lesbian relationships and had the phone calls
Speaker 3: coming from the main character's dead husband. I imagine that
Speaker 3: would be the American International Pictures release. Anyway, I love
Speaker 3: the show and look forward to future episodes. Matt oh Man,
Speaker 3: I can't imagine a bowdlerized version of Black Sabbath. That
Speaker 3: seems wrong.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely. Now, as for this twenty twenty three film, yes, well, no,
Speaker 2: no one. Yes, no, I have not seen it, but yes,
Speaker 2: I'm familiar with it because this one has been eyeing
Speaker 2: me from the shelves at Video Drum here in Atlanta
Speaker 2: for a while. It looks like a unique treatment on
Speaker 2: the vampire legend with live action and what I believe
Speaker 2: puppetry or stop motion, one or both of the two
Speaker 2: used to depict the titular monster.
Speaker 3: I have not seen it, but I'm very interested. JJ
Speaker 3: has seen it, by the way. I remembered that because
Speaker 3: he had brought it up with me in the past.
Speaker 3: But JJ just confirmed he thinks it would be a
Speaker 3: good weird house movie. So that's a couple of votes
Speaker 3: in its favor.
Speaker 2: Excellent, all right. The next one comes to us from
Speaker 2: Doug and in this one, he's writing in response to
Speaker 2: our Weird House Cinema episode on Willy Wonka and the
Speaker 2: Chocolate Factory. He says, cap this podcast on a whim
Speaker 2: and absolutely loved it. Willy Wonka in the Chocolate Factory
Speaker 2: is one of my most favorite films. I used to
Speaker 2: torture my children with on movie nights. They're all grown now,
Speaker 2: and I hope to share it with the grandkids someday.
Speaker 2: And although the film is over fifty years old, it
Speaker 2: seems much of its content is still relatable. Candy and
Speaker 2: imagination never go out of style. The over the top
Speaker 2: performance of Gene Wilder and the dream like songs are
Speaker 2: timeless masterpieces. This is one of the few movies I
Speaker 2: keep on DVD to have accessible. Hopefully we don't lose
Speaker 2: DVD players too, so.
Speaker 3: The market for them is has already greatly narrowed. But
Speaker 3: you can still, to my relief, watch films on disc
Speaker 3: and you can still get new players. I hope that's
Speaker 3: something that comes back. I hope we just haven't like
Speaker 3: given up and let the streamers fully win.
Speaker 2: No, absolutely, and I think once I think most of
Speaker 2: you are beginning to realize, if you're not already one
Speaker 2: hundred percent on board of this already, that having access
Speaker 2: to physical media means you have access to your media
Speaker 2: that you can count on long term. And that's why
Speaker 2: if you have some sort of a video store in
Speaker 2: your cities, like certainly support and chaerish it because there
Speaker 2: can and and beyond that as well also your libraries,
Speaker 2: whatever disks are available to your libraries. This this is
Speaker 2: absolutely worth worth supporting and getting behind, because yeah, otherwise
Speaker 2: it's just completely up in the air, like, well, will
Speaker 2: this film be available streaming next week, next month? You
Speaker 2: don't know, And then if it is, what version will
Speaker 2: it be in what voices in the world might influence
Speaker 2: what cut of a film you get to see later on.
Speaker 2: So yeah, these are all excellent reasons to look after
Speaker 2: your films and make sure you have access to them,
Speaker 2: to them the way you want them.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Here here by the way, if you want to
Speaker 3: write in and let us know about your local video
Speaker 3: rental store. If you've got something like a video drome
Speaker 3: or like a future shock video in your hometown and
Speaker 3: you want to write in and tell us about it
Speaker 3: what you love about it, please do contact at stuff
Speaker 3: to Blow your Mind dot com.
Speaker 2: Absolutely anyway. Doug continues here and says, when Charlie and
Speaker 2: the Chocolate Factory came out, I was excited to see
Speaker 2: a modernization of Willy Wonka, Tim Burton and Johnny Depp.
Speaker 2: What a perfect combination.
Speaker 3: Or was it?
Speaker 2: I don't know. It was filled with imagination and depths
Speaker 2: over the top performance, but it lacked the connection with
Speaker 2: the audience, and maybe I wasn't the right audience. I
Speaker 2: don't know. It never connected with me. Thank you so
Speaker 2: much for the imaginative distraction. It was fun going down
Speaker 2: the road today, Doug. Yeah, it sounds like Doug was
Speaker 2: pretty much in the same boat as we were with
Speaker 2: the Tim Burton Willy Wonka picture. Like, you know, was
Speaker 2: it creative that certainly that it has some really neat
Speaker 2: sets and costumes and so forth. Yeah, absolutely, But yeah,
Speaker 2: I can also say it didn't really stick with me
Speaker 2: in the same way that the original did.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah, I mean I can totally love a Burton
Speaker 3: depth collab. I mean, the movie ed Wood is a
Speaker 3: long time one of my favorites. This is great, but yeah,
Speaker 3: this one never never looked like something I could endure.
Speaker 3: All right, This next message is from Bert. Oh I
Speaker 3: didn't check to see Is this the same bird as
Speaker 3: our previous Burt message or a different Bert. I'm not sure,
Speaker 3: but this is also about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,
Speaker 3: or actually it's about Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
Speaker 3: because it's the movie. Bert says, there was so much
Speaker 3: I wanted to say as you went through the movie,
Speaker 3: but I was driving and couldn't take notes. So Bert,
Speaker 3: I'm glad you didn't, so I will limit myself to
Speaker 3: two observations. First, I think all of the children actually
Speaker 3: suffer from the same problem obsession. Augustas Gloup is obsessed
Speaker 3: with food, Veruk Assault is obsessed with herself, Violet Beauregard
Speaker 3: is obsessed with gum Man gum That is a pretty
Speaker 3: narrow obsession, and Mike TV is obsessed with TV only
Speaker 3: Charlie doesn't have any obsessions. The second observation I'd like
Speaker 3: to make is I love your take on Willy Wonka
Speaker 3: as a proto supernatural character, possibly with supernatural enemies, he
Speaker 3: has to contend with sort of a mister Rourke of
Speaker 3: the candy world. I think that's referring to the Ricardo
Speaker 3: Montlebond character on Fantasy Island who can make your fantasies
Speaker 3: come true, has a supernatural kind of quality, a mister
Speaker 3: Rourke of the candy world. Just as we eventually learned
Speaker 3: that mister Rourke is a direct opponent of Satan, we
Speaker 3: could possibly learned that in the future that Slugworth is
Speaker 3: actually the Evil County counterpart to Willy Wonka. Oh, like
Speaker 3: a demonic candy maker of the rival company. Yeah, I
Speaker 3: guess not the Slugworth we see in the movie, because
Speaker 3: that was a counterfeit slug Worth that was actually a
Speaker 3: servant of the Lord opposing as a demon. But Bert
Speaker 3: finishes by saying I'm not an author, but I may
Speaker 3: have to try to write that story.
Speaker 2: Bert.
Speaker 3: Go for it, man, Yeah, nothing to stop you.
Speaker 2: Slug Worth does show up in the recent Wonka film,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty three's Wonka. Oh, and you know they don't
Speaker 2: really play up the magical mystical aspects of this character,
Speaker 2: but he is played by the excellent Patterson Joseph. So again,
Speaker 2: you know, I wouldn't say that twenty twenty three's Wonka
Speaker 2: is on the same level as the original Willy Wonka
Speaker 2: picture for me personally, but I thought it was a
Speaker 2: lot of fun.
Speaker 3: I haven't seen it, can't comment.
Speaker 2: All right, This next one comes to us from Amy,
Speaker 2: and this one is going to be a correction. And
Speaker 2: I just want to note here that JJ and I
Speaker 2: have already gone back to our episode and plugged in
Speaker 2: a little note about this. So the correction is also
Speaker 2: present in the Weird House Cinema episode moving forward. So
Speaker 2: Amy says, hi, guys, I listened to you every single morning,
Speaker 2: and I was delighted to hear you do WILLI walcome
Speaker 2: the chocolate factory on Weird House? And I never want
Speaker 2: to be a nitpicker, but I wanted to let you
Speaker 2: know before you get the will actually people talking about
Speaker 2: Gene Wilder, you mentioned Blazing Saddles best comedy ever and
Speaker 2: said it quote would lead to four more films with
Speaker 2: Richard Pryor. Richard Pryor was set to star in Blazing Saddles,
Speaker 2: but he was too spicy for the producers. Cleveland Little
Speaker 2: replaced him and hit it out of the park. Thank
Speaker 2: you for attending Mike cleveland Little fan Club meeting. Love
Speaker 2: you guys.
Speaker 3: Amy. Yeah, so, I did not know that Richard Pryor
Speaker 3: had been in the running to play the lead in
Speaker 3: Blazing Saddles. He was one of the screenwriters on the movie,
Speaker 3: but apparently he was also Melbrooks's original choice to play
Speaker 3: the lead the character of bart. Brooks himself has claimed
Speaker 3: in multiple accounts that even though he wanted prior for
Speaker 3: the role, the executives at Warner Brothers would not allow
Speaker 3: it because they said he was uninsurable due to previous
Speaker 3: drug arrests. I don't know if that story is true.
Speaker 3: It had like it's never been confirmed by anybody on
Speaker 3: the Warner Brothers side, but that's what Melbrooks always said.
Speaker 3: Though apparently after he was ruled out for the role,
Speaker 3: prior did recommend Cleveland Little.
Speaker 2: For the role. Yeah, yeah, and true enough, he's great
Speaker 2: in it. Yeah, real quick. I want to throw in
Speaker 2: a note here that, of course, the Willywalk episode of
Speaker 2: Weird House I dedicated to my mom, who had passed
Speaker 2: away the month before. A number of you heard that
Speaker 2: and wrote in with some very nice comments, and I
Speaker 2: just want to just want to say I appreciate it.
Speaker 2: All right, Joe, I'm going to pass it back to you.
Speaker 2: Here we have an excellent one from Lindsay here. Lindsay's
Speaker 2: listener mail writing is kind of like a work of poetry,
Speaker 2: a little stream of consciousness.
Speaker 3: Here Lindsey says, hey, y'all think about Grizzly too. Weird
Speaker 3: stuff around it. Shot in nineteen eighty three, finally released
Speaker 3: in twenty twenty. Shot in Hungary, portraying a nineteen eighty
Speaker 3: three music festival in a US national park. Evil promoter
Speaker 3: played by Louise Fletcher, very young, George Clooney, Charlie Sheen,
Speaker 3: Laura Dern, John ry S Davies as a French frontier trapper,
Speaker 3: bad accent, fringe, buckskin single shot twelve Gage with native decorations,
Speaker 3: A bunch of other eighties character actor names awful film errors,
Speaker 3: showing a cartridge flying as a bullet kickstarting an entirely
Speaker 3: different motorcycle from when he was riding National Park jeep
Speaker 3: with government plates, several brit bands, and what I think
Speaker 3: was a Hungarian rock band singing in Hungarian. I have
Speaker 3: a pretty high tolerance for weird, but this one was
Speaker 3: off the charts. Has to be a twisted story behind it,
Speaker 3: somewhere right on Lindsey WHOA.
Speaker 2: Will color me intrigued interested putting it on the list exactly?
Speaker 2: All right? Here's another one. This one comes to us
Speaker 2: from Ian and says, dear Robin Joe, I wanted to
Speaker 2: write in to suggest a movie for weird house Cinema,
Speaker 2: The Adventures of Buckeroo Bonzai Across the Eighth Dimension. Somehow
Speaker 2: I had managed to never hear of this movie, despite
Speaker 2: being a child of the eighties and it apparently being
Speaker 2: a cult classic from that era, until my wife and
Speaker 2: I stumbled across it on Amazon Prime the other day,
Speaker 2: and boy was it a treat. You have Peter Weller
Speaker 2: and Jeff Goldbloom battling rubber suit aliens from another dimension
Speaker 2: led by an evil John Lithgow It's campy and janki
Speaker 2: and borderline nonsensical, and a joy from the start to
Speaker 2: the finish. The one thing that disappointed me about the
Speaker 2: movie was that the sequel promised and the credits never materialized.
Speaker 2: Though Buckeroo Bonzai against the World of Crime does sound
Speaker 2: like a step down from fighting trans dimensional aliens, that
Speaker 2: travesty aside. I would love to hear y'all discuss it.
Speaker 2: Your thoughts are always a treat. Thanks for the great show,
Speaker 2: Ian I.
Speaker 3: This is a wonderful suggestion. John Smallberry's must be heard.
Speaker 2: And I also have to say I do in general
Speaker 2: love love slash hate it. It's a it's a mix
Speaker 2: of feelings. When you have a film set up a
Speaker 2: sequel that sounds really cool and it never happens, Yeah
Speaker 2: every time. It's like when you do that, you create
Speaker 2: an alternate timeline where that movie exists and we can
Speaker 2: only dream what ourselves are like in that timeline.
Speaker 3: Can I can I offer a counter opinion though this
Speaker 3: maybe this is the love half of your love hate
Speaker 3: relationship with this. I have come, as I've gotten older,
Speaker 3: more and more to appreciate all the different varieties of
Speaker 3: something leaving you wanting more. I think that's actually a
Speaker 3: good thing. And I when I was younger, I would
Speaker 3: be more inclined to be upset that there could have
Speaker 3: been more that we didn't get, and now to kind
Speaker 3: of feel positive, feel kind of like love and gratefulness
Speaker 3: when all there is is enough to make me want
Speaker 3: more instead of there being more that isn't what I want.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I mean that's isn't that always the case
Speaker 2: with life? Right?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: We have to have to be glad that it happened,
Speaker 2: not sad that it's over, and so forth, be happy
Speaker 2: with the film you got, and yeah, be be glad
Speaker 2: that it left while people were still wanting it to stay.
Speaker 2: But of course the counter argument there is, oh, well,
Speaker 2: I guess you didn't need aliens. I guess you didn't
Speaker 2: need terminator too. I guess you didn't need scanners to
Speaker 2: Well maybe we didn't need scanners too, But at any rate,
Speaker 2: there needed scanner cop We did did we do We
Speaker 2: didn't do scanner cop?
Speaker 3: No, we didn't do it. On the show I said
Speaker 3: we needed scanner, we.
Speaker 2: Needed scanner cop and scanners too. Was the the the
Speaker 2: the the bridge? So yeah, I mean it all works
Speaker 2: out in the wash for.
Speaker 3: Sure, all right, Well, so you want me to do
Speaker 3: this last one from Jeff? Sure, all right, Jeff says
Speaker 3: a subject line bad to the Bones, and note, by
Speaker 3: the way, this came up probably in response to our
Speaker 3: episode on Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger, because
Speaker 3: it's about Ray Harry Housen. That movie has a bunch
Speaker 3: of great stop motion effects by Ray Harry Housen, including
Speaker 3: some skeleton ghouls which are raised up out of a
Speaker 3: bonfire by the Witch Queens and Obia. They're sent to
Speaker 3: destroy Sindbad, which leads to a cool sword fight scene.
Speaker 3: Sinbad has to think quick and find a way to
Speaker 3: destroy the skeletons, which are impervious to being stabbed obviously
Speaker 3: because they're kind of skeletons. And I think that sent
Speaker 3: us on a good tangent about skeleton warriors and various
Speaker 3: things you always end up finding some in your D
Speaker 3: and D. Right, Yeah, well that's exactly what this emails about.
Speaker 3: Jeff says, greetings, Joe and Rob, regarding the recent discussion
Speaker 3: of Clackety Harry House and skeletons. In my first D
Speaker 3: and D campaign as a kid, we received a standard
Speaker 3: issue in assigned mission to collect a magical something or
Speaker 3: other from a nearby dungeon. We had spent days creating
Speaker 3: characters with cool powers like talking to squirrels and creating
Speaker 3: sparkly light shows, but we didn't pay enough attention to
Speaker 3: including the required party beefcake Rob. Is this a standard
Speaker 3: D and D term or is this is this a
Speaker 3: Jeff ism here? I assume Jeff is referring to like
Speaker 3: a tank character or something.
Speaker 2: Ah, yeah, this is not terminology we use at our table,
Speaker 2: but my table is not exactly maybe a great snapshot
Speaker 2: of what all gamers are doing and talking about.
Speaker 3: Yeah, anyway, what I could be wrong, but what I
Speaker 3: imagine Jeff means there is like, yes, a damage dealing
Speaker 3: and absorbing character, a fighter or something. Yeah yeah, tank, yeah,
Speaker 3: Jeff says. By the time we got to the dungeon entrance,
Speaker 3: we had already had the crap kicked out of us
Speaker 3: by some dumb creatures who were not impressed with ventriloquism
Speaker 3: or the ability to pick pockets.
Speaker 2: Some low roll.
Speaker 3: Yeah. As we approached, a bunch of skeletons came charging
Speaker 3: out at us like ants from a disturbed ant hill.
Speaker 3: The cleric, happy to finally get something fun to do
Speaker 3: did a turn undead on them, but due to our
Speaker 3: low level, it didn't destroy them, but it did make
Speaker 3: them flee, and for the first time none of us
Speaker 3: got hurt. Rob Can you do a quick Encyclopedia entry
Speaker 3: on turn undead? That's it's a cleric ability.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, we have pretty standard ability of good holy
Speaker 2: characters to just make lower level undead, you know, drop
Speaker 2: and run or drop. In general, it can and at
Speaker 2: some point it can ramp up to being destroyed undead.
Speaker 2: I never play a cleric though, so I don't have
Speaker 2: a lot of like hands on experience with it.
Speaker 3: But so, like the standard effect is that you get
Speaker 3: some zombies or skeletons or whatever, you do turn undead
Speaker 3: on them and they like drop their weapons and run away.
Speaker 2: Yeah you can do, yeah they run away, or again
Speaker 2: you just destroy them, like, yeah, they just can't stand
Speaker 2: against the Cross or the Pentagram or whatever kind of
Speaker 2: holy item and deity you represent.
Speaker 3: Okay, Jeff goes on. We discovered the dungeon was infested
Speaker 3: with skeletons, so we worked out a plan to quietly enter,
Speaker 3: make a bunch of noise, run screaming back outside to
Speaker 3: draw out the skeletons, have the cleric turn them and repeat.
Speaker 3: Because turn on dead was an ability and not a spell,
Speaker 3: we could do that all day, which we did so,
Speaker 3: meaning you have a limited number of spell slots that
Speaker 3: you would use up if it were a spell, but
Speaker 3: it's not like that. You can just keep doing it
Speaker 3: over and over. And I like this because this is
Speaker 3: like a video game cheese strategy, but you're doing it
Speaker 3: in a tabletop setting, which Finn, you know, when I'm
Speaker 3: playing like a single player video game, I do. I
Speaker 3: don't know if I want to admit this, but I
Speaker 3: often find myself just figuring out little like cheese strategies,
Speaker 3: like how do I get the enemies to just funnel
Speaker 3: into like a near corridor where I can fight them
Speaker 3: more easily, And you know that just happens. Sometimes you
Speaker 3: find your way into like trying to find easier ways
Speaker 3: to get through encounters, even if it's not what the
Speaker 3: game developers probably intended, because they wanted you to have
Speaker 3: a more kind of like challenging and thrilling way of
Speaker 3: getting through. I don't know, we just tend to want
Speaker 3: to find an easier way to do something.
Speaker 2: I guess it works in real life exactly. Of course,
Speaker 2: we're going to solve problems in a virtual world the
Speaker 2: same way.
Speaker 3: But I don't really have that problem in tabletop ore like,
Speaker 3: I'm not usually looking for a cheese strategy when I'm
Speaker 3: playing D and D with my friends.
Speaker 2: Well, D and D is special, and by DND, I'm
Speaker 2: just referring to all social role playing games like this
Speaker 2: and that it is social. So on one hand, you
Speaker 2: are trying to beat, defeat an enemy, or overcome a
Speaker 2: particular challenger in an and or system, but you're also
Speaker 2: in theory and hopefully trying to collectively tell a really
Speaker 2: good story with your friends. So if you go just
Speaker 2: total cheese mode, you might be ignoring the storytelling or
Speaker 2: ignoring the friends, the latter being the worse of the
Speaker 2: two to ignore. So yeah, it has to be just
Speaker 2: the right balance.
Speaker 3: So Jeff goes on to explain the result of this
Speaker 3: turn on dead cheese strategy. We were then able to
Speaker 3: move through the dungeons slowly and cautiously, on the lookout
Speaker 3: for traps and curses, without constant fear of attack and
Speaker 3: completely lacking in dramatic tension. There you go. We eventually
Speaker 3: found the loot and headed back for our reward. If
Speaker 3: you've ever DMD a party of rule hacking players like that,
Speaker 3: you can probably see where this is going. We got
Speaker 3: back to town, which was in chaos and burning to
Speaker 3: the ground as the civilians had been slaughtered by wave
Speaker 3: after wave of violent skeletons who had been driven from
Speaker 3: their home looking for revenge on the living. So we
Speaker 3: didn't get the reward or very many experience points, but
Speaker 3: we did certainly gain real life wisdom from an experience.
Speaker 3: Don't f with the module there you go. I mean,
Speaker 3: I think that's exactly what you were saying. Ron getting
Speaker 3: in the way of the spirit of the storytelling sometimes exerts.
Speaker 3: Sometimes it invites a kind of karmic reaction from the DM.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but I mean, I don't know, it's like it's
Speaker 2: totally about the table and what the whole vibe is.
Speaker 2: Like maybe that's exactly what needs to be happened. And
Speaker 2: it was the greatest gaming experience of all time for
Speaker 2: everybody because that's what they were in the mood for.
Speaker 2: So there's you know, there's no ones that way that
Speaker 2: it needs to be for everybody.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and then Jeff has a very nice note at
Speaker 3: the end. Jeff says on a personal note, I wanted
Speaker 3: to extend my deepest sympathies to Rob in his time
Speaker 3: of loss. We all owe his mother a great debt,
Speaker 3: both for taking on one of the world's most important
Speaker 3: occupations referring to teaching, and for raising Rob, whose hard
Speaker 3: work does so much to soothe people going through tough
Speaker 3: times or just trying to make their way through the
Speaker 3: daily grind. Props to mom for making the world a
Speaker 3: better place.
Speaker 2: Jeff, Oh, thank you, Jeff, that's very sweet.
Speaker 3: I appreciate it.
Speaker 2: And again heard from numerous other listeners out there, and
Speaker 2: you know I appreciate all your kind words. All right, Well,
Speaker 2: at this point, I guess it's time to go ahead
Speaker 2: and close up the old mailbag for today, but we
Speaker 2: will be back later. Once again, we are on the
Speaker 2: cusp of diving into October. I know it, we're only
Speaker 2: halfway through September, but that's where we are. It's about
Speaker 2: to be October everyone, So that's going to be all
Speaker 2: sorts of cool October topics, October weird house cinema selections.
Speaker 2: On that note, like, we're putting together the list now,
Speaker 2: so if you are just really gung ho for a
Speaker 2: particular October weird House cinema selection, or certainly a particular
Speaker 2: core episode of stuff to blow your mind or things
Speaker 2: to feature on the Monster fact or the artifact. Now
Speaker 2: is definitely the time to go ahead and start pestering
Speaker 2: us with those suggestions, because we're putting the list together
Speaker 2: right now.
Speaker 3: Can I say what the October weird house vibe is?
Speaker 3: I think, without us ever making this explain or doing
Speaker 3: this on purpose, I think during October we lean more
Speaker 3: toward classic supernatural horror more so than we do in
Speaker 3: other times of the year, where we might go more
Speaker 3: kind of sci fi or fantasy, or throughout the rest
Speaker 3: of the year. I feel like it's more common that
Speaker 3: the horror we do has a kind of sci fi
Speaker 3: flavor to it, or might be one of these other
Speaker 3: subgenres body horror or something like that. But in October
Speaker 3: that's the time for like witches and ghosts and vampires,
Speaker 3: that sort of thing. Do you have the same feeling, Yeah?
Speaker 2: Yeah, And it's again, we don't have like a list
Speaker 2: that we check off physically every time, but that does
Speaker 2: seem to be how it works out.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, So we're not trying to be rigid about that.
Speaker 3: But I think that is the general vibe if y'all
Speaker 3: are making suggestions, which again are totally welcome.
Speaker 2: Definitely a time for gothic car that's for sure.
Speaker 3: Yeah, especially if it's gothic horror that gets really weird.
Speaker 3: That's a sweet spot.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we'll inevitably do a film that has one of
Speaker 2: the big names of horror films of yesteryear, like a
Speaker 2: Vincent Price or Christopher Lee or Cushing and so forth.
Speaker 2: So certainly if there's a film featuring any of those individuals, like, yeah,
Speaker 2: let us know which one you think should be on
Speaker 2: our play. Just a reminder to everyone out there that
Speaker 2: Stuff to Blow Your Mind is primarily a science and
Speaker 2: culture podcast. Core episodes in Tuesdays and Thursdays, short form
Speaker 2: episodes on Wednesdays and on Fridays. That's the time to
Speaker 2: set aside most serious concerns and just talk about a
Speaker 2: weird film on Weird House Cinema.
Speaker 3: Huge thanks as always to our excellent audio producer JJ Posway.
Speaker 3: If you would like to get in touch with us
Speaker 3: with feedback on this episode or any other, to suggest
Speaker 3: a topic for the future, or just to say hello,
Speaker 3: you can email us at contact at Stuff to Blow
Speaker 3: your Mind 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.