September 25, 2023 • 21 mins
Once more, it's time for a weekly dose of Stuff to Blow Your Mind and Weirdhouse Cinema listener mail...
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Hey you welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. Listener mail.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
My name is Robert Lamb and I'm Joe McCormick, and
it's Monday, the day of each week that we read
back messages that you have sent in to the Stuff
to Blow Your Mind email address, which, by the way,
you should give a try if you never have before.
We always appreciate feedback to recent episodes, especially if you
have something interesting you would like to add to a
(00:33):
topic we've talked about. You can reach us at contact
at stuff to Blow your Mind dot com. Let's see
rob do you mind if I kick things off today?
With this message from Daniel in response to our series Well,
this was in response to our series on stickiness, but
specifically the episode where we talked about sticky memories. Yeah,
(00:55):
let's do it, okay, and for context. In the Sticky
Memories episode, we talked about the idea of flash bulb memories,
these memories that have a subjectively highly sticky quality to them.
People many years later will report these types of experiences
with confidence that they have very detailed, accurate memories, and
(01:19):
specifically flash bold memories are about the moment that a
person learned about a public event, often like a tragedy
of some kind, like the moment somebody learned about the
Kennedy assassination or the moment somebody learned about nine to eleven.
People very often report that they have detailed and very consistent,
(01:39):
accurate memories about what was going on when they found
out where they were and all that, and studies have
shown Nope, they don't. They just think that they do. We,
for some reason, are especially convinced that these memories are
authentic and unchanging. But you can show that they're not.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
So.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
Daniel says Hi in regard to your episode about sticky memories.
The unreliability of some of the details of these memories
was of extreme interest for me, as I have recorded
proof of some of these in my personal life, that is,
family events recorded on video and then years later compared
(02:23):
to my memory of this event, having never seen the
video until now, and noting the profound differences parentheses. I
apologize for my possible poor writing skills, as I have
autism and do not express myself well. It takes extreme
effort to generate even this well. We appreciate the effort Daniel,
(02:43):
think you're doing great, Daniel says. One event I will
describe now. The memory I have is this. It's two
thousand and four. I'm playing with the first solid state
memory based video camera I ever had. I met my
grandmother's place. My Auntie and I pressure cleaning the back
pavement of her house. It's a crisp, cool, coldish, late
(03:06):
winter's breezy day. The splashing water from the pressure cleaner
feels lovely on my legs. I'm a person who hates
hot weather, and so this is a particularly nice memory
for this reason. All this time I am recording the
event on the camera. This memory persisted for years and
still does. However, how shocked I was two years later
(03:28):
come across the original camera footage actual event as recorded.
I was pressure cleaning with my auntie at my grandmother's place,
washing the back pavement. But it was a stinking hot
summer's day, and in the video I was wishing it
was a much cooler winter's day. I was imagining how
(03:49):
much nicer it would be to feel the cold splashes
along with the coldish late winter breeze. The original event,
plus my wishful alteration to the event, was fused into
one memory event. How many of our memories actually appear
more favorable than they actually were because we included any
(04:11):
wishful changes in the memory. Eg. At a wedding a
lovely time, but wish Uncle John could be here. In
our memory Uncle John is there, but proven wrong by
the wedding video. This has happened a lot in my life,
as I have recorded heaps of it since I was
in primary school. Maybe this is one of the reasons
the past can seem so much better than the present.
(04:33):
The past has been edited by our minds in post
production to be better, and is only picked up if
we record it with technology as well and compare it.
I would never have realized the inaccuracy of the pressure
cleaner event if I hadn't recorded it as well. Cheers Daniel.
Oh well, yeah, thank you for the excellent message, Daniel.
(04:54):
And yeah, I think it's amazing when people have experiences
like this. I know my family didn't do a lot
of home movies, but my wife's family did some home movies,
and I think she's talked about experiences like this, like
remembering something one way but then seeing it on video
and oh, it happened a different way and being so
(05:15):
surprised by that. But I think there's something very perceptive
to what you're saying about the idea of you think
that the day you were out there with the pressure cleaner,
feeling the water on your legs and wishing it was
a cool day may have contaminated your memory in such
a way that you remembered it as being a cool day.
(05:38):
I think that could very well be a mechanism in play.
And there is evidence I've read about before of the
ability of the imagination to contaminate memories of events. So,
for example, if you intentionally imagine yourself doing something, there
is often a good chance you will later remember actually
doing that thing.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Yeah, and of course you have to keep in mind
that you know it need not be a beneficial enhancer
of memory. I mean, you can certainly have cases where
a memory is made more traumatic through recollection. You know it,
you know it's ultimately Again, it comes back to the
fact that anytime we draw that memory out of the vault,
we augment it in small ways, and that can go
(06:24):
in either direction subjectively.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
Right, So maybe if instead of sitting there thinking about
how nice it would be if it were a cool day,
you had been thinking about how much worse it would
be if it were like one hundred and fifteen degrees outside.
Maybe you would actually remember it that way.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Yeah, but again, this is another great insight into just
how curious memory is and how susceptible to change it is.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Obviously, when I said one fifteen, I'm operating on the
inferior fahrenheit scale, I don't think it would be one
hundred and fifteen celsius out.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
All right, here's another listener male for us. This one
has to do with our series of episodes on strange
underwater photos and other images that are of questionable quality.
This one comes to us from Wait, Hi, Rob, Joe,
(07:18):
and JJ. Thanks for the episodes on mysterious underwater photographs
and the psychological explanations involving low resolution information, where the
lack of detail seems to encourage the human mind to
come up with more fanciful explanations, while a higher resolution
image would have the opposite effect no gaps to fill in.
This made me think of HFR, or high frame rate
(07:41):
video content aka soap opera effect, which is higher than
the traditional twenty four frames per second. I've always wondered
why this feature is universally hated in movies and TV.
I think the low resolution principle may be working here
in reverse. We want there to be some mystery and
gaps to fill in when we are engaging with fiction,
so we can feel more like an active participant, even
(08:03):
though there may not be anything substantial we are actually
missing with normal film speed. Maybe our brains are translating
the lower bandwidth into a sense of mystery, which is
more enjoyable and engaging than the sterile, seeming high bandwidth
HFR version. Keep up the great work way.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
Wayne, That is a really interesting idea. I don't know
if I think that that's correct or not, but I
can certainly agree that the high frame rate experience is
not one that feels very magical to me. And even worse,
I think, are the I don't even know technically what's
going on here, but the sort of you know, the
(08:40):
digital simulations of it with like the it's called different
things on different TVs, but the cursed motion smoothing effect
that comes as turned on by default, and a lot
of new televisions just looks abysmal. Awful movies look terrible
with this thing on.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Yeah, it's it can be quite an experience I was.
I was with my family and we were staying with
my wife's uncle and aunt, and you know, we were
staying at somebody's house. You don't want to go necessarily
messing around with other people's TV settings. Some folks don't
like that, and they don't mind showing you. Sorry it
laughs into a Texas chainsaw mESC A quote there, But
(09:20):
the point is still the same. It's it may be
impolite to mess around with someone's TV settings. So Uncle
and Ann had gone to bed. We decided to watch
Black Panther, of you know, spectacular special effects laden film
with some great performances in it as well some high drama.
But we had to face the fact are we going
to keep watching it in this strange format or are
(09:43):
we going to just go to bed early? We decided
to watch the whole film and it was still It
was still great. You know, a film like that I
think can take the visual ding. But it was weird.
It was like watching like an old school Doctor Who
episode instead of like the sleek Marvel Cinematic Universe film
that it is.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
I don't know if i've I may have told the
story on the podcast before. If so, apologies, but one
time my wife and I started watching a significant chunk
of the first Lord of the Rings film with the
motions moothing on and a TV in a different place,
and wooh boy, I mean, how to really suck the
mystery and magic out of that prologue site with the
(10:23):
seal door and the you know, the Wargan saur on
and all that. It takes like the swirling mist and
haze of mythology and turns it into just kind of
like a hokey smudge. Everything looks so cheap and fake.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Wow. I mean, this is why you see some filmmakers
and actors railing against it. You know, it's it kind
of you know, it disrupts the way that the art
is supposed to be immuted and appreciated.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
Now, to be fair, I think we have somewhat strayed
from because Wayne was talking about high frame rate video
content or high frame rate film. I don't know what
the exact technical relationship of that to the motion smoothing
effect on the TVs is, but I will say it
feels similar whatever is going on in these cases. I
(11:12):
don't know if there is significant overlap technically.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
But the basic point about enhanced detail, taking away from immersion.
You do see that at times. You see it in
cases we've talked about in Weird House cinema before, where
there may be a wire visible, or a velcro a
velcros strap, or a zipper visible on a monster that
would not have been visible, and say the VHS age.
(11:35):
But now and with restore, you know, some of these
glorious restored editions we have, sometimes you get to see
the seams a little more than was intended. And I
understand it makes some of those old effects folks kind
of WinCE at times because they're like, I was never
meant to be seen like this, and yet now it is. Well.
Speaker 3 (11:53):
But when I see a wire or a zipper today,
I find that charming. I mean, that's just lovely. I
do not feel that about the act of taking a
Grand tolkienesque battle scene and turning it into a soap opera.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Yeah. Yeah. Another example that comes to mind is sometimes
you'll be watching a period piece, you know, maybe it's
a medieval saga, and one of the heroes or villains
you know, gets a nice close up and they yell
something and when their mouth is open, you get to
see all of their dental work. All of their modern
don't work, and you know that might there might be
(12:28):
a case to be made there. It's like we were
never meant to see everything inside this actor's mouth with
perfect clarity. And you know, I'm not saying it ruins
a film or anything, but you know, for a split
second you're like, oh, oh, I see those feelings there,
medieval Warrior.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
But so, to come back to Wayne's idea, I guess
the question would be, is that because part of the
magic of cinema relies on like the el tanna and
antenna effect, that like you're seeing some kind of something
is lower resolution, or some kind of information is missing
and part of the fun of watching cinema is letting
(13:04):
your mind fill in those gaps, or it is the
cause something else. Is there a different reason that we
prefer the look of the you know, traditional lower frame rate.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Yeah, these are great questions. All right, Well, you know
I think up next, Joe, it's time for our favorite
section of listener mail. It's time for a little more
tea talk.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
All right, Well, I can read this one if you want,
but you're gonna have to comment on it because you're
the tea guy. Okay, you're the t man between us.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
So.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
This is from Susan on the Facebook discussion module. Susan says,
how did I not comment on Lapsong souchong before? I
feel like I did. It's just lost to time. AnyWho
Lapsong souchong is delicious. I'm not a fan of barbecue,
so I wouldn't call it that, but it definitely is
smoky all get out, or at least it should be.
(14:03):
I had to give it up, though, because my father
refuses to not make fun of the smell and I
got tired of it. I finally found a pooerr that
I've liked, which is exciting because all the others I've
tried have one percent tasted like boiled leather shoes. I
remember forcing myself to drink my way through a box
of it because I don't like to waste things, but
(14:25):
for some reason, I try again every few years. I
think the one I tried recently was a chocolate one,
and I guess my brain went chocolate shoe leather yum.
And then as a footnote, I guess to the idea
of not liking to throw things out or waste them.
Susan says this is also why I drank a box
of tea that tasted like hot kool aid discovered I
(14:46):
do not like the taste of hibiscus.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
Hmm. You know, I haven't had a lot of high
biscus tea, but I do like some cocktail mixes that
involve high biscuits, like some things of that nature, some
sweeteners that have hibiscus head to them. But as for
her larger points here, I totally can relate to needing
to consume all of the tea that you buy. I
(15:10):
like trying out new teas and occasionally I get one
that I'm not crazy about. But I do feel like
I owe it to the tea to go ahead and
just go through the entire amount that I ordered, like
it would be. I'm not just going to leave it
in there and eventually throw it out. I'm not going
to compost it. I'm going to consume it, even if
I'm not crazy about it, you know, sort of in
a way, sort of give it to the end of
(15:31):
the package to try and win me over. Now, as
for the lopsong Sushan, I'm still getting used to it.
It's not going to be my everyday tea, but I
do enjoy it. And other members of my household are
tolerating it's aroma, so that's all well and good. But
(15:52):
I do love the poo airs. In fact, I'm drinking
at this very moment an evil snake king poo air
that I really like. And a number of these do
have a very kind of earthy, perhaps leathery, even kind
of barnyard sort of flavor profile. That. Yeah, it can
take some good news to.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
All right, Rob, I want to take your pick between
these two weird house messages here.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Sure, sure, sure, Let's say we have one. This one
relates to Danger Diabolic. This one comes to us from
Paul Robin Joe. My wife and I watch Danger Diabolic
on Saturday night and thoroughly enjoyed it. After watching it,
though I have one observation and one question. First, you
(16:37):
noted in your review that Diabolic is more anti than
we may be used to in our anti heroes, in
that he murders people who don't seemingly deserve it based
on their actions. He definitely appears to quote unquote shoot first. However,
in the first heist we see in the film, he's
entirely nonviolent. The gas he uses to confuse the agents
guarding the cash as non toxic, and even when he's
(16:59):
being shot at from the helicopters, he's evasive but non
violent in response. It's only after the government reinstates the
death penalty specifically because of him, that we see him
use violent tactics. Maybe it's the government that shot first. Second,
where do supervillains hire their contractors? That underground Layer is fantastic, I,
(17:19):
on the other hand, have a hard time just finding
a competent plumber. Is there a secret version of Craigslist
only available to supervillains? Looking forward to the next weird
house cinema?
Speaker 3 (17:28):
Paul, I do imagine if you are hiring people to
make modifications to your underground Layer and your Diabolic, you
will have the problem that you will have to find
contractors who accept as payment like sweaty, smelly money.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
Yeah. I also had some of the same thoughts watching it,
like who built I mean? And then this is the
type of film where you can easily jump out of
that kind of of thinking, But yeah, who would build this?
Where did this come from? What is the origin story
of this vast facility underground? And I do love that
a film like Danger Diabolic does not feel like it
needs to explain that, whereas plenty of modern films would that.
(18:11):
Being said, you know, I do have to single out
the television series Better Call Saul for doing one of
the better jobs I've ever seen of explaining the origin
story of a complex underground villain's layer in a in
a believable sense, like how would this possibly come together?
And how would you possibly attempt to keep it secret?
On the subject of danger Diabolic, we also heard from
(18:31):
listener Matt in discord. He commented, quote Diabolic share some
DNA with chronicles of Riddick. I guess in that quote
evil should be fought with a different type of evil.
Unquote it's a pretty good point. Pretty good point. Yeah. However,
I will say there are no good guys encouraging Diabolic
(18:53):
to fight evil in the film. He just gets drawn
into a prolonged feud with criminals and government. Nobody's saying like, yes,
finally we can use Diabolic to uh to deliver us
from the tyranny of the government and or the crime lords.
Speaker 3 (19:09):
Can you imagine in a movie that's Riddick versus Terry Thomas.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
Oh well, it raises a tough quest like who would
be the modern Terry Thomas, who could do that? Who
would be the actor for that role? Wait, I think
I have an idea. I think Hugh Grant could do it.
Michael Sheen, I think would especially contemporary Michael Sheen could
(19:39):
do a nice one. Which is interesting because Michael Sheen
definitely had his sort of action period, his sort of
like Underworld three era where he would be more of
like a fitting like physical adversary of Riddick. But but
current Michael Sheen, he's at a different stage in his
life and career where he could and of course he's
a brilliant performer that can p a serious character as
(20:01):
well as a highly comedic and campy character. And I
think you would be particularly delicious as that kind of
adversary for maybe not maybe not for Riddic, but somebody
like critic.
Speaker 3 (20:11):
Well you know what I was, I was half joking
about Hugh Grant, but actually he plays a bullseye Terry
Thomas role in the recent Dungeons and Dragons movie. I mean,
that's a Terry Thomas character.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
It is, it is, and that is a great, great role,
great role in that film. I'm enjoying late career Hugh
Grant here he's playing an oople lumpenex, which I'm excited
to see.
Speaker 3 (20:36):
Oh I didn't know that.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
Oh yeah, yeah, it's in the trailer. Looks it looks
looks fabulous. All right, well, we're gonna go ahead and
close up the mail bag there real quick. You might
have heard us mention the discussion module. That's the Facebook group.
If you want to join it, you can just go
to go onto Facebook, look for it, and then request entry.
I think you have to answer the easiest question in
the world, what is the name of the podcast? And
(20:59):
if you can't get that, then you don't get in.
I'm sorry, you don't belong. You don't belong there. You
can try again another time. And you may have heard
us mentioned as well the discord page, the discord server,
or what have you. If you would like to access that,
just email us. We'll throw up that email addressed here
in a minute. And if you just email and say, hey,
(21:19):
I want to be in the discord, well we'll send
you the link to access the discord. It's pretty easy.
Speaker 3 (21:24):
Huge thanks as always to our excellent audio producer JJ Posway.
If you would like to get in touch with us
with feedback on this episode, or any other to suggest
topic for the future, or just to say hello. You
can email us at contact at stuff to Blow your
Mind dot com.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production of iHeartRadio. For
more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Hey you welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. Listener mail.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
My name is Robert Lamb and I'm Joe McCormick, and
it's Monday, the day of each week that we read
back messages that you have sent in to the Stuff
to Blow Your Mind email address, which, by the way,
you should give a try if you never have before.
We always appreciate feedback to recent episodes, especially if you
have something interesting you would like to add to a
(00:33):
topic we've talked about. You can reach us at contact
at stuff to Blow your Mind dot com. Let's see
rob do you mind if I kick things off today?
With this message from Daniel in response to our series Well,
this was in response to our series on stickiness, but
specifically the episode where we talked about sticky memories. Yeah,
(00:55):
let's do it, okay, and for context. In the Sticky
Memories episode, we talked about the idea of flash bulb memories,
these memories that have a subjectively highly sticky quality to them.
People many years later will report these types of experiences
with confidence that they have very detailed, accurate memories, and
(01:19):
specifically flash bold memories are about the moment that a
person learned about a public event, often like a tragedy
of some kind, like the moment somebody learned about the
Kennedy assassination or the moment somebody learned about nine to eleven.
People very often report that they have detailed and very consistent,
(01:39):
accurate memories about what was going on when they found
out where they were and all that, and studies have
shown Nope, they don't. They just think that they do. We,
for some reason, are especially convinced that these memories are
authentic and unchanging. But you can show that they're not.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
So.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
Daniel says Hi in regard to your episode about sticky memories.
The unreliability of some of the details of these memories
was of extreme interest for me, as I have recorded
proof of some of these in my personal life, that is,
family events recorded on video and then years later compared
(02:23):
to my memory of this event, having never seen the
video until now, and noting the profound differences parentheses. I
apologize for my possible poor writing skills, as I have
autism and do not express myself well. It takes extreme
effort to generate even this well. We appreciate the effort Daniel,
(02:43):
think you're doing great, Daniel says. One event I will
describe now. The memory I have is this. It's two
thousand and four. I'm playing with the first solid state
memory based video camera I ever had. I met my
grandmother's place. My Auntie and I pressure cleaning the back
pavement of her house. It's a crisp, cool, coldish, late
(03:06):
winter's breezy day. The splashing water from the pressure cleaner
feels lovely on my legs. I'm a person who hates
hot weather, and so this is a particularly nice memory
for this reason. All this time I am recording the
event on the camera. This memory persisted for years and
still does. However, how shocked I was two years later
(03:28):
come across the original camera footage actual event as recorded.
I was pressure cleaning with my auntie at my grandmother's place,
washing the back pavement. But it was a stinking hot
summer's day, and in the video I was wishing it
was a much cooler winter's day. I was imagining how
(03:49):
much nicer it would be to feel the cold splashes
along with the coldish late winter breeze. The original event,
plus my wishful alteration to the event, was fused into
one memory event. How many of our memories actually appear
more favorable than they actually were because we included any
(04:11):
wishful changes in the memory. Eg. At a wedding a
lovely time, but wish Uncle John could be here. In
our memory Uncle John is there, but proven wrong by
the wedding video. This has happened a lot in my life,
as I have recorded heaps of it since I was
in primary school. Maybe this is one of the reasons
the past can seem so much better than the present.
(04:33):
The past has been edited by our minds in post
production to be better, and is only picked up if
we record it with technology as well and compare it.
I would never have realized the inaccuracy of the pressure
cleaner event if I hadn't recorded it as well. Cheers Daniel.
Oh well, yeah, thank you for the excellent message, Daniel.
(04:54):
And yeah, I think it's amazing when people have experiences
like this. I know my family didn't do a lot
of home movies, but my wife's family did some home movies,
and I think she's talked about experiences like this, like
remembering something one way but then seeing it on video
and oh, it happened a different way and being so
(05:15):
surprised by that. But I think there's something very perceptive
to what you're saying about the idea of you think
that the day you were out there with the pressure cleaner,
feeling the water on your legs and wishing it was
a cool day may have contaminated your memory in such
a way that you remembered it as being a cool day.
(05:38):
I think that could very well be a mechanism in play.
And there is evidence I've read about before of the
ability of the imagination to contaminate memories of events. So,
for example, if you intentionally imagine yourself doing something, there
is often a good chance you will later remember actually
doing that thing.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Yeah, and of course you have to keep in mind
that you know it need not be a beneficial enhancer
of memory. I mean, you can certainly have cases where
a memory is made more traumatic through recollection. You know it,
you know it's ultimately Again, it comes back to the
fact that anytime we draw that memory out of the vault,
we augment it in small ways, and that can go
(06:24):
in either direction subjectively.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
Right, So maybe if instead of sitting there thinking about
how nice it would be if it were a cool day,
you had been thinking about how much worse it would
be if it were like one hundred and fifteen degrees outside.
Maybe you would actually remember it that way.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Yeah, but again, this is another great insight into just
how curious memory is and how susceptible to change it is.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Obviously, when I said one fifteen, I'm operating on the
inferior fahrenheit scale, I don't think it would be one
hundred and fifteen celsius out.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
All right, here's another listener male for us. This one
has to do with our series of episodes on strange
underwater photos and other images that are of questionable quality.
This one comes to us from Wait, Hi, Rob, Joe,
(07:18):
and JJ. Thanks for the episodes on mysterious underwater photographs
and the psychological explanations involving low resolution information, where the
lack of detail seems to encourage the human mind to
come up with more fanciful explanations, while a higher resolution
image would have the opposite effect no gaps to fill in.
This made me think of HFR, or high frame rate
(07:41):
video content aka soap opera effect, which is higher than
the traditional twenty four frames per second. I've always wondered
why this feature is universally hated in movies and TV.
I think the low resolution principle may be working here
in reverse. We want there to be some mystery and
gaps to fill in when we are engaging with fiction,
so we can feel more like an active participant, even
(08:03):
though there may not be anything substantial we are actually
missing with normal film speed. Maybe our brains are translating
the lower bandwidth into a sense of mystery, which is
more enjoyable and engaging than the sterile, seeming high bandwidth
HFR version. Keep up the great work way.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
Wayne, That is a really interesting idea. I don't know
if I think that that's correct or not, but I
can certainly agree that the high frame rate experience is
not one that feels very magical to me. And even worse,
I think, are the I don't even know technically what's
going on here, but the sort of you know, the
(08:40):
digital simulations of it with like the it's called different
things on different TVs, but the cursed motion smoothing effect
that comes as turned on by default, and a lot
of new televisions just looks abysmal. Awful movies look terrible
with this thing on.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Yeah, it's it can be quite an experience I was.
I was with my family and we were staying with
my wife's uncle and aunt, and you know, we were
staying at somebody's house. You don't want to go necessarily
messing around with other people's TV settings. Some folks don't
like that, and they don't mind showing you. Sorry it
laughs into a Texas chainsaw mESC A quote there, But
(09:20):
the point is still the same. It's it may be
impolite to mess around with someone's TV settings. So Uncle
and Ann had gone to bed. We decided to watch
Black Panther, of you know, spectacular special effects laden film
with some great performances in it as well some high drama.
But we had to face the fact are we going
to keep watching it in this strange format or are
(09:43):
we going to just go to bed early? We decided
to watch the whole film and it was still It
was still great. You know, a film like that I
think can take the visual ding. But it was weird.
It was like watching like an old school Doctor Who
episode instead of like the sleek Marvel Cinematic Universe film
that it is.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
I don't know if i've I may have told the
story on the podcast before. If so, apologies, but one
time my wife and I started watching a significant chunk
of the first Lord of the Rings film with the
motions moothing on and a TV in a different place,
and wooh boy, I mean, how to really suck the
mystery and magic out of that prologue site with the
(10:23):
seal door and the you know, the Wargan saur on
and all that. It takes like the swirling mist and
haze of mythology and turns it into just kind of
like a hokey smudge. Everything looks so cheap and fake.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Wow. I mean, this is why you see some filmmakers
and actors railing against it. You know, it's it kind
of you know, it disrupts the way that the art
is supposed to be immuted and appreciated.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
Now, to be fair, I think we have somewhat strayed
from because Wayne was talking about high frame rate video
content or high frame rate film. I don't know what
the exact technical relationship of that to the motion smoothing
effect on the TVs is, but I will say it
feels similar whatever is going on in these cases. I
(11:12):
don't know if there is significant overlap technically.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
But the basic point about enhanced detail, taking away from immersion.
You do see that at times. You see it in
cases we've talked about in Weird House cinema before, where
there may be a wire visible, or a velcro a
velcros strap, or a zipper visible on a monster that
would not have been visible, and say the VHS age.
(11:35):
But now and with restore, you know, some of these
glorious restored editions we have, sometimes you get to see
the seams a little more than was intended. And I
understand it makes some of those old effects folks kind
of WinCE at times because they're like, I was never
meant to be seen like this, and yet now it is. Well.
Speaker 3 (11:53):
But when I see a wire or a zipper today,
I find that charming. I mean, that's just lovely. I
do not feel that about the act of taking a
Grand tolkienesque battle scene and turning it into a soap opera.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Yeah. Yeah. Another example that comes to mind is sometimes
you'll be watching a period piece, you know, maybe it's
a medieval saga, and one of the heroes or villains
you know, gets a nice close up and they yell
something and when their mouth is open, you get to
see all of their dental work. All of their modern
don't work, and you know that might there might be
(12:28):
a case to be made there. It's like we were
never meant to see everything inside this actor's mouth with
perfect clarity. And you know, I'm not saying it ruins
a film or anything, but you know, for a split
second you're like, oh, oh, I see those feelings there,
medieval Warrior.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
But so, to come back to Wayne's idea, I guess
the question would be, is that because part of the
magic of cinema relies on like the el tanna and
antenna effect, that like you're seeing some kind of something
is lower resolution, or some kind of information is missing
and part of the fun of watching cinema is letting
(13:04):
your mind fill in those gaps, or it is the
cause something else. Is there a different reason that we
prefer the look of the you know, traditional lower frame rate.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Yeah, these are great questions. All right, Well, you know
I think up next, Joe, it's time for our favorite
section of listener mail. It's time for a little more
tea talk.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
All right, Well, I can read this one if you want,
but you're gonna have to comment on it because you're
the tea guy. Okay, you're the t man between us.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
So.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
This is from Susan on the Facebook discussion module. Susan says,
how did I not comment on Lapsong souchong before? I
feel like I did. It's just lost to time. AnyWho
Lapsong souchong is delicious. I'm not a fan of barbecue,
so I wouldn't call it that, but it definitely is
smoky all get out, or at least it should be.
(14:03):
I had to give it up, though, because my father
refuses to not make fun of the smell and I
got tired of it. I finally found a pooerr that
I've liked, which is exciting because all the others I've
tried have one percent tasted like boiled leather shoes. I
remember forcing myself to drink my way through a box
of it because I don't like to waste things, but
(14:25):
for some reason, I try again every few years. I
think the one I tried recently was a chocolate one,
and I guess my brain went chocolate shoe leather yum.
And then as a footnote, I guess to the idea
of not liking to throw things out or waste them.
Susan says this is also why I drank a box
of tea that tasted like hot kool aid discovered I
(14:46):
do not like the taste of hibiscus.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
Hmm. You know, I haven't had a lot of high
biscus tea, but I do like some cocktail mixes that
involve high biscuits, like some things of that nature, some
sweeteners that have hibiscus head to them. But as for
her larger points here, I totally can relate to needing
to consume all of the tea that you buy. I
(15:10):
like trying out new teas and occasionally I get one
that I'm not crazy about. But I do feel like
I owe it to the tea to go ahead and
just go through the entire amount that I ordered, like
it would be. I'm not just going to leave it
in there and eventually throw it out. I'm not going
to compost it. I'm going to consume it, even if
I'm not crazy about it, you know, sort of in
a way, sort of give it to the end of
(15:31):
the package to try and win me over. Now, as
for the lopsong Sushan, I'm still getting used to it.
It's not going to be my everyday tea, but I
do enjoy it. And other members of my household are
tolerating it's aroma, so that's all well and good. But
(15:52):
I do love the poo airs. In fact, I'm drinking
at this very moment an evil snake king poo air
that I really like. And a number of these do
have a very kind of earthy, perhaps leathery, even kind
of barnyard sort of flavor profile. That. Yeah, it can
take some good news to.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
All right, Rob, I want to take your pick between
these two weird house messages here.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Sure, sure, sure, Let's say we have one. This one
relates to Danger Diabolic. This one comes to us from
Paul Robin Joe. My wife and I watch Danger Diabolic
on Saturday night and thoroughly enjoyed it. After watching it,
though I have one observation and one question. First, you
(16:37):
noted in your review that Diabolic is more anti than
we may be used to in our anti heroes, in
that he murders people who don't seemingly deserve it based
on their actions. He definitely appears to quote unquote shoot first. However,
in the first heist we see in the film, he's
entirely nonviolent. The gas he uses to confuse the agents
guarding the cash as non toxic, and even when he's
(16:59):
being shot at from the helicopters, he's evasive but non
violent in response. It's only after the government reinstates the
death penalty specifically because of him, that we see him
use violent tactics. Maybe it's the government that shot first. Second,
where do supervillains hire their contractors? That underground Layer is fantastic, I,
(17:19):
on the other hand, have a hard time just finding
a competent plumber. Is there a secret version of Craigslist
only available to supervillains? Looking forward to the next weird
house cinema?
Speaker 3 (17:28):
Paul, I do imagine if you are hiring people to
make modifications to your underground Layer and your Diabolic, you
will have the problem that you will have to find
contractors who accept as payment like sweaty, smelly money.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
Yeah. I also had some of the same thoughts watching it,
like who built I mean? And then this is the
type of film where you can easily jump out of
that kind of of thinking, But yeah, who would build this?
Where did this come from? What is the origin story
of this vast facility underground? And I do love that
a film like Danger Diabolic does not feel like it
needs to explain that, whereas plenty of modern films would that.
(18:11):
Being said, you know, I do have to single out
the television series Better Call Saul for doing one of
the better jobs I've ever seen of explaining the origin
story of a complex underground villain's layer in a in
a believable sense, like how would this possibly come together?
And how would you possibly attempt to keep it secret?
On the subject of danger Diabolic, we also heard from
(18:31):
listener Matt in discord. He commented, quote Diabolic share some
DNA with chronicles of Riddick. I guess in that quote
evil should be fought with a different type of evil.
Unquote it's a pretty good point. Pretty good point. Yeah. However,
I will say there are no good guys encouraging Diabolic
(18:53):
to fight evil in the film. He just gets drawn
into a prolonged feud with criminals and government. Nobody's saying like, yes,
finally we can use Diabolic to uh to deliver us
from the tyranny of the government and or the crime lords.
Speaker 3 (19:09):
Can you imagine in a movie that's Riddick versus Terry Thomas.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
Oh well, it raises a tough quest like who would
be the modern Terry Thomas, who could do that? Who
would be the actor for that role? Wait, I think
I have an idea. I think Hugh Grant could do it.
Michael Sheen, I think would especially contemporary Michael Sheen could
(19:39):
do a nice one. Which is interesting because Michael Sheen
definitely had his sort of action period, his sort of
like Underworld three era where he would be more of
like a fitting like physical adversary of Riddick. But but
current Michael Sheen, he's at a different stage in his
life and career where he could and of course he's
a brilliant performer that can p a serious character as
(20:01):
well as a highly comedic and campy character. And I
think you would be particularly delicious as that kind of
adversary for maybe not maybe not for Riddic, but somebody
like critic.
Speaker 3 (20:11):
Well you know what I was, I was half joking
about Hugh Grant, but actually he plays a bullseye Terry
Thomas role in the recent Dungeons and Dragons movie. I mean,
that's a Terry Thomas character.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
It is, it is, and that is a great, great role,
great role in that film. I'm enjoying late career Hugh
Grant here he's playing an oople lumpenex, which I'm excited
to see.
Speaker 3 (20:36):
Oh I didn't know that.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
Oh yeah, yeah, it's in the trailer. Looks it looks
looks fabulous. All right, well, we're gonna go ahead and
close up the mail bag there real quick. You might
have heard us mention the discussion module. That's the Facebook group.
If you want to join it, you can just go
to go onto Facebook, look for it, and then request entry.
I think you have to answer the easiest question in
the world, what is the name of the podcast? And
(20:59):
if you can't get that, then you don't get in.
I'm sorry, you don't belong. You don't belong there. You
can try again another time. And you may have heard
us mentioned as well the discord page, the discord server,
or what have you. If you would like to access that,
just email us. We'll throw up that email addressed here
in a minute. And if you just email and say, hey,
(21:19):
I want to be in the discord, well we'll send
you the link to access the discord. It's pretty easy.
Speaker 3 (21:24):
Huge thanks as always to our excellent audio producer JJ Posway.
If you would like to get in touch with us
with feedback on this episode, or any other to suggest
topic for the future, or just to say hello. You
can email us at contact at stuff to Blow your
Mind dot com.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production of iHeartRadio. For
more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff To Blow Your Mind News
Hosts And Creators
Robert Lamb
Joe McCormick
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!