#for context for anyone not watching the video

[eregyrn-falls]

Okay so... this is really NOT Tiktok's fault. It would shock me if the origin of "Daisy Bell" being regarded as creepy *isn't* Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" from 1968. Here's the key scene:

(A clip from "2001: A Space Odyssey, 4:35 minutes long, of the Deactivation of Hal 9000. If this embed ever goes bad, go search for "deactivation of hal 9000" and I'm sure you'll find it.)

I'm going to guess that anyone confused on this point has not watched this movie -- which is a famous science fiction classic, but it's also famously VERY LONG, dense, confusing, and many would say, boring. It has very good special effects for 1968, and I honestly HIGHLY recommend watching it because it's a classic of the science fiction genre, influential on pop culture, PLUS, it's kind of timely right now. It arguably started the conversation about Artificial Intelligence and its capacity for being a threat, and its pop cultural influence still colors the way we think of and talk about AI today.

Yes, it's slow-paced; that's partly due to film style in 1968, and partly due to deliberate choices about how to depict time and spaceflight. But if you want a lot of pop cultural references to click into place, find a copy, block out a few hours, sit back with your favorite snacks and beverage, and just watch it, all the way through.

Anyway... the key part of the above video comes at 2:50, but it's only 4 and a half minutes long (it will feel longer! again, deliberate), and I would say that watching from the start will give you a greater appreciation of the use of the song.

Basically -- the song is used in this movie BECAUSE OF the history of the IBM 7094 described above.

The thing a lot of people don't realize about "2001" is that it's a thriller and a horror movie. In all honesty, to appreciate the atmosphere of the above clip, it really, REALLY helps to watch the whole movie. However, if you're not going to, I'll give spoilers below, under a readmore. But since the clip above spoils that key moment, what I'll say is that the Hal 9000 shipboard computer, a true Artificial Intelligence (but nonetheless, a programmed computer, and that is a key thing), is being deactivated by disconnecting various memory and higher function modules. And as Dave Bowman does that, it is depicted as kind of doing a factory reset on Hal. So, at 2:50 above, Hal is knocked back to its initial greeting to a group of scientists or government agents when he was first activated, and he offers to sing "Daisy Bell" for them. THAT is absolutely a reference to the 1961 performance by the IBM 7094.

The reason it's creepy in the context of "2001" is because we're watching Hal "die", and singing "Daisy Bell" is kind of the last vestiges of Hal's sentient personhood disappearing.

But like... I would argue that the song wasn't included with the aim of making it creepy. My read on it is that the song was included to make Hal's death poignant. (And of course, remember that in 1968, the IBM 7094 had performed "Daisy Bell" only 7 years earlier; anyone watching the movie who kept up with science news would have heard about that, and might have seen footage of it.)

"2001: A Space Odyssey" would, as I said, come to be regarded as an extremely confusing and dense film. And once films like "Star Wars" came out less than a decade later, 2001's pacing would come to be seen as old-fashioned and boring, even though it was in great part a stylistic choice. (It was a movie meant to make routine spaceflight appear realistic, and so it was deliberately overturning expectations of fast-paced action that audiences would have had from kitschy scifi TV shows... yes, including the original Star Trek.)

But, despite what I'd characterize as the ambivalence of the audience towards the film, it DID leave a big imprint on pop culture. Today, if you ask people about "2001", they will probably have a few key impressions about the movie. First: oh my god, what the fuck was that ending??? Second: the Monolith, specifically the opening scene with the proto-humans (recently parodied at the start of the "Barbie" movie! More than 50 years later!). But then, I would argue, Third: the Hal 9000 computer, and probably this sequence of his deactivation.

The whole deal with the Hal 9000 was definitely meant as a cautionary tale. The audience is meant to be disturbed by what Hal does, and by Hal's end. (Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote "2001", wrote an entire sequel book that argues that Hal wasn't at fault for what happened; and that too was made into a movie in the 80s, "2010: Odyssey Two".)

Thus, this scene got referred to in popular culture again and again. To the point where almost nobody remembers WHY Hal sings "Daisy Bell", or that history with the IBM 7094. What they remember is how a cute, innocent song takes on a creepy, unsettling edge due to its context in the movie.

As I said, I don't really think that was Clarke's or Kubrick's aim. (Clarke wrote the screenplay of "2001" first, and was doing revisions on it as the film was being made. He only wrote the novel version after the film was completed.). But that was the effect. It seized public imagination, and became a reference point. And then, as these things do, it became regarded as a truism. "Daisy Bell" becomes ominous by association, and the public really never let that go.

Anyway, as promised, here's some spoilers:

So, the briefest synopsis of "2001: A Space Odyssey", lol:

(Short version: the Hal 9000 is the ai computer helping to run a spaceship on a mission to Jupiter. Hal winds up killing 4 of the 5 crewmembers, and tries to kill the 5th. Dave Bowman, the 5th crewmember, manages to fight back and deactivate Hal to save his own life. There are... reasons for all of this. Read on!)

There's this black Monolith, a featureless rectangle that is 1:4:9 (it's 11 feet high). We first see it in a dusty, desert landscape, surrounded by what appear to be apes, although it's also kind of clear that they are early hominids. (I'm not sure exactly what type; like, kind of like Australopithecus, but not that, exactly.). The early hominids are curious about the Monolith, and work up the courage to touch it. It makes an eerie noise. Soon after, one of the hominids pics up a large bone, and uses it to hit other things (and fellow hominids). The message: likely due to some influence from the Monolith, hominids have taken a developmental step in the direction of tool-use.

Millions of years later, in the near future, a man takes some routine spaceship flights to a moon base, on a top-secret mission. The secret is that U.S. explorations on the moon have excavated a Monolith, just like the first one. It's just sitting there. But it's very clear that it's not natural, so of course, the question is: where did it come from? Who put it there? The men all put on spacesuits and walk down into the trench to look at it. One of them touches it. The Monolith has been making an eerie noise, but then it suddenly lets out a piercing radio signal. The signal is determined to have been beamed in the direction of Jupiter.

So already -- this is kind of a thriller, because we've got this eerie thing, not made by humans, and it behaves in an eerie way. There's a mystery about what it is and where it came from, and if there is some alien intelligence behind it. So far so good!

Leap forward a few years to 2001, and two men are aboard a spaceship called the Discovery One. It's on a long flight towards Jupiter. The two men are awake and piloting the ship; there are three other men in cryogenic sleep, who are scientists. They'll be woken up when the ship reaches its destination. The two men are Dave Bowman and Frank Poole. They are assisted in running the ship by a computer with artificial intelligence, called the Hal 9000.

Hal tells the men that a radio antenna has failed and has to be retrieved. But when they bring it into the ship, the men realize there's nothing wrong with it. Hal can't explain the discrepancy, and suggests they replace the unit, and see if he detects it failing again; it might be the feedback that's faulty rather than the unit itself. But the two men become suspicious. They both get into an EVA pod (still docked in the ship), to discuss the situation where Hal can't hear them. They're worried about Hal's reliability, and decide to deactivate him. Unfortunately, Hal can SEE them, and can read lips.

Frank suits up and takes an EVA pod out to replace the unit. Hal sabotages the EVA pod and deliberately causes Frank's air line to be severed, which sends Frank tumbling away into space, untethered to anything. Dave suits up and takes another EVA pod to go rescue Frank. While Dave is out of the ship, Hal deactivates the cryogenic pods with the three sleeping scientists, killing them. Dave returns to the ship with Frank's body, but Hal will not open the door to allow the EVA pod back inside.

Dave manages to get back inside through manual controls. He enters Hal's processor core, and manually deactivates Hal -- that's the scene shown above. After Hal is deactivated, a video starts informing Dave of the ship's true mission -- investigating the radio signal that the Monolith sent towards Jupiter years before. Neither Dave nor Frank knew about the Monolith's discovery (it was top secret) or this mission -- but Hal did.

(It is not explained until that long-after sequel, "2010: Odyssey Two", but the reason why the Hal 9000 went rogue and killed or tried to kill all of the crew is because he *was* told about the ship's true mission, but then was instructed not to let Dave and Frank know about it. In the words of his original creator, Dr. Chandra, he was programmed to lie. That caused an irreconcilable clash of objectives for Hal, and he was programmed to protect the mission even at the expense of the human crewmembers. He had perceived the human crewmembers as jeopardizing the mission.)

Anyway, Hal is deactivated, Dave and the ship reach Jupiter, and discover a gigantic Monolith in orbit. Dave takes the EVA pod out to investigate it. He is pulled into what is referred to elsewhere (but not in the movie itself) as a "stargate". There follows a *really long* sequence in the movie of Dave (and the audience) being pulled through a vortex of trippy colored lights, accompanied by eerie sounds. It's clear this is having a profound affect on Dave.

The end of the film involves a lot of really confusing symbols. After the journey in the lights, Dave finds himself in an Earth-like apartment. He sees himself as an old man. He sees himself dying in a bed. Sometimes he sees himself, and sometimes he IS that old man. A Monolith appears at the foot of his bed, and, dying, he reaches for it. He is transformed into a giant fetus floating within a bubble in space, above the Earth.

End Credits.

So like... you can see how the movie is a thriller (involving secrets between governments, secret missions, and a mystery about a presumably alien... thing), and a horror movie (the entire sequence where Hal is murdering the crew, and Dave has to fight back against Hal to preserve his own life), and then... whatever the fuck that ending is about, which honestly is not something the movie up until that point hints is coming. I mean, it was 1968, so an extremely trippy ending that was at once abstract and philosophical wasn't out of step with the zeitgeist; but it still confused the hell out of a lot of people.

You won't be surprised to learn that even when it came out, the movie had very mixed reviews. Some people loved it, some people hated it. But it was so full of memorable set-pieces that a lot of those things ended up influencing pop culture anyway.

And one of those things is that "Daisy Bell" takes on an unsettling aura, due to its use in the movie.

Just to mention a couple more things: first, the decision was made to score the movie not with an original score, but with classical music. To this day, the opening notes of "Also Sprach Zarathustra" (by Richard Strauss, 1896) are associated with grandiose science fiction storytelling. The movie also used other recognizable pieces, like the "Blue Danube" waltz (by Johann Strauss II, 1867).

Finally: this is the second time that Kubrick took an old, popular song, and recontexualized it by using it in a movie. The first, of course, is his use of "We'll Meet Again", sung by Vera Lynn (1939), over the final sequence of nuclear explosions from the 1964 film "Dr. Strangelove: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb". There, naturally, its use is dark and ironic, and since that's a film about Cold War paranoia, Kubrick used a popular song from WWII.

As I said, though -- the use of "Daisy Bell" in this movie was more directly connected to the history of computer development; Kubrick didn't pull it from nowhere, and it wouldn't surprise me if its inclusion in this sequence was suggested by Arthur C. Clarke, rather than Kubrick himself.

whoever decided to turn daisy bell into a spooky dookie creepypasta song is fucking evil. that computer was brave enough to sing us a delightful little song and you do THIS to him? thats hatsune mikus grandpa dude. fuck you

[doodler16]

Idk if anyone talked about this but- vox being both a tv show host AND a cult leader just feels really icky to me? Not the two on their own, seperately they would be interesting, but together it has some really disgusting implications. Cuz usually if a cult leader ever makes a show it's specifically for the cult to watch themselves especially if they have families, and one of the most commonly known examples of these are cults that tried to normalize pedophilia, s/a and incest to their followers... [ there's even whole videos about some of these cults ] so it kind of has the implication that vox might have been a leader of these kinds of cults, technically making him a rapist or rape encourager, or even a pedophile at worst. like, idk if it was just an unfortunate choice in mixing sins for vox but knowing the fact that vivziepop made valentino exist and had a jeffery dahmer reference in the pilot i genuinely wouldn't even be shocked if she did that intentionally.

Context if anyone is confused and yes this is stolen fanart:

Me personally, it feels like this choice was done on purpose. Vox being a cult leader does partly explain his abilities as he is able to mind control mostly everyone.

Vox in the show already enables Valentino and definitely comes off as a rape encourager. He is shown to not care about Angel Dust (episode 2 and 4) and acknowledges that he is a slave to Valentino.

Valentino is confirmed in the playbill to do incest related films featuring Angel Dust so it won’t surprise me if Vox not only knows about this but doesn’t care.

[horsechestnut]

Me, 7 hours into a video about The Beverly Hillbillies: I miss the Beverly Hillbillies...

[forcekenobi]

if i may have a moment to be annoyed about something that doesn't matter, it pisses me off when a really good youtube channel uploads and all the comments are variations of "THEY'RE BACK" "THEY POSTED" "FINALLY" instead of anything about the video. if i was the youtuber i'd be pissed too like say something interesting or specific about the video it took me 8 months to make. do u have any thoughts or are u just mindlessly consuming my hard work

[vickyvicarious]

I'll follow you into the dark - death cab for cutie

This is such a "then she shall not go into that unknown and terrible land alone" song I'm losing my mind. It's exactly what I imagine Jonathan saying either to Mina or thinking to himself when he was considering things could take a turn for the worst.

"If heaven and hell decide that they both are satisfied, Illuminate the no's on their vacancy signs; If there's no one beside you when your soul embarks, then I'll follow you into the dark"

The whole song is good and a mood for them but the chorus really is the highlight of "wtf do you mean this wasn't written about them"

A classic... I remember listening to this when I was younger and saying it was romantic, and my mom giving me a Look about the implied suicide after the death of a loved one being romantic. I had to clarify not in a 'emulate this' kind of way or anything. And certainly that same 'would they want that for you? no' element is going on with Mina's perspective. But that's not directly in the song either way.

Of course obviously no doubt the chorus/general premise of 'I'll follow you into the dark' is 100% Jonathan's thoughts on Mina turning. That first verse is excellent for his vow to himself. I love the emphasis on "our hands clasped so tight" because again I go wild over the handholding in this book. And yeah, the chorus just repeatedly reaffirming his choice...

The second and third verses are lyrically way less fitting, naturally. If I'm trying to look for it, I can find a comparison in the second verse to Jonathan's time in Castle Dracula. The Dracula as conqueror thing = "as vicious as Roman rule" and the lady in black telling him "fear is the heart of love" while he holds his tongue... Well, like I said if I'm looking I could compare that to the vampire ladies' and Dracula's ideas of 'kisses' and love, and Jonathan have to keep quiet about his true feelings during almost his entire stay.

As for the third verse, again less fitting but it comes closest to Jonathan sticking true to this choice later on. They've traveled together, which they always dreamed of doing, and even if this journey doesn't end the way they hope, then it's okay. He'll stay with her. No matter what, no matter where. But the main star is naturally the chorus.

The tone of the music and the song is so interesting in this context because on the one hand, it's way more resigned sounding than Jonathan ever is. He's burning up with a fierce, volcanic desire to make sure this never happens, and no way does the song get that across. But it is still an if/then and just very clear/firm on what the then will be, which does fit him. Again, it sounds so gentle, like he's reassuring Mina... except if he said this out loud to her she'd feel the need to argue against it, so it could only ever be reassuring to a point I guess. But a great song for them for sure.

[mcybree]

Barrier blocks is all very interesting bc i myself have difficulty distinguishing where “my character” starts and ends when discussing beastlife with other beasts so it’s nice to know the medium is just like that. Bc honestly I thought i was just insane

[britishdisasters]

.

[theridgebeyond]

this is gonna open a can of worms, but i'd like to take a vulnerable moment, expose some of my ignorance, and hear from anyone who's been thinking about this for longer than i have.

i support not ostracizing remorseful tr*mp voters (as in, not shame dumping someone who realizes they really fucked up) as much as the next girlie. to me, restorative justice (as opposed to punitive justice) isn't just an evidence-based practice but an ethical and religious practice, too.

that being said, i recently watched Rebecca Watson's video No, I Will Not Welcome Ex-MAGA to the Resistance to hear a different take on the topic. she argues that no, remorseful tr*mp voters don't get to be welcomed with hugs onto Bluesky because they haven't confronted their own bias and bigotry. as long as they don't have to answer for what they did or ever question why they chose cheaper groceries over trans lives, they're just going to fall for the next Make America Great Again scam. Watson uses post-WWII records to make her point, and as someone who also reads a lot about Nazis, the overlaps are way too familiar (I know, shocking /s).

thing is, i actually agree with her, and i'm not sure how to make it make sense. i do think that people have to start somewhere, and we've all seen how ostracization can push people to further extremism. i also don't want to ignore the legitimate harm that many voters chose not to prevent. so i'm gonna sit with this cognitive dissonance for a while. if there are any cult de-programmers out there or anyone who's thought about this longer than i have, i'd like to hear your take.

[my-name-is-bunnyfoxy]

After what That Vegan Teacher said in her latest video, where she commented on the video of a baby eating barbaque and comparing it to possibly the worst thing you can do to a person ever, I refuse to believe she is just someone who is doing this for pure rage bait.

I refuse to believe she is doing this just for views. Even if she is doing just for that, she has offended so many people. She makes so many disgusting comparisons just to get her vegan agenda out there and it's like I said, disgusting. Literally just deplatform her already like- what's taking YouTube so long to do so?? But then again they let that one wolf who somehow learned to shoot with a sniper continue to be on their platform despite everything she has done soooooo- Yeah they will probably just demonatize That Vegan Teacher and then give it back to her or just won't do anything. I don't know.

Genuinely disgusted.

[awesomewithoutme]

I'm gonna start judging people based off how they talk about Selena Gomez

[femme-foucault]

Award Season Guesses - late December 2024

Alright, well I still haven't seen The Brutalist (or Nickel Boys) because it's not releasing outside NYC and LA until sometime in January and I have no intention of seeing A Complete Unknown precisely because I am a Bob Dylan fan. So I haven't really updated my list of predictions from about a month ago or so. I am tempted to include The Substance but it is a sliiiiiim possibility given how the Oscars snubs work in horror. So here are my predictions as of late December 2024.

Above the Line Awards:

Alphabetical order as usual. My suspected winners in bold and runner-ups/potential "upsets in italics.

Best Picture:

Anora*

The Brutalist

A Complete Unknown

Conclave

Dune Pt 2

Emilia Perez

Nickel Boys

A Real Pain

Sing Sing

The Substance (????)

Wicked Pt 1

I am going on a limb and guessing The Substance does get in even though I think it is reeeeally a stretch. The Academy snubs horror films all the time, especially in acting (see Toni Collette in Hereditary and Mia Goth in Pearl). But the GG noms made me reconsider even though the GG is a critics/journalism awards show and the Oscars are an industry awards show and like any "election," demographic patterns vary. But actually if anything I think critics are snobbier about horror than industry people so that's a good sign. No idea what will win -- which is fun! 2024 was not nearly as good as 2023, which was an unusually packed year for great movies. But in a way, that makes Awards Season more fun because there isn't a clear front runner. I am leaning Anora right now for BP like I have been all year, but I would NOT underestimate either Wicked or Emilia Perez. I don't like the latter movie very much and while I did really enjoy Wicked I wouldn't say it was the best of the year. But don't underestimate the Oscars leaning populist because all three of the last BP winners in awards season were very much "crowd pleasers" over more "artsy" choices like Power of the Dog or Poor Things. (It feels odd to call Oppenheimer a "crowd pleaser" as that movie is so bleak, but technically, it counts in the sense that many people saw it and both general audiences and industry people liked it. So I'd put it next to EEAO and CODA as a "crowd-pleaser" Best Picture winner and a "populist" choice due to it making so much money because of Barbeheimer despite being, technically, a kinda weird movie when you dissect it. So don't underestimate Wicked!).

Best Director: Sean Baker (Anora), Edward Berger (Conclave), Brady Corbet (The Brutalist), maaaaybe Coralie Fargeat, but ONLY if The Substance gets into Best Picture. I have taken Denis Villeneuve (Dune Pt 2) out of my predictions even though he deserves it because Dune Pt 2 was better than the first one. But until I see The Brutalist, I can't evaluate it. I wouldn't be surprised if we got a rare Best Picture and Best Director split.

Best Actress in A Lead Role: Cynthia Erivo (Wicked), Karla Sofía Gascón (Emilia Perez), Angelina Jolie (Maria), Mikkey Madison (Anora).....and if and only if The Substance The Substance gets into picture, maaaaaybe Demi Moore. She probably deserves it (I haven't seen The Substance because I'm squeamish), but the Academy is awful about nominating horror performances (see Toni Collette for Hereditary). The alternative might be Nicole Kidman for Babygirl.

Best Actor in a Lead Role: Adrian Brody (The Brutalist), Timothee Chalamet (A Complete Unknown), Daniel Craig (Queer), Colman Domingo (Sing Sing), Ralph Fiennes (Conclave).

I am leaning Brody based on trailers alone (the Academy loves an accent and a WWII-post Holcaust drama) but even if Chalamet is mid -- and apparently he is quite good -- the Academy isn't above rewarding lame music biopics. See Austin Butler's nomination for Elvis and Rami Malek winning for Bohemian Rhapsody. ACU is apparently good -- I really hate that kind of biopic so I am not there for it -- so all Chalamet has to do to be decent for the boomer crowd who likes Dylan to vote for him.

Best Supporting Actress: Ariana Grande (Wicked), Felicity Jones (The Brutalist), Isabella Rossellini (Conclave), Zoe Saldana (Emilia Perez), Margaret Qualley (The Substance).

Still leaning Saldana but Grande is not to be underestimated (the Academy are more likely to award comedic performances in supporting -- see Ryan Gosling's nom last year. He might have won if RDJ didn't have The Narrative). I am putting Rosselini in there now that she got into GG and if I am going to lean towards The Substance, maybe Qualley. Felicity Jones isn't doing well in critics circles but I think if The Brutlaist is popular, she could be the Emily Blunt of the season (the person who gets nominated for being in a popular movie and tags along but doesn't win anything, which is what happened with Emily Blunt last year because Oppenheimer was so popular with the industry and critics that she got a lot of "tag along" noms but no real wins).

Best Supporting Actor: Kieran Culkin (A Real Pain), Clarence Maclin (Sing Sing), Guy Pearce (The Brutalist), Denzel Washington (Gladiator II)...and someone else. Idk maybe one of the Anora guys (Yura Borisov (Igor?). I don't see the supporting performances from Conclave aside from Rosselini getting in because while everyone was good...that is part of the problem. No one but her really stood out because everyone in the supporting cast was so solid and I think Anora is a bit similar in that regard except that Borisov's character sticks out as having a sliver of decency. It's weird to think that the sentence "Oscar winner Kieran Culkin" might be a thing. As much as I like Culkin from Succession, my actual vote would be Maclin. But no one saw that movie :( I am including Washington even though Gladiator II got poor to mixed reviews because he's Denzel. He is such a great actor who was snubbed for his best performances that now they nominate him all the time to make up for it, and it's such a weak year in this category that I'm not complaining.

Original Screenplay: Idk what is original and adapted, but I think Anora wins Screenplay, especially if it doesn't win Best Picture. The recent trend is sometimes to throw a movie that won't be awarded anywhere else a screenplay award (see last year with both American Fiction and Anatomy of A Fall). The other possibility might be A Real Pain if they decide to award it.

Other than Anora, I think: The Brutalist, A Real Pain, The Substance, and maybe September 5 if they follow the Globes (which they don't always do because the Golden Globes are a press/critics award and the Oscars are industry so different voting demographics).

Adapted Screenplay: No idea what is even in this category. The distinction between Original and Adapted is pretty arbitrary at times (see: Barbie in Adapted last year). My guesses are A Complete Unknown (based on a specific Dylan bio apparently), Conclave (based on a novel), Emilia Perez (I think inspired by something?), Sing Sing (loosely based on a true story) and idk what the fifth slot is.

Who I think will win in the tech categories:

Best Production Design: Wicked. Dune Pt 2 might be an upset.

Costume: Obviously Wicked.

Special Effects: Probably Dune Pt 2 but it could be something I haven't heard of that the effects branch likes, because that happens often.

Hair and Make Up: If The Substance gets in, maaaybe. This is the one category that horror is recognized so I wouldn't be surprised if The Substance and maybe even Nosferatu gets in. But it might be Wicked if the Academy does what it often does and people outside the nominating branches just vote for the movie they like more, in which case it would be Wicked. Dune Pt 2 should get at least a nomination for Rebecca Ferguson's possessed henna.

Cinematography: Either Conclave or Anora. It really depends how 1) Anora does in general and 2) if it does well, if there is a "share the love" vibe. The Academy doesn't do the massive Titanic/Lord of the Rings sweeps anymore (and I'm fine with that) -- see last year giving Zone of Interest the Sound award and American Fiction got Adapted Screenplay when a lot of people thought Oppenheimer was a lock for both because it was the BP frontrunner and, if this was the 2000s, probably would have taken them by default. In the EEAAO year, an Edward Berger film (All Quiet on the Western Front) won cinematography over EEAAO in an upset, so it wouldn't be unprecedented if that happened again with Conclave.I hope it's not Emilia Perez. That movie is very flashy but I don't like the cinematography much. It's all flash no style. Dune Pt 2 will definitely be nominated but I feel like its spring release hurt it.

Score: It'd be cool if Challengers got nominated but I don't see it, unfortunately. The score branch is not that cool and prefers instrumental scores over tech/synth music, even though Trent has been nominated before. I don't know what will win, since Dune 2 is not even eligible.

Sound Design: It better be Dune Pt 2. I think Wicked and probably A Complete Unknown will get nominated because of the music mixing (which, in Wicked, was very subtle and well done and apparently ACU sounds great too). But I really don't like biopics about musicians so I'd rather it not. I wouldn't mind a Wicked nom here, but Dune Pt 2 is so inventive in its sound design that I am rooting for it.

[aristhought]

it’s important to tell stories of the people and politics behind historical events / atrocities, and entertainment shouldn’t shy away from that.

however it’s a very fine line between the above, and romanticizing/glorifying them, which is why i’m interested in the oppenheimer movie but extremely trepidatious about how it’ll tell this man’s story.

it’s complicated by the fact that the actual history of what led up to the 2 atomic bombs being dropped and what the US (including the scientists) did to justify it, is vastly misunderstood by the public.

before or after seeing oppenheimer (or even if you don’t see it at all), i highly recommend this video for one of the most detailed and comprehensive accounts of all the factors that led up to the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki, and the immense destruction it did to innocent civilians.

[please-picturemeintheweeds]

..

[floofballsammy]

So i just watched animation vs geometry.

First of all, absolutely stunning, the Education videos always leave me in awe. Everyone should go watch them. That's a threat (/affectionate).

Second, I haven't checked in with the fandom or anything else, but i'm just currently believing that Phi was ready to help Orange cause it sort of already knew him through the math void. Or atleast through Euler's identity. I mean, we see Euler's identity meet up with Phi and some others in the end.

Idk, my brain is still buffering from the absolutely beautiful animation, and running wild from seeing Space Cowboy Orange.

[apples4wce]

can't believe i have been watching hobi sleep for the past like 3 hours

[anexplosionofchaos]

i think an incredibly embarrassing fact about me is that i join fandoms and judge them based on gacha life reaction videos