We are designed to seek the easy path. Psychologically, as soon as you see the shortcut, it becomes very, very difficult to ignore it. But we are also designed to require friction -- we do not grow as people, we do not refine our skills, by taking shortcuts.
The world is increasingly frictionless, and we must find ways to create friction for ourselves.
The easiest thing in the world is to not. But we must do.
Just saw a very interesting eggcorn in the wild: "keep the candle burning in both hands"
I think my fun money next month will be used for a holster bag for my camera
ash and I went to see the new Silent Hill movie at the drive in! It was bad!
It is my opinion that the director/writer really wanted to make a Homecoming movie but knows it's not popular.
We are now at the halfway point between the halfway point of astronomical winter and the halfway point of meteorological winter
So famously, the first Silent Hill movie's A plot is about a mother looking for her daughter in Silent Hill (changed from the game's father looking for his daughter because clearly it makes more sense for a mother to be doing that). Producers didn't believe that audiences would willingly watch a movie with no men in it, so they shoehorned in a B plot about Sean Bean looking for his wife that is literally incapable of having any effect on the story and seems to have the sole purpose of bringing all momentum in the movie to a screeching halt. So, a movie with a plot that snap-cuts occasionally to a different movie with no bearing on anything happening in the first movie.
This third Silent Hill movie is told entirely through flashback with all of the presently-in-Silent-Hill scenes having no bearing or relevance on anything at all (I think they're literally just there to get some scenes from the game in).
Is that just what this director does, make one movie and then stick a second, irrelevant movie in with it?
Also they did Laura so dirty -- Laura is a piece of shit bratty little kid whose every interaction with James (the protagonist) is her making his life worse. She's awful, and it's honestly great to get a kid character who is so strong-willed and unrepentantly an asshole (she hates James for what she believes are very good reasons). Anyway in the movie she's a generic shy frightened little waif
ALSO! There's no mannequins! (The Silent Hill monster, not the fashion-dolls) I really wanted to see how they'd do them in the film and the answer is that instead of a creepy leg-monster they just threw in some woman-spiders which we've toootally never seen done in a horror story before
I've started playing/reading Umineko When They Cry (Question Arcs), and when I discovered that the Japanese title (うみねこのなく頃に) is more literally translated "When Seagulls Cry" and that 'umineko' means 'seagull', I thought that perhaps that word is umi (海) "sea" + neko (猫) "cat". Looked it up and sure enough that's the etymology, so named because seagull cries kind of sound like a cat! But even better, apparently "seamew" is an english word for the birds?? With the same logic for the etymology, though I think they might have skipped the 'cat' link and just considered "mew" imitative of gull sounds. Either way it's been around since the 15th century, and before gulls were called "gulls" they were called "mews".
What a neat convergent linguistic evolution
Slipped on an Ivy chewie, subluxed my knee, and fell full-on down to the floor
I really miss carpets