Water Worlds: All they’re cracked up to be?

by C. S. Cooper, 13th July, 2019

Thinking about Water Worlds

I think my first experience with a water world was playing Lylat Wars (StarFox64 for US readers). It was a video game on the Nintendo64, and involved a team of elite fighter pilots travelling through the Lylat System, stopping at each planet to battle the evil forces of Andross, determined to take over the universe. It was a pretty fun shooter-on-rails, and I still occasionally play it on an emulator.

One of the paths on the campaign takes you to planet Aquas. For those whose Latin is a little rusty, that’s the water planet. Instead of being in a space fighter or a tank, you’re in a submarine with seemingly unlimited torpedoes. You go around shooting up genetically engineered water creatures that shoot laser beams at you. One nice part of that level was an Atlantis-style city you pass by. It looked really interesting, and my ten-year-old self wondered what kind of history there was to those ruins.

Another experience with water worlds was an episode of Star Trek: Voyager. In season five, episode nine, the helmsman, Tom Paris, explores a ball of water floating in space. Unlike most water worlds, this was just straight water; no solid ground beneath. At the centre was a device generating a gravitational field that kept the water in place. However, the inhabitants of this water world (who were not natives) had been harvesting the ocean for oxygen, effectively destroying the water world. It was an interesting perspective on environmentalism, which to be honest I don’t think was carried across too well in the episode.

There’s also the water world of The Legend of Zelda – The Wind Waker. People sing that game’s praises, but to be honest I could not think of a more boring or frustrating Zelda game. Okay, Skyward Sword was probably more annoying. But I’d prefer the interesting landscapes to nothing but cell-shaded water for the at least fifteen minutes it takes to get to the next tiny island on the map! Breath of the Wild was much better in this respect. I prefer hiking to sailing, anyway.

Then, of course, we have shows like One Piece. Think Pirates of the Caribbean meets Looney Tunes. It’s a story of a group of pirates hunting for treasure on a planet covered mostly by water, except for a strip of land that bisects the western and eastern hemispheres. The seas are inhabited by bizarre creatures, a Mardi Gras of giant hippo and bovine chimeras and bird-headed eels. Quite inventive and surreal, that show was.

And to be honest, when it comes to the human imagination, you can be as out there as you like.

I, on the other hand, am a bit more of a realist. And given what I’ve learned about geophysics over the years, I find myself more interested in the mechanics of a real-life water world.

Harsh Reality

We already have real-life examples of water worlds. Europa, Jupiter’s smallest moon, is one. Okay, it’s not a water world at its surface. It’s covered in pack ice, but based on surface scans, we’re pretty confident that there’s a subsurface ocean, thanks to tidal heating from Jupiter. Ganymede and Enceladus are also examples. Not just in our solar system; many exo-planets are candidates for water worlds (PTI, 2017). But the ones we can observe directly are all covered in ice.

If we want one like that in Kevin Costner’s movie or One Piece, we’ll need to set out a few required parameters. We want the water to be liquid at the surface. The reason Europa (et al.) is covered in ice is because its surface is exposed to space. The water radiates heat as infrared radiation, and promptly freezes. We need to have something to contain that heat at the surface. The best thing for that: an atmosphere. The atmosphere, with enough CO2 to absorb the heat from the water’s surface, and O2 for the seafaring inhabitants to breathe, will trap all that nice liquefying IR radiation and keep the water nice and fluidy. Yay!

But this has its own problems. Depending on the type of sun you have, it can stir up some pretty hefty weather. Let’s assume the sun above our water world is a G-type yellow dwarf, like our Sun. Let’s also add in the assumption that our water world is just as far from its sun as Earth is from ours.

Here’s what happens on our planet. Sunlight strikes the equator and heats up surface. Hot, moist air rises into the atmosphere and begins to cool. As it cools, the vapour precipitates over land and you get monsoons. The air starts to travel away from the equator, such that when it’s fully cooled at thirty degrees from the equator, it descends back to the surface in a process known as convection. However, on Earth, that air is bone-dry, which is why North Africa, the Middle East, parts of Asia, Mexico, and the southern United States are desert lands. The point is that land serves as a sponge of sorts, to draw water vapour out of the atmosphere. Without it, on our water world, you’d have heavy monsoon-level rains at the equator, thanks to the much higher area occupied by water, leading to a much higher rate of water evaporation. Even at that thirty-degree mark, the air isn’t likely to be terribly dry. You’ll still have lots of vapour in the atmosphere, and this can cause some more problems.

CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. Water vapour also absorbs infrared radiation, making it a greenhouse gas as well. In fact, it absorbs seventy per-cent of the infrared radiation entering the atmosphere (Maurellis, 2003). So if you’ve got a lot of moisture going into the atmosphere and not precipitating out, that’s going to increase your atmosphere’s heat capacity. You’re going to bloody hot and muggy at the equator, but what about the polar regions?  It’ll be bloody cold above sixty-degrees latitude, especially if your water world’s axial tilt leaves parts of the polar regions in darkness through much of the year. That’s freezing. But you won’t be safe in the area between thirty and sixty degrees. The temperature differential between the equator and poles will cause massive cyclones and choppy oceans between those latitudes. Very rarely will you have a favourable wind to throw up your square sail; if you had a lateen sail, the waters would be so rough you wouldn’t be able keep a stable footing on your boat long enough to tack into the erratic winds.

Hardly a world of adventure, is it?

And sightseeing would be out of the question because … well, what is there to see besides a vast expanse of water.

Going Down!

What about under the surface? Let’s hop in our submarine and go and find out.

We could say it’s an Earth-sized rocky planet covered in water. You’d likely have hydrothermal vents, like Earth, which can support a vast and varied array of life. You could even have mountaintops that serve as spots of land – like the Hawaiian Islands. But that’s kind of boring, don’t you think?

Let’s consider the other alternative. Warning: Math ahead!

Let’s say it’s just ocean through and through – a big ball of water floating in space. First off, how big is this ball? If we wanted the gravity at the water’s surface to be the same as that of the Earth, it’s gonna need to be much bigger than the Earth. This is because the density of water (997 kg/m3) is much lower than that of rock (between 5000 and 8000 kg/m3). Let’s do some math!

Let gw be Acceleration due to gravity for our water world; rw is the radius of our water world; Dw is density of our water world; Mw is the mass of our water world.

Density is related to mass by the formula: M = DV, where V is volume of the object, in this case a sphere. The volume of a sphere is: V = 4πr3/3. The acceleration due to gravity is given by the formula: g = – G M / r2, where G is the universal gravitational constant. Since we know how to relate mass to volume, let’s merge the equations together.

g = -4GDπr3/3r2 = -4GDπr/3

So, let’s say we want the acceleration due to gravity to be the same at the water world surface as it is at the Earth’s surface. We write out the equation:

gE = -4GDErE/3 = gw = -4GDwrw/3

Run some simplification, and we get:

rw/rE = DE/Dw

This relation basically says that the ratio of the water world’s radius to the Earth’s radius (how much bigger the water world is over the Earth) is equal to the ratio of the Earth’s density to that of the water world. If we use the values I cited above, this means that the water world would, at least, need to be five times bigger than the Earth! I actually calculated it to a whopping 35,196 km!

You might be wondering why this matters. It’s a big deal! Think about The Abyss by James Cameron. They couldn’t get more than a few kilometres down before their sub was crushed. The pressure goes up linearly with depth and is also proportionate to the surface acceleration due to gravity (MultimediaPhysics, 1997). The density of water is 997 kg/m3, and as we’ve already decided, the surface gravity is 9.81 m/s2. This means that with every metre of depth, you’re increasing the pressure by almost ten tonnes! Your sub would need to be made of some ludicrously strong material to explore the entirety of this ball of water.

This consideration is also important for the structure of this ball. The higher the pressure, the higher the freezing point of water. At the centre of this ball of water, thirty-five kilometres down, the pressure would be about 344 gigapascals (about three-thousand five-hundred times the Earth’s pressure at surface). At this pressure, water turns to Ice-X, and starts behaving really weird. All the molecules line up in a cubic structure, and some of the molecules might even become ionised, meaning they’d carry electric charge. In fact, theoretically, if this ice had a little bit of ammonia mixed into it, it would be a superconductor (Chaplin, 2019). So if there was a nearby electromagnetic field – like that generated by, say, a sun – this field would induce an electric current in our water world’s core that would never stop running.

What would this do for our water world? You’d probably get stunning auroras, devastating thunderstorms in the atmosphere, and probably even lightning at the core! Hell! What if this water world had a moon not all that different from ours, including a metallic core? There would probably some massive electrical arcing across those worlds! Wouldn’t that be a spectacle? Just make sure it doesn’t fry your sub’s instruments … or you!

Water World Safari!

I doubt there would be much in the form of life on such a world. You could have indigenous life that adapts to utilise the electrical energy from the core. What it would look like would be anyone’s guess! But I doubt it would be showing itself at the surface. Given the atmospheric conditions I’ve just described, it wouldn’t be a very pleasant environment for life forms. But there’s an issue that hasn’t been covered.

What does Oxygen actually do for life on Earth? It’s often taken for granted that Oxygen is required for life, but why is it a requirement? It’s because Oxygen is an electron donor, and thus a carrier of energy in the chemical reactions of life. Well, on our water world, there is a source of energy in the core (all that electricity), but could Oxygen or similar analogue carry that energy in a similar capacity? Well, I don’t think so. Oxygen isn’t the only element used as an electron donor. Organisms at hydrothermal vents on Earth don’t have access to sunlight and can’t engage in photosynthesis, for which Oxygen is useful. Instead, they use Hydrogen, which allows them to access energy in the form of chemicals released from those hydrothermal vents – sulphurous compounds formed deep in the Earth’s interior.

But they’re not drawing energy from electrical arcs. They’re not time-travelling De Loriens! What chemical element could allow energy to be extracted from lightning?

I suppose that electrical arcs from our water world’s core could spark the formation of important biomolecules in the higher layers of the ocean, triggering reactions between ammonia, methane, and other goodies that have been dissolved in our water world from meteorite impacts. These could not only be used as food for life forms, but may in fact be the building blocks for the first life forms in our ocean – you can check out the Miller-Urey Experiment (Stated Clearly, 2015) for more information on that; it’s too damn complicated at the moment. Suffice to say, the superconducting core could generate arcs, which break apart water into Oxygen and Hydrogen while triggering chemical reactions to produce biomolecules deep in the water world’s interior. These chemicals then rise up to the higher layers to feed bacteria, which would then feed more complex life forms closer to the surface.

Journey to the Core

So, possibly, if you took your sub down into our water world, away from the violent storms and lightning strikes, you might first encounter carnivorous fish and bizarre creatures swimming about. Some – maybe all – of them might be fluorescent, and may even resemble Earth’s aquatic life … at least initially.

Before long, you’ll start seeing some nightmarish creatures in the deeps, not unlike the abyssopelagic demons of Earth’s trenches. Assuming you survive an onslaught by these hungry creatures and the sub isn’t crushed under the pressure, you’d eventually reach a zone dark as deep space where a water sample would reveal a veritable zoo of different microorganisms, no two alike.

Deeper still, you’d see light flashes searing through the water as far as you can see, until you reach the outer reaches of the core. Electricity would arc from mountainous electrodes made of ice, bubbles of Oxygen and Hydrogen gas billowing upwards. The water currents would be unstable and violent, and your viewport would be full of brightly lit bubbles, as if you were moving through a foamy bubble bath, or the froth of a cappuccino … a flammable cappuccino! Bubbles of molecular oxygen and hydrogen gas make for a wonderful explosion!

And the sound! Oh … my … GOD! The sound! Those arcs would likely create thunderclaps in the water just like in the air. But because the pressure is so high, those claps would travel much faster and further. Your sub would have a tough time handling the sudden pressure changes, and your ears would be no match.

But it would be a fun sight in the nanoseconds before your brain squirted out your ears and nostrils. Good luck getting that image out of your head!

Not all doom and gloom

Okay, so I’ve kind of ruined everyone’s vision of a water world. But at the same time, wouldn’t a movie about such a world be cool? Imagine a journey into a dark abyss, braving violent storms, besting hungry leviathans, avoiding nightmarish demons, crossing crushing darkness … to uncover the true Thor’s Hammer, a glassy sphere seething with energy.

Sounds pretty cool to me.

 

ed: apologies to C. S. Cooper for this long delayed post. 

 

Bibliography

Chaplin, M. (2019, May 12). Water Phase Diagram. Retrieved July 13, 2019, from Water Structure and Science: http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_phase_diagram.html

MultimediaPhysics. (1997, June 6). Pressure-Depth Relation. Retrieved July 13, 2019, from http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp/kap9/cd246.htm

Maurellis, A. (2003, May 01). The climatic effects of water vapour. Retrieved July 13, 2019, from PhysicsWorld: https://physicsworld.com/a/the-climatic-effects-of-water-vapour

PTI. (2017, September 5). First evidence of water found on TRAPPIST-1 planets. Retrieved July 13, 2019, from The Indian Express: https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/first-evidence-of-water-found-on-trappist-1-planets-4827977/

Stated Clearly. (2015, October 27). What Was The Miller-Urey Experiment? Retrieved July 13, 2019, from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNijmxsKGbc

 

 

Give Us A (Point) Break!

Several years ago, Birthmoviesdeath ran an editorial with the provocative title: “Johnny Utah is an (awful) FBI agent.”

Point_break_1991_7_reeves-300x175“Dude…whoa.”

Now, I’m a reasonable guy; Birthmoviesdeath is my go-to for movie stuff, and they have affirmed their appreciation for the glory of the cinematic wonder that is Point Break; and I always take several grains of salt with pieces such as this. But as I got further and further into this article…son, my blood began to boil. Continue reading

I’m King of the (Water)world!

by Mitchell Hall

Underwater movies have never been something I dived into over the years; it’s been something I’ve grown to appreciate, slowly and surely so I don’t get the bends.

Underwater is just dark and some weird looking fish (not Esoteric Fish). Then I started reading interviews with James Cameron and I began to appreciate the technology and the science that it takes to get down there. I did see James Cameron’s exhibition at the Maritime Museum and seeing his diagrams and photos of sending a mouse underwater in a diving bell gave me that sense of new horizons.

I watched the documentary on James Cameron’s dive into the Mariana Trench. Just the tension around the planning table where James straight talks the Australian Engineering firm. He tells them that if something goes wrong on the diving sub, he is dead. End of story and the end of a lot of stories.

To see that ship go out and dive down deep into the ocean is an amazing thing to achieve and whilst I don’t want to go down deep myself it gave me an appreciation of the ocean and the environment there.

Last summer I was given the gift of my first snorkelling kit, I went to a beach of Sydney, put my flippers on and double backed into the water. I swam and avoided some rocks, went through the seaweed and saw my first fish. Just swimming around and seemingly oblivious that I was there.

I saw some more fish, this time with colours and stripes and different looks and I felt amazed to see this going on in my hometown.

The underwater world is amazing, there is life there that is inspiring, if you can explore it.

 

James Cameron’s stunning documentaries – Ghosts of the Abyss, Aliens of the Deep and Deepsea Challenge are well worth a look for the extraordinary passion for the ocean on display.

Aquaman

“Arthur Curry – The Aquaman – must find his place in both the land and the ocean in order to prevent a war that could engulf both.”

Aquaman

Year: 2018

Director: James Wan

Writers: David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick, Will Beall, Geoff Johns, James Wan

Creators: Paul Norris, Mort Weisinger

Starring: Jason Momoa, Amber Heard, Nicole Kidman (wait, what?), Temuera Morrison, Patrick Wilson (?), Willem Dafoe (whoa, seriously?), Dolph Lungdren (The Dolph’s in this?!?), Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and featuring the voices of Djimon Hounsou, John Rhys-Davies and Julie Andrews…this can’t be real!

When I was in my early teens, discovering comics in that most 90’s of decades, one of my older brother’s friends explained to me, with great gravity, the cardinal rule we were all to follow: You are either with Marvel, or with DC – you cannot be in both camps. As an impressionable lad I took this almost-strangers words to heart, and since I had already started with Superman, I figured my die was cast. In truth I never felt like I had reason to regret that – I have always been drawn to the iconography and mythology surrounding the DC superheroes, and never felt the need to relate strongly to them for their foibles and humanity – the hallmark of their Marvelous competition. When comic book properties started being snatched up and produced for the big screen, however, I noted with interest how eagerly Marvel characters were being thrown at audiences, while the old WB seemed a little slow in doing the same for their own four-colour creations. Sure, I’m on board with The Dark Knight just like everyone else, and I’m even something of an apologist for Superman Returns and The Dark Knight Rises. Like so many other fans, however, I couldn’t help but lamenting the sense that Marvel – from Iron Man onward – seemed to have cracked a winning formula that Warner Bros. just couldn’t match, and threatened to leave my beloved Justice Leaguers obsolete; and while I am not as down on the so-called “Snyder-verse” as some have been, I have long wondered when these film folk were going to wise up, embrace the fact that comics and superheroes have an innate level of ridiculousness to them, and just have some fun.

I never could have suspected that of all films to finally go big…it’s Aquaman that has hit the Joy-Joy for me.

A user review on IMDB starts out by saying: “My impression was that this would be yet another bloated studio tentpole with cheesy dialog, a generic story and artificial looking CGI.” To which I respond…well, yeah. That is all absolutely correct. It also simply does not matter, because I was having such a good time with the film that the many “flaws” on display (and they are certainly there) are overcome by the sheer, visceral sense of fun and adventure. To be fair to “Gogoschka-1”, they continue their review with much the same sentiment as me.

i can’t even bother to recount elements of the plot, or the background of the characters; part of the joy is in the often clumsy ways in which the film feeds the audience. I don’t feel I can talk at length about performances in this film either. This may be the first film I have ever seen in which every single person involved has chosen to bathe themselves in the river of Ham immediately prior to “Action!”. It is a perfectly suitable choice for the material, which we should acknowledge is utterly ridiculous at the source, but is somehow made even moreso by James Wan and his beautifully demented team.

We do have to zero in on the key element that bring this whole gloriously enjoyable mess together. It’s this guy:

I think Jason Momoa is an entirely unique kind of actor. He appears as someone who should have been a big deal in the 80’s, but should be somewhat out of style by now; he has an imposing presence, but is not really threatening; he plays serious men who face serious challenges, but seems to be having so much fun all the time! He embodies the qualities of this film: big, bombastic, engaging and uplifting.

I recall an interview with Peter Jackson in which he discusses films like Evil Dead, 28 Days Later and his own Braindead (or Dead Alive depending on where in the world you may have seen it) and says “Seeing films like this makes you want to get your friends and go make low-budget horror of your own because it looks like fun and it is fun.” Aquaman feels like that statement writ large. James Wan has embarked on a massive studio project with an enormous budget, the weight of producer and fan expectations overshadowing everything, working in with an uncertain franchise, not to mention that his central character is widely regarded as the least popular (or most lame, depending on how generous you’re feeling). None of this should have worked. But it does, and it feels like Wan’s own superpower may be in enabling everyone he gathers around him to have such a good time that it is literally transmitted through the screen into our brains.

Big budget movies, with low budget attitude. How sweet is that?

Honestly, this film makes me reassess my own attitude towards films and filmmakers. I don’t tend to like “reviewing” films, and I certainly don’t like scoring them, as I’m very invested in the idea that movies are so subjective an experience that we’re all better served if we just films make us feel. Filmmaking is a craft, however, or perhaps more accurately a combination of a wide array of crafts, and the practitioners of those crafts are capable, at different times, of maintaining a standard or falling short. Normally, when those failings are obvious, it is cause to lessen the status of the film in question. But somehow, this time, it just doesn’t matter. I don’t care about whether dialogue is cheesy; I don’t care that the CGI is, at times, distracting; I don’t care that the story takes unnecessary turns. In the end…Jason Momoa takes on an army of people riding sharks while he himself rides a tentacled sea monst the size of a skyscraper!

I am so pumped for the sequel.

How To Enjoy It

It’s Surf’n’Turf time! After a lazy afternoon on the beach, fire up the BBQ. Make sure the steaks are Eye Fillet, throw on a healthy number of prawns, if some gifted cooks are among you then make up some of your own calamari rings as well. Make sure there’s plenty of beer (I mean plenty), set up deck chairs and bean bags and project the movie in your backyard.

Across a crowded room…

Years ago, when I first heard of a new web-based social media service called Twitter, a friend of mine tried to get me on board, and explained it thus: It’s a conversation.
So simple…yet so impenetrable, at least for me, who has historically a very slow uptake to new media. The only way I could come to understand it was to envision an immense function hall, with countless people attending a party thrown by the Internet. Everyone gathered is talking; all at once; all over the top of one another; most at the top of their lungs.

Imagine my surprise when my friend responded to my illustration by saying: “Well yeah, that’s pretty much it”

I have watched, carefully, since then, and come to understand that such an image could be applied to the entire online experience. Everyone’s talking, and every now and then we hear someone respond to something we say, or we engage with others on something. While, as something of an introvert, the prospect of such fills me with apprehension, I have to acknowledge the wonder of it all – people from all over the world, given equal voice, equal volume, equal time, equal platform. This very column may not quite be the place to discuss how such an endeavour can turn very, very human, but when we’re all of one accord The Conversation is a beautiful thing.

Interesting, given that movies have been aiming for such a dialogue from the beginning.
Oh sure, initially it may just have been giving everyone a common subject to talk about, but those who pioneered, experimented, defined and refined filmmaking have gone on to create not just a dialogue between audience members, but between the audience and the films themselves. Who hasn’t had the experience of entering into a new social group – be it at school, work, church or a friends party where said friend is too caught up to actually hang with you – and felt the awkward pang of being outside the conversation…UNTIL someone says “What did you all think of Game of
Thones?” Our shows and movies become ultimate icebreakers – some of them are so universal that they can put a whole group of strangers at ease with one another (thank you Marvel Studios), while others are so idiosyncratic – so esoteric – that they function like some sort of secret social code. When did you find your kindred spirit at that party? Was it when someone referred to “finding Mr. Darcey”? How about when someone revealed their Scud: The Disposable Assassin t-shirt? Or perhaps you were thinking about leaving when you heard someone say: “Shop smart…shop…S-Mart…YOU GOT IT!?!?”
At its best, cinema causes us to engage with film itself, and examine our beliefs, our assumptions, our notions of right and wrong, good and evil…all the metaphysical stuff. I hold no truck with the view that people’s actions or behaviours are overly influenced by what they see (this does happen to some extent, but it is far from “monkey see, monkey do” mentality), but when approached openly – as a dialogue with a new acquaintance – film, television, literature, comics, music, art…ALL OF IT, can get us asking questions of ourselves, and our efforts to answer may just make us into better people.

I think that’s the best we might be able to hope for.

So come on…join the conversation.

th1UI8P72F

A Call to Madness…or just a break to the Monotony of Man.

by J. Voltagaard

To my fellow grinders of the work week; to the homies I pass in the street; and to the wild, the mild and the meek – my name is J. Voltagaard, and I’m here to make to think a little deeper about the shallower things in life; to make the question of monotony of the mundane; and to (hopefully) make you smile while you read this on the can.

With introductions aside, I have a question, that I will also answer…because that is the kind of guy I am. What do the first and only Emperor of the United States (and defender of Mexico) and the director of the “Worst Movie Ever Made” have in common?
Both were eccentric (and probably interesting) weirdos who you either loved or hated.
Both showed how the power of personality could influence the world around them.
Both had a terrible experience that made them re-evaluate their situations and strive to strike out on their own and shape the world around them as they wanted it.

Joshua Edward Norton before he acquired the title of “Emperor of the United States and Defender of Mexico” was left destitute after a bad business deal and the ensuing lawsuit he pursued in order to recoup some of his losses. Right after this he issued his first proclamation declaring himself emperor of the United States.

Emperor-Norton-1870s-cI’d be on board with this guy 

Tommy Wiseau – before he directed “The Room” (2003) and after he arrived in America from “parts unknown, Europe” – worked a variety of mercantile jobs before he was in a near fatal crash that made him re-evaluate the circumstances of his life and pursue his dream of acting and directing in Hollywood.

"The Disaster Artist" Premiere - 2017 SXSW Conference and Festivals
I think he was the Monty Python “Dancing Teeth” Guy

Both these tumultuous tribulations were necessary for these men to pursue their higher calling of being the most eccentric wierdos they could possibly be. But this then forces me to ask if the sudden destitution, and near fatal collision, knocked the madness into these men required to undertake their monumental tasks that allowed them to
transcend mortality, OR were these men mad to begin with, but too mild not to be monotonous, only to be awoken by the sudden slap that is the awareness of the fragility of the human condition also known as Existence, OR did the sudden break of monotony in their life awaken the latent strange that lurked like a hibernating beast in the deepest recesses of their mind?

If any of this first is true, that leads me to the heart-breaking conclusion that we as people don’t appreciate the fragility of our collective condition that we call existence and the complicated yet of so beautiful dance of the day to day, that we call life, until they’re jeopardised. Or even worse…

…we are too afraid too fail to be the weirdest and best we that we can be.

The Room is famously among the most widely enjoyed “Terrible” films of all time. For greater insight into the story behind that film, check out “The Disaster Artist”. If you are keen for a whole new Tommy Wiseau experience, take a look at his upcoming project: Spaceworld.