Bit small for a "river" innit?
I've been wondering about that with female names like Gertrude, Ethel, Edith, and Bertha. They all sort of "feel" like too-old or unpleasant names to me (no offense to anyone reading this who has those names), but I don't really know how I came to view them that way. It's interesting to compare to a name like Jane which was popular ~300 years ago but somehow doesn't feel "old" in that same way (although I suspect it will feel old to Gen Alpha).
Eleanor and Lillian feel like they almost fit in that category too, but I could see someone still using those names for a child today.
But to be fair, the average relationship post on Reddit usually is about the other person doing something horrifying
Khajiit has answers if you have coin
I'm American, and this more or less matches my knowledge of the states.
In this case, it's acting as the ii of Bb, and along with the F11, it's part of a ii-V-i progression that's tonicizing Bb minor.
ii-V-I and ii-V-i (minor) progressions that tonicize other scale degrees are really common in jazz. When it's a minor i, you'd probably need to interpret the ii as borrowed from major or as using part of the ascending melodic minor scale (since it's not diminished like it normally would be in minor).
There's another "disguised" ii-V-i that happens right after that, using a tritone substitution for the dominant V: Amin7, Ab7 (substituting for D7), Gmin7.
More perplexing is the Dmin7 - Cmin7 - Bbmaj7 that appears a little bit later. I'd be tempted to just analyze that Cmin7 as a "passing" chord between the Dmin7 and the Bbmaj7 that won't sound too out of place because we've already heard the D minor movement to C minor just a few measures earlier. Unless someone else has a better explanation. (I guess you could still see it as a ii of Bb, but that seems odd without a corresponding V this time.)
Don't try to outrun one of Dominia's Grizzlies; it'll catch you, knock you down, and eat you. Of course, you could run up a tree. In that case you'll get a nice view before it knocks the tree down and eats you.
And you didn't censor it? Scandalous!
One of my friends made dandelion fritters once, and they were actually pretty good.
I wish I knew the story of Gilgamesh so I could appreciate these more, but they're still quite entertaining even without knowing it.
Well, the first book, if I recall correctly, takes the form of journal entries from the biologist's (Lena, although I think she's never actually named in the books) expedition into Area X. It doesn't have a meeting with an alien/entity that mimics, but rather a different sort of unusual encounter at the end. The zone keeps existing at the end of the first book instead of being destroyed like in the film.
The second book is mostly centered on a man named Control who is brought in be the director of the facility bordering the zone. Control tries to interrogate the biologist who returned from the zone while trying to figure out what the hell is going on in general. Some of the second book may have been part of the inspiration for the film, since it's in that book that we get the idea that the biologist who returned is a copy, not the original. (Also that's where we get the name Ventress for the psychologist and previous director, I believe.)
The third book goes more into the history of the zone and its possible origin (although it's still not really clear what the actual cause is), and builds up some historical ties between the psychologist/director, Ventress, and a key figure in the earlier books who wasn't included in the film. Then we return to the biologist (the copy) and Control, who both (re)enter the zone and learn more about it and what happened to the original biologist.
The book's really good, and definitely worth reading if you liked the film, but it's also really different. I also recommend the next two books in the trilogy.
Sissy (2022) might be fun at a girls night. I dunno if it's really scary though (but I've also lost my ability to tell when films are scary or not)
Aside from that I'd second The Descent
Kinda want to see a super hero film adaptation with that aesthetic.
And here I thought accessories for action figures were a modern innovation.
I don't know how they did it but it gives me vertigo trying to imagine.
Don't forget about lasagn't, which lasagna that isn't lasagna
Mono does combine L/R. But perhaps what you're forgetting is that that means everything that's centered will get doubled (because when tracks are centered they have equal left and right content), whereas the more you pan something, the greater the difference in volume between left and right, which results in a weaker signal when combined together.
In other words, everything that's centered will necessarily sound louder than everything that's panned, when you collapse to mono.
You can sort of compensate for that by raising the volume of anything you pan, but of course that might ruin your stereo mix. So it's a bit of a compromise whether you want a perfect stereo mix or a perfect mono mix.
Mono version losing the sides?
WeAreTheMusicMakers