Remember in 1993 when Jurassic Park was like…the end all, be all of special effects?
not gonna lie that still looks intimately real
I’m still somewhat convinced that someone sold their soul to create the special effects in Jurassic Park because that shit is over 20 years old and it still really, really holds up, better than the stuff in a lot of current movies, even.
Fucking witchcraft, man.
fucking look at this shit though
Literally see this post flying around with a few different responses added to the bottom each time so I’ll say it for this one myself:
THEY ACTUALLY BUILT A GIANT MASSIVELY DETAILED FUCKING ANIMATRONIC T-REX FOR ALL OF THIS THAT’S WHY THE EFFECTS ARE SO GOOD. CAUSE IT AIN’T CGI. AND IT AIN’T GUY IN A COSTUME. IT’S A BIG FUCKING ROBOT DINOSAUR. AND EVERY PART IS DESIGNED TO MOVE. IT COST LIKE HALF THE BUDGET OF THE FILM.
amazing
And they had the film it in small increments, especially in the outdoor scenes, because the rain fall kept soaking into the ‘skin’ of the rex and would slow down and mess up its movements. So they would stop filming and have a crew out there drying off this massive, fake dinosaur, and then they’d start filming again until it was too wet. Repeat until the end of the scene.
They used animatronics and detailed costumes for most if not all of the dinosaurs in the first movie.
The triceratops for instance, was also animatronic.
One of my favorite anecdotes I’ve read on tumblr is how the t-rex robot from Jurassic park would malfunction while it was drying out. How did it malfunction, you might wonder?
Motherfucker randomly started moving.
So apparently if you were on the jp set you would sometimes hear people screaming bloody murder even though they were all well aware that it was a giant animatronic puppet and wouldn’t actually, you know, eat them.
Did not know this, had to reblog for awesome movie history insights.
So, I knew about the animatronics bit but I did not know the raptors were guys in suits and the malfunctioning t-rex sounds terrifying.
And i just googled malfunctioning t-rexand was not disappointed. Apparently in order to put the skin on over the steel frame a guy had to crawl inside thet-rex while it was turned on and glue the skin down. And if somebody turned the t-rex off or the power went out the guy in the t-rex stood a very real chance of getting mangled and killed by the hydraulics.
So of course, the power goes out.
And this guy is still in there gluing the skin down.
Apparently the way to survive getting sheered to death by huge sheets of metal while you’re inside a giant t-rex robot is to curl into a ball and hope for the best.
And this guy hoped for the best and got it.
Some other people on stage pried open the t-rex jaws and glue guy crawled out of its mouth and was totally okay.
This is getting better and better.
I think they only had like 6 minutes of CGI
I’m just waiting for the T-Rex to come to life and leave its stand.
The thing about this that gets my special effects nerd going is the fact that EVERY single dinosaur was sculpted by artists based on the current existent archeological evidence of the time.
Even better than that, this movie ADVANCED our best understanding of dinosaurs at the time. They were blowing out a budget bigger than anything Hollywood had ever seen, and along with employing almost the last hurrah of incredible physical FX, they had a bank of those newfangled digital SFX computers. Nobody’d ever really created convincing dinosaurs in a movie before. It’d all been stop-motion animation, and even when the models were exquisitely crafted, you could just tell there was something OFF about them. Spielberg wanted THE BEST DINOSAURS EVER, and he figured on using the cutting edge of digital modeling and animation technology to build them for him.
So they got hold of some of the best paleontologists they could find and said, “We want you guys to take this tech that your labs could pretty much never afford and use it to build us the most realistic, accurate dinosaur models the world has ever seen.”
The paleontologists knew an opportunity when it bit them in the ass. They plugged in everything they knew about dinosaurs, all the skeletons and their best guesses about soft tissue and all that. And when they’d created those dinosaur models, they had the computer start moving them as they realistically would with anatomy like that. One guy took a look at those walking t-rexes and velociraptors (really utahraptors, but whatevs, fam), and he said, “Wait a minute, I’ve seen movement like that before.”
He called up film of a chicken walking. Everyone in the room said, “Holy shit.”
Prior to 1989, the idea that birds were descended from dinosaurs existed–we knew about archaeopteryx, we knew there was some minor connection there–but the idea that DINOSAURS LIVE IN THE MODERN WORLD AND THEY ARE CALLED BIRDS was not pre-eminent. Jurassic Park changed our scientific understanding of dinosaurs.
That paleontologists’d be Kevin Padian. Who is awesome.
That being said, Jurassic Park was still a landmark film for CGI. Previously, Universal had used CGI for Terminator, specifically that one that was all liquid metally and could shapeshift, so we knew CGI could make these really smooth surfaces like plastic, but we had no idea if we could use it on anything else. Jurassic Park was one of the first times CGI was really used for something else, and it marked the start of a fantastic new development for making films like this.
This scene was the big one. All these Gallimimus were implemented in through CGI. In reality, Alan, Lex, and Tim were just running through an empty field. And this seems ho-hum now, but you have to remember that this was one of the first times CGI was ever used.
Still, the giant animatronic T. rex was really cool.
thinking again about TvTropes and how it’s genuinely such an amazing resource for learning the mechanics of storytelling, honestly more so than a lot of formally taught literature classes
reasons for this:
basically TvTropes breaks down stories mechanically, using a perspective that’s not…ABOUT mechanics. Another way I like to put it, is that it’s an inductive, instead of deductive, approach to analyzing storytelling.
like in a literature or writing class you’re learning the elements that are part of the basic functioning of a story, so, character, plot, setting, et cetera. You’re learning the things that make a story a story, and why. Like, you learn what setting is, what defines it, and work from there to what makes it effective, and the range of ways it can be effective.
here’s the thing, though: everyone has some intuitive understanding of how stories work. if we didn’t, we couldn’t…understand stories.
TvTropes’s approach is bottom-up instead of top-down: instead of trying to exhaustively explore the broad, general elements of story, it identifies very small, specific elements, and explores the absolute shit out of how they fit, what they do, where they go, how they work.
Every TvTropes article is basically, “Here is a piece of a story that is part of many different stories. You have probably seen it before, but if not, here is a list of stories that use it, where it is, and what it’s doing in those stories. Here are some things it does. Here is why it is functionally different than other, similar story pieces. Here is some background on its origins and how audiences respond to it.”
all of this is BRILLIANT for a lot of reasons. one of the major ones is that the site has long lists of media that utilizes any given trope, ranging from classic literature to cartoons to video games to advertisements. the Iliad and Adventure Time ARE different things, but they are MADE OF the same stuff. And being able to study dozens of examples of a trope in action teaches you to see the common thread in what the trope does and why its specific characteristics let it do that
I love TvTropes because a great, renowned work of literature and a shitty, derivative YA novel will appear on the same list, because they’re Made Of The Same Stuff. And breaking down that mental barrier between them is good on its own for developing a mechanical understanding of storytelling.
But also? I think one of the biggest blessings of TvTropes’s commitment to cataloguing examples of tropes regardless of their “merit” or literary value or whatever…is that we get to see the full range of effectiveness or ineffectiveness of storytelling tools. Like, this is how you see what makes one book good and another book crappy. Tropes are Tools, and when you observe how a master craftsman uses a tool vs. a novice, you can break down not only what the tool is most effective for but how it is best used.
In fact? There are trope pages devoted to what happens when storytelling tools just unilaterally fail. e.g. Narm is when creators intend something to be frightening, but audiences find it hilarious instead.
On that note, TvTropes is also great in that its analysis of stories is very grounded in authors, audiences, and culture; it’s not solely focused on in-story elements. A lot of the trope pages are categories for audience responses to tropes, or for real-world occurrences that affected the storytelling, or just the human failings that creep into storytelling and affect it, like Early Installment Weirdness. There are categories for censorship-driven storytelling decisions. There are “lineages” of tropes that show how storytelling has changed over time, and how audience responses change as culture changes. Tropes like Draco in Leather Pants or Narm are catalogued because the audience reaction to a story is as much a part of that story—the story of that story?—as the “canon.”
like, storytelling is inextricable from context. it’s inextricable from how big the writers’ budget was, and how accepting of homophobia the audience was, and what was acceptable to be shown on film at the time. Tropes beget other tropes, one trope is exchanged for another, they are all linked. A Dead Horse Trope becomes an Undead Horse Trope, and sometimes it was a Dead Unicorn Trope all along. What was this work responding to? And all works are responding to something, whether they know it or not
An incomplete list of really useful or interesting reads from TvTropes.
please note that yes many of these are concepts that exist elsewhere and a few are even taught in fiction writing classes but TvTropes just does an amazing job at displaying the range of things that can be done with them
legitimately so much of the terminology I use to talk about storytelling, and even think about it in my own head, i learned about from TvTropes
The Hays Code - not a trope but a very good breakdown of how the Hays Code affected storytelling in film
this is just a really short list of examples I encourage people who write or otherwise create stories to browse around on this site it’s so useful
This may cause a bunch of English majors who consider liking Shakespeare a personality trait to come for me but I really wish English (or any literature) classes would give at least as much times to the trope lens to analyse fiction as the “why are the curtains blue” close reading lens.
I think both have their merits but the reason why “why are the curtains blue” is such a contentious thing to talk about is that you are often presented the question in class and tasked to come up with the answer - which is great if you care about the question or the answer but sucks if you don’t. And often people don’t care, or they aren’t predisposed to engage with fiction that way at all (which is fine).
Tropes on the other hand are fundamentally about what is engaging to someone in fiction and how and why. Or what isn’t. If you make students read, say, The Great Gatsby and they don’t like it, you can still employ tropes to empower them to talk about which parts of it made them dislike it and why. And that’s analysis and criticism! As conversely it is very hard to make students care about the thematic analysis of a story they do not care about or actively dislike.
AND (imo) it gives people more useful tools to engage with fiction in their actual lives. You can articulate what about a thing makes you like it (or dislike it) in ways that you couldn’t do before. I’m a big believer in the idea of giving things names to allow people to think clearly about them. Take Adults Are Useless for example, which as a kid drove me nuts when stories employed it. It literally made me feel uneasy. But I had no name for it and could not even think of it to myself as A Thing until I saw it framed as a trope with a name.
Tropes allowed me to navigate fiction and identify things that I liked and use that to discover new fiction with these things in it! (Sometimes using TvTropes itself which is the reason I know about many cool things that don’t see the light of day in everyday conversations, both irl and online.) That’s really good and useful. And guess what, nobody had to force me to do deep thematic readings of those things because I wanted to do them on my own.
yeah! the issue with genre is the lack of definition and specificity. like take the worst offender “romance” which can mean the trite middle aged woman goes on vacation in Cornwall to meet a hot dude who rides horses and REALLY gets her trope or it can be your assortment of online fandom fic tropes which are VERY different things.
It often allows you to look past a thing you dislike about the popular understanding of a genre and let you zero in on specific things you like.
Also genre often has been corrupted by marketing to the point of being useless to the audience. Why does young adult HAVE TO imply a forced love triangle romance subplot?
“It’s totally possible to make a path that goes through every door exactly once”
Idk if I did it right
sorry!
it’s true you can’t draw one continuous line that would do the trick. but if the kitty and bunny set out by going through the doors they’re marked beside and each walked the certain way their colored arrows show at the same time their “collective path” as a team would go through each door only once. The moral of the story is actually about friendship , and cooperation, because in this world there are tasks you can’t do on your own.
im just fucking with you i’m pretty sure this has no right answer
i concocted a solution with a 100% mortality rate
Stop being so incredibly funny on my impossible puzzle post
You can switch the tracks so the trolley will kill one person, or you can allow it to attempt the fruitless crusade of running over each person in the maze only once.
all in a days work! *passes out*
My indecisive butt, walking in and being faced with having to make a decision, immediately leaving
I still read all of your lovely replies! I have not given up on art my friends! I have even started my own webcomic on webtoon! It’s called Seth In Space and it would mean a lot to me if you would support me there! Love you all and happy halloween!!
I’m so happy to tell you all that I’ve made great progress with my mental health!! To genuinely be able to say that I feel happy is so liberating and free! I know a lot of you are still in that dark place. I’m here to say that it does get better. Much better! I still have some tough days but progress is progress! Be kind and gentle to yourselves. I love you all and thank you to everyone who’s supported me over the years!
Of all the redemption arcs in popular fantasy media, I feel like Theoden’s in The Lord of the Rings is the most overlooked.
The movies emphasize the magical control that the evil powers exercise over Theoden, but in the books, it’s more obviously a depiction of bad kingship, in the British medieval sense. Theoden takes bad advice; he neglects his family; he fails to reward his knights; and he leaves his people vulnerable to attack. He also does not honor his kingdom’s promises to help nearby kingdoms, as we can tell from Boromir’s account of what Gondor has been going through.
Gandalf doesn’t just cast out the curse and magically fix everything. He encourages Theoden to free himself from his bad advisor, but Theoden has to take all the subsequent steps. And those choices are not easy; after so much neglect, his knights are scattered, and his only option for defending his people is to gather them at Helm’s Deep. The siege does not go well. His people are afraid and despairing. But nevertheless, he holds firm and charges out to meet the enemy – and Gandalf literally meets him halfway, bringing with him the lost knights, whom Theoden welcomes and rewards after the battle.
Theoden could have just gone home after that. But when Gondor calls for aid, Theoden proves his worth by honoring his promises. He keeps his oaths not only to his people but to his allies.
And the climax of his redemption in the book is not his death, but his leadership. The ride of the Rohirrim against Sauron’s armies is described in lavish detail, with an uncharacteristically heated pace: Theoden leads the entire line of Rohan, his banner streaming behind him in the wind as they race toward their foe. And that’s the end of the chapter.
I love Theoden’s arc so much, and especially that moment so much, because the message is not that he has to win battles or seek power. He just has to keep fighting. Theoden’s greatest enemy isn’t really Sauron: it’s despair. And over the course of the book, he keeps choosing hope and action over despair and hesitation, until finally he can lead his people with courage.
As someone who struggles a lot with despair, I really needed to hear that story.
and it’s contrasted against Denethor’s arc; who also struggles against despair, and doesn’t overcome it.
yooooo. so I literally wrote a 20 page english paper about the Hope/Despair theme in Tolkien’s work once. It was like ten years ago and I don’t think I have it anymore, but oh boy do I have feeeeeeelings about this topic. And I have drunk a little bit of wine tonight! So here are my unasked for thoughts:
Yes, Theoden’s greatest enemy is despair! Everyone’s greatest enemy is despair. It’s the biggest fucking theme of the series IMO and it makes me crazy how often it gets overlooked.
lord of the rings is a story written by a man whose experience of war was crouching in the bottom of a trench. People like to make a lot of hay about the charge of the light brigade and it’s similarity to the ride of the rohirrim, but no. Tolkien’s experience of war was getting fucking trench fever, not watching cavalry charges. Tolkien’s experience of war was listening to the shells fall around him, knowing that death could come at any moment. He experienced war in a way where the soldiers on the other side of the line were a faceless threat, and the closest and most present enemy was his own fear.
this is the hill I will die on. This is why I hate it when people talk about LotR as a morally cowardly story about fighting mindless orcs that exist to be cannon fodder. No. Lord of the Rings is about seeing the dark coming on the horizon, and fighting yourself. Fighting the fear and despair that rise up inside you. Struggling with your own terror and powerlessness, knowing that you are small, and nothing you do will matter in the face of this massive conflict— you’re just here, one more meaningless soul to feed into the machine guns. Lord of the Rings is about taking a deep breath, and bracing yourself, and deciding that if nothing you do matters, all that matters is how you do it. The ring can’t possibly be destroyed— we choose to form a fellowship anyway. Helms deep will surely fall by morning— we still choose to fight. The quest can’t possibly succeed— and yet we choose to march into the teeth of mordor to distract the enemy. It’s not hope, exactly? But’s it’s not not hope.
I did at one point have twenty pages written about this. Tolkien was a deeply christian man— he believed in eucatastrophe. Salvation. A better world to come, after suffering, if you bore your suffering well. But he was also a world-class Beowulf scholar with a kinda viking-warrior-type view of the world. And do you know what the vikings believed? (Pls don’t anybody @ me for saying viking, I know it’s a verb and not a culture). The vikings believed that the time of your death was preordained, and that all you had control over was how you met it.
And that is some seriously Rohirric shit!! Like, we’re all mortals doomed to die, Ragnarok is coming, and this whole world is an inevitable grind down into oblivion… but if we’re fighting a long defeat, all the more reason to fight it gloriously!! That’s epic. Eomer approves the hell out of that message.
I’m gonna be a real nerd now, and quote from a poem called the Battle of Maldon.
“Courage shall grow keener, clearer our will,
More valiant our spirits, as our strength grows less.
Here lies our good lord, all leveled in dust
The man all marred. True kinsman will mourn
Who thinks to wend off from battle play now?
Though whitened by winters I will not away,
But lodge by my liege lord that favorite of men;
By my dear one and ring giver intend I to lie.”
That’s a translation from an Old English poem that’s literally a thousand years old, but it always gets me how much it sounds like something Tolkien would write. Theoden and Eowyn are practically leaping out of that poem: We’re all going to die, I choose to meet my end fiercely. We’re all going to die, so I want to die beside my king.
It’s an acceptance of death, and even of failure, but not of defeat. Because— to get back to what I was talking about earlier— Lord of the Rings isn’t actually a story about battlefields. It’s a story about being at war with your own heart. Despair or faith? Hope or defeat? Tolkien wants you to know that even if your city is overrun by orcs, or you’re killed in a meaningless push for another 50 feet of french mud, you can still hold on to your courage with both hands and not cede up your soul to despair– and that’s the battle Tolkien thinks is really worth writing about.
It’s a battle that every major character in the story fights. Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, Theoden, Denethor, Merry, Pippin, Boromir, Galadriel, Eowyn, Faramir, Eomer, Saruman, Gollum, Aragorn. Some of them hold onto hope through everything. Some of them break utterly. Some of them are defeated, and then with help find their footing again, and make a redeeming last stand.
But the point that Tolkien hammers home again and again is: Death and failure are natural parts of life, and should be accepted. Despair shouldn’t be.
Tolkien says: hope is hard, actually. Fuck that Game of Thrones grimdark bullshit. Hope is hard fucking work. And even if you don’t have hope? Fight like you do. Because the world needs people working to make it better. Do the best you can with what you have, and whether you can see the mark you’re making on the world or not, the simple fact that you’re trying means the world is a better place.
Anyway, I fucking love these books. I am going to stop drinking wine, and go to bed now. :)
1) a very simple and genuine “i like your shoelaces”, which tells me that you are either a lesbian or a very cool ally
2) “i like your shoelaces” followed by the pronounced grimace of one recalling their past sins, which tells me that you were a 2012 tumblr user. i now hold the power in this conversation and you are at my mercy.
if you know about 2012 tumblr how do you hold any power in any conversation
well, stucky fanfic url, the trick is to not let them know that you are also cringe
I submit to you that the most iconic feature of any animal is either unlikely or impossible to fossilize.
If all we had of wolves were their bones we would never guess that they howl.
If all we had of elephants were fossils with no living related species, we might infer some kind of proboscis but we’d never come up with those ears.
If all we had of chickens were bones, we wouldn’t know about their combs and wattles, or that roosters crow.
We wouldn’t know that lions have manes, or that zebras have stripes, or that peacocks have trains, that howler monkeys yell, that cats purr, that deer shed the velvet from their antlers, that caterpillars become butterflies, that spiders make webs, that chickadees say their name, that Canada geese are assholes, that orangutans are ginger, that dolphins echolocate, or that squid even existed.
My point here is that we don’t know anything about dinosaurs. If we saw one we would not recognize it. As my evidence I submit the above, along with the fact that it took us two centuries to realize they’d been all around us the whole time.
XKCD
So that people don’t need to go through the notes:
- We have fossils of spider webs
- Paleontologists have reconstructed the larynx (voice box) of extinct animals and we have a pretty good idea what vocalizations they were capable of
- Fossilized pigments have been found in a variety of taxa
- Soft tissues fossilize more often than you think; we have skin impressions for like 90% of Tyrannosaurus rex’s full body (shoulder blades and neck are the only bits missing)
If pop culture is your only window into extinct animals, then you do not remotely understand how much we know.
We know the entire lifecycle of a tyrannosaurus. We know from the sheer amount of remains we have, from every stange.
We know roughly how they sounded (as the person above me said).
We know they had remarkable vision.
We know they had the second. strongest sense of smell in history.
We know from their bones that they grew to a certain size and stayed there until about 14 or so, then absolutely ballooned up to their adult size in about three or four years.
We know they likely lived in family groups, because we have bones with certainly fatal injuries for a solitary animal (broken legs and such) that are completely healed.
We know exactly how other dinosaurs look, down to colors and patterns, because bones are not the only information that is preserved.
The Sinosauropteryx is one such dinosaur. Because pigmentation molecules were preserved in the feather impressions, we know it’s colors, and it’s tail rings (which one would argue would be it’s “iconic feature.”
(Art credit Julio Lacerda)
Microraptor is another! We know from feather impressions that it had four wings. We know from pigmentation that it was an iredecent black, like a raven.
(Art credit Vitor Silva)
This is not limited to dinosaurs, or feathers. We’ve found pigmentation in scales and skin. We’ve completely reconstructed two extinct penguins, colors and all. We’ve figured out the colors of some non-avian and non-feathered dinosaurs. We can identify evidence of feathers existing on animals without feather impressions.
We have feathered dinosaurs preserved in amber.
We can defer likely behavioral patterns through adaptations we see in bones, and from the environments they were found in. We can see how certain movements evolved through musculature attachments (yes, how muscles attached is often preserved). We know avian flight likely evolved by “accident” by the way early raptorforms moved their arms to strike at their prey.
We also understand behavior in extant animals and can easily speculate likely behaviors in extinct animals. (A predator running for it’s life is not going to exhibit hunting behaviors)
We learn and understand way more from “rocks” than paleontologists are given credit for. And if you watch a movie like Jurassic World, which has no interest in portraying anything with any sort of accuracy, and your take away is “We can’t possibly know anything about these animals,” then you don’t understand science.
As for shrinkwrapped reconstructions, we understand how muscles attach, and how fat works. Artists who lean into shrinkwrapping are are not generally concerned with scientific accuracy, or biology. They’re only concerned with Awesombro.
If true paleoartists tried to reconstruct a hippo, while they naturally would not get every bit correct, it would certainly look like a real animal, and not that alien monster that tumblr is so fond of using as “proof” that paleontologists don’t know anything (an art piece that itself was extreme and satirical, and a condemnation of the particular subset of paleoartists I mentioned earlier)
Every time paleoblr tries to show you how extinct animals actually looked, all we get is a chorus of “thanks i hate it” and “stop ruining dinosaurs!”
Loosing my shit at the knowledge that T-rexes nursed their loved ones back to health
I know I’ve talked about it before but it never ceases to amaze me that the city of Toronto created this labyrinthine series of underground walkways that stretch for kilometres under the heart of downtown and they called it the fucking PATH. like how much more ominous could that even be. It doesn’t even stand for anything it’s just the PATH, all caps. What fucking fae named this artisanal bakery maze.
“PATH is downtown Toronto’s enclosed pedestrian walkway linking 29 kilometres of shopping, services and entertainment connecting Toronto Coach Terminal to Maple Leaf Square/Air Canada Centre. The Acronym (PATH) does not stand for anything - just signals that there is a pathway.”
Like I always lose my mind at this. If it doesn’t stand for anything it’s not an acronym Toronto!! Toronto!!!!!!!!!
Copying my tags:
I’m not exaggerating about the part without a ceiling:
This is, by the way, right under Bay & Bloor, dead centre of the city and some of the most expensive real estate in Canada. It radiates an incredible aura of menace.
Okay far more poeple have reblogged this than I thought and I just wanted to clarify- the horror of the PATH is not that it all looks like a spooky basement where you’re about to get murdered. There ARE spots like that, but to understand the ~vibe~ of the PATH, you have to understand that it is essentially one very large mall co-designed by like, 70+ different corperations who all have different aesthetics. SO, the PATH looks like that, but it also looks like this
and like this
and like this
and like this
Here’s an entrance to the PATH at Union
And here’s another- also at Union
And here’s another a few blocks away, though tbh I have never been able to enter here because it always seems to be locked, no matter how much I want Wendy’s that day.
And you’d think these mixed aesthetics would make it easier to navigate, or at least figure out where you are, but again, there are over 70 different entities designing this shit and not one original thought between them. So while you may well know when you step from one property to the next, whatever the look of your current section it’s more than likely they’re a nigh identical section somewhere further just to confound your mortal sense.
Basically, everyone tagging this with the Magnus Archives is very correct- If any place on earth could be the true domain of the Spiral it’s the PATH, and it’s just a shame Jonny didn’t know about it before the show wrapped up.
Oh my God
It’s actually a great illustration of the failures of capitalism. The PATH isn’t something designed by the city, instead each building has their own section. And because of that, the signage isn’t just inconsistent, it’s actively hostile to you leaving that section. Every incentive points towards keeping you in that one area and not making it easy to find another building.
Also one time I tried to leave the PATH at night through a small set of double doors and while the doors leading to a small atrium opened, the doors leading to the outside were locked, and had I not caught the first doors before they closed I would’ve been trapped in an unheated 2m square between-space, neither in the PATH nor out of it, overnight
