Furious with myself that I didn’t make a 3-D ear but still happy with the cartoon mouse essence that was captured!

A friend designed and 3D printed Edison machine popcorn buckets for opening night.

This is the promo we needed it.

Hello, I live in a country where You Can See Everything releases digitally one month before releasing in the cinema. I really want to watch it ASAP, but I know some films are much better when watched in the cinema.

So is it the case with this one, or is it not going to make much difference?

Thanks!

Black Phillip butter dish - $48
Thomasin Tree Topper - $48
The Witch coloring book (with pencils) - $28
The Witch Screenpkay Book - $60

Spoilers ahead!! Reposting this from nathafielder sub bc I want more You Can See Everything fans to talk to haha

Disclaimer: I’m sick in bed so I’m just gonna rant about this in stupid way, dont read if annoyed by long posts and bad writing lol

Here we go—this movie has spurred more discussion with my friends and family than any movie I’ve ever seen and it’s incredible - I think the “Who’s on First” scene is absolutely legendary, and I wanted to write about my current theory here to discuss it with anyone who wants to - open to being absolutely totally wrong

So… at first I was thoroughly manipulated by Holmes, and I think this movie is brilliant at demonstrating -how- so many people were (and continue to be) manipulated - how much we want to give the benefit of the doubt to people, even when we KNOW with years of evidence someone is a sociopathic compulsive liar… a lot of us will always want to see the best in people or try to assign coherence to incoherence to grasp at a stable sense of reality. The true genius of this film is showing how instantaneously our sense of “consensus reality” collapses when people are not doing their due diligence to be honest (whether this is for entertainment purposes which we often celebrate e.g Nathan Fielder, or scam/narcissistic delusion of grandeur purposes which we condemn for being anti-social e.g Billy/Elizabeth… really fascinating philosophical/ethical questions to be talked about endlessly but I will only touch on that in this post)

Okay!! So, many of us in my viewing party came away from the movie believing she really didn’t understand the joke and she’s just Different - believing the narrative Nathan (or the character Nathan is playing… who ever knows in the end?) was excited to demonstrate in the scene - the character of Nathan believes Elizabeth in the scene that she wasn’t lying about the machine and just truly believes the wording “you CAN test everything” - Nathan is trying to see how much she truly believes her own delusion or if she is aware she’s lying - at this point he/his character is out to test her neurodivergence (for lack of better words) in a way by showing her this clip
But after revisiting it - the main thing I believe we’re witnessing is someone caught in her own game, paralyzed reaction-wise because she is not completely understanding what Nathan is expecting of her at first so she is speechless at points

That’s why when the joke is explained to her she continues acting confused/dumb, instead of what most people would do, having a reaction of “ohhhh”
Even if she did not understand the joke (I saw someone say she could have been fatigued/pressured/confused which is feasible even for an intelligent person to watch that for the first time and not “get it”), when she was explained the joke, her reaction continued to be baffling because she’s playing into this facade/lie/character she’s playing for this movie (who she’s hoping will be redemptive character and potentially save her from years in prison so there’s a lot riding on her “performance” here) - she’s pretending to be a ridiculously honest person who never lies and just somehow doesn’t understand basic human language
It’s this same kind of baffling behavior that appears alien to a lot of us that led to her telling Amanda seyfried - “I don’t know if I knew” that she would be there at Billy’s house - so much if not all of what she says is designed to be as elusive/enigmatic/dodgy as possible

I saw an essay about this movie that I wasn’t able to read bc of pesky substack paywall but the title was “what a guilty person thinks an innocent person would act like” and I thought that was a fantastic summary, except it’s beyond that - it’s what a guilty, sociopathic, extremely neurodivergent, uniquely brilliant and bizarre person (also product of extreme capitalistic delusion and obsession) would think an innocent person would act like - and so sometimes those actions come across as bafflingly dumb or confusing, because her motivations/her brain IS drastically different than many of ours and that is why she fascinates us just the way people like Ted Bundy do etc
So she’ll lie in incredibly seemingly stupid ways (like claiming never to have lied in her life), while still being a brilliant master manipulator

We are all curious where the delusion ends and the deception begins - but she has to be a certain level of deluded to even care this much about deceiving people for the success of her visions/status etc, so there’s no way to entirely tell when she is sincere, because she is pathologically incapable of being sincere most if not all of the time (which I honestly perceive to be tragic, which adds another level of pathos that can allow her to manipulate people like me lol)

Why she’s so endearing to me in a weird way: she’s like a little kid obsessed with the fantasy of a science fair project that will “change the world” even though it’s literally not possible - she seems to get off on this Vision being achieved at all costs, she has this childlike-quality about her, her passion/fixation is just so fascinating… then it also seems like some amount of bizarre sadism or getting off on deception is involved because she could have pivoted and put her efforts into hundreds of other (far more ethical) possibilities and she hurt and harassed and silenced so many people (listening to The Dropout is illuminating to say the least)

Anyway, this scene is incredible to me because she’s kinda “playing autistic” in a certain way, or playing at a certain level of naïveté for sympathy - and Nathan has also “played autistic” for humor/storytelling purposes in his work; but at the same time I believe both of them are neurodivergent in their own unique ways (all our brains are crazy y’all idk) and Nathan also plays with that line of - is this really him or is this not, how much of this is real, how much is not? How does that affect our perception of ethics involved and what are people’s ethical responsibilities? What is “real” anyway? And how tf do we have justice/societal ethics if we don’t know how to answer those questions Etc ugh amazing movie

I also just wanna say, our entire government and the American capitalist system in general rewards and produces shit like this constantly - we have a scam artist as president, EH is the perfect representation of the capitalistic horror of late stage capitalism, she does not exist in a vacuum
America’s cooked y’all… at least we have some incredible artists making the dystopia entertaining for some of us

Last thing because I don’t want to spend my whole day on Reddit and make multiple posts about this haha:
The Amanda seyfried line “it’s really dusty in here” (or whatever) talking about the newly revealed set is spinning out a bit, thinking about how much of this is scripted or not, how much we aren’t seeing in the edit and how at the mercy of Nathan and lance’s “lies” (for the sake of entertainment/art) we are as well… never been so thoroughly mindfucked by a movie dude, and it just keeps going
I feel so lucky to have seen this in theaters, what a ride dude

Okay, if you read this: wow, thanks. Let’s go outside now lol

I thought nothing would top Ludwig Göransson’s Can You Hear the Music from Oppenheimer but here we are. What a haunting and chilling track to play all of us walking out of the theater after watching a masterpiece.

Per Google:

“Balouzian avoids traditional, functional chord progressions (like a standard I-IV-V-I) that offer immediate resolution. "V8" and surrounding tracks lean into minor and modal scales (often favoring the eerie, slightly dark character of the **Dorian mode** or the unstable **Phrygian mode**). By utilizing flat seconds or raised sixths, the music triggers an immediate psychological reaction of being "off-kilter".”

I posted this as a comment in another thread, edited it a little. I just wanted to share this thought.

This is more or less a response to anyone who legitimately believes Nathan fell for Liz's tactics...

Nathan is making himself a mark for their manipulation/con on purpose as a means to lead them on, see if they'll break character, or to reveal their manipulation patterns or tactics. It only works if Liz and Billy believe it. Nathan needs Liz and Billy (and the audience, possibly Amanda) to think Liz and Billy "got him."

Remember when he contacted Liz in jail and said something like, "I recently just had a bad breakup." Do you see what he's doing there? He's making Liz (and the audience) think, "Oh, he's romantically vulnerable! My manipulation is working, he's coming to me during a point of vulnerability!" He's not! He's still playing his foolish romantic "Nathan" character from the rehearsal and NFY, but it's much more subdued, as to make it seem more real, and I truly believe Liz bought it.

In magic, it's called the "sucker effect." The magician plays a fool, messes up his trick, and the mark thinks, "Oh man, I knew he would mess up! What a dork, I feel bad for him!" But by the end, the mark realizes that's part of the trick and the trick wasn't over yet, the magician always had full control. You could also call it sandbagging, playing the fool, strategic incompetence.

I wonder how many people here have watched Columbo. He pretends to be incompetent, unprofessional, dimwitted, and people let down their mask for him. They see him as non-threatening, easily manipulated, and maybe even their next mark/victim. (I know it's fiction, but it's a real technique used in interrogation and investigative work.)

I'm fairly certain that Nathan has out-manipulated everyone in this film and much of the audience. He pulled off (or is still pulling off) a magic trick, not for some big reveal or prestige, but to demonstrate how these tricks work, and how they're used to manipulate people. I think Nathan (the real Nathan) and the audience still don't know to what degree Liz and Billy are masking. But he has successfully demonstrated why and how their manipulation techniques work on so many people.

edit: also I just wanted to say, the only card trick I know how to do is a sucker trick, and it is so satisfying seeing people react after several minutes of thinking I fucked up the trick haha. But I will say, you have to be very good at pretending you're actually fucking up, and you have to be willing to set aside some of the second-hand cringe you feel when you mess up on purpose.

Not sure if this counts as a spoiler but spoilers! Just in case.

I took this scene as her realizing her con had finally worked on Nathan. Once she noticed that he genuinely believed she might not get the joke she took advantage of that and played into it. It was her “gotcha” for Nathan.

Billy noticed that’s what she was doing and played into it too. He explained the joke to her as like a “I see what you’re doing”. That’s why he said “thank you for bringing this up” because Nathan essentially proved he was buying her schtick of being this oblivious person.

I feel like after this scene she also started to act a little more “dumb” to keep that facade up. Anyway, thoughts on this?

Why is there no merch for you can see everything? Is it planned? I really want to see what collabs they do with this movie, I have $55 in credit burning a hole in my pocket. Curious why there is nothing as of now for a movie that has blown up like it has.

Anybody heard if they are working on something or is this normal procedure? Seemed like the Primetime stuff dropped really fast after premiere.

Whatever he was about to say was clearly sympathetic to her, so I'm wondering why Billy with the willy felt the need to shut down the conversation

Get your tickets now at https://shotgun.live/events/everything-everywhere-drag-dinner

EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE, ALL AT LORE! 🥯✨

In another universe, you might miss this drag dinner. But not this one. 👀🌌

Swipe and meet the cast of Everything Everywhere All at LORE! Hosted by Tucker AYE ALXNDR, featuring Scarlet Vixen, Camellia Crush, and Molly ALXNDR.

The cast is taking the stage and bringing to life characters, chaos, and countless universes!

Expect hot dog fingers, everything bagels, googly eyes, and plenty of surprises along the way. Grab dinner, get a drink, and prepare for a night where anything can happen, anywhere, all at once.

🎟️ Get your tickets now at LOREatl.com. The multiverse is waiting!

Tuesday, November 3 // Upstairs @ LORE // 21+
Doors 7 PM, Show 8 PM

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2026-10-26/billy-evans-shower-scene-you-can-see-everything

SPOILERS BELOW !

I watched Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim’s You Can See Everything yesterday, and while much of the discussion has focused on whether Elizabeth Holmes and Billy Evans are narcissists, compulsive liars, or genuinely delusional, I couldn’t stop thinking about how much of their behavior might reflect the environments that shaped them.

I don’t think it’s entirely coincidental that Holmes attended Stanford and Evans graduated from MIT. I am saying this as someone who attended a private K–12 school that regularly sent students to elite universities and recently graduated from a top-20 university myself (also applied and was admitted into Holmes’ alma mater, Stanford, but turned it down). I’ve spent much of my life surrounded by people who were raised to believe they were exceptional, or at least that becoming exceptional should be the entire point of their existence.

I think there’s something deeply unhealthy about that, particularly when combined with inherited wealth and social prestige. Children born into extraordinary advantages are often taught to interpret those advantages as evidence of their own extraordinary abilities. Privilege becomes merit. Access becomes talent. Institutional validation becomes proof of personal worth.

And from an increasingly young age, you’re taught that your life needs to tell a compelling story. Your hobbies become extracurriculars that can be sorted into rankings of 1-5, your interests become application essays, your identity becomes a personal brand. You learn that being exceptional and convincingly performing exceptionalism can actually produce many of the same institutional rewards.

Holmes seems like an extreme manifestation of this. Her public identity was essentially a perfectly constructed college application narrative taken to its logical conclusion: the visionary Stanford dropout, the revolutionary entrepreneur, the young woman destined to transform medicine. She wasn’t simply selling a medical device. She was selling an entire mythology about herself, and Silicon Valley rewarded her for it.

What struck me most was her insistence, even when directly questioned by Fielder, that she had never lied. Despite her conviction, she remains remarkably committed to her understanding of herself as someone whose intentions were fundamentally good. I kept wondering whether she was consciously manipulating him or had become so invested in her own mythology that acknowledging reality would mean dismantling her entire identity.

Billy, to me, represents a different manifestation of the same culture.

Throughout the documentary, he seems almost compulsively invested in controlling how he and Elizabeth are perceived. The egg-whisking scene, his attempts to negotiate a share of the documentary’s profits, and his management of Elizabeth’s social media and AI likeness all struck me as variations of the same impulse: the need to be in control of the narrative, even when doing so actively undermines the image he’s trying to construct.

What’s particularly fascinating is that the documentary itself becomes caught in this contradiction. Holmes and Billy ostensibly want to demonstrate their authenticity, yet their efforts to control how that authenticity is presented repeatedly call it into question.

I think there’s a continuity between the teenager who learns to package themselves as a uniquely compelling admissions candidate and the entrepreneur who learns to package themselves as a uniquely visionary founder. Both compete for opportunities from institutions that reward persuasive narratives about future potential, sometimes before that potential has been demonstrated.

And the film left me wondering whether, for some people, spending a lifetime being rewarded for appearing exceptional eventually makes it difficult to distinguish between the identity they’ve constructed and who they actually are.

There’s also a particular moral exceptionalism that can develop in these pressure cooker environments. You’re encouraged to see yourself as someone who recognizes what others cannot, someone destined to disrupt established institutions, someone whose vision is so extraordinary that conventional rules might not apply. At its healthiest, that produces innovation and at its worst, it produces people who interpret skepticism as ignorance and accountability as something reserved for less exceptional individuals.

But here’s what genuinely frightens me — Holmes and Billy came of age in an elite admissions culture that was, by many measures, less competitive than the one students face today.

I graduated from college this spring, and even compared with my own experience, the performance of exceptionalism seems to be growing more elaborate. There are entire industries dedicated to helping children construct competitive personal narratives. Students are encouraged to start nonprofits, build businesses, demonstrate leadership, and cultivate extraordinary identities before they’re even old enough to vote — I know multiple people who “started” nonprofits, blatantly lied about those accomplishments, and once they were accepted into their desired college, completely abandoned that project. With tech like AI, it makes the language, aesthetics, and strategies of exceptionalism more accessible than ever.

There’s something almost too fitting about Billy’s use of an AI-generated Elizabeth here. The distinction between a person and their carefully managed representation becomes increasingly difficult to locate. I don’t think AI will necessarily create more Elizabeth Holmeses. But I worry it will accelerate a culture in which everyone can manufacture the appearance of intellectual sophistication, visionary ambition, and personal exceptionalism without necessarily possessing the underlying experience, judgment, or substance.

The performance of exceptionalism is becoming easier to produce precisely as the competition to be perceived as exceptional intensifies.

What happens when an entire generation grows up in that contradiction? What happens to intellectual humility? To pursuing something because it’s genuinely interesting rather than because it demonstrates your potential/your superiority? To seeing your peers as people you can learn from rather than competitors you need to outperform?

I’m obviously not suggesting elite universities produce fraudsters, nor am I equating ambitious students with someone convicted of fraud. Personal responsibility matters, and most people who pass through these institutions do not behave like Holmes.
But I think we do ourselves a disservice by treating people like her as entirely inexplicable outliers without questioning the qualities our institutions reward.

Maybe Holmes and Billy aren’t complete departures from the values of elite achievement culture, but distorted reflections of them… Having grown up inside this culture, I increasingly question how much of what we call ambition is actually curiosity, passion, or a desire to contribute something meaningful, and how much is simply the fear of being ordinary.

Are we teaching young people to become exceptional, or are we teaching them that being perceived as exceptional is the most important thing they can accomplish?

I believe that the reason Nathan would not go swimming with her was because he never wanted to interact with her without a microphone. When he swims with her, he “breaks his own rule” making the point that he himself is a terribly unreliable narrator.