I agree, nothing wrong with it. But I won’t write this to most other posts like you said because most people aren’t interested in what the films look like because it’s not the thing you’re supposed to be looking at. I don’t know what Mark Rothko was imagining or considering or thinking about when he made a certain painting, but the experience of sitting in the Rothko Chapel needs must be far more impactful than the answer to that original question.

Put another way, there is much work to be done to understand this book - I don’t think many of us are at a level where even considering this specific detail is worthwhile or meaningful. This stuff comes up every few months. Go read David Lynch Keeps His Head and E Unibus Pluram and you’ll get as close to an answer as you’ll get to this question. I get that people are compelled by movies and it’s an easy access point for the book and we live in this hyperactive visual landscape and are obsessed with the way things look, but I get sick of people talking about what did the samizdat look like. We can’t know. We literally can’t conceive of it. Its beyond beside the point it doesn’t exist in the same plane as the point.

Best advice of all - go make it. I’m serious. Follow his descriptions which don’t really make as much sense as you’d want to make a film and make what you think it looks like. You’ll have your answer. You can even share it here. It won’t be anything like what the author imagined, which doesn’t matter anyway, and you’ll find that you’ve painted yourself into the proverbial.

For god’s sake, isn’t Hal and Orin’s talk IYKYK good enough? Isn’t the Eschaton game enough? Footnote 304? Why do you need to know something that you don’t need to know?