1978 Best Picture

The recent death of Diane Keaton made me sad. She was a wonderful actor especially in the Godfather movies.

It also reminded me of the 1978 Academy Awards. Those were the 50th annual Academy Awards. But that's not what I remembered.

Diane Keaton won the best actress in a leading role Oscar for the movie Annie Hall, a movie directed by Woody Allen and for which he won Best Director (probably didn't show up).

But it was the best picture Oscar that really upset me. The nominees were:

• Annie Hall (it was funny in that understated, Woody Allen way)
• Julia (I don't remember anything about it)
• The Turning Point (ditto)
• The Goodbye Girl (a funny comedy)
• Star Wars 

And the winner was.... Annie Hall.

Now, let me ask you: which movie of those five had the biggest impact on the movie industry. It wasn't Annie Hall, a barely remembered comedy. It was, of course, Star Wars. It launched a whole science fiction franchise that is still going on. If it weren't for Star Wars, there would have been no Star Trek: The Motion Picture which revived that science fiction franchise that is still going on. Without Star Wars there would be no Star Trek series such as The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine.

But the Academy hates popular movies and Star Wars was the biggest grossing movie of 1977. But I was so mad I refused to watch Annie Hall for decades. I kind of regretted that when I finally watched it because it is an enjoyable film.

Do you think Star Wars should have won the 1978 Best Picture Oscar? Let me know in the comments below.

The above photo is being used under Section 107 of the Copyright Act: fair usage.

The "Graveyard"

A recent weekend I watched two science fiction movies back-to-back that couldn't be more different and yet, coincidentally, where linked. 

The first was Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. It was the last Star Trek movie with all of the TOS crew (some were in Star Trek: Generations). That Star Trek VI was a cold war ending allegory could hardly be more obvious. I've discussed a bit of this movie before. Not sure why I watched it. I guess I felt as if I hadn't seen it for a while.

The second movie I watched was the 1954 Disney version of 20,000 Leagues under the Sea. To be honest, I'm not sure what inspired me to watch it. It was based on the 1868 book by Jules Verne Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas. The movie starred James Mason as Captain Nemo, Kirk Douglas as an American whaler, and Peter Lorre as the French professor's apprentice. Those were the only actors I recognized. 

I know I'd seen 20,000 Leagues under the Sea before as a kid, maybe in the theater. In the 1960s and early '70s, Disney would re-release its live-action and animated movies because, for some reason, they weren't making new ones. In any case, I know I've seen that movie before. Also, I'm not sure but I might have read the book (translated to English, of course). I know I read Journey to the Center of the Earth by Verne when I was a kid. Later in life I read Around the World in Eighty Days.

20,000 Leagues under the Sea is about a submarine (very much science fiction in 1868) named Nautilus that attacks ships by ramming them. It is powered by a mysterious, abundant source of energy. This is why the first nuclear submarine in the U.S. Navy was named Nautilus after the submarine in the book/movie. 

But how are they linked?

Warning: SPOILERS ahead.

In Star Trek VI, Kirk and McCoy are accused of killing the Klingon chancellor. At their trial they are sentenced to the prison asteroid of Rura Penthe, known throughout the galaxy as "the Aliens' Graveyard."

In 20,000 Leagues under the Sea, Captain Nemo takes the professor to see Rura Penthe, "the white mans' graveyard."

I bought the Kindle version of the Vern book for 29 cents (31 cents with tax). I searched for "Rura Penthe" and "graveyard" and neither came up. So I'm thinking it's only in the movie.

The writers of Star Trek VI snuck in a Jules Verne and/or Disney reference in the movie. The screenplay was written by Nicholas Meyer and Denny Martin Flinn. I would think it was Meyer (who also directed) who snuck in that reference. He likes to do that in his movies. 

But if I hadn't watched the movies back-to-back, I would probably have never made that connection.

Survivor Bias

Entertainment gives us all survivor bias. 

Let me explain.

The hero/heroine always survives (except in Titanic but that's a rare exception). Books, movies, television, the protagonist always survives. Think about the movie Independence Day (try not to think too much, it's not a very good movie). Millions die but most of the main characters live.

I'm guilty of this. In my books the protagonist (almost) always survives. I did kill off my main character once in a book.

Because of entertainment, I believe we all secretly think we're going to survive. I think people going into a war have to think they will survive. Otherwise, they wouldn't go. But some don't survive.

But in real life, your odds of surviving disasters are much less. I remember reading years ago (I think in Readers Digest) about a skyscraper fire in Brazil (this might have been the fire). People trying to escape came to the end of a hall. There were two ways out: left or right. The ones that went one way survived. The ones that went the other way, didn't. So you had a 50% chance of making the wrong choice and dying. And that stuck with me. A 50% chance of dying based on a random choice. That's scary.

When I drove on the racetrack, I assumed nothing bad was going to happen to me even though what I was doing was inherently dangerous. (Nothing bad did happen.)

So, we all probably have survivor bias. I think we wouldn't step out of the safety of our houses if we didn't to some degree. 

Do you think people have survivor bias and it's mostly because of popular entertainment? Let me know in the comments below.

Sex Sells

I'm not a big fan of the J.J. Abrams Star Trek movies (also known as the Kelvin timeline).  The first one was okay. Then came Star Trek into Darkness and it was downright bad. There was one scene I thought was completely gratuitous when actress Alice Eve (playing Carol Marcus) stood around in her underwear.

Alice Eve is a lovely woman and as a testosterone-poisoned male, I enjoyed the scene, but even then, I thought it was completely unneeded. 

But, sex sells. 

Some women were upset at the Alice Eve scene. But have you looked at romance books lately? Here's an example:

It seems on a lot of romance books there are shirtless men. But sex sells.

In my novel Rock Killer, I had a character named Charlie Jones. After writing less than a paragraph, I changed Charlie from a man to a woman with the same name. And I made her an attractive woman because... sex sells. (I decided her name was Charlene but everyone called her "Charlie.") And, at the beginning of the book, Charlie is in a bathtub. Because... sex sells. In that scene I say:

"She soaped up a washcloth and rubbed it over her dark skin; Frank called it chocolate-cheesecake colored."

Have you noticed other examples of using sex to sell entertainment? Let me know in the comments below.

The above photos are being used under Section 107 of the Copyright Act: fair usage.

Metric Time

The one thing that hasn't gone metric is time. There's still 60 seconds per minute, 60 minutes per hour, 24 hours per day, etc.

And for good reason. Metric time just wouldn't work.

The SI unit of time is the second. It's described as:

The second [...] is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency, ΔνCs, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom, to be 9192631770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s^−1

Yeah, I don't understand it either.

There is a "metric time" accepted for use with the metric system, minutes, hours, and days which are not considered SI units. French Revolutionary Time divided the day into 10 hours, each with 100 minutes, and each minute with 100 seconds, That resulted in a metric second being a slightly different length than a standard SI second. 

According to Wikipedia:

The [French Revolutionary] calendar consisted of twelve 30-day months, each divided into three 10-day cycles similar to weeks, plus five or six intercalary days at the end to fill out the balance of a solar year. It was designed in part to remove all religious and royalist influences from the calendar, and it was part of a larger attempt at dechristianisation and decimalisation in France.

 I doubt it worked well and the calendar was abolished in 1805 after 12 years of usage.

Our current system of 60 seconds per minute and 60 minutes per hour, 24 hours in a day, etc., is just too ingrained in society. Plus it works, unlike the French Revolutionary Calendar. 

What do you think of "metric time"? Let me know in the comments below.

Side note: I started this blog on September 19, 2012. So tomorrow is the 13th anniversary of it. Since then I have made 1,373 posts including this one.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

 I really like Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (SNW). It reminds me of Star Trek The Original Series (TOS) but without the 1960s cringe and the awful special effect (which have since been updated). The characters are unique and likable. I enjoy that they tie into TOS occasionally (Christine Chapel's boyfriend in SNW is her fiancé in the TOS episode "What are Little Girls Made Of?" for example). I like it more than Star Trek: Discovery which tried too hard to be politically correct.

However, I do have some complaints. 

SPOILERS if you haven't watched the show

First thing is Spock's character. He keeps having romances. First with his betrothed, T'Pring (and they acted very human together), then with Nurse Chapel, and now with Chief of Security La'an Noonien-Singh (who is a descendent of Khan Noonien-Singh which is an interesting little twist). I know Spock is half-human but in TOS he was only interested in romance during the pon farr, which hits only every seven years.

Second is how they handle the Gorn. This is my biggest complaint. I recently watched the "Arena" episode of TOS where the Gorn were first introduced (and then never seen again). Remember, TOS is supposed to take place after Strange New Worlds. In "Arena," Starfleet knew nothing of the Gorn. But in SNW they are not only well known but an aggressive enemy. I liked the episodes with the Gorn, but I feel as if they are violating canon. Also, the Gorn are a little too much like the Alien xenomorphs (incubating young inside humans and probably other species).

Finally, tonight's episode is the last one of season three. I haven't seen it yet. There have been only thirty episodes over three seasons! Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG) would do about 25 episodes per season. And it has to be easier today to do special effects with CGI. Yes, the production values of SNW exceeds TNG, but not by enough to have less than half as many episodes per season. And who knows how long we'll have to wait for seasons four and five (which are the last seasons planned).

Having said all that, I still like SNW. I just wish there were more episodes.

How do you feel about Star Trek: Strange New Worlds? Let me know in the comments below.

P.S.: Monday was the 59th anniversary of TOS premiering on television.  

The above photo is being used under Section 107 of the Copyright Act: fair usage.

Sting Ray Robb

IndyCar

This year, Fox Sports is showing IndyCar racing, which is fun to watch. I like IndyCar because it's not boring like NASCAR, not confusing like IMSA, and not quite as precise as Formula 1. Plus the same people/teams don't win the races all the time like in F1. Although Alex Palou won over half this year's IndyCar races and won the championship with two races left in the season. He might be moving to F1.

There's an 23-year-old IndyCar driver named Sting Ray Robb (yes, that's his real name; his parents were Chevrolet fans and named him after the Corvette Sting Ray) and when they introduce him, he says he's from Payette, Idaho. That amazed me because Payette is a small town (about 8,000 souls) near the Oregon border northwest of Boise. It's not too far north of Interstate 84.

And I wondered how someone from such a small town could end up being an IndyCar driver. Payette is about the same size as the small town in Idaho where I mostly grew up. So I googled him. Wikipedia said he started kart racing at age 5. Which means when I decided I wanted to be a race car driver at age 8, I was already too late. 

But where did Robb race karts. Boise is the nearest town of any size and about an hour drive away for Payette. And, yes, there's a kart racing facility in Eagle, ID which is a suburb of Boise. So, probably on weekends his parents would drive the hour plus to get to the kart racing facility where he could learn racing. 

I grew up on the other side of the state, about 250 miles from Boise. Plus, when I was five (or eight), I doubt that kart racing facility was there. So I didn't have the opportunities Robb did. (Plus, I had no idea how to become a race car driver.) This makes me extremely envious of him. 

According to Wikipedia, "Robb started running nationally at age eight, entering Cadet division events from 2010 to 2013. During his first season in the Junior ranks, he finished second in America and raced in Valencia, Spain. Robb won a national championship in Rotax Junior Max karting in 2015." So he had some success in karting.

Robb is not one of the usual winners of IndyCar races. He starts somewhere back in the pack and ends up there. At the end of the season he was in 25th place. But still, to be an IndyCar driver must be a dream come true for him. It would be for me.