The expendablenlightenment blog has made it through its first full calendar year! I want to thank all those readers who have learned a little something from this informational, trivial, yet fantastical source of facts and stories.
I hope that you take it easy this holiday season and come back in January to read more interesting stories. As we take a short break to recharge our batteries and find other interesting information, remember that we are always looking for stories, supposedly true facts, and other things that you want to know about.
Starting in January, we will be changing some things. The Friday video will be eliminated, and our time slot on Monday mornings will move to Wednesday. Also look for other exciting changes to the blog!
Come back in January for more expendablenlightenment!
Friday, December 21, 2012
Monday, December 17, 2012
Krampus, the Scary Christmas Tradition
Christmas is a time for giving, joy, and family. But your version of what Christmas means changes depending on which country you are in. The American version of Christmas isn't necessarily the same all around the world. Each country has its own elements that they have added on to the holiday. For example, in Japan, it is customary to go to a KFC (yes, Kentucky Fried Chicken) on Christmas Day; they are usually so busy that you usually have to make reservations. In Norway, the tradition is that witches and evil spirits come out on Christmas Eve, so it is customary to hide the brooms and for men to shoot shotguns in the air to scare the spirits away. In the Ukraine, it is tradition to put a spider and spider's web somewhere hidden in the tree. (The tradition dates to a poor woman who couldn't afford ornaments, and woke the next morning to find a spider had woven an intricate web on the tree.) It is considered good luck for anyone who can find the hidden spider web. Each country has it's own interesting and sometimes strange traditions, but one of the most bizarre comes from the countries around the Alps, specifically parts of Slovenia, Hungary, Germany, and especially in Austria.
In this region of the Alps, there is the old and strange custom of Krampus. We are all familiar with St. Nicholas (and some of us have even pieced together that the origin of Santa Claus is based off the real St. Nicholas), but we are less familiar with his sidekick named Krampus. Today, St. Nicholas will visit houses and businesses, but he will only pay attention to the good children and give them gifts. Who pays attention to the bad children? Krampus. Krampus will give the bad children coal and has been known to spank them. The tradition is clearly meant to scare children into being good.
The origin of Krampus goes back a very long time and actually has similarities with creatures from Ancient Greek mythology. The Krampus creature looks demonic in shape, usually furry and animal-like, as well as having horns growing out of his head. During the time of the Inquisition, the church tried to cut off any acknowledgement of Krampus, but it didn't work. By the 1600's, Krampus and St. Nicholas were paired together. In the 20th Century, the Austrian government has tried to discourage celebration of the scary beast. After their 1934 civil war ended, celebrations involving Krampus were banned. In the last twenty years, a massive resurgence of celebrations involving Krampus have become very popular, but naturally a debate has risen as to whether it is appropriate or good for children to be a part of.
On December 6, the Feast of St. Nicholas is celebrated across Europe, but in these areas of the Alps, the night is called "Krampusnacht" (Krampus Night). Anytime between then and January 6, there can also be what's called the Krampuslaufen, which is a run through the city with people dressed up as Krampus. The unusual feature of this (as if the whole thing isn't unusual already) is that when they run through the city, the participants are usually drunk. It is custom to offer schnapps to the Krampus runners on their trek through the cities.
Another element of Krampus is the use in postcards and holiday cards. It has been customary since the 1800's to send holiday cards and postcards that feature the grotesque beast in them with the phrase "Gruß vom Krampus" (Greetings from the Krampus). It is notable that the older cards are rather disturbing and scary, while the newer ones have become funnier and made the Krampus to appear more like a cuter Cupid-like creature. The newer Krampus cards show an element of dark humor as well as his trouble with ladies.
Either way, it is a strange tradition that has raised some debate, but there appears to be no slowing down this popular tradition in the Alpine regions.
Bet you didn't know that!
In this region of the Alps, there is the old and strange custom of Krampus. We are all familiar with St. Nicholas (and some of us have even pieced together that the origin of Santa Claus is based off the real St. Nicholas), but we are less familiar with his sidekick named Krampus. Today, St. Nicholas will visit houses and businesses, but he will only pay attention to the good children and give them gifts. Who pays attention to the bad children? Krampus. Krampus will give the bad children coal and has been known to spank them. The tradition is clearly meant to scare children into being good.
The origin of Krampus goes back a very long time and actually has similarities with creatures from Ancient Greek mythology. The Krampus creature looks demonic in shape, usually furry and animal-like, as well as having horns growing out of his head. During the time of the Inquisition, the church tried to cut off any acknowledgement of Krampus, but it didn't work. By the 1600's, Krampus and St. Nicholas were paired together. In the 20th Century, the Austrian government has tried to discourage celebration of the scary beast. After their 1934 civil war ended, celebrations involving Krampus were banned. In the last twenty years, a massive resurgence of celebrations involving Krampus have become very popular, but naturally a debate has risen as to whether it is appropriate or good for children to be a part of.
 |
| St. Nicholas and Krampus at a Krampuslaufen. |
Another element of Krampus is the use in postcards and holiday cards. It has been customary since the 1800's to send holiday cards and postcards that feature the grotesque beast in them with the phrase "Gruß vom Krampus" (Greetings from the Krampus). It is notable that the older cards are rather disturbing and scary, while the newer ones have become funnier and made the Krampus to appear more like a cuter Cupid-like creature. The newer Krampus cards show an element of dark humor as well as his trouble with ladies.
 |
| A newspaper illustration with St. Nicholas and Krampus from 1896. |
Either way, it is a strange tradition that has raised some debate, but there appears to be no slowing down this popular tradition in the Alpine regions.
Bet you didn't know that!
Monday, December 10, 2012
The Foam in Hydrogen Peroxide
Remember to the last time you cut your hand and applied some hydrogen peroxide to the wound. You see it foam and bubble. Have you ever wondered what made it do that?
Before we explain how that happens, first you should know what hydrogen peroxide is. Hydrogen peroxide is an chemical name for a molecule that contains two atoms of hydrogen and two atoms of oxygen (H2O2). When you buy a bottle of hydrogen peroxide, it's actually 97% water and only 3 % hygrogen peroxide, but even if it was 100% hydrogen peroxide, the end result would still be the same.
Contained inside blood and skin cells is an enzyme called 'catalase'. This protein is very important to living things that are dependent on oxygen for reasons that are very complex to answer here, so take my word for it. Your blood and skin cells are full of this enzyme. When your skin is cut, then catalase is exposed to the air. If you pour hydrogen peroxide over the wound, it will bubble and foam because of a chemical reaction that's taking place. The catalase literally will convert the hydrogen peroxide into two compounds: water and oxygen. How? You'll have to go to a chemistry class to fully understand the details of this process, but the easiest way to explain is that it will take two molecules of H2O2 and change them into two molecules of H2O and one molecule of O2, which are water and oxygen molecules. This doesn't work when you just pour it on your skin because your skin isn't broken and no catalase is exposed to the hydrogen peroxide.
This is specifically happening because the catalase is in your cells, and if the cells are damaged, then the reaction can occur. But this isn't just humans that this reaction can take place in. Any living creature that has catalase in their system will have the same reaction to hydrogen peroxide. So, for example, an interesting experiment is to take a potato and slice it. If you pour hydrogen peroxide over this "wounded" potato, it will foam and bubble too. Another interesting note is that the reaction is very fast; one molecule of catalase can have reactions with as much as 5,000 hydrogen peroxide molecules, which is why it will bubble and foam so much.
Bet you didn't know that!
 |
| Typical bottle of hydrogen peroxide. |
Contained inside blood and skin cells is an enzyme called 'catalase'. This protein is very important to living things that are dependent on oxygen for reasons that are very complex to answer here, so take my word for it. Your blood and skin cells are full of this enzyme. When your skin is cut, then catalase is exposed to the air. If you pour hydrogen peroxide over the wound, it will bubble and foam because of a chemical reaction that's taking place. The catalase literally will convert the hydrogen peroxide into two compounds: water and oxygen. How? You'll have to go to a chemistry class to fully understand the details of this process, but the easiest way to explain is that it will take two molecules of H2O2 and change them into two molecules of H2O and one molecule of O2, which are water and oxygen molecules. This doesn't work when you just pour it on your skin because your skin isn't broken and no catalase is exposed to the hydrogen peroxide.
This is specifically happening because the catalase is in your cells, and if the cells are damaged, then the reaction can occur. But this isn't just humans that this reaction can take place in. Any living creature that has catalase in their system will have the same reaction to hydrogen peroxide. So, for example, an interesting experiment is to take a potato and slice it. If you pour hydrogen peroxide over this "wounded" potato, it will foam and bubble too. Another interesting note is that the reaction is very fast; one molecule of catalase can have reactions with as much as 5,000 hydrogen peroxide molecules, which is why it will bubble and foam so much.
Bet you didn't know that!
Friday, December 7, 2012
Friday Song #22 - King Crimson
"Ladies of the Road" - King Crimson, from the album "Islands"
Released: 1971
Monday, December 3, 2012
Where Did the 'Pigskin' Name Come From?
In American football, the most timeless part of the game is the ball itself: the brown oval made of leather. The present version of the football has changed little since the early days of the NFL. But what's the story with the oddly shaped ball? And most importantly, why is it called a 'pigskin'?
Modern American football dates back to the 1800's when variations of European football (soccer) and rugby football were played at college campuses. Some colleges used their own house rules, and as the rules began to mix, the rules of the game were set down. The first official football game on a college campus was between Rutgers and Princeton on November 6, 1869.
At the time, the ball was very different. It was literally a pig's bladder that was inflated. It was a sphere, not an oval, and it had to be reinflated several times during the game (by the players, of course). Because the players were re-inflating the ball (and they would get out of breath from the game itself), some wouldn't be able to breath as deeply, so the ball was often misshapen. Charles Goodyear patented his rubber technologies in 1844, so it is possible that there were actually rubber footballs around at the time, but the first instance of a 'rubber bladder' was in 1871.
The misshaping of the ball became an advantage because then you could actually grip the ball. The forward pass was introduced in the rules in 1906, so teams preferred the ball to have a narrower area on opposite sides of the ball. In the 1930's, the shape was changed to have much narrower points, which made it much easier to grip the ball for throwing.
Today the football is made of leather (cows) and there are no more pigs in use, but the name 'pigskin' still pops up. It's in reference to the original footballs of the 1800's: pig bladders.
Modern American football dates back to the 1800's when variations of European football (soccer) and rugby football were played at college campuses. Some colleges used their own house rules, and as the rules began to mix, the rules of the game were set down. The first official football game on a college campus was between Rutgers and Princeton on November 6, 1869.
At the time, the ball was very different. It was literally a pig's bladder that was inflated. It was a sphere, not an oval, and it had to be reinflated several times during the game (by the players, of course). Because the players were re-inflating the ball (and they would get out of breath from the game itself), some wouldn't be able to breath as deeply, so the ball was often misshapen. Charles Goodyear patented his rubber technologies in 1844, so it is possible that there were actually rubber footballs around at the time, but the first instance of a 'rubber bladder' was in 1871.
 |
| A deflated early 1900's football. It's an oval, but not pointy. |
Today the football is made of leather (cows) and there are no more pigs in use, but the name 'pigskin' still pops up. It's in reference to the original footballs of the 1800's: pig bladders.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Monday, November 26, 2012
True Story #2
On the night of February 19, 1994, Gloria Ramirez was brought into the ER at Riverside Regional Hospital in Southern California. She had been suffering from cervical cancer, and was brought in specifically for bradycardia (a slowing of the heart beat), Cheyne-Stokes respiration (an irregular breathing pattern), and confusion. She was given injections of Valium, Versed, and Ativan to sedate her, and she was also given Lidocaine for her heartbeat. She started getting worse, so they had to defibrillate her heart.
It was at that moment when things got weird. Hospital staff noticed an oily sheen on Gloria's skin and a fruity garlic smell coming from her mouth. An RN took a blood sample and smelled an ammonia odor coming from the sample tube. The RN passed the syringe to the doctor who saw what appeared to be crystals floating in the blood. The RN then passed out and was taken out. The doctor started feeling ill and light-headed, so she left as well. The doctor soon passed out as well. A respiratory therapist in the room also passed out, and the ER was forced to evacuate. After 45 minutes in the ER, Gloria Ramirez died. Her death has been attributed to kidney failure due to complications from her cancer.
California's Department of Health and Human Services investigated and found very few things, mostly looking at a mass hysteria leading to the cause of most of the issues. The doctor that night spent two weeks in the ICU with breathing problems, and she actually ended up developing hepatitis and avascular necrosis in her knees. She and the RN chose to seek a second opinion as to the findings. She turned to Livermore Labs for help.
Livermore Labs believed that Gloria Ramirez had been taking Dimethyl Sulfoxide on her own to treat herself. This compound is a solvent that has a garlic taste and can be secreted onto the tongue after exposure. The Lab believed that because of her failing kidneys, this compound built up in her system. When CPR was administered, it added a lot of oxygen into Gloria's system which would've caused the Dimethyl Sulfoxide to combine with the Oxygen to form Dimethyl Sulfone, which crystallizes at room temperature (hence the crystals in the blood sample). When Gloria was defibrullated, the electricity would have caused another chemical reaction to the Dimethyl Sulfone and caused it to change into Dimethyl Sulfate. This compound is highly toxic which could have caused the effects that the hospital staff reported.
Even though Gloria's family didn't agree with the Livermore investigation, it's the only investigation that has been able to explain all the odd occurrences in the ER that night. If the story sounds at all familiar, the premise had been used in an episode of the TV shows 'The X-Files' and 'Grey's Anatomy'. Gloria's story has made itself into medical journals and Livermore Labs have been hailed for their investigation. Unfortunately for Gloria, she has become known as "the toxic lady" by the media. She has been buried in an unmarked grave in Olivewood Memorial Park in Riverside, California.
It was at that moment when things got weird. Hospital staff noticed an oily sheen on Gloria's skin and a fruity garlic smell coming from her mouth. An RN took a blood sample and smelled an ammonia odor coming from the sample tube. The RN passed the syringe to the doctor who saw what appeared to be crystals floating in the blood. The RN then passed out and was taken out. The doctor started feeling ill and light-headed, so she left as well. The doctor soon passed out as well. A respiratory therapist in the room also passed out, and the ER was forced to evacuate. After 45 minutes in the ER, Gloria Ramirez died. Her death has been attributed to kidney failure due to complications from her cancer.
California's Department of Health and Human Services investigated and found very few things, mostly looking at a mass hysteria leading to the cause of most of the issues. The doctor that night spent two weeks in the ICU with breathing problems, and she actually ended up developing hepatitis and avascular necrosis in her knees. She and the RN chose to seek a second opinion as to the findings. She turned to Livermore Labs for help.
Livermore Labs believed that Gloria Ramirez had been taking Dimethyl Sulfoxide on her own to treat herself. This compound is a solvent that has a garlic taste and can be secreted onto the tongue after exposure. The Lab believed that because of her failing kidneys, this compound built up in her system. When CPR was administered, it added a lot of oxygen into Gloria's system which would've caused the Dimethyl Sulfoxide to combine with the Oxygen to form Dimethyl Sulfone, which crystallizes at room temperature (hence the crystals in the blood sample). When Gloria was defibrullated, the electricity would have caused another chemical reaction to the Dimethyl Sulfone and caused it to change into Dimethyl Sulfate. This compound is highly toxic which could have caused the effects that the hospital staff reported.
Even though Gloria's family didn't agree with the Livermore investigation, it's the only investigation that has been able to explain all the odd occurrences in the ER that night. If the story sounds at all familiar, the premise had been used in an episode of the TV shows 'The X-Files' and 'Grey's Anatomy'. Gloria's story has made itself into medical journals and Livermore Labs have been hailed for their investigation. Unfortunately for Gloria, she has become known as "the toxic lady" by the media. She has been buried in an unmarked grave in Olivewood Memorial Park in Riverside, California.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Monday, November 19, 2012
Black Friday
This week is Thanksgiving, and with it comes what has become the busiest shopping day of the year. But How long has it been this way? Where'd the name 'Black Friday' come from? Were other days called 'Black Friday'?
The term 'Black Friday' has been used for things other than shopping. The first case of its use was for the Financial Crisis of 1869, when the price of gold collapsed because of two stock speculators who tried to corner the market.
The first use of the term in reference to the day after Thanksgiving came from Philadelphia around 1961. An article was published around that time talking about the traffic jams and headaches for business owners. This article talked about both 'Black Friday' and the day after, 'Black Saturday'. They wanted to make things safer and more fluid, which would make these two days 'Big Friday' and 'Big Saturday'. The next time it was really referenced in the media at large was in 1966. The name was growing in the Philadelphia region. It gained a national understanding in 1975 when it was published in a New York Times article on the Army-Navy football game and two other articles in other periodicals. Even though it became national at that time, it still took awhile for the name to spread across the US. In 1985, a Philadelphia periodical reported that retailers in Cincinnati and Los Angeles didn't kow the term yet.
How long has 'Black Friday' been the biggest shopping day? Not that long actually. Once the media grabbed onto it, the idea exploded. From 1993-2001, 'Black Friday' was actually ranked between #5 and #10 on the busiest shopping days of the year. What was usually the busiest? The Saturday before Christmas. The first time that it actually ranked as the busiest shopping day was in 2003. In 2004, it ranked second. However, from 2005 on, it has been the busiest.
So why is 'Black Friday' historically known as the beginning of the Christmas shopping season? There are two reasons for this. Firstly, no department stores would advertise their deals until that Friday. Secondly, the parades that were hosted on that Friday (usually sponsored by department stores at the time, such as Macy's) had Santa at the end, a symbol for initiating the Christmas season. It's only been in recent years that Christmas advertising of deals has been before Thanksgiving. Recent trends have stores opening on Thursday night. Penned in 2005, 'Cyber Monday' follows to help those to get deals online if you couldn't find what you were looking for the previous Friday or just didn't want to brave the crowds. Now, the deals flow from Thursday night through Monday. We'll see what the future holds.
If you decide to brave the crows this Friday, good luck and stay safe!
 |
| Black Friday as seen in a Nebraska Furniture Mart in Kansas City: November 27, 2009 |
The term 'Black Friday' has been used for things other than shopping. The first case of its use was for the Financial Crisis of 1869, when the price of gold collapsed because of two stock speculators who tried to corner the market.
The first use of the term in reference to the day after Thanksgiving came from Philadelphia around 1961. An article was published around that time talking about the traffic jams and headaches for business owners. This article talked about both 'Black Friday' and the day after, 'Black Saturday'. They wanted to make things safer and more fluid, which would make these two days 'Big Friday' and 'Big Saturday'. The next time it was really referenced in the media at large was in 1966. The name was growing in the Philadelphia region. It gained a national understanding in 1975 when it was published in a New York Times article on the Army-Navy football game and two other articles in other periodicals. Even though it became national at that time, it still took awhile for the name to spread across the US. In 1985, a Philadelphia periodical reported that retailers in Cincinnati and Los Angeles didn't kow the term yet.
How long has 'Black Friday' been the biggest shopping day? Not that long actually. Once the media grabbed onto it, the idea exploded. From 1993-2001, 'Black Friday' was actually ranked between #5 and #10 on the busiest shopping days of the year. What was usually the busiest? The Saturday before Christmas. The first time that it actually ranked as the busiest shopping day was in 2003. In 2004, it ranked second. However, from 2005 on, it has been the busiest.
 |
| Lines to get into Target in Fargo, ND: November 25, 2011 |
If you decide to brave the crows this Friday, good luck and stay safe!
Friday, November 16, 2012
Friday Song #19 - Aerosmith
"Kings and Queens" - Aerosmith, from the album "Draw the Line"
Released: 1977
Monday, November 12, 2012
Bond's 50th Anniversary, Part 2
What better way to pay homage to the character that has endured in movies for 50 years than than to recognize the many people who have played the super spy. Most people know of the movie versions and even debate which one is the best. But here's a list of people who played the character over the years.
Barry Nelson
The first actor to play James Bond was Barry Nelson in a live TV broadcast of "Casino Royale" in 1954. CBS paid Ian Fleming $1000 to adapt his book into an hour long episode for a show of theirs.
Bob Holness
Bob Holness played as James Bond in a radio broadcast in South Africa of the novel "Moonraker" in 1956.
Sean Connery
The most recognizable Bond is Sean Connery, who was the first to play Bond in a movie. He starred in 7 Bond movies total (1962's Dr. No, 1963's From Russia with Love, 1964's Goldfinger, 1965's Thunderball, 1967's You Only Live Twice, 1971's Diamonds Are Forever, and the non-official 1983's Never Say Never Again).
David Niven
In 1967, a non-official Bond movie was released as a spoof of the spy movie and was called Casino Royale. It starred David Niven as Sir James Bond, and a number of other fake Bonds. I could put them up here as well, but the real Bond of the movie was Niven.
George Lazenby
The second Bond on the movie screen was George Lazenby. Most don't like Lazenby for the simple reason that he was replacing Connery. He only appeared in On Her Majesty's Secret Service in 1969.
Roger Moore
Roger Moore starred in 7 official Bond movies, which makes him the longest tenured Bond. His movies are 1973's Live and Let Die, 1974's The Man with the Golden Gun, 1977's The Spy Who Loved Me, 1979's Moonraker, 1981's For Your Eyes Only, 1983's Octopussy, and 1985's A View to a Kill. Most Bond fans are separated by Moore: you either love him or hate him without much in between.
Timothy Dalton
Timothy Dalton is another Bond that usually separates fans into two camps. He made two movies in the role: 1987's The Living Daylights and 1989's License to Kill.
Michael Jayston
Jayston played as James Bond in 1990 when BBC Radio 4 broadcast a 90-minute radio play of "You Only Live Twice".
Pierce Brosnan
After a lapse of a few years between movies, Pierce Brosnan took over the Bond mantle. Many enjoy Brosnan, but some do have some negative feelings as his movies went on. He was in 4 Bond movies: 1995's Goldeneye, 1997's Tomorrow Never Dies, 1999's The World Is Not Enough, and 2002's Die Another Day.
Daniel Craig
A blonder Bond was chosen as the next Bond. Daniel Craig added some life into the Bond series but many were disappointed with his second appearance as the spy. To date, he has been in 3 Bond movies: 2006's Casino Royale, 2008's Quantum of Solace, and 2012's Skyfall.
Toby Stephens
BBC Radio 4 decided that the 1990 Bond broadcast play was popular enough to make another. Toby Stephens (who played as the villain in Die Another Day) was cast to play the voice of Bond. So far, he has been in 3 of this radio plays: 2008's Dr. No, 2010's Goldfinger, and 2012's From Russia with Love.
And those are your James Bonds. More than you thought, right?
Barry Nelson
 |
| Barry Nelson in Casino Royale |
Bob Holness
 |
| Bob Holness |
Sean Connery
 |
| Sean Connery in Goldfinger |
David Niven
 |
| David Niven in Casino Royale |
George Lazenby
 |
| George Lazenby |
Roger Moore
 |
| Roger Moore in Live and Let Die |
Timothy Dalton
 |
| Timothy Dalton in The Living Daylights |
Michael Jayston
 |
| Michael Jayston |
Pierce Brosnan
 |
| Pierce Brosnan in Goldeneye |
Daniel Craig
 |
| Daniel Craig in Casino Royale |
Toby Stephens
 |
| Toby Stephens as the villain from Die Another Day |
And those are your James Bonds. More than you thought, right?
Friday, November 9, 2012
Friday Song #18 - Santana
"Open Invitation" - Santana, from the album "Inner Secrets"
Released: 1978
Monday, November 5, 2012
Bond's 50th Anniversary, Part 1
 |
The fact is the Bond novels were written in the 50's and 60's by Ian Fleming, and the movies were begun in the early 60's, mostly out of Fleming's control. At the time, Kennedy was President, and he released a top 10 favorite books list, and listed "From Russia with Love" on the list. MGM wanted to make the movie, but it isn't exactly full of action, so instead, they chose to make "Dr. No", which actually is the book after "From Russia with Love". But with the success of "Dr. No", people would watch anything with Bond in it. From there, the titles for the movies came from the books, but out of order from the books. There were some loose threads that went from book to book and some character changes (the best example is in "Live and Let Die", the 2nd book, Felix Leiter is partially mauled by alligators and has a hook hand for the rest of the series). As the movies continued on, two things happened: 1. they ran out of titles to use, 2. they used less and less content from the books they were named after. By the 80's, they were being titled after short stories that Fleming had written, and by the 90's, they were completely original names. There was almost always some element that was borrowed from a Bond novel/story, but for the most part, they were separate from the books.
So, if you're a fan of the Bond movies and wonder what the difference is in the order of the books and movies, here's your list:
1962 - Dr. No movie released, named for novel of same name, published 1958, sixth novel.
1963 - From Russia with Love movie released, named for novel of same name, published 1957, fifth novel.
1964 - Goldfinger movie released, named for novel of same name, published 1959, seventh novel.
1965 - Thunderball movie released, named for novel of same name, published 1961, eighth novel.
1967 - You Only Live Twice movie released, named for novel of same name, published 1964, eleventh novel.
1969 - On Her Majesty's Secret Service movie released, named for novel of same name, published 1963, tenth novel.
1971 - Diamonds Are Forever movie released, named for novel of same name, published 1956, fourth novel.
1973 - Live and Let Die movie released, named for novel of same name, published 1954, second novel.
1974 - The Man with the Golden Gun movie released, named for novel of same name, published 1965, twelfth novel.
1977 - The Spy Who Loved Me movie released, named for novel of same name, published 1962, ninth novel.
1979 - Moonraker movie released, named for novel of same name, published 1955, third novel.
1981 - For Your Eyes Only movie released, named for short story of same name/also name of compilation of short stories, compilation published 1960, first compilation.
1983 - Octopussy movie released, named for short story of same name/also co-name of compilation of short stories, compilation published 1966, second compilation.
1985 - A View to a Kill movie released, named for short story "From a View to a Kill" from the For Your Eyes Only compilation, published 1960.
1987 - The Living Daylights movie released, named for short story of same name (from compilation "Octopussy and the Living Daylights"), compilation published 1966.
1989 - License to Kill movie released, original name.
1995 - Goldeneye movie released, named after Fleming's home in Jamaica, original name.
1997 - Tomorrow Never Dies movie released, original name.
1999 - The World Is Not Enough movie released, original name.
2002 - Die Another Day movie released, original name.
2006 - Casino Royale movie released, named for novel of same name, published 1953, first novel.
2008 - Quantum of Solace movie released, named for short story of same name (from compilation "For Your Eyes Only" compilation, published 1960.
2012 - Skyfall movie released, original name.
If you're a true Bond fan, you might be wondering if any movies are missing. These movies are the "official" Bond movies from MGM/United Artists. There have been two other "unofficial" Bond movies made.
1967 - Casino Royale, spoof movie, named for first novel.
1983 - Never Say Never Again, original name.
Check back in Part 2 for more expendablenlightenment!
Friday, November 2, 2012
Friday Song #17 - Supertramp
"Babaji" - Supertramp, from the album "Even in the Quiestest Moments"
Released: 1977
Monday, October 29, 2012
A Few Symbols of Halloween Explained
Black Cats
Most people know of the superstition of a "black cat crossing your path". Most Americans think of this as bad luck. But why? Well, it dates back to the Middle Ages. The highly religious and superstitious people at the time thought two things about the cats: 1. black cats were pets of witches, therefore they were evil, and 2. Satan and/or demons could transform themselves into a black cat to converse with witches. This superstition continued into America in places like Salem, Massachusetts (most known for the witch trials).
Today, in places like Japan, Ireland, and Great Britain it is actually good luck to have a black cat cross your path. It is supposed to lead to either wealth or (in Japan) a number of suitors.
Bats
Those mammals of the air have scared many people for countless generations. There is an old wives tale that says bats will get tangled in your hair, but the truth to that is most likely the bats were after insects that are attracted to humans, and the bats became accidentally caught in the hair. But bats themselves have been associated with witchcraft in parts of Europe and America for a long time. The vampire legends say that the bat is one of the forms they could turn into. Even the witches in Shakespeare's 'Macbeth' use bats in their brew. But are these the only feelings toward bats?
Several old cultures thought of bats are gods or being on the level of gods. Parts of Eastern Europe and the Middle East think of bats as good luck. In China, bats are a sign of longevity and happiness. Some Native Americans (specifically the Creek, Cherokee, and Apache) look at the bat as a trickster spirit as opposed to anything evil.
"Halloween" Movie without Michael Myers?
It's true! Most people forget that there was a movie of the Halloween franchise that didn't feature the signature slasher most known for this series of movies. "Halloween III: Season of the Witch" was (basically) a story about a mad scientist type who creates masks that are supposed to explode on Halloween, and a couple investigate and try to stop him. Why was he missing? Simple: the original concept for the Halloween franchise was to use a different scary storyline/premise for each one. Halloween II was just a continuation of the first one (thought of like a miniseries of sorts). Halloween 4 was supposed to be a completely different story also, but apparently the fans didn't get the memo. They were so outraged that Halloween 4 was labeled "the return of Michael Myers", leaving the 3rd movie the only one without Michael Myers as the villain. (However, if you look in one scene, a TV shows a trailer for the first Halloween movie with Michael Myers shown.)
Mischief Night
Did you know there was such a thing as Mischief Night? It refers to the night around Halloween when usually teens play pranks and practical jokes on people. Typically it takes place in the US, England, Ireland, and Canada. Usually, it is the day before Halloween, but the traditional British Mischief Night is November 4, the night before Bonfire Night, which is in memory of the night in 1605 when Guy Fawkes tried to set the House of Lords on fire. Unfortunately, as the years went on, the night itself has turned into more vandalism than simple pranks. There are a number of other names for the day, not all of which are that pleasant. The first instance of a Mischief Night is in 1790, but it was celebrated around the May Day celebrations. It was soon moved to November 4. In Germany, a form is celebrated in May still.
Orange and Black
There isn't a definite answer as to where the orange and black came from for Halloween. However, most agree that the origin must be with the Celtics of the modern day island of Britain. A likely theory on orange is that it was a symbol of the changes toward autumn: leaves changing to orange, and pumpkins and other festive vegetables being orange. Another theory for orange is that it was a symbol of strength, and the Celtics did fight against the Romans a long time ago. The black isn't so easy to come to a consensus. Everything from a symbol of death or spirits sometimes comes up. Another theory is just that there is less and less light the farther in the year, so it could just represent darkness. Either way, they do work together!
Happy Halloween!
Most people know of the superstition of a "black cat crossing your path". Most Americans think of this as bad luck. But why? Well, it dates back to the Middle Ages. The highly religious and superstitious people at the time thought two things about the cats: 1. black cats were pets of witches, therefore they were evil, and 2. Satan and/or demons could transform themselves into a black cat to converse with witches. This superstition continued into America in places like Salem, Massachusetts (most known for the witch trials).
Today, in places like Japan, Ireland, and Great Britain it is actually good luck to have a black cat cross your path. It is supposed to lead to either wealth or (in Japan) a number of suitors.
Bats
Those mammals of the air have scared many people for countless generations. There is an old wives tale that says bats will get tangled in your hair, but the truth to that is most likely the bats were after insects that are attracted to humans, and the bats became accidentally caught in the hair. But bats themselves have been associated with witchcraft in parts of Europe and America for a long time. The vampire legends say that the bat is one of the forms they could turn into. Even the witches in Shakespeare's 'Macbeth' use bats in their brew. But are these the only feelings toward bats?
Several old cultures thought of bats are gods or being on the level of gods. Parts of Eastern Europe and the Middle East think of bats as good luck. In China, bats are a sign of longevity and happiness. Some Native Americans (specifically the Creek, Cherokee, and Apache) look at the bat as a trickster spirit as opposed to anything evil.
"Halloween" Movie without Michael Myers?
It's true! Most people forget that there was a movie of the Halloween franchise that didn't feature the signature slasher most known for this series of movies. "Halloween III: Season of the Witch" was (basically) a story about a mad scientist type who creates masks that are supposed to explode on Halloween, and a couple investigate and try to stop him. Why was he missing? Simple: the original concept for the Halloween franchise was to use a different scary storyline/premise for each one. Halloween II was just a continuation of the first one (thought of like a miniseries of sorts). Halloween 4 was supposed to be a completely different story also, but apparently the fans didn't get the memo. They were so outraged that Halloween 4 was labeled "the return of Michael Myers", leaving the 3rd movie the only one without Michael Myers as the villain. (However, if you look in one scene, a TV shows a trailer for the first Halloween movie with Michael Myers shown.)
Mischief Night
Did you know there was such a thing as Mischief Night? It refers to the night around Halloween when usually teens play pranks and practical jokes on people. Typically it takes place in the US, England, Ireland, and Canada. Usually, it is the day before Halloween, but the traditional British Mischief Night is November 4, the night before Bonfire Night, which is in memory of the night in 1605 when Guy Fawkes tried to set the House of Lords on fire. Unfortunately, as the years went on, the night itself has turned into more vandalism than simple pranks. There are a number of other names for the day, not all of which are that pleasant. The first instance of a Mischief Night is in 1790, but it was celebrated around the May Day celebrations. It was soon moved to November 4. In Germany, a form is celebrated in May still.
Orange and Black
There isn't a definite answer as to where the orange and black came from for Halloween. However, most agree that the origin must be with the Celtics of the modern day island of Britain. A likely theory on orange is that it was a symbol of the changes toward autumn: leaves changing to orange, and pumpkins and other festive vegetables being orange. Another theory for orange is that it was a symbol of strength, and the Celtics did fight against the Romans a long time ago. The black isn't so easy to come to a consensus. Everything from a symbol of death or spirits sometimes comes up. Another theory is just that there is less and less light the farther in the year, so it could just represent darkness. Either way, they do work together!
Happy Halloween!
Friday, October 26, 2012
Monday, October 22, 2012
Stockholm Syndrome's Origin
I bet you've heard of Stockholm Syndrome, and I bet you even know what it is. But where did it come from? Stockholm? For those of you that don't know, we'll explore it.
The name 'Stockholm Syndrome' comes from an event in Stockholm, Sweden, specifically at a bank at Norrmalmstorg Square. On August 23, 1973, Jan-Erik Olsson (who had a prior criminal record) walked into the bank and attempted to rob it. The police were summoned immediately, and four people were taken hostage. Jan-Erik had some demands: his friend Clark Olofsson (who had a criminal record himself) to be brought to the bank, 3 million Kronor ($730,000 US dollars at the time), two guns, helmets, bullet-proof vests, and a fast car. The police brought Clark and allowed him to enter. The police agreed to let them have a fast car, but refused to let them take the hostages out of the bank.
It was during this hostage situation that Kristin Enmark (one of the hostages) began to feel safe with Jan-Erik and Clark and had great fear that the police would escalate the situation. Jan-Erik called the Prime Minister (Olof Palme) and said that he would kill the hostages, and when he hung up the phone, a hostage's screams could be heard. The next day, Kristin Enmark called Palme and said that she was not happy with Palme's attitude and that he should let the robbers and the hostages go. On August 26, the cops drilled a hole into the main vault where the hostages were. They were hoping to get a camera set up so they could watch the hostages. Clark fired through the hole a couple times and hit an officer. Jan-Erik shouted at the police that if they used a gas attack, then the hostages would be killed.
On August 28, the cops used gas anyway, and after a half hour of no one getting killed, Jan-Erik and Clark surrendered. At the trial, both were found guilty: Jan-Erik received 10 years in prison, Clark received 6 1/2 years, but at the appeal Clark was found to be helping calm the situation and his charges were dropped.
Kristin Enmark's feelings of safety with the captors and fear of the police wasn't only her own. The other hostages have mentioned they felt the same way. Enmark and Clark met some time later and became friends. Some of the hostages even spoke in defense of Clark at his appeal. Some have thought that the hostages helped Jan-Erik and Clark, but the truth is that they felt the police were reckless and neither of the captors showed them any real violence.
Academics became quite interested in the notion of a hostage siding with their captor, and one in particular named Nils Bejerot named this psychological idea the Stockholm Syndrome Theory. The theory has grown into the idea that a hostage situation isn't necessary for the syndrome to exist since it is described as "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other". The FBI has said that 27% of the hostages they encounter show some signs of Stockholm Syndrome. One of the most famous cases is when the Symbionese Liberation Army kidnapped Patty Hearst in 1974, and she ended up assisting them in a robbery two months later. Stockholm Syndrome was used as part of her defense, but she was still found guilty for her participation.
Bet you didn't know that!
The name 'Stockholm Syndrome' comes from an event in Stockholm, Sweden, specifically at a bank at Norrmalmstorg Square. On August 23, 1973, Jan-Erik Olsson (who had a prior criminal record) walked into the bank and attempted to rob it. The police were summoned immediately, and four people were taken hostage. Jan-Erik had some demands: his friend Clark Olofsson (who had a criminal record himself) to be brought to the bank, 3 million Kronor ($730,000 US dollars at the time), two guns, helmets, bullet-proof vests, and a fast car. The police brought Clark and allowed him to enter. The police agreed to let them have a fast car, but refused to let them take the hostages out of the bank.
It was during this hostage situation that Kristin Enmark (one of the hostages) began to feel safe with Jan-Erik and Clark and had great fear that the police would escalate the situation. Jan-Erik called the Prime Minister (Olof Palme) and said that he would kill the hostages, and when he hung up the phone, a hostage's screams could be heard. The next day, Kristin Enmark called Palme and said that she was not happy with Palme's attitude and that he should let the robbers and the hostages go. On August 26, the cops drilled a hole into the main vault where the hostages were. They were hoping to get a camera set up so they could watch the hostages. Clark fired through the hole a couple times and hit an officer. Jan-Erik shouted at the police that if they used a gas attack, then the hostages would be killed.
On August 28, the cops used gas anyway, and after a half hour of no one getting killed, Jan-Erik and Clark surrendered. At the trial, both were found guilty: Jan-Erik received 10 years in prison, Clark received 6 1/2 years, but at the appeal Clark was found to be helping calm the situation and his charges were dropped.
Kristin Enmark's feelings of safety with the captors and fear of the police wasn't only her own. The other hostages have mentioned they felt the same way. Enmark and Clark met some time later and became friends. Some of the hostages even spoke in defense of Clark at his appeal. Some have thought that the hostages helped Jan-Erik and Clark, but the truth is that they felt the police were reckless and neither of the captors showed them any real violence.
Academics became quite interested in the notion of a hostage siding with their captor, and one in particular named Nils Bejerot named this psychological idea the Stockholm Syndrome Theory. The theory has grown into the idea that a hostage situation isn't necessary for the syndrome to exist since it is described as "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other". The FBI has said that 27% of the hostages they encounter show some signs of Stockholm Syndrome. One of the most famous cases is when the Symbionese Liberation Army kidnapped Patty Hearst in 1974, and she ended up assisting them in a robbery two months later. Stockholm Syndrome was used as part of her defense, but she was still found guilty for her participation.
Bet you didn't know that!
Friday, October 19, 2012
Friday Song #15 - Stillwater
"Minder Bender" - Stillwater, from the album "Stillwater"
Released: 1977
Monday, October 15, 2012
Prince of Poyais
Gregor MacGregor was born in Scotland in 1786 and grew up to be a great fraud. He began his life in a typical manner: joining the military at age 16, and married by age 18. He had disagreements with his superiors and moved around, calling himself various ranks (eventually settling on colonel) and even called himself Sir as though he'd been knighted. In late 1811, his wife died, and like many other men whose love has died, he left his old life. He heard about the independence movements in South America, so he sailed for Caracas, Venezuela in early 1812. He moved around from place to place (Curaçao, Jamaica, New Granada), and eventually found himself in the rank of brigadier-general for Simon Bolivar. One incident actually gave him acclaim: his forces were outnumbered and they had to retreat for a month back to safer territory, fighting all the way back.
The problem with MacGregor is that he was becoming known for bragging more than his record could show for it. He claimed outlandish victories that didn't exist and his actual record was usually filled with failures, defeats, and outright incompetence on his part. Another great blunder came in 1817 when MacGregor attempted to "conquer" Florida (then controlled by Spain) by using War of 1812 vets from Georgia and South Carolina. He spread word that a group of 1000 men were to attack the garrison of about 100 Spanish troops. When MacGregor's men attacked, most of the Spanish fled. Unfortunately, the US government didn't come to his aid because President Monroe was in talks for acquiring all of Florida (not just the eastern side). His forces had to give up control soon.
And then came MacGregor's grand place in history: he moved back to London in 1820, claiming to be the Prince of the Principality of Poyais, an independent nation on the Bay of Honduras. He spread stories of Poyais, beginning with the leader of the area: King George Frederic Augustus I. King George supposedly gave the land to MacGregor, who in turn was spreading the word about it in England. He claimed to have started civil service, an army, and a democracy. He claimed he needed British settlers and money to get the territory going. Many business men jumped at the opportunity and gave him a lot of money. He made claims about his ancestors from Scotland, so he concentrated his efforts there, setting up offices in Edinburgh and Glasgow. By 1822, he'd written and published a book about Poyais which only furthered people's excitement about the trip.
In September 1822, the first ship left for Poyais. It contained lawyers and doctors mostly, all who were promised positions in the civil service. In January 1823, they arrived, but what they found wasn't what they were promised. They found a jungle without any attempt at clearing it, some natives, a few American hermits, and the ruins of a hundred year old civilization attempt (which was in the place where the capital of Poyais was supposed to be located). Worse yet, the ship that brought them ended up being swept away in a storm, so they were stranded. The men, none of which had ever been in the wild before, argued over who would do what to help them survive. In April, a ship found them by accident. When told of what happened, the captain said there was no Poyais, and he even found King George and brought him to the settlers. King George said that he'd revoked the land rights when MacGregor had assumed sovereignty over all the land. The captain took the settlers to British Honduras, where eventually they boarded another ship for England. Of the 270 who sailed for Poyais, only 90 made it back alive.
The papers were all over the story, but even the men who survived didn't believe that MacGregor was to blame. They thought it was his assistants who'd misled him. The event went to court and MacGregor was dismissed of any charges, but by then he'd left for Paris. In 1825-26, he tried the same scheme in France. Once again, he went to court, and once again his associates were found guilty and he was not. For the rest of the 1820's-30's, he tried various Poyais schemes. He tried over and over to get money in exchange for a position or service in Poyais. By then, most people were wise to his schemes. In 1839, the year after his second wife died, he moved to Venezuela and gained his citizenship. He lived off a military pension for serving in their military and helping to gain their independence. He died in 1845. Once a scammer, always a scammer I suppose.
Bet you didn't know that!
 |
| Portrait of Gregor MacGregor |
The problem with MacGregor is that he was becoming known for bragging more than his record could show for it. He claimed outlandish victories that didn't exist and his actual record was usually filled with failures, defeats, and outright incompetence on his part. Another great blunder came in 1817 when MacGregor attempted to "conquer" Florida (then controlled by Spain) by using War of 1812 vets from Georgia and South Carolina. He spread word that a group of 1000 men were to attack the garrison of about 100 Spanish troops. When MacGregor's men attacked, most of the Spanish fled. Unfortunately, the US government didn't come to his aid because President Monroe was in talks for acquiring all of Florida (not just the eastern side). His forces had to give up control soon.
And then came MacGregor's grand place in history: he moved back to London in 1820, claiming to be the Prince of the Principality of Poyais, an independent nation on the Bay of Honduras. He spread stories of Poyais, beginning with the leader of the area: King George Frederic Augustus I. King George supposedly gave the land to MacGregor, who in turn was spreading the word about it in England. He claimed to have started civil service, an army, and a democracy. He claimed he needed British settlers and money to get the territory going. Many business men jumped at the opportunity and gave him a lot of money. He made claims about his ancestors from Scotland, so he concentrated his efforts there, setting up offices in Edinburgh and Glasgow. By 1822, he'd written and published a book about Poyais which only furthered people's excitement about the trip.
In September 1822, the first ship left for Poyais. It contained lawyers and doctors mostly, all who were promised positions in the civil service. In January 1823, they arrived, but what they found wasn't what they were promised. They found a jungle without any attempt at clearing it, some natives, a few American hermits, and the ruins of a hundred year old civilization attempt (which was in the place where the capital of Poyais was supposed to be located). Worse yet, the ship that brought them ended up being swept away in a storm, so they were stranded. The men, none of which had ever been in the wild before, argued over who would do what to help them survive. In April, a ship found them by accident. When told of what happened, the captain said there was no Poyais, and he even found King George and brought him to the settlers. King George said that he'd revoked the land rights when MacGregor had assumed sovereignty over all the land. The captain took the settlers to British Honduras, where eventually they boarded another ship for England. Of the 270 who sailed for Poyais, only 90 made it back alive.
The papers were all over the story, but even the men who survived didn't believe that MacGregor was to blame. They thought it was his assistants who'd misled him. The event went to court and MacGregor was dismissed of any charges, but by then he'd left for Paris. In 1825-26, he tried the same scheme in France. Once again, he went to court, and once again his associates were found guilty and he was not. For the rest of the 1820's-30's, he tried various Poyais schemes. He tried over and over to get money in exchange for a position or service in Poyais. By then, most people were wise to his schemes. In 1839, the year after his second wife died, he moved to Venezuela and gained his citizenship. He lived off a military pension for serving in their military and helping to gain their independence. He died in 1845. Once a scammer, always a scammer I suppose.
Bet you didn't know that!
Friday, October 12, 2012
Friday Song #14 - Al Stewart
"Year of the Cat" - Al Stewart, from the album 'Year of the Cat'.
Released: 1976
Monday, October 8, 2012
Dyatlov Pass Incident
The Dyatlov Pass Incident, as it's become known, has the makings of a good "based on a true story" mystery/horror movie. It has everything: a cold and middle of nowhere setting, mysterious death, unexplained circumstances that can't be answered, and conspiracy theories.
The incident began with a group of ten Russians who were planning to hike through the Ural Mountains from the town of Vizhai to the mountain Gora Otorten and beyond. It is important to note a couple things. First, all ten members were experienced mountain climbers and skiers, so they would have been very prepared for the elements. Second, even though they would be very prepared, it was still a very difficult journey since this was 1959. When they left Vizhai, it was January 27. The conditions were very bad: winds of 20-30 knots and the temperature was around -20°F. The lucky one was Yuri Yudin; the day after the group left, he had to return to Vizhai because he became sick. What happened between January 28 and February 2 was pieced together from diary entries and photographs found at the campsite. What happened?
The group of nine remaining members continued on their trek toward Gora Otorten. On January 31, they stored some supplies and food, and they prepared for the climb. On February 1, they began to climb, but because of worsening conditions, the group deviated from their planned path. When they realized their mistake, instead of going to the correct path or even going down the mountain, they made camp. Sometime that night, something happened. The problem is that no one knows exactly what happened. The group was expected to make it to a telegraph station by February 12 and send a message. The leader of the group (Igor Dyatlov) had told Yuri Yudin (the one who's left the group early) that he expected to arive later than February 12, so there were no major worries when no one had arrived. Days passed, and after some insisting from relatives of the hikers, search and rescue operations began February 20.
On February 26, the camp site was found. The tent was full of snow, cut from the inside, and most of their personal belongings were left behind. There were several footprint trails that led away from the tent, down to a forest. Oddly, the footprints suggested they were made while wearing only socks or barefoot. They followed the footprints and found two of the hikers' bodies. These two were found wearing only their underwear and barefoot. Following some more footprints, three more hikers' bodies were found (one of which was Igor Dyatlov). One of these hikers had minor skull fractures, but all five of the found bodies had died of hypothermia. However, why they would leave from their tent in the middle of the night, without being fully dressed, is the biggest mystery. But it gets stranger.
The last four weren't found until May 4. They were found farther down in a ravine. They were better dressed than the ones that had been found earlier, and it seemed that the ones who died first had their clothes used by whoever was surviving at the time. However, the odd thing with these four were their injuries: one had a severely crushed skull, one had many broken ribs, and one had many broken ribs as well as missing her tongue and entire oral cavity. The most bizarre thing about this story is what was found one two of these hikers: trace radiation. That's right, two of them had radiation coming from them.
There has been no explanation as to what was the reason for their leaving the tent in the middle of the night, nor has there been an explanation as to where their injuries came from, nor has there been an explanation as to where the radiation came from. It is a fascinating mystery that has spawned conspiracy theories: fear of avalanche, native attack, military weapons testing, toxic snow, and aliens/UFO. After the incident, the area was closed for three years. The pass that the hikers were attempting to make it to has been called the Dyatlov Pass after Igor Dyatlov. The files of the incident were sealed until the 1990's, but even when they were released, some parts were still missing.
Bet you didn't know that!
The incident began with a group of ten Russians who were planning to hike through the Ural Mountains from the town of Vizhai to the mountain Gora Otorten and beyond. It is important to note a couple things. First, all ten members were experienced mountain climbers and skiers, so they would have been very prepared for the elements. Second, even though they would be very prepared, it was still a very difficult journey since this was 1959. When they left Vizhai, it was January 27. The conditions were very bad: winds of 20-30 knots and the temperature was around -20°F. The lucky one was Yuri Yudin; the day after the group left, he had to return to Vizhai because he became sick. What happened between January 28 and February 2 was pieced together from diary entries and photographs found at the campsite. What happened?
 |
| One of the last photos of the group, taken on February 1, 1959. |
The group of nine remaining members continued on their trek toward Gora Otorten. On January 31, they stored some supplies and food, and they prepared for the climb. On February 1, they began to climb, but because of worsening conditions, the group deviated from their planned path. When they realized their mistake, instead of going to the correct path or even going down the mountain, they made camp. Sometime that night, something happened. The problem is that no one knows exactly what happened. The group was expected to make it to a telegraph station by February 12 and send a message. The leader of the group (Igor Dyatlov) had told Yuri Yudin (the one who's left the group early) that he expected to arive later than February 12, so there were no major worries when no one had arrived. Days passed, and after some insisting from relatives of the hikers, search and rescue operations began February 20.
On February 26, the camp site was found. The tent was full of snow, cut from the inside, and most of their personal belongings were left behind. There were several footprint trails that led away from the tent, down to a forest. Oddly, the footprints suggested they were made while wearing only socks or barefoot. They followed the footprints and found two of the hikers' bodies. These two were found wearing only their underwear and barefoot. Following some more footprints, three more hikers' bodies were found (one of which was Igor Dyatlov). One of these hikers had minor skull fractures, but all five of the found bodies had died of hypothermia. However, why they would leave from their tent in the middle of the night, without being fully dressed, is the biggest mystery. But it gets stranger.
The last four weren't found until May 4. They were found farther down in a ravine. They were better dressed than the ones that had been found earlier, and it seemed that the ones who died first had their clothes used by whoever was surviving at the time. However, the odd thing with these four were their injuries: one had a severely crushed skull, one had many broken ribs, and one had many broken ribs as well as missing her tongue and entire oral cavity. The most bizarre thing about this story is what was found one two of these hikers: trace radiation. That's right, two of them had radiation coming from them.
There has been no explanation as to what was the reason for their leaving the tent in the middle of the night, nor has there been an explanation as to where their injuries came from, nor has there been an explanation as to where the radiation came from. It is a fascinating mystery that has spawned conspiracy theories: fear of avalanche, native attack, military weapons testing, toxic snow, and aliens/UFO. After the incident, the area was closed for three years. The pass that the hikers were attempting to make it to has been called the Dyatlov Pass after Igor Dyatlov. The files of the incident were sealed until the 1990's, but even when they were released, some parts were still missing.
Bet you didn't know that!
Friday, October 5, 2012
Friday Song #13 - Led Zeppelin
"Boogie with Stu" - Led Zeppelin, from the album 'Physical Graffiti'.
Released: 1975
Monday, October 1, 2012
Bracero Program
Did you know that from 1942-64, thousands and thousands of Mexicans were imported into the United States to work? It was under a program called the Bracero Program, and it was initially begun as a two part plan: import Mexican workers to supply the agricultural need because of World War II and to help the railroad industry. When the war ended in 1945, so did the railroad side of it. But what happened with the agricultural side? It was extended to 1948. Between 1948-51, contracts were formalized between growers out west and Mexican officials. In 1951, President Truman signed Public Law 78, which created a two-year program that protected Mexican workers. Every two years, this law was renewed until 1963, when it was renewed for just one year with the understanding that it would end in 1964.
So why is this a big deal? It's a small footnote to the history of our 20th century history, but it's a big deal for places in California. The way this program worked was it allowed otherwise illegal Mexicans to legally cross the border and obtain green cards to work for American farmers. These braceros (as they were called) first went to California, but were eventually sent all over the country, with the heaviest populations staying in the southwest. The biggest criticism of the program was the number of braceros who would not go to work and instead flee to a city to live as an illegal. But most didn't flee, and instead worked in the program. They were happy to work in the program because it mandated certain conditions and wages that were above levels in Mexico. The problem was when the quotas were met, then the conditions and wages would no longer apply, so the workers couldn't work in the program officially. Instead, they would be kept on or hired illegally which would mean their pay would be very minimal. The workers couldn't complain because they knew that they were illegal. Many illegals came across at this time and they competed for jobs with members of the Bracero Program. Naturally, employers wanted the cheapest labor and most opted for the illegal rather than the one whom you had to secure certain conditions and wages. So in many ways, the Bracero Program created a culture of illegal, cheap labor in the US. Several labor unions found the Bracero Program to be their biggest hindrance in workers' rights.
The program's height was during the 1950's, but by the early 60's, it was coming into fire for some of the things mentioned above. The last year it was officially in place was 1964, but there were some smaller contracts of the program that lasted until 1967.
Another interesting note is that the braceros from 1942-48 were required to put up to 10% of their wages into a special savings account. The members of the railroad program received theirs but the members of the agricultural program did not. Through the 1990's and 2000's, there were numerous lawsuits to try to locate what happened to the money and to return the money to the workers and their families. The lawsuits have pretty much been thrown out; however, those who were formerly braceros can receive up to $3500 if they can prove they were in the program. Today, a vast number of Hispanic Americans can trace their lineage to a relative who came to the US from Mexico during the Bracero Program.
Bet you didn't know that!
Friday, September 28, 2012
Friday Song #12 - Dave Edmunds
"I Hear You Knocking" - Dave Edmunds, from the album 'Rockpile'.
Released: 1972
Monday, September 24, 2012
Truth of "True" Movies
If you've been following along, you might be distrustful of movies that claim to be "based on a true story". And with good reason. In case you aren't convinced by now, here's a few specific examples.
1. "The Pursuit of Happyness" - This movie is based on the book of the same name, which was the truth story of Chris Gardner in his attempt to be a good father and provide for his son, but at the same time try to break into the stock broker business. Overcoming homelessness and personal trials, he succeeds. But is this the real story?
Not entirely. The theme is correct, but real life isn't always that kind. For example, Chris Gardner's son was actually two, not five as portrayed in the movie. For the first four months of the training program, he didn't even know where his son was. In the movie, he was paid nothing while training, but in reality he was paid $1000 a month. In the movie, his wife's name is Linda, but that character is based on two real life people: Sherry and Jackie. One was the mother of his child, and the other was who he moved on to. His son was actually birthed while he was having affairs. He was known to do cocaine in the late 70's with his woman, but did give it up. The movie also implies that only the top person would be hired, but in reality anyone that passed the exam would be hired; Chris's 88% was a good score for the test. He also has a daughter that wasn't shown in the film.
Here is a link to more information about what's similar and what's different between the movie and Chris Gardner's biography. If you want the true story, which is much more candid and less "Hollywood", just read the book. You'll actually get the story.
2. "21" - This is a typical story of math genius who goes to Harvard and joins a group who want to learn the art of card counting in blackjack. The teacher then takes them to Vegas to put the lessons into practice. After a beating, the math genius heads back to Harvard and goes into medical school. What can be fictional here?
Well, there was an infamous group of card counters from Harvard that infiltrated Vegas, but the biggest difference was that most of the team was actually Asian American. Even the teacher (Kevin Spacey's character) was Asian American. In fact, of the five main people, only one wasn't Asian. In fact, there are very few details in the movie that are based on fact. They are mostly based on elements that would make a good movie. Typical of Hollywood.
Here is a link to more information about the differences between the movie and the actual team. Very interesting differences here.
3. "The Hurricane" - This is a movie notoriously plays with the facts. It's about promising boxer Rubin "Hurricane" Carter who was convicted of a triple homicide. After twenty years in prison, and after overcoming racist system after racist system, he is found innocent when three Canadians find missing evidence that sets him free. It's a nice story, but what issues could there?
Many. The movie shows a fight between Carter and a white boxer named Joey Giardello where Carter obviously wins the fight but loses when the racist judges award Giardello the victory. In real life, Carter lost the fight badly, and the real Giardello sued the filmmakers over the scene and won. As far as Carter's background, he had been arrested by age 14 for assault and armed robbery, and by age 22 he'd been in jail twice for brutal street muggings. As far as the legal side of it, there was enough evidence against Carter to convict him twice (in 1967 and 1976). He failed a lie detector test miserably. At his second trial, people who'd been witnesses in his first trial admitted that they'd been asked to lie for him. As far as the Canadians who found the piece of evidence to set him free... that was fiction. The only reason he was freed was because of procedural errors on the prosecution's side, and the case was thrown out by the court of appeals. After 22 years, the prosecution had no interest in starting the trial from scratch since some of the key members were dead.
4. "300" - This is a historical movie about the Battle of Thermopylae between the grossly outnumbered 300 Spartans and the might of the Persian Empire. The story tells the tale of how a meager force of 300 held off the thousands of Persians long enough to save Athens. Sounds too good to be true right?
The Battle of Thermopylae is a well-documented historical event in the sense that tactics and numbers have been recorded, but the fighting styles were not saved. The movie changes certain historical truths that seem to distort people's views on what to believe. This viewpoint comes from Herodotus who wrote about the battle and who also wrote scathing viewpoints about Persia's slavery and Athenian democracy. In fact, Persia wasn't documented to have slaves (unlike Greek society which survived because of it). The slaves of Egypt, Greece, and other societies would flee to Persia because they could be free there. Herodotus wrote against the Persian Empire and how horrible it was, many points were then used as inspiration for movies like 300 and Alexander. But the truth is that he roamed freely through the empire and writing against it. Why? Because he could. Because Persia was a much more free society than Greece. So, if one actually looks closer at the Persian/Greek war, it actually looks more like present-day America and the war on terror. The Greeks would attack Persia in small, calculated terrorist attacks, and Persia finally had enough and decided to invade. So if you know your history, then you'd realized that the movie is bachwards and we the viewers are actually cheering for the wrong side: a terrorist society that promotes inequality and slavery, instead of the larger, benevolent, peaceful society. The other great missing truth is the fact that the Spartans didn't fight the Persians alone: it's the first time Sparta and Athens worked together (a unified Greek force). The movie also neglects to mention the Battle of Salamis, the naval battle that was the turning point for the war which happened at the same point. Also, the elephants and rhinos in the movie were to add fantasy elements to it; there was no historical fact in it. Here is a link to help you learn more about why our perceptions are wrong.
5. "The Amityville Horror" - This is one of two kings of the "true" horror genres (the other being the highly embellished "Exorcist"). Following a family murder in a house, the story follows a family that moves into the same house when supernatural events wreak havoc on the family. Sounds like a good haunted house movie, but that's all.
The truth is a lot less creepy. The Lutz family (who went through the "ordeal") worked with a man on the writing of the book. However, an independent researcher found a hundred things that couldn't have been true in the book (book claims snow prints but there wasn't any snow at that time, police were called but no records show the police being called or visiting the house, Indians mentioned in the book to have used that ground never were recorded in that vicinity, etc.). George Lutz wanted several times for paranormal researchers to visit the house, but when he was told that if nothing was found that it would make big headlines. Lutz declined to have the investigators because he didn't want to create a media sensation. Oddly, not long after, he had a seance take place at the house with the local news crews to film it. (Didn't want attention, huh...) Supposedly a priest came to the house to bless it and a malevolent spirit followed him and attacked him with sores. The priest himself denied this ever happening. Lutz himself thought he was portrayed in a negative way in the movie, so he sued. The judge ruled against him because it was viewed as a work of fiction and protected under the 1st Amendment, as well as the fact that because of the book and movie, millions of people have watched it and he himself has benefited financially from it. It finally came out that the lawyer for the original murderer and the Lutz family made up the whole haunting story over some wine. Why? The Lutz family were paid well, the writer was hailed (even though he further embellished the story, which was further embellished for the screen), and the lawyer hoped to get a new trial for his client. It is widely believed that the embellishment of the Exorcist movie was a contributor in the Amityville Horror creation. Unfortunately, anyone who's lived in the house since has been harassed by fans. And sadly, the real murder of the DeFeo family has been marginalized. When in doubt, check out Snopes for the real story.
So in conclusion, don't believe that a movie is true no matter how sad, happy, scary, far fetched, resonable, or believeable. Do your research! Without it, we do nothing more than spread the falsehoods that keep Hollywood giving us cheap nonsense.
1. "The Pursuit of Happyness" - This movie is based on the book of the same name, which was the truth story of Chris Gardner in his attempt to be a good father and provide for his son, but at the same time try to break into the stock broker business. Overcoming homelessness and personal trials, he succeeds. But is this the real story?
Not entirely. The theme is correct, but real life isn't always that kind. For example, Chris Gardner's son was actually two, not five as portrayed in the movie. For the first four months of the training program, he didn't even know where his son was. In the movie, he was paid nothing while training, but in reality he was paid $1000 a month. In the movie, his wife's name is Linda, but that character is based on two real life people: Sherry and Jackie. One was the mother of his child, and the other was who he moved on to. His son was actually birthed while he was having affairs. He was known to do cocaine in the late 70's with his woman, but did give it up. The movie also implies that only the top person would be hired, but in reality anyone that passed the exam would be hired; Chris's 88% was a good score for the test. He also has a daughter that wasn't shown in the film.
Here is a link to more information about what's similar and what's different between the movie and Chris Gardner's biography. If you want the true story, which is much more candid and less "Hollywood", just read the book. You'll actually get the story.
2. "21" - This is a typical story of math genius who goes to Harvard and joins a group who want to learn the art of card counting in blackjack. The teacher then takes them to Vegas to put the lessons into practice. After a beating, the math genius heads back to Harvard and goes into medical school. What can be fictional here?
Well, there was an infamous group of card counters from Harvard that infiltrated Vegas, but the biggest difference was that most of the team was actually Asian American. Even the teacher (Kevin Spacey's character) was Asian American. In fact, of the five main people, only one wasn't Asian. In fact, there are very few details in the movie that are based on fact. They are mostly based on elements that would make a good movie. Typical of Hollywood.
Here is a link to more information about the differences between the movie and the actual team. Very interesting differences here.
3. "The Hurricane" - This is a movie notoriously plays with the facts. It's about promising boxer Rubin "Hurricane" Carter who was convicted of a triple homicide. After twenty years in prison, and after overcoming racist system after racist system, he is found innocent when three Canadians find missing evidence that sets him free. It's a nice story, but what issues could there?
Many. The movie shows a fight between Carter and a white boxer named Joey Giardello where Carter obviously wins the fight but loses when the racist judges award Giardello the victory. In real life, Carter lost the fight badly, and the real Giardello sued the filmmakers over the scene and won. As far as Carter's background, he had been arrested by age 14 for assault and armed robbery, and by age 22 he'd been in jail twice for brutal street muggings. As far as the legal side of it, there was enough evidence against Carter to convict him twice (in 1967 and 1976). He failed a lie detector test miserably. At his second trial, people who'd been witnesses in his first trial admitted that they'd been asked to lie for him. As far as the Canadians who found the piece of evidence to set him free... that was fiction. The only reason he was freed was because of procedural errors on the prosecution's side, and the case was thrown out by the court of appeals. After 22 years, the prosecution had no interest in starting the trial from scratch since some of the key members were dead.
4. "300" - This is a historical movie about the Battle of Thermopylae between the grossly outnumbered 300 Spartans and the might of the Persian Empire. The story tells the tale of how a meager force of 300 held off the thousands of Persians long enough to save Athens. Sounds too good to be true right?
The Battle of Thermopylae is a well-documented historical event in the sense that tactics and numbers have been recorded, but the fighting styles were not saved. The movie changes certain historical truths that seem to distort people's views on what to believe. This viewpoint comes from Herodotus who wrote about the battle and who also wrote scathing viewpoints about Persia's slavery and Athenian democracy. In fact, Persia wasn't documented to have slaves (unlike Greek society which survived because of it). The slaves of Egypt, Greece, and other societies would flee to Persia because they could be free there. Herodotus wrote against the Persian Empire and how horrible it was, many points were then used as inspiration for movies like 300 and Alexander. But the truth is that he roamed freely through the empire and writing against it. Why? Because he could. Because Persia was a much more free society than Greece. So, if one actually looks closer at the Persian/Greek war, it actually looks more like present-day America and the war on terror. The Greeks would attack Persia in small, calculated terrorist attacks, and Persia finally had enough and decided to invade. So if you know your history, then you'd realized that the movie is bachwards and we the viewers are actually cheering for the wrong side: a terrorist society that promotes inequality and slavery, instead of the larger, benevolent, peaceful society. The other great missing truth is the fact that the Spartans didn't fight the Persians alone: it's the first time Sparta and Athens worked together (a unified Greek force). The movie also neglects to mention the Battle of Salamis, the naval battle that was the turning point for the war which happened at the same point. Also, the elephants and rhinos in the movie were to add fantasy elements to it; there was no historical fact in it. Here is a link to help you learn more about why our perceptions are wrong.
5. "The Amityville Horror" - This is one of two kings of the "true" horror genres (the other being the highly embellished "Exorcist"). Following a family murder in a house, the story follows a family that moves into the same house when supernatural events wreak havoc on the family. Sounds like a good haunted house movie, but that's all.
The truth is a lot less creepy. The Lutz family (who went through the "ordeal") worked with a man on the writing of the book. However, an independent researcher found a hundred things that couldn't have been true in the book (book claims snow prints but there wasn't any snow at that time, police were called but no records show the police being called or visiting the house, Indians mentioned in the book to have used that ground never were recorded in that vicinity, etc.). George Lutz wanted several times for paranormal researchers to visit the house, but when he was told that if nothing was found that it would make big headlines. Lutz declined to have the investigators because he didn't want to create a media sensation. Oddly, not long after, he had a seance take place at the house with the local news crews to film it. (Didn't want attention, huh...) Supposedly a priest came to the house to bless it and a malevolent spirit followed him and attacked him with sores. The priest himself denied this ever happening. Lutz himself thought he was portrayed in a negative way in the movie, so he sued. The judge ruled against him because it was viewed as a work of fiction and protected under the 1st Amendment, as well as the fact that because of the book and movie, millions of people have watched it and he himself has benefited financially from it. It finally came out that the lawyer for the original murderer and the Lutz family made up the whole haunting story over some wine. Why? The Lutz family were paid well, the writer was hailed (even though he further embellished the story, which was further embellished for the screen), and the lawyer hoped to get a new trial for his client. It is widely believed that the embellishment of the Exorcist movie was a contributor in the Amityville Horror creation. Unfortunately, anyone who's lived in the house since has been harassed by fans. And sadly, the real murder of the DeFeo family has been marginalized. When in doubt, check out Snopes for the real story.
So in conclusion, don't believe that a movie is true no matter how sad, happy, scary, far fetched, resonable, or believeable. Do your research! Without it, we do nothing more than spread the falsehoods that keep Hollywood giving us cheap nonsense.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Friday Song #11 - Heads Hands & Feet
"Song for Suzie" - Heads Hands & Feet, released on the album "Heads Hands & Feet"
Released: 1971
Monday, September 17, 2012
"Based on a True Story" Part 3
In last week's post, we explored two of the reasons why movie studios use the term "Based on a True Story" when the story shown on the screen may not really be true. However, the third reason is the biggest reason why these movies aren't always true.
3. The scriptwriting process
This really boils down to the unwritten rules of scriptwriting. When you write a script, you have to keep in mind that if you don't write it the way the studio wants, then they won't even read it. There is little-to-no room for personalization in scripts. A major studio hires script readers who read through scripts and if you don't show promise in the first five to ten pages, then they will throw it away. If you aren't following the accepted structure, it will be thrown away also. The problem is that structure is looked at much higher than story, so it could be an awful story but a perfect structure, so it might get made.
The structure that I'm talking about is the 3 Act Structure. Here is a picture of what a 3 Act Structure drawn out would look like:
What this means is the first act is roughly the first 1/4 of the movie, the third act is roughly the last 1/4 of the movie, and the second act is approximately the middle and is 1/2 of the movie. Act I sets up the plot and sets the protagonist on their journey. Act II is where things change and things become more intense and bring conflict for the protagonist. Act III is where the movie's pacing is the fastest and the movie climaxes to whatever the situation is before the story ends. Just before each act break is a plot point where something happens to create a twist in the story.
You might wonder why this matters. Well, real life stories don't adhere to this structure, so when you write a script from a real story, then you have to mold the story into this structure. When you mold it into the structure, you end up changing things to make the story fit. A notorious trait for screenwriters with this are including myth or legend moments as opposed to things that are documented as happening (such as including a part of a script with a "someone once said the person did this", but no one really knows if the person did that or not).
The other notorious trait that screenwriters resort to (and this happens when adapting novels into screenplays also) is combining characters. Sometimes one character is instrumental in the first half and then disappears about the time someone else shows up. The screenwriter will probably combine both characters into one for the script. One reason is so that you have one character to go through the movie instead of having to remember two. The other reason is scriptwriters know that two characters with speaking parts means two salaries for the filmmaker, but one role will be cheaper, so it's more concise in a budgetary sense to have one. A third reason is simply that it's easier for the moviegoer to follow less characters. With less characters (but characters that are all throughout the movie), the viewer won't wonder what happened to some characters and where other characters came from.
The whole 3 Act Structure is a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing because it makes writing a script easier in the sense that in your 100-120 pages, you'll have to include certain waypoints and you just fill in the story in between. The curse is that there is no originality and if you deviate from that structure, your movie won't be made. The script readers from above just don't understand anything beyond the 3 Act Structure, so you could write the most brilliant story ever, and no one will make it because the readers won't approve it.
The simple fact is that because of this careful structure and apprehension of the readers, very few scripts actually become movies. Less than 10% of scripts that are submitted actually get made, and less than that actually turn out to be successful movies. Sometimes one can blame the writer for having a bad story, but sometimes it's everyone else's fault after the script has been written (the producer, the director, the editor, etc.). Sometimes the story is great, but the director has a different vision and literally makes a different movie. Many scripts go through numerous drafts, each one being printed on different color paper, which is why the final script (usually the shooting script) is called the "rainbow script": they take out parts of all the previous drafts to make the final copy. It's not unheard of for a script to have 30+ drafts in a year. Common unusual color choices for the draft pages include salmon (a pink), gold (a yellow-orange), and tan.
The movie industry is a tough world, but when you say that you're going to release a movie that's "based on a true story", it probably isn't for the reasons that have been explained. When you see a movie with that tagline, it's best to do some research to find out what really happened. Check back in the next post where we look at some movies that have been "based on a true story" and some movies that didn't use the tagline, but were just as "based on actual events" as the ones that claimed to be so.
3. The scriptwriting process
This really boils down to the unwritten rules of scriptwriting. When you write a script, you have to keep in mind that if you don't write it the way the studio wants, then they won't even read it. There is little-to-no room for personalization in scripts. A major studio hires script readers who read through scripts and if you don't show promise in the first five to ten pages, then they will throw it away. If you aren't following the accepted structure, it will be thrown away also. The problem is that structure is looked at much higher than story, so it could be an awful story but a perfect structure, so it might get made.
The structure that I'm talking about is the 3 Act Structure. Here is a picture of what a 3 Act Structure drawn out would look like:
What this means is the first act is roughly the first 1/4 of the movie, the third act is roughly the last 1/4 of the movie, and the second act is approximately the middle and is 1/2 of the movie. Act I sets up the plot and sets the protagonist on their journey. Act II is where things change and things become more intense and bring conflict for the protagonist. Act III is where the movie's pacing is the fastest and the movie climaxes to whatever the situation is before the story ends. Just before each act break is a plot point where something happens to create a twist in the story.
You might wonder why this matters. Well, real life stories don't adhere to this structure, so when you write a script from a real story, then you have to mold the story into this structure. When you mold it into the structure, you end up changing things to make the story fit. A notorious trait for screenwriters with this are including myth or legend moments as opposed to things that are documented as happening (such as including a part of a script with a "someone once said the person did this", but no one really knows if the person did that or not).
The other notorious trait that screenwriters resort to (and this happens when adapting novels into screenplays also) is combining characters. Sometimes one character is instrumental in the first half and then disappears about the time someone else shows up. The screenwriter will probably combine both characters into one for the script. One reason is so that you have one character to go through the movie instead of having to remember two. The other reason is scriptwriters know that two characters with speaking parts means two salaries for the filmmaker, but one role will be cheaper, so it's more concise in a budgetary sense to have one. A third reason is simply that it's easier for the moviegoer to follow less characters. With less characters (but characters that are all throughout the movie), the viewer won't wonder what happened to some characters and where other characters came from.
The whole 3 Act Structure is a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing because it makes writing a script easier in the sense that in your 100-120 pages, you'll have to include certain waypoints and you just fill in the story in between. The curse is that there is no originality and if you deviate from that structure, your movie won't be made. The script readers from above just don't understand anything beyond the 3 Act Structure, so you could write the most brilliant story ever, and no one will make it because the readers won't approve it.
The simple fact is that because of this careful structure and apprehension of the readers, very few scripts actually become movies. Less than 10% of scripts that are submitted actually get made, and less than that actually turn out to be successful movies. Sometimes one can blame the writer for having a bad story, but sometimes it's everyone else's fault after the script has been written (the producer, the director, the editor, etc.). Sometimes the story is great, but the director has a different vision and literally makes a different movie. Many scripts go through numerous drafts, each one being printed on different color paper, which is why the final script (usually the shooting script) is called the "rainbow script": they take out parts of all the previous drafts to make the final copy. It's not unheard of for a script to have 30+ drafts in a year. Common unusual color choices for the draft pages include salmon (a pink), gold (a yellow-orange), and tan.
 |
| An example of a rainbow draft's scenes in a modern scriptwriting program. |
Friday, September 14, 2012
Friday Song #10 - Blackfoot
"Highway Song" - Blackfoot, released on the album "Strikes"
Released: 1979
Monday, September 10, 2012
"Based on a True Story" Part 2
If you read last week's post, you'll note that we've determined that movies that are supposedly "based on a true story" are either drama, horror, or historical (with sports fitting into either drama or historical). You will also remember that I am extremely critical of movies that use the tagline "based on a true story" or some version of it. Why? Many reasons, some of the main ones will be shared here.
1. It sells tickets!
What's the best way to sell a ticket to an awful movie? Say that it's a true story! I'm not saying that all "true story" movies are awful. In fact, most of them are really good movies, and some are great movies. But in the end, the industry cares more about selling tickets to the average movie viewer than they are at telling a factual story. If you have a movie about a down on his luck father who's trying to provide for his child, it may be a good small movie that gets good reviews and some go to see it, but it isn't a huge movie. However, you slap the "inspired by actual events" sticker on it and suddenly everyone has to see it. Once you put reality on a movie (no matter how ludicrous), people will pay to see it. But don't be fooled into thinking that the movie industry has your history textbooks in mind when they make a movie. After all, I think we can all agree that Abraham Lincoln didn't really fight vampires or zombies or any other supernatural creatures.
2. The words themselves
The words themselves say it all: based on a true story. It implies that the movie you are going to watch is not necessarily true, but it is based on something that is. That is a very broad (and sly) way of saying that the movie isn't factual but its basis is. However, don't confuse this statement with the movie itself being factual. It usually means that the screenwriter saw or read something and they thought of an idea that became a script. What they read or saw is usually a factual event or scenario, and what they write isn't always the same. Look at the numerous versions of a Titanic movie. Since no one is alive who experienced the actual sinking, we can't know for 100% certainty everything that happened on the ship, and even if there was, it would only be from that person's perspective, as opposed to everything that actually happened. Not only that, but the sinking of the ship is literally just that. There have been three major movies made about the Titanic sinking: the one from 1997 that everyone knows about, the 1958 movie 'A Night to Remember', and the 1943 German movie 'Titanic'. Each one is a historical film about the sinking of the Titanic, but each one has similar elements: drama and action, two people having a discussion (with differing viewpoints) on the ship's ability to sink or be unsinkable, and fictional characters. The fictional characters is where these historical movies really come into conflict with the history of the subject matter. Do any of these three versions claim to be based on a true story? No. However, they are based on an event that actually occurred: the Titanic's sinking. It's the same principle as 'Saving Private Ryan' is based in part on the D-Day invasion, which is a real event. With smaller stories (usually horror and drama movies), it's harder to investigate the real circumstances that inspired the film. Since these are harder to research, most accept them as truth. Unfortunately, most people mistake a film that was inspired by true events and a film that actually happened. If you want a film that actually happened, look for documentaries (even though you can't trust all of them either now).
Check back in Part 3 for an in depth look at the third and most important reason why 'Based on a True Story' isn't always so.
1. It sells tickets!
What's the best way to sell a ticket to an awful movie? Say that it's a true story! I'm not saying that all "true story" movies are awful. In fact, most of them are really good movies, and some are great movies. But in the end, the industry cares more about selling tickets to the average movie viewer than they are at telling a factual story. If you have a movie about a down on his luck father who's trying to provide for his child, it may be a good small movie that gets good reviews and some go to see it, but it isn't a huge movie. However, you slap the "inspired by actual events" sticker on it and suddenly everyone has to see it. Once you put reality on a movie (no matter how ludicrous), people will pay to see it. But don't be fooled into thinking that the movie industry has your history textbooks in mind when they make a movie. After all, I think we can all agree that Abraham Lincoln didn't really fight vampires or zombies or any other supernatural creatures.
2. The words themselves
The words themselves say it all: based on a true story. It implies that the movie you are going to watch is not necessarily true, but it is based on something that is. That is a very broad (and sly) way of saying that the movie isn't factual but its basis is. However, don't confuse this statement with the movie itself being factual. It usually means that the screenwriter saw or read something and they thought of an idea that became a script. What they read or saw is usually a factual event or scenario, and what they write isn't always the same. Look at the numerous versions of a Titanic movie. Since no one is alive who experienced the actual sinking, we can't know for 100% certainty everything that happened on the ship, and even if there was, it would only be from that person's perspective, as opposed to everything that actually happened. Not only that, but the sinking of the ship is literally just that. There have been three major movies made about the Titanic sinking: the one from 1997 that everyone knows about, the 1958 movie 'A Night to Remember', and the 1943 German movie 'Titanic'. Each one is a historical film about the sinking of the Titanic, but each one has similar elements: drama and action, two people having a discussion (with differing viewpoints) on the ship's ability to sink or be unsinkable, and fictional characters. The fictional characters is where these historical movies really come into conflict with the history of the subject matter. Do any of these three versions claim to be based on a true story? No. However, they are based on an event that actually occurred: the Titanic's sinking. It's the same principle as 'Saving Private Ryan' is based in part on the D-Day invasion, which is a real event. With smaller stories (usually horror and drama movies), it's harder to investigate the real circumstances that inspired the film. Since these are harder to research, most accept them as truth. Unfortunately, most people mistake a film that was inspired by true events and a film that actually happened. If you want a film that actually happened, look for documentaries (even though you can't trust all of them either now).
Check back in Part 3 for an in depth look at the third and most important reason why 'Based on a True Story' isn't always so.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Friday Song #9 - Steve Earle
"Copperhead Road" - Steve Earle, from the album "Copperhead Road"
Released: 1988
Monday, September 3, 2012
"Based on a True Story" Part 1
One of my biggest pet peeves is the tagline on movies that says "Based on a True Story". There are variations of this, such as "Inspired by Actual Events" or even "A True Story". People can argue the finer points of these phrases, but in the end, they basically mean the same thing because of one simple reason: the movie industry.
There are three main types of films that seem to be lumped into the "true story" bandwagon: historical, horror, and drama. You don't see many comedy or sci-fi movies that supposedly happened. You will, however, see movies based on the racehorse Seabiscuit, an exorcism that people debate at which hospital in St. Louis it took place, and a man trying to be a good father but also trying to be hired. One (the historical) typically makes one feel amazed at some event that occurred, another (the horror) makes one feel scared that an event could actually take place to them, and the other (the drama) tries to pull on your emotional strings. It just wouldn't work so much with a straight comedy since it's just something to amuse you and we all experience good times. It wouldn't work so much with sci-fi either. I mean, let's face it, no one is arguing whether Star Wars really happened, and if it did, how accurate it was. There's no room in the fantasy genre for true stories since I think we can all agree that Lord of the Rings wasn't historical. One could argue that sports movies deserve to be put in here, but I put them under the definition of drama since the only "true story" sports movies you will find seem to be dramas, even if they are historical. So, let's take a closer look at the three categories of what can be called "true stories".
Historical
The historical movies are ones that obviously take place in the past, but usually when I say 'historical', I'm talking about movies that would require "period piece design and costumes". The biggest example of this would be movies set during wars previous to the 1980's and stretching back to ancient Rome or Greece. The reason I put the 1980's is because before the 1980's, costumes and design for places are radically different than they are today. Even Vietnam movies have different styles of hair, glasses, and clothing than one set in the Persian Gulf from 1991. Typically, every decade from the 1940's forward have had their own identity, but it seems to have blended in the last ten years where styles of before are more accepted than they used to be. So, it's easier to make a movie in 2012 about 1995 (hide the cell phones though!) than it would about 1975. If you are looking at specifically war movies, then we're talking completely period piece design. If we're doing the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, or even the war between Greeks and Trojans, then it's going to require a very careful reconstruction of life at that time; no modern technology of any kind (even con trails in the sky) should be seen. Making sure that a historical movie is historically accurate is an immense job on its own, and no matter how careful people are, something always makes it through the editing (even something insignificant, like a 1946 Ford being shown on screen of a movie that takes place in 1944). Historical movies tend to be very expensive because of the attention to detail and the sets, which is why you almost never see a low budget historical movie.
Horror
The horror movies are ones that love to have taglines saying that their movie is real or really happened. The whole appeal of these movies is to scare you into thinking that the event that is being shown on film can actually happen to you. Maybe it's a killer on the loose or maybe it's a haunted house or maybe it's some other supernatural force. Either way, the whole line that the horror genre rides on in this case is making you believe that this "true" story happened once, and it can happen again. Don't answer the phone, don't go into the basement, don't open the door, don't trust strange people, etc. etc. etc. The line that the horror genre walks on is a fine line though because if you don't believe the story being told, then you won't be afraid. The ones that succeed are the ones that have the characters doing things that the viewer would do. There's nothing worse than watching a horror movie and thinking "I wouldn't have done that", because that takes you out of the plot. Sometimes this works in "true" horror movies since the events supposedly happened, and even though they weren't things you would've done, it's the choices that the "real" people made, so you are just along for the ride.
Drama
The drama category is the one that seems to be the most muddled of all three. There are quite a few people who won't believe a horror movie that's "true", and there are quite a few who won't believe that a historical movie that's "true" is quite as slick as it seems on screen. On the other hand, these same people will believe a drama that is based on a true story. Dramas are more believable than horror because of the content of horror. Not everyone will believe in a strange moth creature that appeared before a bridge collapse or in ghosts haunting a couple's new house, but they will believe in a down on his luck father trying to provide for his child. Dramas are more believable than historical movies because the historical movies are usually about events that can easily be searched for in history books or the most basic of searches, but dramas are usually within the previous fifty years and are harder to research since they deal with a much smaller and less publicized story. These movies, above the other two, are the easiest to say "based on a true story" and have few questions asked. The one thing that this category has above the others is that it will tug on the emotional strings of the viewer, and because of this, people will give their hearts to the movie and defend it to the end without actually ever looking to see how much of it was real.
And in the end, that's the problem with any movie that's "based on a true story": people don't question the truth. There have been some movies that have been based on a trust story that were rather factual, and then there were others that have been complete fiction. The worst part is when the "based on a true story" tagline is added, suddenly there is legitimacy that has been added to the film and the viewers become experts on the subject by what they saw in the movie. A teacher told me once that he had a class back in the early 90's when the movie JFK came out, and he spoke of students who came in to class asking if he watched the biography of JFK. There's a big difference between a biopic and something like JFK.
So, now that we know what types of movies we are dealing with, next we will look at the industry and the way movies are made. Check back in the next post to learn more!
There are three main types of films that seem to be lumped into the "true story" bandwagon: historical, horror, and drama. You don't see many comedy or sci-fi movies that supposedly happened. You will, however, see movies based on the racehorse Seabiscuit, an exorcism that people debate at which hospital in St. Louis it took place, and a man trying to be a good father but also trying to be hired. One (the historical) typically makes one feel amazed at some event that occurred, another (the horror) makes one feel scared that an event could actually take place to them, and the other (the drama) tries to pull on your emotional strings. It just wouldn't work so much with a straight comedy since it's just something to amuse you and we all experience good times. It wouldn't work so much with sci-fi either. I mean, let's face it, no one is arguing whether Star Wars really happened, and if it did, how accurate it was. There's no room in the fantasy genre for true stories since I think we can all agree that Lord of the Rings wasn't historical. One could argue that sports movies deserve to be put in here, but I put them under the definition of drama since the only "true story" sports movies you will find seem to be dramas, even if they are historical. So, let's take a closer look at the three categories of what can be called "true stories".
Historical
The historical movies are ones that obviously take place in the past, but usually when I say 'historical', I'm talking about movies that would require "period piece design and costumes". The biggest example of this would be movies set during wars previous to the 1980's and stretching back to ancient Rome or Greece. The reason I put the 1980's is because before the 1980's, costumes and design for places are radically different than they are today. Even Vietnam movies have different styles of hair, glasses, and clothing than one set in the Persian Gulf from 1991. Typically, every decade from the 1940's forward have had their own identity, but it seems to have blended in the last ten years where styles of before are more accepted than they used to be. So, it's easier to make a movie in 2012 about 1995 (hide the cell phones though!) than it would about 1975. If you are looking at specifically war movies, then we're talking completely period piece design. If we're doing the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, or even the war between Greeks and Trojans, then it's going to require a very careful reconstruction of life at that time; no modern technology of any kind (even con trails in the sky) should be seen. Making sure that a historical movie is historically accurate is an immense job on its own, and no matter how careful people are, something always makes it through the editing (even something insignificant, like a 1946 Ford being shown on screen of a movie that takes place in 1944). Historical movies tend to be very expensive because of the attention to detail and the sets, which is why you almost never see a low budget historical movie.
Horror
The horror movies are ones that love to have taglines saying that their movie is real or really happened. The whole appeal of these movies is to scare you into thinking that the event that is being shown on film can actually happen to you. Maybe it's a killer on the loose or maybe it's a haunted house or maybe it's some other supernatural force. Either way, the whole line that the horror genre rides on in this case is making you believe that this "true" story happened once, and it can happen again. Don't answer the phone, don't go into the basement, don't open the door, don't trust strange people, etc. etc. etc. The line that the horror genre walks on is a fine line though because if you don't believe the story being told, then you won't be afraid. The ones that succeed are the ones that have the characters doing things that the viewer would do. There's nothing worse than watching a horror movie and thinking "I wouldn't have done that", because that takes you out of the plot. Sometimes this works in "true" horror movies since the events supposedly happened, and even though they weren't things you would've done, it's the choices that the "real" people made, so you are just along for the ride.
Drama
The drama category is the one that seems to be the most muddled of all three. There are quite a few people who won't believe a horror movie that's "true", and there are quite a few who won't believe that a historical movie that's "true" is quite as slick as it seems on screen. On the other hand, these same people will believe a drama that is based on a true story. Dramas are more believable than horror because of the content of horror. Not everyone will believe in a strange moth creature that appeared before a bridge collapse or in ghosts haunting a couple's new house, but they will believe in a down on his luck father trying to provide for his child. Dramas are more believable than historical movies because the historical movies are usually about events that can easily be searched for in history books or the most basic of searches, but dramas are usually within the previous fifty years and are harder to research since they deal with a much smaller and less publicized story. These movies, above the other two, are the easiest to say "based on a true story" and have few questions asked. The one thing that this category has above the others is that it will tug on the emotional strings of the viewer, and because of this, people will give their hearts to the movie and defend it to the end without actually ever looking to see how much of it was real.
And in the end, that's the problem with any movie that's "based on a true story": people don't question the truth. There have been some movies that have been based on a trust story that were rather factual, and then there were others that have been complete fiction. The worst part is when the "based on a true story" tagline is added, suddenly there is legitimacy that has been added to the film and the viewers become experts on the subject by what they saw in the movie. A teacher told me once that he had a class back in the early 90's when the movie JFK came out, and he spoke of students who came in to class asking if he watched the biography of JFK. There's a big difference between a biopic and something like JFK.
So, now that we know what types of movies we are dealing with, next we will look at the industry and the way movies are made. Check back in the next post to learn more!
Friday, August 31, 2012
Monday, August 27, 2012
5 Things You Don't Know about the Space Race
To finish up space month, here are the top 5 things you didn't know about the American/Russian space race.
1. On May 15, 1960, the Russians launched Vostok 1 into orbit over the earth. It was intended to orbit for four days, and then the retro rockets would fire, and it would re-enter earth's atmosphere. At least, that was the plan. What really happened was when the rockets fired, they were pointing in the wrong direction. When they fired, the spacecraft actually went into a higher orbit. The Russians were praised for their ingenuity on making the craft to extend its life in space. Naturally, the whole thing was a mistake that the Russians played off as if they meant for that to happen. The spacecraft that was intended to return in September 1960 didn't actually come back until October 1965.
2. When John Glenn was preparing for his space launch, NASA engineers were trying to figure out how he could take pictures with a 35mm camera in his space suit gloves. They tried everything from riggings to handles to levers, but nothing worked. There was a legitimate fear that they wouldn't be able to figure it out. Some time before the launch, Glenn went into town to get a haircut and pick up some items from a drugstore. In the drugstore, he spotted a new Japanese camera with a big shutter button and auto focus. He bought it for $45 and used it on the space flight.
3. The first woman in space was Valentina Tereshkova, obviously a Russian woman. Unfortunately, she was not ready for space flight, nor was she trained properly. Russian Premier Krushchev wanted the world to think that Russian engineering was so perfect that non-pilots could be sent by the Russians into space. While in space, her transmissions were mostly unintelligible and she was sick most of the time as well as slept too much. Doctors on the ground feared that she was becoming mentally unhinged during her flight. She safely returned to earth, but the rescue team found her sobbing and shaking. She was treated as a hero upon her return, but the truth of what actually happened wasn't released for many years.
4. The first Russian to walk in space was Aleksei Leonov; however, he was also the first space explorer who nearly didn't come back. His space walk lasted about ten minutes. When it was over, he made his way to the air lock, but panic set in when he realized he couldn't get back in. Was the door sealed? Could he not open the door? Nope. His suit had ballooned and wouldn't fit through the doorway. The oxygen in the suit was high pressure which had pushed the suit out too far to fit. The only thing he could do was release oxygen out of his suit to decrease the pressure. It began to work so he made his way back into the spacecraft. The problem then was that his backpack backup kicked in and it re-inflated the suit. So he had to turn his oxygen off and on and squeeze back into his spacecraft. It him longer to get back into the spacecraft than the entire time he spent outside of the spacecraft. When he finally made it back inside, pouring sweat, he wrote the following message: "I think that it is a bit too early to campare outer space with a place for an entertaining stroll."
5. On January 2, 1959, the Russians launched Lunik 1 (also known as Luna 1). Originally, the Russians had a plan to put an atomic bomb on the satellite and crash it into the moon, but they scrapped that idea. Instead, they put sodium particles in it to show when it was leaving earth's atmosphere. The plan was to take space measurements and at the end of the mission crash into the moon. The satellite had two metallic pennants with the Soviet coat of arms. The Russians, however, didn't tell people that the plan was to crash into the moon. When it came time, Lunik 1 was pointed to the moon, but it missed... by a long shot. In fact, it missed by 4,000 miles. The positive side was that Lunik 1 became the first artificial satellite to orbit the sun. It still orbits the sun in the realm of space that's between Earth and Mars.
So, as our month of space expendablenlightenment comes to a close, one can only be left in awe of what's really out there and be left with an appreciation for those who risked their lives in the exploration of it.
Bet you didn't know that!
1. On May 15, 1960, the Russians launched Vostok 1 into orbit over the earth. It was intended to orbit for four days, and then the retro rockets would fire, and it would re-enter earth's atmosphere. At least, that was the plan. What really happened was when the rockets fired, they were pointing in the wrong direction. When they fired, the spacecraft actually went into a higher orbit. The Russians were praised for their ingenuity on making the craft to extend its life in space. Naturally, the whole thing was a mistake that the Russians played off as if they meant for that to happen. The spacecraft that was intended to return in September 1960 didn't actually come back until October 1965.
2. When John Glenn was preparing for his space launch, NASA engineers were trying to figure out how he could take pictures with a 35mm camera in his space suit gloves. They tried everything from riggings to handles to levers, but nothing worked. There was a legitimate fear that they wouldn't be able to figure it out. Some time before the launch, Glenn went into town to get a haircut and pick up some items from a drugstore. In the drugstore, he spotted a new Japanese camera with a big shutter button and auto focus. He bought it for $45 and used it on the space flight.
3. The first woman in space was Valentina Tereshkova, obviously a Russian woman. Unfortunately, she was not ready for space flight, nor was she trained properly. Russian Premier Krushchev wanted the world to think that Russian engineering was so perfect that non-pilots could be sent by the Russians into space. While in space, her transmissions were mostly unintelligible and she was sick most of the time as well as slept too much. Doctors on the ground feared that she was becoming mentally unhinged during her flight. She safely returned to earth, but the rescue team found her sobbing and shaking. She was treated as a hero upon her return, but the truth of what actually happened wasn't released for many years.
4. The first Russian to walk in space was Aleksei Leonov; however, he was also the first space explorer who nearly didn't come back. His space walk lasted about ten minutes. When it was over, he made his way to the air lock, but panic set in when he realized he couldn't get back in. Was the door sealed? Could he not open the door? Nope. His suit had ballooned and wouldn't fit through the doorway. The oxygen in the suit was high pressure which had pushed the suit out too far to fit. The only thing he could do was release oxygen out of his suit to decrease the pressure. It began to work so he made his way back into the spacecraft. The problem then was that his backpack backup kicked in and it re-inflated the suit. So he had to turn his oxygen off and on and squeeze back into his spacecraft. It him longer to get back into the spacecraft than the entire time he spent outside of the spacecraft. When he finally made it back inside, pouring sweat, he wrote the following message: "I think that it is a bit too early to campare outer space with a place for an entertaining stroll."
5. On January 2, 1959, the Russians launched Lunik 1 (also known as Luna 1). Originally, the Russians had a plan to put an atomic bomb on the satellite and crash it into the moon, but they scrapped that idea. Instead, they put sodium particles in it to show when it was leaving earth's atmosphere. The plan was to take space measurements and at the end of the mission crash into the moon. The satellite had two metallic pennants with the Soviet coat of arms. The Russians, however, didn't tell people that the plan was to crash into the moon. When it came time, Lunik 1 was pointed to the moon, but it missed... by a long shot. In fact, it missed by 4,000 miles. The positive side was that Lunik 1 became the first artificial satellite to orbit the sun. It still orbits the sun in the realm of space that's between Earth and Mars.
So, as our month of space expendablenlightenment comes to a close, one can only be left in awe of what's really out there and be left with an appreciation for those who risked their lives in the exploration of it.
Bet you didn't know that!
Friday, August 24, 2012
Friday Song #7 - Electric Light Orchestra
"Ticket to the Moon" - Electric Light Orchestra, from the album "Time".
Released: 1981
Monday, August 20, 2012
Vastness of Space
One of the questions that astronomers are asked is how can they possibly comprehend the vast distances in space, and the answer is usually (if they are honest) that they really can't quite fully grasp it. The human mind has great difficulty in firmly being able to understand the distances between objects in space. If you were to fly around the world, you would go just under 25,000 miles. With cars that keep track of mileage in the hundreds of thousands of miles, the earth's circumference doesn't seem that large. But when you consider that the moon (the closest celestial body to the earth) is around 240,000 miles from the earth, you begin to see that if 240,000 miles is hardly any distance at all, then we will have a hard time understanding millions, billions, and trillions of miles.
The best way to understand how far away things are is to create scale models of sizes we can comprehend. So, here's a little thing for you to try: a scale model of the solar system.
First start by figuring out your scale. If you use a basketball (which is approximately 9.5 inches in diameter) to represent the sun, then you will come up with a scale of approximately 91,000 miles equals an inch. So if that's the case, then how far away would the planets be?
Mercury = 33 feet away and .034 inches in diameter
Venus = 62 feet away and .083 inches in diameter
Earth = 86 feet away and .088 inches in diameter
Mars = 130 feet away and .047 inches in diameter
(300 feet is 1 football field)
Jupiter = 445 feet away and .983 inches in diameter
(600 feet is 2 football fields)
Saturn = 820 feet away and .828 inches in diameter
(900 feet is 3 football fields)
(1200 feet is 4 football fields)
(1500 feet is 5 football fields)
Uranus = 1645 feet away and .351 inches in diameter
(1800 feet is 6 football fields)
(2100 feet is 7 football fields)
(2400 feet is 8 football fields)
Neptune = 2580 feet away and .337 inches in diameter
(2700 feet is 9 football fields)
(3000 feet is 10 football fields)
(3300 feet is 11 football fields)
Pluto = 3380 feet away and .016 inches in diameter
In case you're curious about the moon, it would be 2.64 inches from the earth in this model, and its diameter would be .024 inches.
But what about father things? Well, in this model, the Oort Cloud would extend out approximately 16 miles from our 9.5 inch sun.
Also, the speed of light is slower: approximately 2 inches a second or 10 feet a minute. This means that it would take nearly 5 hours to reach Pluto. A light year in our model would be approximately 1,000 miles on earth. That means that in our model, one light year would be the distance of St. Louis to Boston.
So what about Proxima Centauri? This is the closest star to our own, and it's about 4.3 light years away. This means that in our model, Proxima Centauri would be over 4300 miles away (or the distance of Boston to Moscow).
To give you one more example, check out the size of the Milky Way galaxy. It is 100,000 light years in diameter. That means that in our example based on our sun being about 9.5 inches in diameter, that means that you would have to have about 100 million miles.
The universe is vast, and even some of the examples don't seem to really help understand the distances involved. But here has been an attempt to help you see how much space is really out there.
Bet you didn't know that!
The best way to understand how far away things are is to create scale models of sizes we can comprehend. So, here's a little thing for you to try: a scale model of the solar system.
First start by figuring out your scale. If you use a basketball (which is approximately 9.5 inches in diameter) to represent the sun, then you will come up with a scale of approximately 91,000 miles equals an inch. So if that's the case, then how far away would the planets be?
Mercury = 33 feet away and .034 inches in diameter
Venus = 62 feet away and .083 inches in diameter
Earth = 86 feet away and .088 inches in diameter
Mars = 130 feet away and .047 inches in diameter
(300 feet is 1 football field)
Jupiter = 445 feet away and .983 inches in diameter
(600 feet is 2 football fields)
Saturn = 820 feet away and .828 inches in diameter
(900 feet is 3 football fields)
(1200 feet is 4 football fields)
(1500 feet is 5 football fields)
Uranus = 1645 feet away and .351 inches in diameter
(1800 feet is 6 football fields)
(2100 feet is 7 football fields)
(2400 feet is 8 football fields)
Neptune = 2580 feet away and .337 inches in diameter
(2700 feet is 9 football fields)
(3000 feet is 10 football fields)
(3300 feet is 11 football fields)
Pluto = 3380 feet away and .016 inches in diameter
In case you're curious about the moon, it would be 2.64 inches from the earth in this model, and its diameter would be .024 inches.
But what about father things? Well, in this model, the Oort Cloud would extend out approximately 16 miles from our 9.5 inch sun.
Also, the speed of light is slower: approximately 2 inches a second or 10 feet a minute. This means that it would take nearly 5 hours to reach Pluto. A light year in our model would be approximately 1,000 miles on earth. That means that in our model, one light year would be the distance of St. Louis to Boston.
So what about Proxima Centauri? This is the closest star to our own, and it's about 4.3 light years away. This means that in our model, Proxima Centauri would be over 4300 miles away (or the distance of Boston to Moscow).
To give you one more example, check out the size of the Milky Way galaxy. It is 100,000 light years in diameter. That means that in our example based on our sun being about 9.5 inches in diameter, that means that you would have to have about 100 million miles.
The universe is vast, and even some of the examples don't seem to really help understand the distances involved. But here has been an attempt to help you see how much space is really out there.
Bet you didn't know that!
Friday, August 17, 2012
Friday Song #6 - Peter Schilling
"Major Tom (Coming Home)" - Peter Schilling, released on the album "Error in the System".
Released: 1983
Monday, August 13, 2012
The Solar System
Most of us have studied in our science classes that the solar system starts with the sun and then goes on with the planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto (even though Pluto isn't thought of as an official planet anymore). That's usually all we think of. But is that all? Is there more? There sure is!
The first collection of bodies other than the main planets is the asteroid belt. This sits conveniently between Mars and Jupiter. Within the asteroid belt sits the dwarf planet known as Ceres, which is slightly under 1000 km in diameter and large enough to be spherical in shape.
The area beyond Neptune is called the "Trans-Neptunian Region" and it remains mostly unexplored; however, there are many interesting things out there. The second collection of bodies other than the main planets is the Kuiper Belt. This collection of debris is similar to the asteroid belt, but differs in one important area: the asteroid belt is mainly made up of rock and metallic substances, whereas the Kuiper Belt is mostly ice. It's in this Kuiper Belt that you'll find Pluto and its "moon" Charon (although it's more agreed upon now that Pluto and Charon are more of a binary planet system, meaning they revolve around each other). Other dwarf planets in the Kuiper Belt include Eris (which is actually more massive than Pluto), Haumea, and Makemake. Past the Kuiper Belt, there is also Sedna. Not much is known about Sedna. Many speculate that it's a dwarf planet, but it hasn't been officially categorized yet.
But is that it? Not quite. Out past the Kuiper Belt is a hypothetical (which translates into scientists believe it to be there, but haven't proven it yet) area called the Oort Cloud. It is estimated to be between 1 to 1.87 light years from the sun. It is supposedly made up mostly of ice like the Kuiper Belt, but much farther out. The Oort Cloud is thought to be where long range comets come from.
Is there anything else? The short answer is that we really don't know. There are still vast amounts of the solar system that haven't been mapped yet. Believe it or not, astronomers are still looking at the area between the sun and Mercury for objects. If we haven't found all the objects that are that close, who knows what wonders lie a light year away.
So what exactly is the boundary of the solar system? That depends on who you talk to. Some say it's just the distance of the planets, and others say it's the distance of the Oort Cloud, and others say it's the distance that the sun's gravity can affect, and still others say it's as far as the solar wind (charged particles from the sun) can reach. Either way, it's a very long way from earth (from the billions to the trillions of miles).
Bet you didn't know that!
The first collection of bodies other than the main planets is the asteroid belt. This sits conveniently between Mars and Jupiter. Within the asteroid belt sits the dwarf planet known as Ceres, which is slightly under 1000 km in diameter and large enough to be spherical in shape.
The area beyond Neptune is called the "Trans-Neptunian Region" and it remains mostly unexplored; however, there are many interesting things out there. The second collection of bodies other than the main planets is the Kuiper Belt. This collection of debris is similar to the asteroid belt, but differs in one important area: the asteroid belt is mainly made up of rock and metallic substances, whereas the Kuiper Belt is mostly ice. It's in this Kuiper Belt that you'll find Pluto and its "moon" Charon (although it's more agreed upon now that Pluto and Charon are more of a binary planet system, meaning they revolve around each other). Other dwarf planets in the Kuiper Belt include Eris (which is actually more massive than Pluto), Haumea, and Makemake. Past the Kuiper Belt, there is also Sedna. Not much is known about Sedna. Many speculate that it's a dwarf planet, but it hasn't been officially categorized yet.
But is that it? Not quite. Out past the Kuiper Belt is a hypothetical (which translates into scientists believe it to be there, but haven't proven it yet) area called the Oort Cloud. It is estimated to be between 1 to 1.87 light years from the sun. It is supposedly made up mostly of ice like the Kuiper Belt, but much farther out. The Oort Cloud is thought to be where long range comets come from.
Is there anything else? The short answer is that we really don't know. There are still vast amounts of the solar system that haven't been mapped yet. Believe it or not, astronomers are still looking at the area between the sun and Mercury for objects. If we haven't found all the objects that are that close, who knows what wonders lie a light year away.
So what exactly is the boundary of the solar system? That depends on who you talk to. Some say it's just the distance of the planets, and others say it's the distance of the Oort Cloud, and others say it's the distance that the sun's gravity can affect, and still others say it's as far as the solar wind (charged particles from the sun) can reach. Either way, it's a very long way from earth (from the billions to the trillions of miles).
Bet you didn't know that!
Friday, August 10, 2012
Friday Song #5 - Pink Floyd
"Interstellar Overdrive" - Pink Floyd, released on the album "A Piper at the Gates of Dawn".
Released: 1967
Monday, August 6, 2012
Light Years
We've all heard the term 'light year', and may even know it as 'the distance light travels in a year'. Which is exactly true. End of story? Not quite.
The distance of a light year had been developed for a long time.The first appearance of it used as measurement of distance was in 1838 by Friedrich Bessel. Since then, there are all sorts of other measurements using light, such as the 'light-month' (distance light travels in a month), the kilolight-year (1,000 light years), the megalight-year (one million light years), and the gigalight-year (one billion light years).
In space, the distances are so vast that miles just don't seem to work as a valid measurement. To show you what I mean, take the sun. It's close enough that miles seem to be just okay as a measurement: it's approximately 93 million miles away (93,000,000). That's a long way. It's so far that if the light of the sun would vanish, it would take eight minutes for us to notice here on earth. To give you another example, the farthest (accepted) planet from the sun is Neptune, which is approximately 2.8 billion miles away (2,800,000,000), and just the distance from the sun in one direction and not the whole orbit. But what about the next closest star? The next closest star is called Proxima Centauri. How far is it? It's around 24 trillion miles away (24,000,000,000,000). And that's the closest star. How many zeros would it take if they were farther away? Many, many, many more zeros. And that's one of the reasons we have the light year.
To get a simple distance of the light year, you must first take the distance light travels in a second, which is 186,000 miles, then you multiply up. You multiply 186,000 times 60 (for seconds in a minute), then another 60 (for minutes in an hour), then 24 (for hours in a day, then 365 (for days in a year). I'll save you the trouble of figuring it out: it's just under 6 trillion miles (6,000,000,000,000). So how far away is Proxima Centauri in light years? It's about 4.22 light years. Doesn't seem far at all now. However, you have to keep in mind that it means that if you were traveling at the speed of light, it would take you 4.22 years to reach Proxima Centauri.
Once you grasp how large a light year is, then you begin to understand the vast distances that exist in space. The Milky Way galaxy (our own) is approximately 100,000 light years across. The closest galaxy out of the range of our own is the Large Megallanic Cloud, which is about 180,000 light years away. The closest spiral galaxy to our own is the Andromeda Galaxy, which is 2 million light years away (2,000,000).
So what's the farthest objects seen? The farthest confirmed galaxy is called IOK-1, and it is 12.9 billion light years away (12,900,000,000). However, in 2009, what appeared to be another galaxy even farther away was found. It's called Abell 1835 IR1916, and it's about 13.2 billion light years away (13,200,000,000). However, there is a lot of speculation and controversy as to whether or not this latest discovery is actually a galaxy or not.
Bet you didn't know that!
The distance of a light year had been developed for a long time.The first appearance of it used as measurement of distance was in 1838 by Friedrich Bessel. Since then, there are all sorts of other measurements using light, such as the 'light-month' (distance light travels in a month), the kilolight-year (1,000 light years), the megalight-year (one million light years), and the gigalight-year (one billion light years).
In space, the distances are so vast that miles just don't seem to work as a valid measurement. To show you what I mean, take the sun. It's close enough that miles seem to be just okay as a measurement: it's approximately 93 million miles away (93,000,000). That's a long way. It's so far that if the light of the sun would vanish, it would take eight minutes for us to notice here on earth. To give you another example, the farthest (accepted) planet from the sun is Neptune, which is approximately 2.8 billion miles away (2,800,000,000), and just the distance from the sun in one direction and not the whole orbit. But what about the next closest star? The next closest star is called Proxima Centauri. How far is it? It's around 24 trillion miles away (24,000,000,000,000). And that's the closest star. How many zeros would it take if they were farther away? Many, many, many more zeros. And that's one of the reasons we have the light year.
To get a simple distance of the light year, you must first take the distance light travels in a second, which is 186,000 miles, then you multiply up. You multiply 186,000 times 60 (for seconds in a minute), then another 60 (for minutes in an hour), then 24 (for hours in a day, then 365 (for days in a year). I'll save you the trouble of figuring it out: it's just under 6 trillion miles (6,000,000,000,000). So how far away is Proxima Centauri in light years? It's about 4.22 light years. Doesn't seem far at all now. However, you have to keep in mind that it means that if you were traveling at the speed of light, it would take you 4.22 years to reach Proxima Centauri.
Once you grasp how large a light year is, then you begin to understand the vast distances that exist in space. The Milky Way galaxy (our own) is approximately 100,000 light years across. The closest galaxy out of the range of our own is the Large Megallanic Cloud, which is about 180,000 light years away. The closest spiral galaxy to our own is the Andromeda Galaxy, which is 2 million light years away (2,000,000).
So what's the farthest objects seen? The farthest confirmed galaxy is called IOK-1, and it is 12.9 billion light years away (12,900,000,000). However, in 2009, what appeared to be another galaxy even farther away was found. It's called Abell 1835 IR1916, and it's about 13.2 billion light years away (13,200,000,000). However, there is a lot of speculation and controversy as to whether or not this latest discovery is actually a galaxy or not.
Bet you didn't know that!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)