Best Picture movies

I've got a decent movie library, totaling 1,690 films. That doesn't include short films, cartoons, TV shows, and such. Part of my library consists of movies I just like and bought.

Wait. Did I just imply that I may have movies I don't like? Well, I do. Some, I didn't know at the time. I thought I would like them, so I got them, either on DVD (which I later ripped into my Plex library) or purchased a digital copy (which I later ripped into my Plex library). So, I found out I didn't like some of them after I bought them. But I'm okay with that. I gave the film a shot, and if I didn't like it, that's just how it is.

Along the line, though, I decided I wanted to include in my library certain collections. I decided I wanted all of the movies that won Best Picture at the Academy Awards. I checked my library -- it wasn't all in Plex at the time -- and found that I had a good number of them. So, I looked into getting the rest. And I did.

As of this writing, there have been 93 Academy Award ceremonies, and of the 93 films to win Best Picture, I have 94 of them.

Okay, now you're wondering if I just don't understand math. I do. But I also understand history, and I don't like when it's changed.

In the first Academy Awards ceremony, held May 16, 1929, there were two top awards for films given. Wings won the award for Outstanding Picture, while Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans won Best Unique and Artistic Picture. At the time, they were considered equal top awards. The next year, they did away with the Best Unique and Artistic Picture category but kept the Outstanding Picture award, and declared that Wings was the top film of the previous year, retroactively.

Sunrise actually received more nominations than Wings and more awards than Wings, and is probably a better film. Still, Wings is today considered the first winner of the Best Picture award by the Academy, and by most people. But not by me.

I feel that at the time, they considered the awards equal and both the top award. No amount of revisionist history will change that. So, I consider them both the Best Picture in that first ceremony. And they are both in my library. Of course, it really doesn't matter. I'd have Sunrise in my film library regardless.

Oh, and there were two Best Director wins that first year, too. There were separate awards for dramatic and comedy pictures. Like Outstanding Picture and Unique and Artistic Presentation, they were combined into a single award beginning the next year. Unlike Best Picture, they didn't retroactively reduce one of the awards.

But back on track, I didn't, but soon did, have all of the winners of the Best Picture awards. And, since I added those to my library, each year, I've added the new winners of the award. I haven't seen them all. Yet. I will. I just haven't seen the most recent. I've seen the older ones. In fact, I have some serious catching up to do. The most recent Best Picture winner I've seen is The Artist, and that was only a two or three years ago. I have a whole decade of Best Picture winners the catch up and watch. I need to get around to that.

I like the idea that I have all of the Best Picture winners. I just don't seem to watch all of them. I'll get to those last ten some time soon. I mean, what's the use of having a movie if I never watch it? I might not like some of them. If the pattern for the last 30 years holds true, I will like a few of them and not like most of them. Still, I'm happy to have all of the Best Picture winners in my Streaming Life.

---

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Using HBO Max

Last month, I decided to give HBO Max a try. As I said then, I'd watched HBO before. When Comcast raised my price -- technically, the special they gave me ended -- I looked for a better price package, and they were running a special where I could get Internet, cable, and HBO cheaper than Internet alone. So, yeah, I did that for a year. And during that year, I watched HBO from time to time. And, when that special ended, I got a different package that didn't include cable or HBO, just Internet, because it was cheaper.

I've not watched HBO since. Well, until last month. I subscribed to HBO Max to give it a try. I wasn't looking for anything in particular, I just wanted to see what it was all about. I know lots of people that use the service. I but way back on streaming services some months ago, but am willing to give one a try from time to time. Either a new one I've not done before, or one I haven't used in a long time. HBO Max is sort of both.

Well, it's been a month. How do I like it?

It's okay. The thing is, with work and everything, I don't have time to sit and watch a lot of movies. I wish I did. Maybe when I retire, finally.

I've subscribed for about a month now, with the free trial and 30 days, and I'm not sure I'll keep it. Honestly, I wish I had time to watch it. There really is a lot of good stuff on there. It's worth the cost. If you got time to watch it, and I don't.

When my real life stops infringing on my Streaming Life, I'll probably subscribe to HBO Max and keep the service. I can hardly wait for that day.

Frndly.TV gets friendlier, maybe, and more costly

According to a Wall Street Journal report, Frndly.TV will offer seven channels from A+E Networks soon. That's the good news. The bad news is the price is going up. The other good news is that the increase is only $1.

The Wall Street Journal says that Frndly.TV subscribers will get the new channels in about a week:

Frndly TV, founded two years ago by former Dish Network Corp. DISH +0.84% executives, said Wednesday it had signed a deal with A+E Networks to carry seven of its networks—including A&E, Lifetime and the History Channel—starting Nov. 18.

As a result of the agreement, Frndly TV will offer 30 live TV channels, adding to its current bundle that already includes the Hallmark Channel and the Weather Channel. The company said it would raise the basic monthly subscription price to $6.99 from $5.99. Frndly TV’s other subscription tiers will also increase.

Frndly.TV lists the networks they'll carry:

In addition to A&E, The HISTORY Channel and Lifetime, Frndly TV subscribers will also receive Lifetime Movie Network® (LMN), FYI®, Military HISTORY®, ViceTV® and complementary video on demand programming.

Starting on Thursday, November 18, the seven channels will begin to premiere on Frndly TV.

I haven't watched many of those channels. I dropped cable over a decade ago, and I have only occasionally used a live streaming service, mostly because I only get them for football, so even when I have the channels, I don't watch them.

This sounds like a good addition to Frndly.TV to me. However, I do wonder if this means the service is getting away from family friendly content. Some of the programming on A+E Networks isn't something that every family would sit and watch together. A&E itself isn't the old A&E that carried quality programming. Say what you want, WWE Most Wanted Treasures isn't in the same league with Breakfast with the Arts.

I'm not worried about Frndly.TV just yet, but this may not be a good sign, if TV you can watch with your kids is what you're after. The price increase isn't bad, though, and I won't complain about that. But, I'm keeping an eye out for other programming that might not fit the original draw for Frndly.TV. I wonder if it will be something families will want in their Streaming Life.

Veterans Day

Today is Veterans Day. We have observed it since the end of the first World War, and it became a U.S. holiday in 1954. The president issued a proclamation that year.

Proclamation 3071—Veteran's Day, 1954

October 08, 1954

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

Whereas it has long been our custom to commemorate November 11, the anniversary of the ending of World War I, by paying tribute to the heroes of that tragic struggle and by rededicating ourselves to the cause of peace; and

Whereas in the intervening years the United States has been involved in two other great military conflicts, which have added millions of veterans living and dead to the honor rolls of this Nation; and

Whereas the Congress passed a concurrent resolution on June 4, 1926 (44 Stat. 1982), calling for the observance of November 11 with appropriate ceremonies, and later provided in an act approved May 13, 1938 (52 Stat. 351), that the eleventh of November should be a legal holiday and should be known as Armistice Day; and

Whereas, in order to expand the significance of that commemoration and in order that a grateful Nation might pay appropriate homage to the veterans of all its wars who have contributed so much to the preservation of this Nation, the Congress, by an act approved June 1, 1954 (68 Stat. 168), changed the name of the holiday to Veterans Day:

Now, Therefore, I, Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the United States of America, do hereby call upon all of our citizens to observe Thursday, November 11, 1954, as Veterans Day. On that day let us solemnly remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly, on the seas, in the air, and on foreign shores, to preserve our heritage of freedom, and let us reconsecrate ourselves to the task of promoting an enduring peace so that their efforts shall not have been in vain. I also direct the appropriate officials of the Government to arrange for the display of the flag of the United States on all public buildings on Veterans Day.

In order to insure proper and widespread observance of this anniversary, all veterans, all veterans' organizations, and the entire citizenry will wish to join hands in the common purpose. Toward this end, I am designating the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs as Chairman of a Veterans Day National Committee, which shall include such other persons as the Chairman may select, and which will coordinate at the national level necessary planning for the observance. I am also requesting the heads of all departments and agencies of the Executive branch of the Government to assist the National Committee in every way possible.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States of America to be affixed.

DONE at the City of Washington this eighth day of October in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and fifty-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and seventy-ninth.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER

By the President:

JOHN FOSTER DULLES,

Secretary of State

My problem with ESPN+

I don't normally subscribe to ESPN+, except during football season. There are college football games that are only on ESPN+, and I want to be able to watch them. So, during football season I subscribe to ESPN+.

So what's the problem? Well, it's the app. Let me explain.

When I'm watching football games, I'll often open the ESPN app on my phone, and check other games. If something seems interesting, I'll switch over to it. But, that's when ESPN+ decides to tick me off. ESPN+ is big into some fight club league or something. Ultimate Fightling something something.

I've never been big on fights, whether boxing or whatever this UFC thing is. Simply put, I'm not interested. If it's something you like, fine. They need to target you, not me.

The ESPN app allows me to pick teams or sports in which I have an interest. I've never picked any kind of fighting league, yet every time I open the app, wanting to see the teams or sports I have marked as an interest, I get some ad telling me about some fight.

I get it. They're promoting something they've invested in. They've spent money to carry that sport, and they want to make sure anyone that is interested knows about fights coming up. Only, the fact that I haven't picked that sport as a favorite ought to tell them something. And, I suspect it does, but they don't care. They're gonna show me ads for it, even though I never click on them, and won't watch the stuff.

Maybe they spent all of their money securing the rights to the fights, and they don't have enough money to build smarts into their apps so they'll get more efficient exposure of the sport. But, if they need to show it to everybody in order to pick up eyeballs for the stuff, okay. I'll ignore the stuff. I just wish I didn't have to.

If this is the worst problem I have with ESPN+, I'm doing okay. I won't be watching the fights, but if my putting up with the ads allows you to find out about something you want to see, them I'll just deal with it. Your Streaming Life is important, too.

Blackouts

Last weekend, on Saturday, I didn't watch a lot of football. I wanted to, but it just didn't work out that way. However, I was near my TV when the Georgia Tech-Miami game was winding down. I saw that it was a close game, so I decided to watch it.

The game was on ESPN3, so I fired up the ESPN app on my Roku device and found the game. But, it wouldn't play. The game was blacked out in my area.

From my house, I would have to drive 433 miles to go to the game. That's the shortest, most direct driving route. It would be a 6½ hour drive on a good day. And, according to the people that decide those things, I was in a blackout area for the game.

That is a very frustrating thing to encounter. I'm not sure I understand why games that are 433 miles away are blacked out. I suspect if I found out why the game was blacked out, I'd want to slap the person that made the decision. Twice. Maybe more than twice. Definitely more than twice.

But, that's how it is. The game was blacked out. So, what did I do? Did I fire up a VPN and get around the restrictions? No, I didn't. I could have, but I didn't. I just didn't watch the game. And that means I didn't watch any commercials that were played with the game.

I wonder if the advertisers think about the fact that people are being denied the opportunity to see ads for their wonderful products and/or services.

Now, I'm not sure if I'm correct about this next bit, but I think it is. This whole blackout thing seems to happen more with ACC games than with any other conference. Is it the ACC that thinks their stuff is so special? Or is it more widespread but I only seem to notice when I'm trying to watch an ACC game? I don't know, but I don't like it.

Will I fire up a VPN the next time this happens? Probably not. I try to respect the rights of the content owners, and a football game is not different than a sitcom in that respect.

So, no, I won't get around the geo-restrictions with a VPN, but I don't blame those that do. Normally, I am opposed to getting around rights owner restrictions. But, while I won't do it, others will (and do) and this is one of those instances where I understand why they do, and don't really disagree.

My Streaming Life should not be this difficult.

Meet the Beatles!

One of the things I like about a Plex server is the ability to have all of my media available for me wherever I am, as long as I can get to the Internet. That means moves, TV shows, short films, and music.

I've talked about my Plex servers (the old one and the new one) several times, but haven't mentioned the music aspect that much. I've got all my movies done (still need to put them into collections), and most of my TV shows done (still the new Doctor Who shows to go), and my short films (still need to put them into collections as well).

The collections on the videos can wait. The most important thing was getting them on the server. Organizing into collections and playlists will be done, but I need the files moved over first. So now I'm on to moving music files.

I started with The Beatles. I have all of their digital releases. Well, some of the digital packages are groupings of individuals I already have, so I may not have all of those. The individual albums, whether individually or part of a package, I have. And then some. Let me explain that last bit.

Being one who grew up listening to new Beatles music -- yes, it used to be new at one time -- I recall all of the albums that were released in the U.S. They hold a special place for me, even if they are no longer available. But, I want them anyway. Just because.

While I have the official catalog of Beatles music, which is essentially the U.K. releases plus the U.S. Magical Mystery Tour album, along with the later Past Masters release, I also have the U.S. albums. The albums prior to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band were different in the U.S. than in the U.K. This is because the U.K. albums usually had more songs than a U.S. album. That wasn't a Beatles thing, or a Capitol Records thing, it was just a thing. It's how it was.

Also, in the U.K., singles were rarely duplicated on an album. In the U.S., it's what sold an album. Different cultures, different expectations. The first Capitol Records release, Meet the Beatles! was essentially the Beatles second U.K. release, With the Beatles, minus the cover songs (except for Till There Was You), plus their first U.S. single, I Want To Hold Your Hand, along with the B-sides: I Saw Her Standing There (U.S. single) and This Boy (U.K. single). It made for a better selection of Beatles songs, even though it had fewer tracks. The songs that were there were original Beatles songs, not covers (excepting Till There Was You).

The songs from With The Beatles that were left off of Meet the Beatles! were included in the next Capitol release, The Beatles' Second Album, which was their third U.S. release. Yep, that's correct. Unless you count it as their fourth U.S. release.

You see, when the Beatles were being promoted by their U.K. label, EMI, Capitol wasn't interested, so the Beatles first U.K. album was release (mostly, remember the difference in number of tracks) by Vee-Jay Records, who called the album Introducing... the Beatles. It was the Please Please Me album in the same order, missing two songs, Ask Me Why and Please Please Me. After the Beatles hit big, Vee-Jay was sued over two of the songs on the album, Love Me Do and P.S. I Love You, so they quickly removed those two and put the previously omitted two songs in their place, and kept pumping out versions of the album.

Vee-Jay eventually lost the rights to publish any Beatles songs, and Capitol released 11 of the 14 songs on an album called The Early Beatles, with a totally different running order.

I bring all of this up because I remember the album. My older sister had a copy, but I listened to it many times. I seem to recall a difference between the songs on the album and listed on the cover. Or, perhaps I recall seeing a track listing somewhere that didn't match the album. I think she had version two in a version one album cover. I'll have to ask her if she still has it.

I bring this up because as I am putting my Beatles music onto Plex, I'm adding all of the albums I actually have. This includes the mono and stereo versions of the Beatles U.S. releases, at least the ones where there were mono and stereo releases, which was most of them. Everything after The White Album (properly, The Beatles) was a stereo only release. But, I have the mono releases as well. At least, the U.S. versions through Revolver. So, my library includes both the mono and stereo versions.

There is a reason for that. The mixes were different on the mono and stereo releases. They didn't record for stereo, so a separate mix was done for stereo, and the Beatles themselves weren't present for the stereo mixes. Some songs never got stereo mixes.

One of the most striking is the original mono release of the song Yellow Submarine. In the final verse, on the mono mix, John's echoing of Ringo's lyrics begin with "A life of ease" while on the stereo mix, begins with a fade in on "Everyone of us." If you know the song, you know where I'm talking about. Not a big difference, but an important difference. As I only ever heard the stereo version from Revolver and the Yellow Submarine Soundtrack, the first time I saw the movie and heard the earlier entrance of John on the song, I was surprised. They fixed the stereo version on Yellow Submarine Songbook which was released much much later. I have it on the mono Revolver album, which I didn't get until a few years ago.

So, there are differences, and I'm including the mono and stereo releases in my library, at least, where I have the different versions.

I'm also including both versions of Introducing... the Beatles in my Plex library. And, if I happen across anything else, where I can obtain the actual recordings, digitally or on CD, I'll add them as time goes on.

In the meantime, I'm enjoying listening to Beatles records as part of my Streaming Life.

Tablo Connect to Apple TV?

I really like Tablo service. It's a great device that allows me to watch over the air antenna content on my devices on my network. I also have Fire TV Recast set up at my mother's house, as well as Air TV (using the Air TV Anywhere device). Of the three options I have for watching TV via an antenna, I like Tablo the best.

I do like the way Air TV integrates the local channels into the Sling TV interface, but I like the Tablo interface better. Fire TV Recast also integrates the antenna content into the interface, but I'm not a fan of the Amazon interface. And I've mentioned the things I don't like about Fire TV before.

Tablo is my go-to way to watch TV from an antenna. And, since I put up the antenna at my mother's, and I live a couple of miles away, Tablo Connect -- the feature that lets you watch Tablo from a different network -- is the way I'm continuing to use Tablo.

Since Tablo Connect is supported by Fire TV, Chromecast, and Apple TV, but not Roku, I've used other devices. Chromecast would be my preferred alternative, but the Chromecast has other issues I've previously mentioned. And, as I said, Fire TV has its own issues. So what next? Why Apple TV, of course.

I've had an Apple TV longer than I have had Roku. About a week longer. Apple ships faster than Roku. Of course, the old Apple TV devices were far inferior to Roku, but for the last few years, they've been a lot better, and are really good. I just hated the remote that came with the last couple of models, but the new remote is pretty good. And that brings Apple TV up a notch.

I'll be trying it out again. I've looked at Apple TV recently, and was happy with the remote. I already was comfortable and happy with the interface. At the time, I wasn't looking into Tablo Connect. But now I am. And Apple TV gets its turn this week.

The Doctor is in

I mentioned last week that I was adding Doctor Who episodes -- classic Doctor Who, from 1963-1986 -- to my Plex server. I have all of the episodes, including the Loose Cannon reconstructions of the missing episodes, and I began importing them into Plex.

As I mentioned before, I had imported the first ten seasons into my old Plex server, and moving them onto the new server was relatively easy. Everything was already organized, as I found out, and it went smoothly.

As I mentioned last week, I took up the task of moving the other seasons onto Plex. That actually went rather smoothly. It turns out I had already prepped several seasons to bring in, but for some reason, I never finished the task. Until now.

The next few seasons went well. I had all of the Tom Baker, and many of the Peter Davison episodes ready to go. I had a few Colin Baker episodes, as well as some Sylvester McCoy episodes. All of the ones I didn't have purchased from iTunes, I had ripped the DVDs already, and they were essentially ready. I had even ripped some of the iTunes episodes, so even more were ready. I ripped the remaining few and began the import.

It was quire painless. Well, the actual import was. Ripping TV shows isn't always painless. The iTunes naming convention and the Plex naming convention aren't the same, so I had to figure out how to make that easier. I ended up using a couple of batch file tricks and a spreadsheet.

I used a DIR command to output the content to a text file by using the /B attribute and redirecting the output to a text file. If you use Command Line much -- I still call it DOS command line -- you know what I'm talking about. If not, it's a way to get the names of the files into a text file.

I copied the text file into a spreadsheet, arranged them in air date order (the directory listing was alphabetical), and used an Excel CONCATENATE command to write a rename batch script. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, it's a way to take content from one cell in a spreadsheet and manipulate it in a way that I got a different bit of content.

For example, one of the filenames was 01 The Caves of Androzani (1).mp4

With commands such as CONCATENATE and MID, along with some math, I got a line of script that renamed it: Doctor Who (1963) - s21e17 - The Caves of Androzani (1).mp4

Yeah, that took a little bit of work, but it was a lot easier than renaming all those files by hand. I don't do a lot of coding, but it's nice to know I can do some tricks like this, and have it work.

Now, I have all of the Doctor Who classic episodes in Plex, and can watch them any time I want. Next, I need to bring in the special episodes. The Three Doctors imported into the 20th season as I had hoped, because I used DVD order setting in Plex. I have Scream of the Shalka, an aborted 9th Doctor continuation. The six episodes were completed, but the 9th Doctor didn't take. I also have the original An Unearthly Child that was rejected, the 2019 recreation of Mission to the Unknown, and An Adventure in Space and Time. I could even include the three movies, the two with Peter Cushing and the one with Paul McGann, in the specials section, since the library source Plex uses has them.

As I wrap all this up, I'm happy to have Doctor Who, in classic form, on my Plex server, and back in my Streaming Life.

What I hate about Fire TV

You know those people that always seem to find something wrong with everything? People that aren't happy no matter what? That seem to thrive on being difficult? That seems like me when it comes to Amazon's Fire TV.

Don't get me wrong. I like some things about Fire TV, but there are some things it does that really irritate me.

By default, videos start playing if I stop on them for a few seconds. I don't want to see or hear a video playing unless I tell it to play. Sure, I can go to the settings and turn that off, and I do. But it only applies to standard videos. When there's a sponsored video, it plays if you stay on it for more than one second. I timed it. It was easy to time. One Mississippi, t--- dammit!

Maybe I shouldn't get so worked up about stuff playing when I don't want it to. But I don't want it to.

Remember those Websites that you would go to and they'd start playing some sound? Yeah, they still exist. News sites are notorious for playing a video when you just want to read the story. I hate those. And Fire TV does that same thing.

The Amazon Fire TV Stick 4K -- I haven't tried the new "Max" version yet -- works great. It's responsive, and is easy to you. But Amazon insists on playing videos when I don't want them to. I will not put up with that. And that's why Fire TV will never be my streaming device of choice.

I still use the Fire TV device for Tablo Connect, but for nothing else. I tried. The autoplaying of videos -- and the inability to stop it for sponsored videos -- keeps the Fire TV device relegated to a special purpose only status in my Streaming Life.