The first update is very small – simply search for the word UPDATE.
The reviews are in the point 8 (and its sub-points), but the previous points are important to understand my ratings.
1. Long perspective.
When I was a teenager I used to watch the series Star Trek Next Generation. To me some things were cool but overall I wasn’t really impressed. I can’t remember if I ever watched a “full” Star Trek movie, which proves that I wasn’t a true fan of this franchise.
2. Off-putting images of the villains.
I know that many people claim that the best Star Trek movie is The Wrath of Khan (1982), but I wouldn’t be able to watch a movie happening in space with characters dressed like barbarians with bare chests. This image is so ridiculous that I am personally sure that it was just a trick to make the main villain appear even more villainous. I know that this trick is used also in some other movies, also in some other Star Trek movies. I hate this kind of screenwriting – I strongly prefer villains who are villainous only by their behavior, not by their looks.
3. The catalyst: The Big Bang Theory and J. J. Abrams.
This conversation between Sheldon and Leonard, seen by me for the umpteenth time, made me finally read about the Star Trek franchise in general:
Sheldon: Next question: Kirk or Picard?
Leonard: Oh, that's tricky. Original Series over Next Generation, but Picard over Kirk.
Sheldon: Correct.
Reading about the Original Series vs. the Next Generation made me read about the Star Trek franchise in general and by the way I found out that it was brought back to life by J. J. Abrams. I wondered why I missed it, but I realized that it was in 2009, several years BEFORE The Force Awakens, so at that time I had no idea who J. J. Abrams was, so I ignored the Star Trek (2009) movie then.
I loved the way J. J. Abrams brought Star Wars back to life with the movie The Force Awakens. I also loved the way he saved Star Wars from collapsing with the movie The Rise of Skywalker, after Rian Johnson almost ruined the franchise with the movie The Last Jedi (I HATE Rian Johnson for what he did in that movie).
The main difference is that as far as Star Trek is concerned J. J. Abrams didn't write any scripts – he only directed and co-produced the movies Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness and only co-produced the movie Star Trek Beyond (without even directing it). But is was enough for me to buy the whole Kelvin trilogy.
Please notice that any plot flaws of the movies shouldn't be blamed on J. J. Abrams because he didn't write the scripts! I have no idea why some people hate him, but his story for The Force Awakens was quite good, especially when compared to the terrible story for the Star Trek (2009) that was wrote by other people – see my review in point 8.1.
4. No attachments.
As I already wrote I had never been a Star Trek fan (even though I used to watch the series Next Generation) and I can’t imagine watching the original series from 1960s, nor The Wrath of Khan (1982). In fact I don't intend to watch ANY Star Trek movies other than the Kelvin trilogy. So, in all my reviews I judge the movies without any attachments to any previous Star Trek movies/series. Some fans seem to be overreacting, but some other are more objective – see the screenshots farther down below.
I have to point out that in the Kelvin trilogy there is no continuity from earlier movies/series, because it’s an alternative time-line, so it’s UNLIKE the latest Star Wars trilogy. It means that in the Kelvin trilogy the Star Trek characters may be a little different, the story may be a little different and the whole concept may be a little different. No problems there at all, especially to me.
5. Science-fiction and the limits of the suspension of disbelief.
A part of a science-fiction movie is some fiction about science, obviously. It means that such a movie requires some sort of suspension of disbelief. However, to me there are limits of the suspension of disbelief and anything beyond these limits is a clear flaw of a movie.
Here are example of things that to me are within the limits of the suspension of disbelief:
5.1. Fast travel in space.
In reality a journey to a relatively close star system would take YEARS, even when traveling with a speed close to the speed of light (the maximum theoretical speed). Very long journeys would take thousands of years. Obviously that would make any movie about space exploration only a “one-way track” (which would be cool, actually).
5.2. Fast travel in space and passing of time.
This is connected with the point 1, but I have to point out that in reality for objects that travel almost with the speed of light from their point of view the time almost stops. In other reference frames (for example looking from a particular planet) the time of travel of the spaceship would be equal to the time needed to reach a particular point by an object traveling with almost the speed of light, so a time dilation would still apply to such travels. Such travels (almost at the speed of light) would be like traveling in time, but it would be again only a “one-way track” (into the future).
5.3. Instant long distance communication.
Any signal can’t exceed the speed of light either, so communication with a relatively close star system would also take YEARS.
5.4. Abilities of spaceships/weapons/devices/medicines.
I don’t mind such things under the condition that their properties “work”/are used in a consistent way.
5.5. Basic teleportation (beaming) technology.
Teleportation (beaming) technology is one of the most iconic features of Star Trek, but I can accept it only in a basic form – teleporting (beaming) small stationary objects, especially on short distances.
6. Coincidences and stupid behaviors of characters.
I hate when very important things are too unlikely/coincidental. I also hate when some actions of characters are based on stupid/illogical assumptions or conclusions. Sometimes I can accept/ignore some other illogicalities, but never when character's motives are concerned.
7. Imagination and your own explanations for some plot details.
This is actually a very important aspect when I judge a movie (of ANY kind). Quite often I can see a plot flaw, but I instantly realize that it could be easily explained/avoided by a slight change in the plot. Sometimes a one proerly phrased sentence would be enough. Such an avoidable plot flaw is not important to me at all.
8. The reviews.
There are so many misleading reviews of the movies that I have to address the most outrageous ones, but I will try to avoid significant spoilers (unlike the misleading reviews).
Minor spoilers ahead! (But everything is taken out of context, so the spoilers are not that bad.)
8.1. Star Trek (2009).
My rating: 6.5/10
There are some cool things happening, but there are also some things that are very poor as far as the story is concerned.
The cool things are the characters, especially that they are all very strong minded and are not afraid to speak their minds. I love especially Spock and his story, but sometimes he is too emotional, even from a human perspective.
Many people claim that the plot is very good, but to me such opinions are like jokes. The bad things about the plot are very striking and numerous.
Most notably in the movie it's possible to create a black hole from a drop of some red liquid! Outrageously ridiculous! A similar “black hole” creation was used in order to try to stop a “supernova explosion wave”. OMG! Such a black hole can destroy a planet, but can also move a spaceship back in time. WHAT?! The travel back in time actually leads to an alternative time-line. Why? Usually changing past leads to an alternative time-line, but in this movie the time-line is changed right away without any explanation!
The four things above are the base for the whole plot and this is why I think the plot is simply terrible overall. But that's not all!
Other annoying things are: The main villain's motives are completely illogical because people actually tried to help his planet. The main villain is supposed to lead a MINER spaceship but its weapons and overall combat abilities are much better than they should be. Another minor flaw is the fact that the miner spaceship can drill a hole to the core of a planet from an orbit, which is ridiculous on its own.
Other than that: One of the main characters is punished by being dropped onto an icy planet in a small capsule without any guidance, so it looks practically like a death sentence that is a total overreaction and doesn't fit the character who ordered this punishment. What’s worse it leads to an extremely unlikely meeting with another character that is followed closely by yet another extremely unlikely meeting with yet another character. What a fucking mess!
On top of that: Two characters are teleported/beamed to a spaceship that is moving extremely fast through WARP space! At another moment two characters are teleported/beamed to a spaceship when they are themselves moving very fast (falling down). There is more hand-to-hand combat than combat with using weapons. Lastly, a spaceship can destroy a swarm of missiles fired by the “bad guys”, but earlier the same “bad guys” were able to destroy SEVERAL similar spaceships! Couldn't the spaceships protect each other in the same way?
All the flaws above either cross my limits of the suspension of disbelief or are too unlikely/coincidental or the character's behaviors/motives are illogical. They can't be explain with just a tad of imagination – the plot is unsalvageable.
Some people claim that this movie has a better plot than the next movie, but this is total bullshit. It’s a mindlessly fun reboot, but the plot is definitely its weakest part. A very weak part, actually. After watching this movie only once I feel no inclination to watch it again in the foreseeable future, mostly because of the plot flaws I described above.
8.2. Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
My rating: 9.0/10
Star Trek Into Darkness is a GREAT movie! It's DEFINITELY better than the first movie! I can't believe that some people claim that it's the worst Star Trek movie ever, when the previous movie was so terrible as far as plot was concerned!
Before watching the movie I had read various reviews/opinions and lots of people complained about some particular things, giving heavy spoilers by the way. After watching the movie I have to say that I was shocked how misleading most of the negative reviews/opinions were – they were mostly half-truths or complete untruths. I will address them to some extent, but I will try to AVOID significant spoilers.
The very start of the movie is strongly criticized by some people, but it's actually not that bad – two characters create a diversion to lure away some primitive people from a volcano, so a “freezing bomb” can be safely detonated to prevent a huge eruption of the volcano. The only true flaw in this opening is a spaceship being “parked” underwater, but it's a kind of joke – after the spaceship lifts out of the water with the primitive people watching, it is later pictured by the primitive people like some kind of god. It cracked a smile on my face!
Here's a screenshot of a very good comment I found on the net – click to enlarge:
The opening scene may not be perfect, but it’s very important for two later scenes that are simply great (in one of them Spock is talking about his own emotions and the other scene is towards the end of the movie, so I can’t explain it without significant spoilers).
The “proper” start of the movie (the action on the Earth) is gripping right from the start and the plot is very interesting because it’s quite mysterious. Most importantly it's a very COHERENT plot! The main plot revolves around the villain, so I will address the misleading opinions about him first.
Some people complain about the villain just because he's similar to a villain from an old Star Trek movie (Khan), but to me this is complaining just for the sake of complaining. The villain in Star Trek Into Darkness is simply fantastic! He’s extremely intelligent, extremely strong, extremely durable, extremely cunning and extremely deceitful, all the time looking (and dressing) extremely normal. This is the kind of villain I like – his looks is NOT used to make him appear more villainous. Perfect!
Here's a screenshot of another very good comment I found on the net – click to enlarge:
The only thing I don’t really like about the villain is a minor thing that can be EASILY “replaced” by my own imagination – I don’t like the fact that he had been frozen for hundreds of years. The same ridiculous plot idea actually happened in the original Star Trek series and to me it seems silly either way. My own version is much better – the villain was not unfrozen, but he has been recently created by illegal genetic modifications done by the people who wanted to use him. I can’t explain for what they wanted to use him without spoilers, but it fits the fact that they trained him the way they did.
It’s not really important if the villain was unfrozen or recently created because everything still holds up if you can understand what happened off-screen. I understand it this way: After some time (after being unfrozen/created) the villain realized that he was much better than future/normal humans and started to plan his “grand escape”, all the time pretending that he could still be manipulated. The people who unfroze/created the villain also understood his power, so they prevented other genetically modified superhumans from being unfrozen/trained. When the villain escaped, the people who unfroze/created him panicked and they wanted him dead at all costs. It explains basically every “plot hole” about the villain that those stupid negative reviews were claiming. I have no idea why some people claim the opposite, but to me the plot of Into Darkness is simply fantastic!
Some people also complain about a SINGLE case of instant teleportation/beaming to another planet. In this case it can be EASILY explained within the limits of suspension of disbelief. The main villain helped the people who unfroze/created him invent a long distance device-to-device teleportation/beaming that was already functional and was already being tried out – one device was on the Earth (later stolen/taken over forcefully by the villain) and the other was already on the other planet, secretly transported by a small smuggler spaceship (which fits perfectly to the plans of the people who unfroze/created the villain). When the villain escaped to the other planet he destroyed the device that was there, so nobody could teleport/beam there from the Earth after him. A fantastic plot idea that wasn’t actually phrased/shown in the movie, but it holds up with the rest of the movie! It holds up perfectly!
Some people also complain about the gravity on a spaceship that is falling down, but it can also be EASILY explained by using just a tad of imagination. The spaceship was badly damaged, so there was malfunction of the artificial gravity on the spaceship and the gravity kept changing direction – the artificial gravity didn’t disappear (it was working on minimal emergency power supply), but it was simply working incorrectly. And everything holds up again!
Some people also complain about the end fight between the villain and one of the main characters, but this fight is perfectly CORRECT, considering who could face a genetically modified superhuman. Actually there is a fantastic scene earlier in the movie showing how it looked like when another character tried to beat the villain with bare hands. Hilarious!
What a GREAT movie! I love it! I fucking LOVE it!
Some more screenshots of opinions similar to mine – click to enlarge:
UPDATE:
I re-watched the movie Star Trek Into Darkness already after several days (just 1 day after publishing this post) and I loved it again! I fucking LOVED it!
8.2. Star Trek Beyond (2016)
I will update this post after I watch the Star Trek Beyond, but from what I've read on the net I'm afraid that this movie is overrated, exactly like the first one. I'll see.
Santa Claus is based on a TRUE person of Saint Nicholas. In Poland (and in some other countries too) there is no such thing as “Santa” (Claus) – everybody uses the word Saint (Nicholas), exactly as it is used to describe holy people in general.
Because of the pandemic some players missed some games due to safety protocols without any fault of their own. It means that the results are skewed and there's nothing I can do about it. Well, some injuries happen also without any fault of the players and it also influences the results. We have to live with it.
Nikola Jokic won the race and he also became the official NBA 2021-22 MVP, which means that my way of calculating MVP value is simply fantastic. In the last 46 NBA seasons my calculations were perfect (1st place on my list was the official MVP) 30 times and almost perfect (2nd place on my list was the official MVP) 9 times. So my calculations were either perfect or almost perfect 39 times in the last 46 NBA seasons! This is 85% of accuracy!
Joel Embiid finished second and to me it seems that it was the best opportunity EVER to give him the MVP award.
There is only 1 player in the top-20 both on the MVP list and on the MFP list – Trae Young (7th and 17th).
LeBron James became the first player ever (in the time-span of my calculations, so starting from the season 1976-77) who had been in the top-3 on an MVP list BEFORE he was in the top-3 list on an MFP list. All the previous times it was the other way round.
Some people wanted Kyrie Irving to apologize for some thing. It's not really important what that thing was, because there will always be people who think that somebody else should do something they want him/her to do. Some people simply can't stand that some other people don't bend the knee before them.
Kyrie Irving didn't apologize, so he didn't do the thing that he didn't want to do. Like a truly free man, not a slave. Respect!
On this occasion I HAVE to repost this awesome picture:
Pro Carom Billiards is by far my favourite Android game! At first I had trouble to score a single point, but now I feel like I know what I'm actually doing (at least most of the time).
Here's my own gameplay (I played both as player 1 and as player 2):
The physics seem to be much more advanced than in any billiards that I have ever played and there were some really surprising things I learned the hard way. Here are my tips:
1. The 90 degree angle of the helping lines is true only with low power shots.
2. Powerful shots “straighten the angle” of the cue ball, especially when the target ball is only brushed.
3. Powerful shots “worsen the angle” of cushion cannoning.
4. You can hit 3 cushions BEFORE hitting ANY ball (see 01:53).
5. You can actually hit “only 2 cushions”, but one of them has to be hit twice (see 01:53 or 02:40).
6. The easiest to use spin is a side spin, but it still requires lots of practise.
7. My way of “handling” the first shot works 100% of the time.
When I watched Demolition Man almost 30 years ago I considered it as an action movie and I wasn't really impressed – it was fun, but I didn't like SOME action sequences. I was a teenager then and, what's much more important, the world was pretty normal then, so I didn't get half of the jokes.
Now, after almost 30 years, I watched it as a comedy and I have LOTS of laughs! The movie, like a kind of prophet, makes fun out of some stupid things that are nowadays constantly present in the leftist crazy propaganda. For example these are the cops of the future (in 2032) that are trying to contain a criminal from the 1996 who escaped from a cryo-prison after being frozen for 36 years:
By the way, Wesley Snipes plays his role perfectly throughout the movie! Sylvester Stallone and Sandra Bullock are awesome too!
Sylvester Stallone plays a cop from the 1996 who was also frozen for 36 years. He is devastated that in the 2032 eating meat is forbidden and this is what happens when he, together with two future cops, enters the underground populated by future outcasts:
The policewoman played by Sandra Bullock is actually the most “oldschool” future police member in the movie, but she is hilarious too:
These are perfect examples that in a utopian world the “ruling class” will always break its own rules to stay in control:
And this joke is present throughout the movie (I watched the movie translated to my native language and after some time the voice lector stopped translating the automatic voice – it was heard so often in the background that a full translation was simply not possible):
“Somebody put me back in the fridge”:
What a GREAT movie!
Before the 2021-22 season is over I have to make mathematical projections of the MVP and the MFP values. The assumption behind the projections is that every player and every team will play exactly the same way they have been playing so far (the numbers of projected team wins are rounded to whole numbers).
Because of the pandemic some players have already missed some games due to safety protocols without any fault of their own. It means that the results are/will be skewed and there's nothing I can do about it. Well, some injuries happen also without any fault of the players and it also influences the results. We have to live with it.
With the assumptions described above, the current NBA 2022 MVP race list is this:
1. Nikola Jokic: 1957.9 (projected team wins: 48)
2. Devin Booker: 1871.4 (projected team wins: 66)
3. Giannis Antetokounmpo: 1828.8 (projected team wins: 51)
4. Joel Embiid: 1809.8 (projected team wins: 52)
5. Jayson Tatum: 1706.4 (projected team wins: 51)
6. Stephen Curry: 1601.7 (projected team wins: 53)
7. Karl-Anthony Towns: 1545.8 (projected team wins: 47)
8. DeMar DeRozan: 1524.3 (projected team wins: 48)
9. Chris Paul: 1513.7 (projected team wins: 66)
10. Luka Doncic: 1472.8 (projected team wins: 50)
11. Ja Morant: 1464.0 (projected team wins: 57)
12. Mikal Bridges: 1428.8 (projected team wins: 66)
13. Trae Young: 1404.6 (projected team wins: 41)
14. Desmond Bane: 1343.2 (projected team wins: 57)
15. Donovan Mitchell: 1334.2 (projected team wins: 50)
16. Deandre Ayton: 1296.3 (projected team wins: 66)
17. Jaren Jackson Jr.: 1263.4 (projected team wins: 57)
18. Nikola Vucevic: 1243.4 (projected team wins: 48)
19. Rudy Gobert: 1243.0 (projected team wins: 50)
20. Zach LaVine: 1238.2 (projected team wins: 48)
Nikola Jokic is the leader of the race, but I think his team's seed is too low for him to win the MVP award. I think Devin Booker will not win the MVP award over Chris Paul. Giannis Antetokounmpo already has two MVP awards, so it seems that this year belongs to Joel Embiid.
With the same assumptions (described above) the current NBA 2022 MFP list is this:
1. Christian Wood: 954.0 (projected team wins: 22)
2. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander: 877.6 (projected team wins: 23)
3. Saddiq Bey: 846.6 (projected team wins: 22)
4. Dejounte Murray: 810.3 (projected team wins: 33)
5. Franz Wagner: 790.3 (projected team wins: 22)
6. Wendell Carter Jr.: 784.1 (projected team wins: 22)
7. LeBron James: 769.8 (projected team wins: 35)
8. Cole Anthony: 722.0 (projected team wins: 22)
9. Jonas Valanciunas: 690.9 (projected team wins: 34)
10. Cade Cunningham: 665.7 (projected team wins: 22)
11. Harrison Barnes: 663.5 (projected team wins: 30)
12. Trae Young: 650.9 (projected team wins: 41)
13. Jae'Sean Tate: 648.8 (projected team wins: 22)
14. De'Aaron Fox: 648.0 (projected team wins: 30)
15. Julius Randle: 646.4 (projected team wins: 35)
16. Mo Bamba: 631.5 (projected team wins: 22)
17. Russell Westbrook: 604.0 (projected team wins: 35)
18. Jerami Grant: 571.8 (projected team wins: 22)
19. Darius Bazley: 566.8 (projected team wins: 23)
20. Kyle Kuzma: 561.0 (projected team wins: 35)
Currently there is only 1 player in the top-20 both on the MVP list and on the MFP list – Trae Young (13th and 12th).
Before the 2021-22 season is over I have to make mathematical projections of the MVP and the MFP values. The assumption behind the projections is that every player and every team will play exactly the same way they have been playing so far (the numbers of projected team wins are rounded to whole numbers).
Because of the pandemic some players have already missed some games due to safety protocols without any fault of their own. It means that the results are/will be skewed and there's nothing I can do about it. Well, some injuries happen also without any fault of the players and it also influences the results. We have to live with it.
With the assumptions described above, the current NBA 2022 MVP race list is this:
1. Chris Paul: 1948.8 (projected team wins: 68)
2. Nikola Jokic: 1875.2 (projected team wins: 47)
3. Stephen Curry: 1869.3 (projected team wins: 58)
4. Devin Booker: 1864.7 (projected team wins: 68)
5. DeMar DeRozan: 1734.7 (projected team wins: 53)
6. Giannis Antetokounmpo: 1720.3 (projected team wins: 49)
7. Joel Embiid: 1639.3 (projected team wins: 49)
8. Ja Morant: 1462.3 (projected team wins: 56)
9. Jayson Tatum: 1432.5 (projected team wins: 46)
10. Nikola Vucevic: 1405.5 (projected team wins: 53)
11. Luka Doncic: 1392.5 (projected team wins: 49)
12. Mikal Bridges: 1387.9 (projected team wins: 68)
13. Karl-Anthony Towns: 1352.9 (projected team wins: 43)
14. Trae Young: 1329.4 (projected team wins: 40)
15. Zach LaVine: 1311.8 (projected team wins: 53)
16. Donovan Mitchell: 1300.1 (projected team wins: 51)
17. Fred VanVleet: 1273.7 (projected team wins: 46)
18. Desmond Bane: 1261.3 (projected team wins: 56)
19. Jaren Jackson Jr.: 1252.0 (projected team wins: 56)
20. Rudy Gobert: 1231.9 (projected team wins: 51)
Recently I felt as if something (somebody?) were pushing me to make my MVP calculations and I wondered why. When I look at the list above I know why – this year Chris Paul had a legit shot at the MVP award. It seems that Phoenix Suns could win 68 games! Unfortunately he suffered an injury and his MVP value will go down very quickly.
It's worth to notice that DeMar DeRozan, after his historic span of games (that will hopefully last even longer), climbed to the 5th place ahead of Giannis Antetokounmpo and Joel Embiid. And Ja Morant is 8th – so far he has never been so high on the list.
With the same assumptions (described above) the current NBA 2022 MFP list is this:
1. Christian Wood: 970.4 (projected team wins: 21)
2. Saddiq Bey: 911.9 (projected team wins: 18)
3. Franz Wagner: 875.3 (projected team wins: 18)
4. Wendell Carter Jr.: 865.5 (projected team wins: 18)
5. Dejounte Murray: 824.5 (projected team wins: 32)
6. Cole Anthony: 779.4 (projected team wins: 18)
7. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander: 738.2 (projected team wins: 25)
8. Jonas Valanciunas: 726.2 (projected team wins: 32)
9. Jae'Sean Tate: 707.1 (projected team wins: 21)
10. Julius Randle: 669.4 (projected team wins: 35)
11. Trae Young: 664.7 (projected team wins: 40)
12. Harrison Barnes: 663.8 (projected team wins: 30)
13. Mo Bamba: 654.7 (projected team wins: 18)
14. Cade Cunningham: 652.7 (projected team wins: 18)
15. Josh Giddey: 647.9 (projected team wins: 25)
16. LeBron James: 639.5 (projected team wins: 38)
17. Luguentz Dort: 622.0 (projected team wins: 25)
18. De'Aaron Fox: 607.8 (projected team wins: 30)
19. Brandon Ingram: 591.8 (projected team wins: 32)
20. Jusuf Nurkic: 585.3 (projected team wins: 35)
Currently there is only 1 player in the top-20 both on the MVP list and on the MFP list – Trae Young (14th and 11th).
Before the 2021-22 season is over I have to make mathematical projections of the MVP and the MFP values. The assumption behind the projections is that every player and every team will play exactly the same way they have been playing so far (the numbers of projected team wins are rounded to whole numbers).
Because of the pandemic some players have already missed some games due to safety protocols without any fault of their own. It means that the results are/will be skewed and there's nothing I can do about it. Well, some injuries happen also without any fault of the players and it also influences the results. We have to live with it.
With the assumptions described above, the current NBA 2022 MVP race list is this:
1. Stephen Curry: 1957.8 (projected team wins: 61)
2. Chris Paul: 1877.3 (projected team wins: 67)
3. Nikola Jokic: 1850.7 (projected team wins: 46)
4. Devin Booker: 1759.5 (projected team wins: 67)
5. Giannis Antetokounmpo: 1663.7 (projected team wins: 50)
6. Joel Embiid: 1597.5 (projected team wins: 50)
7. DeMar DeRozan: 1528.7 (projected team wins: 51)
8. James Harden: 1506.6 (projected team wins: 49)
9. Kevin Durant: 1447.4 (projected team wins: 49)
10. Ja Morant: 1395.0 (projected team wins: 55)
11. Zach LaVine: 1360.7 (projected team wins: 51)
12. Rudy Gobert: 1333.5 (projected team wins: 49)
13. Andrew Wiggins: 1298.3 (projected team wins: 61)
14. Jayson Tatum: 1293.1 (projected team wins: 42)
15. Miles Bridges: 1291.6 (projected team wins: 46)
16. Trae Young: 1281.1 (projected team wins: 39)
17. Mikal Bridges: 1248.5 (projected team wins: 67)
18. Donovan Mitchell: 1216.3 (projected team wins: 49)
19. Nikola Vucevic: 1214.9 (projected team wins: 51)
20. Desmond Bane: 1207.6 (projected team wins: 55)
Stephen Curry is still the leader of the race. Chris Paul and Devin Booker complement each other perfectly. Nikola Jokic is again awesome, considering especially the number of big injuries on his team. Giannis Antetokounmpo and Joel Embiid are also great, but their MVP values are a little too low for them to be true contenders.
It's worth to mention that there are 3 surprising names on the list: Miles Bridges, Mikal Bridges and Desmond Bane. Respect!
With the same assumptions (described above) the current NBA 2022 MFP list is this:
1. Christian Wood: 924.8 (projected team wins: 23)
2. Franz Wagner: 920.2 (projected team wins: 16)
3. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander: 917.5 (projected team wins: 24)
4. Domantas Sabonis: 912.3 (projected team wins: 29)
5. Dejounte Murray: 847.1 (projected team wins: 31)
6. Wendell Carter Jr.: 840.8 (projected team wins: 16)
7. Saddiq Bey: 828.1 (projected team wins: 19)
8. Cole Anthony: 779.1 (projected team wins: 16)
9. Jonas Valanciunas: 773.9 (projected team wins: 30)
10. Tyrese Haliburton: 712.2 (projected team wins: 29)
11. Cade Cunningham: 697.2 (projected team wins: 19)
12. Trae Young: 689.8 (projected team wins: 39)
13. Mo Bamba: 685.1 (projected team wins: 16)
14. Jae'Sean Tate: 673.8 (projected team wins: 23)
15. Harrison Barnes: 649.3 (projected team wins: 29)
16. Luguentz Dort: 639.8 (projected team wins: 24)
17. De'Aaron Fox: 635.7 (projected team wins: 29)
18. LeBron James: 624.2 (projected team wins: 39)
19. Brandon Ingram: 618.4 (projected team wins: 30)
20. Josh Giddey: 617.6 (projected team wins: 24)
Currently there is only 1 player in the top-20 both on the MVP list and on the MFP list – Trae Young (16th and 12th). Interestingly LeBron James is only on the MFP list while Russell Westbrook and Anthony Davis aren't on either list.
Since when a heart attack and very serious health condition leading to amputation of both legs are linked to Covid-19 instead of the vaccine? Do they think that people are idiots? Just search for “Claire Bridges” and read how they comment about her illness. Unbelievable!
Recently I have been on a spree of watching movies with John Candy. I have loved Spaceballs (co-starring with Bill Pullman and Rick Moranis) for a long time, but recently I have also watched Planes, Trains and Automobiles (co-starring with Steve Martin), The Blues Brothers (a small role), 1941 (a small role) and Canadian Bacon (co-starring with Alan Alda, Kevin Pollak and several other fun actors).
The movie Canadian Bacon is AWESOME! It's hilarious on so many different levels that it's hard to describe! I picked some Youtube videos, but they are taken out of context, so they are even more funny while watching the whole movie.
By the way: I didn't know that Dan Aykroyd (a small role) is a Canadian and I learned that John Candy was a Canadian only recently. It makes their roles even more hilarious! There are many other references to Canadian customs or people which are really funny.
And this double-performance is simply awesome!
The movies with John Candy I am going to watch in the near future are: Uncle Buck, The Great Outdoors, Armed and Dangerous and Who's Harry Crumb? (all starring or co-starring John Candy; in The Great Outdoors he is co-starring with Dan Aykroyd).
My previous New Year's resolution (for the year 2021) was to exercise twice a day. That would give me 730 sets of exercises in the whole year. I described is my own set of exercises here: My previous New Year's resolution
With 5 reps (repetitions) of each kind of exercises it would give me 3660 reps of each kind of exercises! In reality in the year 2021 I managed to do only 16 (SIXTEEN) sets of exercises, which is only 2.2 % of the plan. Abysmal result, but it still means that during the year I did 80 push-ups, 80 knee-bends, 80 “leg-ups”, 80 dumbbells lifts and 80 reps of every other kind of exercises I do during every set. Better this than nothing.
My New Year's resolution for the year 2022 is less ambitious – to exercise once a day. And I also allow myself to do two sets of exercises in one day in order to catch up my “days off”. On 29 January 2022 I have already done 10 sets of exercises, which is 65.5% of all the sets of exercises in the previous year! Yep, to me the year 2021 was even worse than the year 2020.
Evangeline Lilly is 100% right as far as anti-covid vaccines are concerned!
“I was in DC this weekend to support bodily sovereignty while Canadian truckers were rallying for their cross-country, peaceful convoy in support of the same thing.
I believe nobody should ever be forced to inject their body with anything, against their will, under threat of:
-violent attack
-arrest or detention without trial
-loss of employment
-homelessness
-starvation
-loss of education
-alienation from loved ones
-excommunication from society
…under any threat whatsoever.
This is not the way. This is not safe. This is not healthy. This is not love. I understand the world is in fear, but I don’t believe that answering fear with force will fix our problems.
I was pro choice before COVID and I am still pro choice today.”
Today I was playing an online chess game and my almost-7-year-old son asked me if he could watch it. Obviously I said “yes”, but I also started making short explanations of some of my moves. Even my wife got interested. When the game ended I realised that it was a game that I won without ANY deep thinking! A great example for all chess newcomers. I was playing white.
{This is a game that I won without ANY deep thinking! A great example for all chess newcomers.}
1.d4 {I ALWAYS start with 1.d4.} 1...d5 2.Nf3 {This is my second move in vast majority of cases.} 2...e6 3.Bf4 {Fearing ...Bd6.} 3...Nf6 4.h3 {Making a hiding place for my bishop.} 4...Be7 5.c3 {My typical pawn setup.} 5...c5 6.e3 {Fearing ...cxd4.} 6...cxd4 7.exd4 {I prefer the e-file to be semi-open instead of the c-file to be completely open.} 7...O-O 8.Bd3 {My typical setup.} 8...a6 9.O-O {I would have to castle sooner or later.} 9...b5 10.a3 {Preventing ...b4.} 10...Nbd7 11.Nbd2 {My typical setup.} 11...Bb7 12.Re1 {Placing my rook on the semi-open file. A useful move in the long run.} 12...Nb6 13.Qc2 {Aiming at the h7 pawn.} 13...Nc4 14.Bg5 {Threatening to remove the defender of the h7 pawn.} 14...h6 15.Bf4 {Retreating and waiting for the opponent to make a move.} 15...Rc8 16.Rac1 {I want to move my queen to b1, but first I activate my second rook.} 16...Qb6 17.Qb1 {Moving my queen away from a potential threat from the c8 rook.} 17...Rfd8 18.Ne5 {Making things happen one way or another.} 18...Rf8 19.Ng4 {I want to exchange knights and bring my second knight to the same area.} 19...Nxg4 20.hxg4 {Recapturing.} 20...Nxd2 21.Bxd2 {Recapturing.} 21...Qd6 22.Re2 {Making a place for my dark-square bishop.} 22...Bf6 23.f3 {Making another place for my dark-square bishop.} 23...Qg3 24.Be1 {Attacking the queen.} 24...Qd6 25.Rcc2 {Making way for my queen.} 25...Bg5 26.Qd1 {Bringing my queen closer the action.} 26...Bf4 27.Bf2 {Making another way for my queen.} 27...Bh2+ 28.Kh1 {Moving out of check.} 28...Bf4 29.Qg1 {Placing my queen on the same diagonal as my bishop.} 29...Rce8 30.Be3 {I want to exchange bishops or achieve a draw by threefold repetition.} 30...Bg3 31.Bf2 {Offering a draw.} 31...Bf4 32.Be3 {Offering a draw.} 32...Rc8 33.Bxf4 {I was short on time, so my opponent kept playing for the win by allowing me to exchange bishops.} 33...Qxf4 34.Qh2 {I want to exchange queens.} 34...Qf6 35.Qe5 {I want to exchange queens.} 35...Qd8 36.Rcd2 {Making way for my bishop.} 36...Rc6 37.Qe3 {My plan is to place my bishop on b1 and my queen on d3 threatening mate at h7, but I make this move first, so my opponent would realise my plan later.} 37...Bc8 38.Bb1 {As planned.} 38...Qf6 39.Qd3 {As planned.} 39...g6 40.Qe3 {Attacking the h6 pawn.} 40...Qg7 41.Qe5 {I want to exchange queens.} 41...Qxe5 42.dxe5 {Recapturing with my pawn to keep the enemy bishop blocked by his (or her) own pawns.} 42...Bb7 43.Kg1 {Bringing my king closer to action and preventing a possible long-rang threat of ...Rc1+ after which I would lose my bishop.} 43...Rfc8 44.Kf2 {Bringing my king closer to action and preventing a possible long-rang threat of ...Rc1+ after which I would lose my bishop.} 44...Kg7 45.Rd4 {Blocking the d5 pawn.} 45...Rc4 46.Red2 {Fearing ...Rxd4.} 46...Rxd4 47.Rxd4 {Recapturing with my rook and keeping the c file semi-open (instead of opening it completely).} 47...Rc4 48.Ke3 {Bringing my king closer to action.} 48...Bc6 49.Rxc4 {Making my king my main weapon.} 49...dxc4 50.Kd4 {Going for the a6 pawn.} 50...a5 51.Kc5 {Attacking the bishop.} 51...Be8 52.Be4 {Aiming at c6.} 52...h5 53.Bc6 {Good enough, but g5 would be better.} 53...Bxc6 54.Kxc6 {Recapturing.} 54...hxg4 55.fxg4 {Recapturing.} 55...Kh6 56.Kxb5 {Winning a pawn. It's a race now.} 56...Kg5 57.Kxc4 {Winning another pawn.} 57...Kxg4 58.Kd4 {Making way for the c3 pawn AND protecting the e5 pawn.} 58...Kg3 59.c4 {Four moves left to reach a queening square.} 59...Kxg2 60.c5 {Three moves left.} 60...Kf2 61.c6 {Two moves left.} 61...g5 62.c7 {One move left.} 62...g4 63.c8=Q {Reaching a queening square.} 63...g3 64.Qc2+ {I want to check the king for as long as it takes to prepare for another move.} 64...Kg1 65.Qd1+ {Getting closer to the king.} 65...Kh2 66.Qh5+ {Pushing the king in front of the pawn.} 66...Kg1 67.Ke3 {Getting my king closer to the enemy king. It also freezes the enemy king - ...Kg2 would make no sense and ...Kf1 would be met with Qe2+ (pushing the king back to g1).} 67...g2 68.Ke2 {I missed that Qd1+ followed by Kf2 was winning right away.} 68...a4 69.Qxf7 {I want to queen my e5 pawn, but from now on I have to avoid a stalemate AND prevent the g2 pawn from queening.} 69...Kh2 70.Qh5+ {Pushing the enemy king back in front of the g2 pawn.} 70...Kg1 71.Qg6 {Avoiding stalemate while placing my queen on the 6th rank.} 71...Kh2 72.Qh6+ {Checking the king AND aiming at the e6 pawn.} 72...Kg3 73.Qxe6 {Capturing the pawn that was blocking my e5 pawn.} 73...g1=Q 74.Qg6+ {Another point of my previous move - the enemy queen has no chance to act at all.} 74...Kh2 75.Qxg1+ {Exchanging queens.} 75...Kxg1 76.e6 {Going to the queening square. Black resigned.} 1-0
Please notice that it was a blitz game (3m+5s), so there was no time for really deep thinking by definition, but my own thinking was extremely “short-sighted”.
PS.
Recently I changed my chess clock setting (previously it was 3m +10s) and while the games are clearly shorter, my results are actually better. Interesting.
