Monday, September 16, 2019

'Our Planet' and NASA win two Emmy Awards each — nature and science at the Emmy Awards

I told my readers to "stay tuned for more of the winners from yesterday and tonight" at the Creative Arts Emmy Awards at the end of yesterday's 'RBG' ties 'The Sentence' for Exceptional Merit In Documentary Filmmaking at the Creative Arts Emmy Awards.  Today, it's time to revisit my predictions from 'Hostile Planet' vs. 'Our Planet' — Nature and science nominees at the Creative Arts Emmy Awards for National Wildlife Day.  The big winner out of the shows I reviewed there was "Our Planet," which won two awards.
Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Series

30 for 30 (ESPN)
American Masters (PBS)
Chef's Table (Netflix)
Hostile Planet (Nat Geo)
Our Planet (Netflix)
The two nature series, Nat Geo's "Hostile Planet" and Netflix's "Our Planet," are competing head to head in this category.  "Our Planet" has far more nominations, 10, to only 3 for "Hostile Planet," which is contending with the Netflix series in every category it's nominated.  The other three nominees only have the one nomination in this category.  Based on the number of nominations, I think "Our Planet" is the clear favorite, although "American Masters" has been nominated nearly every year since this category began 21 years ago and is the only returning nominee from last year.
I was right to deem "Our Planet" the favorite, as it won.  Congratulations!

Outstanding Narrator

Sir David Attenborough on Our Planet (Netflix)
Angela Bassett on The Flood (Nat Geo Wild)
Charles Dance on Savage Kingdom (Nat Geo Wild)
Anthony Mendez on Wonders of Mexico (PBS)
Liev Schreiber on The Many Lives of Nick Buoniconti (HBO)
Juliet Stevenson on Queens of Mystery (Acorn TV)
Sir David Attenborough won this last year for "Blue Planet II," so he's the nominal favorite.  Among the other nominees, both Angela Bassett and Liev Schreiber are well-known actors, so I think they would have a chance with the Emmy electorate.  Between the two, I'd give the edge to Bassett.
Sir David won again.  He deserves it, so congratulations!

Follow over the jump for the other science and nature winners at this weekend's Creative Arts Emmy Awards.

Outstanding Interactive Program

Conan (TBS)
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
NASA And SpaceX: The Interactive Demo-1 Launch (YouTube)
The Daily Show with Trevor Noah (Comedy Central)
The Late Late Show with James Corden (CBS)
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert (CBS)
Here's the first of two categories with a nominee that's about space and science, not nature.  I really think NASA and SpaceX should just be happy to be nominated, as "Last Week Tonight With John Oliver" won this award last year and is my pick to repeat.
This award gives me another opportunity to be happy to be wrong, as "NASA And SpaceX: The Interactive Demo-1 Launch" won.  Surprise!  This category wasn't the only one NASA won, as the space agency earned an Emmy in the next one as well.

Next, a category with nominees about both space and nature.
Outstanding Original Interactive Program

First Man VR (Windows Mixed Reality)
HQ Trivia x Warner Bros.: A Live and Interactive Animation First (HQ Trivia)
NASA InSight's Mars Landing (NASA TV)
Traveling While Black (Oculus)
You vs. Wild (Netflix)
I'm more optimistic about NASA winning this category, as "NASA JPL: Cassini's Grand Finale" won this award last year.  Joining NASA InSight's Mars Landing is "First Man VR," an interactive movie experience of the Oscar-winning movie and "You vs. Wild," which, like "Hostile Planet," also features Bear Grylls.  While I'm rooting for NASA, I wouldn't be surprised if "You vs. Wild" wins.
"NASA InSight's Mars Landing" won this award.  Congratulations to NASA for winning two Emmy Awards!

Now for a category a reality show about nature won.
Outstanding Cinematography for a Reality Program

Deadliest Catch (Discovery Channel)
Life Below Zero (Nat Geo)
Queer Eye (Episode: "God Bless Gay") (Netflix)
RuPaul's Drag Race (Episode: "Trump: The Rusical") (VH1)
Survivor (CBS)
"Life Below Zero" won this award last year and three years ago, so I consider it to be the nominal favorite.  However, "Born This Way" won the year before that and "Deadliest Catch" won five consecutive years before either, so the competition will be stiff.
"Life Below Zero" won the Emmy again.  Congratulations!

Stay tuned as I plan on examining the awards won by "Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown" and "United Shades of America" tomorrow.

Previous entries in this series.


  1. Off topic, but congrats for getting in the ¡First! comment on Kunstler for the second Monday in a row. You must get up early.

    It's good to see JHK devoting one column a week to his forte, oil and the future. Aside from his pro-Israel bias, which I can filter out, he made a good point about the need for cross-trading of raw oil products, because shale oil is too light for most U.S. refineries to crack. I didn't know that. So more necessity of transnational interdependence (which is not necessarily a bad thing) in a world which is increasingly fracturing and decomplexifying. (Which also is not bad per se, but it's going to lead to a lot of BAU disruption while it unfolds.)

    As for Attenborough, I catch snippets of his various shows from time to time on TV in one of the psych wards where I work. (I do not own a telly myself, which I've probably virtue-signalled to you before.) Sir Dave-o is one of the few people who receive universal respect from the mental patients. To the extent that they pay attention (people with psych problems severe enough to be hospitalised are often "distractable" due to their chaotic mental state, meaning their attention is diverted by auditory hallucinations, or they can't sit still for long due to the restlessness of mania) Attenborough is like the voice of God. His baritone has a calming effect, and the wondrous footage from his shows is a pleasant diversion from the usual clang-bang and violence of standard TV fare.

    When it comes to selecting figureheads to pose as the leaders of countries, why can't the world have people of Att's ilk* instead of mooks such as Reagan, Trump, BoJo, Duterte, Bolsonaro, on and on and on...?

    * The reason we can't is because too many humans are the two-legged equivalent to hyenas, and they LIKE having sociopaths in charge. The socios are reflections of their supporters.

    1. Yes, it was good to read a column by JHK on oil. I wish he'd do more of them, which is why I started reading him back in 2007.

      "[W]hy can't the world have people of Att's ilk...?" Only in Hollywood, where Morgan Freeman has played President twice, God Himself twice, and then hosted a documentary series about God.

  2. As an aside, because I use your blog as a way to discuss what comes up in CFN, this "Moon of Alabama" post about the Abqaiq attack illustrates why I like MOA as a deep-dive info site. The photo showing the holes in the top of the egg-shaped tanks was fantastic for visualising what happened. Not saying that I approve, but an adversary that can use flying things to blast precise places in the same area of four separate targets shows that it's not camel-riders tossing quad copters that carried hand grenades. "b" (the guy who runs "Moon") also cites technical details of the pipelines at that section. Not because he's any oil industry genius, but because he reads a lot of cources and can parrot relevant bits that mainstream sources don't bother with.

    The photo I saw in the Washington Post showed a different part of the facility taken BEFORE the damage (the zone MOA showed in its first image, only it had a wider, fire-damaged shot.) The local left-wing newspaper chain Down Undahere used a cropped, fire-damaged image, not as extensive as what MOA had, and nothing about the tanks. Its wording was lifted from the WaPo -- Ozzie papers don't have the personnel to do their own reporting everywhere. The Guardian is only a little better. I haven't checked out the New York Times because of their paywall, but they're mostly an Establishment mouthpiece anyway.

    Another good thing about blogs such as MOA is that they can opine on what the ramifications of stuff might be, more than conventional media which want to refrain from speculation. MOA points out how Twitler's hands are tied when it comes to retaliation against Iran, because there are so many U.S. bases, Saudi desalination plants and other defenceless targets that could also be drone-whacked. Cuts right to the chase, instead of soft-pedalling like MSM.

    The world is in a +dangerous place right now, and I believe the mass media are playing DOWN the risk so as not to panic the herd. Fear makes people stop spending, and economic implosion follows. When I was a newspaper reporter, people would often ask "Why is there only bad news in the paper?" My standard reply was "Because bad news is the exception to the rule. We report on the unusual. If it ever gets to the point where GOOD stuff is the novelty, and that's what makes it to print, the world will be in deep trouble." I think that's where we are, hence the (somewhat) under-scaring of the Saudi refinery attacks.

    1. Thanks for reminding me about Moon of Alabama. You've mentioned it before, but I can always use a refresher.

      And, yes, when the good news is the novelty, then bad news is the norm. Model D Media figured that our years ago and decided to make it their angle on covering Detroit. Let's give the people good news about the city!