Does One "Fire" Arrows?

Recently I watched the Lord of the Rings movies all in one weekend (extended editions of course; it pretty much took all weekend). And something occurred to me for the first time after having watched the movies several times.

In the battle at Helms Deep, Aragon tells the elves to "prepare to fire" their arrows. And the orcs laying siege to Minas Tirith, when the the 6,000 Rohirrim ride toward the orcs, the head orc tells the archers to "fire at will."

And I thought "fire" is a weird term for shooting arrows. Mostly "fire" is reserved for things involving gun powder (or its modern equivalents). 

Then I wondered what would be the proper term. So I googled it. And the command to get ready to shoot arrows should be "nock" or "draw" as in nock an arrow or draw the string back. And the command to shoot arrows would be "loose arrows" or "release arrows."

It's been a long time since I read The Lord of the Rings books so I don't know if this is a mistake Tolkien made or the filmmakers made. My opinion is it's probably not Tolkien. Besides, in the books, there weren't elves at Helms Deep.

I do think that the worst parts of the LOTR movies is when they strayed from Tolkien. That's why I suspect this was an error by the screenwriters: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Peter Jackson. 

The one scene I can't stand is in The Two Towers when Legolas and Gimli are counting how many orcs they kill and Legolas, being one short, shoots the orc Gimli is sitting on, saying he was twitching. And Gimli says "That's because my axe was in his nervous system!" I really don't think in the society of Middle Earth, they knew anatomy that well. (That scene may only be in the extended editions.) The whole counting of how many orcs killed isn't in the books, I'm pretty sure. Here is that scene.

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

Eyeglasses

My eyes have always been a source of frustration for me. In 2006 I got LASIK and it was wonderful for a couple of years until I developed kerataconus (read all about it here). And since then, I've had to wear eyeglasses again.

Currently I have three pair of eyeglasses. My regular glasses that are progressive bifocals, my prescription sunglasses for driving and being outdoors (like, I go outdoors a lot), and my "computer glasses" that block blue light.

Prescription sunglasses are a luxury, I'll admit. But I need my regular glasses, obviously. And the computer glasses also became a necessity. 

I was having migraines. Not often, maybe once or twice a month. So I saw a neurologist (had to drive 70 miles to see him). He prescribed some medicine to take when I feel a migraine coming on. But we both noted that migraines tended to be worse on days when I spend time on the computer. So he suggested getting blue-blocker glasses. I went to my eye doctor for a routine checkup and he and wrote a prescription for blue-blocker glasses, based on my computer monitor being two feet from my eyes. Since I didn't plan to wear the blue blockers outside my house, I found the cheapest frames I could. 

Since I got the blue blockers, I haven't had migraines except recently after my wisdom teeth were pulled a week and a half ago. Some days I forget to put the blue-blockers on and I get headaches, but not migraines. Perhaps it takes a few days of no blue blockers to give me migraines. I try to set them on my keyboard so I won't forget to put them on. 

Unfortunately, my insurance only pays for the regular glasses, and then not much and not often. So getting three pair of eyeglasses was expensive. But so worth it.

Do you need eyeglasses? If so, do you have more than one pair? Let me know in the comments below. 

Paddington Bear

I have now watched all three of the Paddington Bear live-action movies and I enjoyed each one and without hesitation recommend them. 

The Paddington Bear movies are based on a children's book series written by Micheal Bond that has 29 books published from 1958 to 2018. So sixty years. The last book has published posthumously.

So, you might be saying, if the movies are based on a children's book series, wouldn't the films be for children. Yes, the movies are aimed at children But Paddington is such a refreshing, guileless, polite character, it is fun for adults too. 

In the first movie, Paddington moves from Peru (there's bears in Peru? Google AI says "Peru is home to the Andean bear, also known as the spectacled bear.") to London to find the explorer that found him in Peru. Instead, he is found by the Brown family in Paddington Station and they adopt him. They name him "Paddington" because his bear name is too hard for humans to pronounce. While in Peru, Paddington developed a love of orange marmalade. And pretty much everywhere he goes, he sings the praises of orange marmalade. It's gently funny. No one is made fun of or put down. 

The second movie is the best of the three. If you only want to watch one Paddington movie, make it Paddington 2. But you'll want to watch Paddington so you understand the background. Paddington 2 even got a call out in The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent movie starring Nicolas Cage. 

The third movie, Paddington in Peru, is enjoyable. But with a director change and a recasting of Mrs. Brown, seemed to have lost some of its charm. It's still a good movie and worth watching. And you'll laugh. Some of it is implausible, but that's okay.

Watch the Paddington movies. You won't regret it. And apparently, there will be a fourth one.

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

Top Secret

The passing of Val Kilmer on April 1st made me sad as he was an amazing actor. Compare and contrast his performances in Top Gun and The Doors (he basically was Jim Morrison). 

His death also reminded me of his first movie, the under-appreciated, 1984 comedy, Top Secret. 

Top Secret was the movie made by Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, and Jerry Zucker after they created the hilarious Airplane movie. (The trio had nothing to do with Airplane II.) In it, American rock star Nick Rivers, played by Kilmer, goes to communist East Germany to do a concert. Interestingly, East Germany is a lot like Nazi Germany (I understand that it was like that in real life, too). Rivers becomes involved in an espionage plot and, with the help of the French Underground (yes, it's silly), escapes and helps defeat the Nazis' evil plans. Or the Commies' evil plans. Whatever. 

The movie is made in the joke-a-minute style of Airplane but stands out on its own. For some reason the marketing behind the movie wasn't very good (a cow in boots was the central image of its promotion) and it kind of bombed at the box office. It spoofs spy movies and war movies and The Blue Lagoon. Yes, really.

According to Google, you can watch Top Secret at Pluto TV for free (probably with ads) or YouTube, Apple TV, Amazon Prime, Google Play Movie, and Fandango at Home all for less than $4. You should watch it.

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

Car Opinions

I like cars. I read about them and, on this blog, I write about them.

I have some opinions about cars. Some of this is based on feelings, some based on facts. I'll leave it up to you to decide.

1) Top Tier gasoline is better. AAA did a study on this and it shows that Top Tier gas is better for your car engine. Top Tier gas tends to cost more. 

2) Unless your car requires it, there is no need to use premium gasoline. Regular Top Tier gas is good enough for most cars. Premium is more expensive; sometimes a lot more. You can do more for your car by using Top Tier regular then off-brand premium.

3) The best Top Tier gas is Shell. I base this on that Car and Driver used to exclusively use it for their testing. Plus there's a sticker on the gas cap of my car saying it recommends Shell V-Power which is its premium gas. The next best Top Tier gas is Chevron. I have no basis for this other than their claims.

4) Car and Driver is the best car magazine ever. Although the quality of the writing has diminished a bit in recent years, it's still worth reading. The magazine was amazing when Csaba Csere was the Editor-in-Chief.

5) Michelin Tires are the best. Goodyear are the worst. Two of my cars came with Goodyear OEM (original equipment) tires. They lost air quickly and wore out very fast. I got 11,000 miles on a sedan and 5,000 miles on my Corvette. When I replaced them with Michelin tires, I got more miles and they didn't lose air as fast. The Corvette had more grip in the corners, too. There's lots of tire brands I haven't tried, yet. I used to put Continentals on a sedan I owned and they worked fine. I have no opinion on Firestone, Hankook, and lots of other tire brands.

6) German cars are better engineered than American cars. And Audis are better than BMWs. I have no experience with Porsche or Mercedes. Although my wife's VW GTI had some weird engineering.

7) The best place to buy tires and wheels is Tire Rack. They are often cheaper than your local tire shop and they have a vast selection. If you buy wheels and tires combination, they will mount and balance them for free. The only issue I've ever had with Tire Rack is when I wanted to look up the details of wheels I bought from them ten years after, they no longer had the order information.

8) Blizzaks are the best winter/snow tires in my experience. According to Car and Driver, the Nokian Hakkapelitta is the best winter/snow tire but good luck finding them in your size. And, yes, if you live where it snows, put on winter tires.

9) Studded tires are evil. They damage roads and give no better traction in most situations and worse traction in dry or wet conditions. 

10) Electric cars aren't quite ready for prime time. They need to develop batteries that aren't affected by cold or hot. And hold more energy. And recharge faster. 

11) And of course: more horsepower is better.

Do you have any car opinions or disagree with mine? Let me know in the comments below.

Book of Mormon

This last weekend I went to Spokane to see Book of Mormon in the theater there. I've wanted to see this musical since I first heard about it ages ago. It premiered on Broadway in 2011 so that's probably been a while. 

This is the fourth Broadway musical I've seen. I saw Miss Saigon in Portland (and hated it; someone needed to warn me it was an opera). I saw The Producers (which was hilarious) on Broadway. And I saw Young Frankenstein in its "out-off-town tryout" run in Seattle. It was pretty good but the first act needed to be shorter.

I grew up in Southeast Idaho, an area with a great deal of Mormons. I remember hearing that the small town I lived in was 80 - 90 percent Mormon (I understand Mormons don't like that word "Mormon" any more and prefer to be called "LDS" which stands for "Latter-Day Saints" as the official name for the church is "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints"). Over many attempts to recruit me into their religion, I learned a lot about their... interesting theology. 

The Book of Mormon follows two Mormon missionaries from their training in Utah to a small village in Uganda. There the locals suffer with AIDS and there's a warlord going around killing people and mutilating female genitals. Yes, this is a musical comedy.

There are some quick vignettes explaining Mormon theology as necessary background to the story. 

And, yes, the musical is funny. The two main characters are an over-confident missionary and his "companion" for the two-year mission, a guy who over-compensates for his lack of confidence. The main female character is an Ugandan villager named Nabulungi. The over-compensating missionary keeps calling her by the wrong name such as "Neutrogena" and "Ozempic." While trying to convert the villagers, the over-compensating missionary starts to embellish the Book of Mormon to make it more interesting. This leads to a funny scene where the villagers put on a play about Joesph Smith for a Mormon leader and, of course, it is all wrong.

I couldn't complain about the musical much. The villagers did tend to drop F-bombs a lot. Even the songs were fun, though. I enjoyed it a lot and am glad I saw it.

If you're interested or care, you can learn more here (from the Mormon perspective). The Mormons claim that Jesus Christ came to North America after he was resurrected. They also say that a lost tribe of Israel somehow made it to North America. This is all told about in their "third testament" of The Book of Mormon.

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

(I don't have a "Broadway Musical" label so I used "Movies and Television.")

Politics and Philosophy in Fiction

Federation President

I was watching Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country a while back and I remembered something that has always bothered me. And, no, it's not the lavender Klingon blood. I'm sure they did that to avoid an "R" rating.

I generally like Star Trek VI as it's one of the better Star Trek movies. And, it's way better than Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. But then again, so is a root canal.

In Star Trek VI, the President of the Federation (played by Kirkwood Smith) is giving a speech. And in that speech he says, "Let us redefine progress to mean that just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily mean that we must do that thing." Which has nothing to do with the plot, story, or theme of the movie. It was, apparently just inserted by the filmmakers to make a political or philosophical point. According to the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), the movie had five writers: Leonard Nimoy, Lawrence Konner, and Mark Rosenthal for "story" and Nicholas Meyer (who also directed) and Denny Martin Flinn for the screenplay. Which one of them inserted that gratuitous line, I don't know.

In Jurassic Park, for example, Dr. Ian Malcolm (played by Jeff Goldblum) says "[Y]our scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

Which is a similar sentiment to what the Federation President said. But that was part of the theme of Jurassic Park. The movie was a cautionary tale about mucking around with science. Star Trek VI is not.

Now, when I write, sometimes (okay, maybe a lot), my politics and philosophy seep into the story. But I try not to make it gratuitous. At least make it part of the plot.

Have you noticed gratuitous politics inserted in movies or books? Let me know in the comments below.

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