Wait, is this movie called "Spectre" or "SPECTRE" as in SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terriorism, Revenge and Extortion? According to IMDB it's "Spectre", but the movie is about James Bond going up against the evil cabal, SPECTRE. Actually, now that I think about it, I am not sure this movie ever actually defined SPECTRE or even illustrated what SPECTRE is. Maybe they decided to ditch the acronym SPECTRE and just call the bad guy group, Spectre. That would probably be fine especially since SPECTRE is an awful acronym. Great name for a bunch of espionage bad guys, but awful acronym. In fact, any acronym whose creation clearly began with the selection of an applicable word or phrase before the actual word components of that acronym were known is generally bad (sorry, SHIELD, this includes you). If they did get rid of the acronym, SPECTRE, thats probably not a bad thing. It's maybe the only traditional James Bond thing that these newer James Bond movies have done away with that is arguably a good idea.
Sometimes movies try really, really hard to be as scientifically accurate as possible even though Hollywood has a much longer list of great, fun, and entertaining movies that don't worry about pesky ol' scientific accuracy than it does of equally good movies that exhibit impressive scientific rigor. This movie manages to belong to the latter as it is hard for me to imagine anyone not enjoying it and, while I am no physicist yahoo, as best I can tell, its pretty sound scientifically. That doesn't make it free of certain head scratchers. The most glaring of these, obviously, has to do with Matt Damon's facial hair. Upon finding himself trapped on Mars with virtually no hope of rescue what does this guy do? He continues to shave his face. Seriously. He is seemingly shaving almost daily. Sure, he also plots and implements the highly improbable means to keep himself alive until rescue could possibly reach him, but during all this he keeps his face freshly shaven? Come on, man! I mean, I almost want to be stranded just to see what would happen to my beard. You know, let it explore the space, but this guy, all alone for months, keeps his baby face? No way. Then after keeping that routine up for months and with a rescue team nearing him, thats when he decides to give this whole shaving thing a rest and grows the nappiest of beards? Makes no sense. Did his razor break or did he just lose it? If that is just the unfortunate nature of Matt Damon's beard then I guess I understand why he shaved for so long or maybe beards and spacesuits just don't mix, but if either of those are the case, why start growing one so late during his solitary stay? Some people have suggested to me that the poor quality of his beard was the result of him being almost certainly malnourished, but Cast Away faced similar nutritional challenges and he grew a magnificent beard, worthy of the Halls of Valhalla. Maybe beards just don't grow too well on Mars? You know, increased cosmic radiation or something like that. Or maybe Matty boy should have been growing that beard from day 1 of his "crud, I'm stuck here on this rock, all alone for maybe years" so that when the rescue mission is about to take place, NASA has to tell him to shave what I can only imagine would have been a Gandalfian wizard beard in order to not be overweight for all the upcoming rocket take offs and whatnot. At least, thats what I would have done. Still, like I said, its a good flick and even makes a noble effort to make the science mumbo jumbo all mostly on point, but boy, it does raise at least a few conspicuous questions.
Look, I get it. People think that Tom Cruise is a weird fellow. Granted, most actors are probably pretty weird, but Tom Cruise gets special attention. He earned that distinction with some wonky and kooky antics a while back, plus he looks funny when he runs. As best I can tell, being Maverick should probably absolve him from most of that, but people still seem to keep him at arm's length. Thats not so far as to prevent people from going to see his movies. Almost all of them do well and almost all of them are good too, including this one. Yet, we continue to shun him. Have you not seen the lengths he is willing to go to entertain us? The dude strapped himself to the side of a plane and let it take off with him out there! And we're still gonna harp on Tom because of some viral videos? Much lesser dudes have done much less impressive of things and have made inexplicably successful YouTube careers out of it. How weird do you think those yahoos are? My bet is pretty weird. I for one, am willing to move on and accept Tom for the superstar that he is. Especially as long as he keeps doing the little things, like hanging on the outside of a airplane while it takes off, just to impress us.
Imagine what it must feel like to get a call from your agent and hearing that Marvel wants you for a movie. Nearly every actor in Hollywood must be trying to get a piece of that pie, right? What do you think happens when you're told that they want you to play Ant-Man? I mean, you've probably never heard of him, but thats likely true of lots of Marvel heroes. Unlike Black Panther, or Dr. Strange, or Captain Marvel or any other Marvel hero you probably are unfamiliar with, Ant-Man has a name that lacks mystique or mystery or intrigue or, well, just general coolness. In fact, the name pretty much begs the "so, what, he's got ant powers, whatever those are, or something" question. I'd bet that Spider-Man originally had this problem, but became so popular that he overcame it, but I am not sure that Ant-Man is quite there just yet. Anyway, it's gotta temper that casting call enthusiasm a bit, doesn't it? Well, to Paul Rudd's credit, regardless of how that call went, he takes on the role and maybe even enjoys it, which I think may be saying something since it seems like Paul Rudd seldom enjoys any of the roles he takes. Plus, turns out that "ant powers" are pretty neat to look at. Once again, Marvel pulls it off, so just imagine what they'll do with those other unheard of heroes with the cool names!
Back in 1994, The Rolling Stones launched their Voodoo Lounge Tour and to my amazement they scheduled a stop in Salt Lake City. At the time, this seemed like the biggest thing that ever happened in my home town. They performed at the then called, Rice Stadium, only a few blocks from my house. I couldn't believe that Mick Jagger was going to be just a short walk from my home. Everyone was ecstatic, but to my dismay, they played on a day that I was unable to attend. I was heartbroken, but sat on my garage roof listening to whatever I could that reached me from the stadium. At the time, I had no idea if the Stones would ever come back or even tour again. Back then it wasn't commonplace that legendary rockers could just successfully tour forever. Of course, being the greatest rock and roll band of all time, they continued to tour for more than 20 more years and recently came my way. Well, sort of my way. They put on a show here, about 4 hours away from me.
My sister drove out from DC to meet me and so I was living the dream: seeing the Stones live, with my sister!
They put up a stage and created VIP, Gold, Silver, and Bronze sections for people to pile into, music festival style (no assigned seats, all general admission). You could buy tickets for any of these sections (prices ranging from around $70 all the way to about $300, with the VIPs being under just a $1,000), but they also offered something called a "Lucky Dip". These were more limited, but they could land you tickets in any of the above sections. You had to buy 2 tickets, but for just $35 each, it was quite the deal. I took the fiscally sensible gamble and when I went to pick up the tickets, I was handed a box with hundreds of envelopes and was told to take my "lucky dip". I reached in, pulled out a random envelope, opened it and found these gold wristbands! Jackpot!
We entered our section and moved our way as close to the stage as we could while the opening act played. Unfortunately we were a little late so were weren't right next to the stage, but fortunately the opening act was Rascal Flatts and we missed most of their set, but we did catch their cover of that Tom Cochrane song that was everywhere 10 years ago. Just as the sun had set, the stage lit up, the familiar opening chords of "Jumpin' Jack Flash" erupted, and Mick, Keith, Ronnie, and Charlie took the stage!
Here's the entire setlist from the show:
Jumpin' Jack Flash
It's Only Rock 'n' Roll (But I Like It)
Let's Spend the Night Together
Tumbling Dice
Out of Control
Let it Bleed (by request)
Wild Horses
Bitch
Honky Tonk Women
Before They Make Me Run (Keith on lead vocals)
Happy (Keith on lead vocals)
Midnight Rambler
Miss You
Gimme Shelter
Start Me Up
Sympathy for the Devil
Brown Sugar
Encore:
You Can't Always Get What You Want (with Butler University Chorale)
(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction
Yea, there's not a bad song there and they have so many hits they could have easily gone for hours and hours more. I'd love to have heard some others, but no complaints and plus, at the end of Keith's songs, he bid us all farewell with his "Gold rings on you all", which has become a favorite phrase of mine.
Maybe we weren't right next to the stage, but we were close to the catwalk that was built for Mick to strut on. This meant that Mick Jagger danced out to us and was only 10 or 15 yards away, multiple times throughout the night!
Now, I've been that close to former presidents of the United States, billionaires, and Nobel Prize winners, but clearly Mick is bigger than them all! And during an extended version of "Midnight Rambler", Keith and Ronnie came out and joined him.
To think that 20 years ago I was on my garage trying to catch as much as I could of a Rolling Stones concert and now, here I was within just a short distance from them! It's amazing! I have no idea how much these guys love doing what they do, but they've been at it for over 50 years now and they are awfully good at it! As old as they are, they are still rocking and rolling more than most these dang kids these days ever will. Shoot, I mean Mick is nearly twice my age and he still has more energy than I've probably ever had in my life. It was just a great show!
It was July 4th, so afterwards there were fireworks. Lots of them and they were great, but honestly, following The Rolling Stones, they sort of paled in comparison. Probably the first time ever that a couple of fellas from England overshadowed our nation's birthday party.
I've never really had a bucket list sort of thing, but if I ever did, I'd have one less thing to list now. Really can't believe how lucky we were. I figured that we'd be able to say that we went to a Rolling Stones concert, but would have just watched a big screen and enjoyed the show. Instead we were right there with a great view and just next to them multiple times throughout the night! It all just fell into place. If they ever come your way, and you actually are human and like Rock 'n' Roll, I highly recommend you go and see them. Considering they are still going and that conventional weapons cannot kill Keith Richards, you just might get the chance.
A friend asked me whether or not I would ruin this movie with a bunch of actual science if they saw it with me. I suppose I could have pointed out how actual dinosaurs, at least some of them, probably had some amount of feathers. Or how some of the animals in this park were not actual dinosaurs, but rather aquatic or flying reptiles. Maybe I could have explained how difficult it would be to hybridize animals with specific and complex traits or behaviors, especially when such traits and behaviors themselves are not genetically fully understood. I could go on and on, but of course, all of this is minor compared to how imperfect and costly it is to clone an animal (not to mention an entire park full of them), which is compounded even further by the almost certain impossibility of ever obtaining actual dinosaur DNA, thereby making any chance of cloning dinosaurs to be practically zero. Yes, I could have said all of this and more, but would this really "ruin" the movie? No, scientifically accurate or not, the movie is fine. If anything, any such commentaries really just point out how limited and lame actual science is.
Turns out that St. Louis is about a 4 to 5 hour drive from lots of other cities you have heard of, the biggest of which is Chicago.
I spent a quick weekend up there and most of the time was passed in the Art Institute, made famous by Ferris Bueller's Day Off...and works of art. I saw most of the ones that Ferris helped make famous like Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte by Georges Seurat or America Windows by Marc Chagall:
There were Van Gogh's and Monet's and other paintings that lots of people have decided are really good like American Gothic by Grant Wood:
Or Nighthawks by Edward Hopper:
Probably one of the best Picasso's is there, The Old Guitarist. One of the best because you can actually tell what it is and because guitars almost always make things better:
In the contemporary art section I saw some Jackson Pollock works, like Greyed Rainbow, which are finally being recognized thanks to Guardians of the Galaxy:
One of my favorites though was this one by Robert Henri, Young Woman in Black:
Back in my art days, my teacher encouraged us all to read Henri's The Art Spirit, which I never did, but I do remember my pals and I making lots of jokes about having or not having "the art spirit". Not sure about back then, but clearly I've got it now.
The art was very nice, but it also helped keep me out of the rain, of which there was plenty all weekend. It even canceled the Cubs game that night so all I could do was drive by Wrigley Field.
Also drove by the streets where they filmed The Dark Knight and other movies. Spotted this nice, big fountain too that used to be on a TV show I never watched:
Of course, the top priority for the weekend was to eat Chicago food, including deep dish:
And no trip to Chicago is complete without visiting the bean, which is something that someone made for some reason and then it became a city landmark:
Which looks like this from underneath:
Chicago is a pretty cool city. Pretty expensive too, especially after St. Louis spoils you with all its free museums. Still, Chicago seems like a great place to visit. Even if just for a day.
You might really like disaster movies or maybe you are really interested in earthquakes or maybe you just get kicks out of seeing California have a bad day, but lets face it, the reason you are seeing this movie is because of Dwayne Johnson. Sure, some of the other cast might have a couple of reasons you are interested in this flick, but The Rock is the main draw. As great as The Rock is, its a little disappointing that, spoiler alert, at no point in this movie does The Rock attempt to just try and pull the San Andreas fault back into place. If such a scene were included, I would not have bat an eye. Thats a tribute to the kind of performer that The Rock is. Generally, my complaint with natural disaster movies is that you can't beat a natural disaster. Its gonna have its way, no matter what you do. I thought with The Rock at the helm, maybe Hollywood finally decided to make the disaster movie where man triumphs over nature, but once again, they went with the, mostly, realistic approach. Still, after watching this, you'll be convinced that in the event you are in a disaster you'll most want The Rock to be in charge of rescuing you. You'd probably be pretty ok with his costar, Alexandra Daddario, looking for you too (disaster or not). Anyone, but that limey brit in a suit.
Sometimes in science, you make hypotheses and experiments and then you go about doing the proposed research, but you don't come up with any tangible results. That is, you don't find anything that you were hoping to find. We call this a negative result. That makes it sound like a bad thing, which is maybe at least a little accurate, but its not entirely true. After all, Ponce de LeÃģn never found the Fountain of Youth, but at least he found where it was NOT located! Thats gotta be worth a little something, right? At the very least, that is information that might be a little valuable to others who want to search for the Fountain. I got involved at that tail end of a project that was sequencing the genomes of a few pair of monozygotic (identical) twins where one twin had been diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) while the other had not. The hope was to identify some sort of rare DNA variant that might help explain why these seemingly genetically identical people exhibited different disease states. Unfortunately, our efforts yielded no smoking guns. I think one of the real challenges with negative results is finding a way to share them, not only so you might receive credit for your efforts, but to help those who may still be "searching for the Fountain of Youth". Lucky for us, there is a journal specifically interested in ALS and we were able to publish our work there. Even if we didn't solve very much, I'm just happy to have been included. That may very well summarize a career, at least mine, in research.
Robots are cool and mankind's desire to build awesome robots is as strong as its eagerness to clone dinosaurs, maybe even greater since it is apparently much more feasible. There's any number of things you might build a robot for, but one thing is certain, do not build any robots for your or anyone else's protection. Thats pretty much a surefire way to make sure that robot eventually goes crazy and decides that the only way to protect mankind is to destroy or enslave it. This realization will probably be reached at alarming speeds because, after all, its a robot with a super computer brain. Especially if you make it self-aware in any way. Thats where Skynet got its start. I bet HAL was meant to protect people too, but he might have just been a jerk. I'm not really sure. If you have to build a robot, make it a party robot or a sassy one that helps you pilot starships or that can understand the binary language of moisture vaporators. Maybe one that can help with chores. Unless any of those chores involve any sort of protection or peace-keeping responsibilities. If you happen to have a team of Avengers then you go ahead and make whatever sort of robot you please. They can handle even an army of such murderous, genocidal robots. In fact, they'll take care of it pretty easily. Might even be kind of neat to watch.
Is it ok to stand and cheer at the movies? Of course not, we all know that. But shouldn't we? Why don't we stand and cheer at the movies? We do it when watching sports. At concerts. We might during particular speeches or ceremonies. Shoot, we even stand and cheer at the symphony or theater (at least at the end). I guess at the movies we just don't want to get in the way of anyone else's movie watching experience, which generally is a very good thing. Thing is, while watching this movie, you're gonna want to stand and cheer at least a half dozen times and I don't think you'd be wrong to do so. Pretty sure everyone watching it would be in agreement. If they are not, they probably shouldn't be there. As much or as often as you're gonna want to stand and cheer, you'll also want to sit because of feelings. So many feelings. Thats the wild ride that Fast and Furious puts us through.
Despite growing up with the "greatest snow on earth", I've never been a big fan of the snow and so, by extension, I was never very fond of winter and happily left it behind when I moved away from Utah. After having spent some time away from winter, I've just completed my first full one in years and I've found that there are actually some good things about the least popular season.
Scenery
When everything comes together just right, winter can be really lovely. Unfortunately, most of the time winter looks more like this:
Still the possibility is there! It doesn't happen all the time, but once in while, the snow makes everything pretty.
Hot chocolate
Yes, you can drink hot chocolate whenever you want, even during any season, but it really only makes sense to drink it when its cold. Like real cold, not California cold. And you know when its cold? During the winter.
Snow days
Almost nothing can compare to the joy of going to bed knowing that the next day you have something you have to go and do, but then waking up and realizing that all of that is postponed because of snow. If only every day could be a snow day...of course that would potentially ruin the joy of snow days and could possibly be rather dangerous, but I might be willing to risk it.
Stayin in
When its cold out and especially if its snowy or, even better, icy you have all the excuses you'll ever need to not go out and just stay in. Its perfectly acceptable. Gotta run some errands? Looks like there's too much snow on the roads. Go for a run? Nah, its too cold. People can hardly even judge you, but they still might. Who cares though? You get to stay in, probably away from them.
Winter beard
For some reason people think that beards provide ample protection from the elements, and they do, but truth is, they are just as comfortable in the winter as they are in any other season. Still, growing a beard when its cold out seems reasonable to people. Not sure if they still think its reasonable to just let it go all winter without any trimming or anything just to see what happens, but thats exactly what I did. I'd tell them its a winter thing and they seemed to buy it.
You see, winter has some things going for it. Not to mention that after months of cold weather, anything over 40 degrees feels like a summer's day. Yes, winter is still my least favorite season, but its probably good that its around. It gives nice perspective. Something about being able to better appreciate the good because of the bad. That might be some sort of life lesson right there.
This video has been getting a bit of attention from the internets and it highlights the archery skills of Lars Andersen, who may very well be one of the deadliest men to ever pick up a bow without actually having killed another man...as far as we know.
Remarkably, some people from the internets are crying foul and claiming that Lars simply exhibits a finely honed set of trick shot skills and that the knowledge he gleaned from "ancient texts" was not lost or forgotten, just evolved and geographically specific. Those might be fair points, but they do also sound a lot like sour grapes from people without a youtube video that has more than 25 million views. If its true that Lars here is not in fact the greatest archer ever, then who is? Using made up maths and my own personal biases, I've determined who are the top 10 archers of all time, that are not Lars Andersen. In my mind, the greatest archer will be a composite of the following:
Is primarily defined or associated with archery
Has demonstrated exceptional, even superhuman, archery skill
Has accomplished great feats by relying on archery
All archers were scored (0 = not really, 1 = sort of, 2 = definitely) for these categories and ranked. In the event that any tiebreakers were required, I fell back on my own personal archery experience and provided them. Here are the results:
Honorable Mention - Cupid
Cupid is most certainly associated with shooting arrows all over the place, but whether or not he has exceptional skill or has actually accomplished anything worthwhile depends on individual perspective. If you have found true love and it has been reciprocated than you probably feel like Cupid has done an extraordinary job and you can't stop being amazed at his blessed skill. If not, then you probably feel that Cupid is either blind or otherwise a terrible shot or maybe just some sort of cherubic jerk. This varying perspective makes it difficult to properly score and rank Cupid.
10. Odysseus - 3 points
Odysseus may lack the notoriety as an archer as others on this list, but he also performed the first trick arrow shot of all time by shooting an arrow through 12 axe shafts, something that none of his wife's suitors could accomplish, not to mention that none of them could even string Odysseus' mighty bow to attempt the task. Once he accomplished that, what did he do? Slaughtered all his wife's would be suitors...no doubt with the very same bow.
9. Katniss Everdeen - 3 points
Katniss is part of the contemporary resurgence of archery though I am not sure archery is even in the top 3 characteristics or descriptions that first come to mind when you think of Katniss. She seems to be as competent as a very good hunter, but aside from the gif above, I can barely remember any incredible shots from her. Nor do I remember many situations where her skill was essential. Of course, I never bothered seeing Hunger Games Part 3 Part 1, so maybe I missed something there.
8. John Rambo - 3 points
I don't think too many Vietnam vets came home with expertise in bow and arrow warfare, but Rambo certainly did. Plus, being an innovator, he came up with the idea to attach explosives to arrows and he changed the game. Doing this he finished off one rotten dude who killed a woman that Rambo could've loved and for whom he might have finally left the war behind...for good. Oh, yea, he also single handedly took down a super, heavily armed helicopter with an arrow!
7. Princess Merida - 3 points
Merida is probably most recognized for her red hair and for being the Disney Princess you most hope your daughter is not like. After that, probably her bow and arrows come to mind, which seem to be more about identifying her as headstrong and independent than for any actual narrative utility or plot necessity. Still, she shows incredible skill even while riding a horse and even makes a coveted split-arrow-bullseye shot.
6. Questor the Elf - 4 points
Probably the least known on this list, but way back in 1985, a game called Gauntlet was made. In it, you pick from a Warrior, Valkyrie, Wizard, and Elf and fight through endless dungeons of monsters. Anyone who ever played Gauntlet knows that you should pick the Elf, later named Questor, before anyone else because he had a bow and arrows. He shot those arrows at lightning fast speeds making him vastly superior to the others and establishing the overpowered nature that bows and arrows have since had in most video games.
5. Green Arrow - 5 points
What if Batman had decided instead of bats being his thing, arrows would be his jam? If he had, he basically would have been Oliver Queen, the Green Arrow. While just an ordinary human, he is superhuman when armed with a bow and arrows. Check this out from his wikipedia entry:
"He once shot two arrows down two different gun barrels while upside down, in mid-flip while somersaulting off a building"
Not only can he nail just about trick shot, he also employs any number of trick arrows, like boxing glove arrows, which add another dimension to his proficiency. As a Justice League member, he has used those arrows to save the world countless times.
4. Hawkeye - 5 points
Hawkeye is basically a duplicate of Green Arrow. Anything Green Arrow can do, so can Hawkeye, trick arrows and all. What differentiates them is that Hawkeye is from the much more fun Marvel Universe, allowing him to be in the vastly superior Marvel movies while Green Arrow has a show on the CW. Advantage: Hawkeye. He is one of the Avengers and as long as he has arrows (he always has arrows), he is a productive member of the team, saving the world, probably at least, on an annual basis.
3. Bard the Bowman - 6 points
This guy is so synonymous with archery that he is actually called the Bowman and proves himself worthy of that title when he makes not only a nearly impossible shot under extreme pressure, but in so doing he takes down the biggest and most significant target of any archer ever. All with a single (lucky or otherwise preferred) arrow.
2. Robin Hood - 6 points
Whether he is played by a swashbuckler, a fox, a Kevin Costner, an Englishman, or a gladiator, Robin Hood and archery go together like a bow and arrow. He's been in the quiver game maybe almost longer than anyone and his signature move, the split-arrow-bullseye, is the gold standard for archery skill shots. With those skills he has robbed the rich, given to the poor, wooed Maid Marian, and helped restore the rightful king to the throne.
1. Legolas - 6 points
Tolkien probably had no idea when he wrote The Lord of the Rings that he was creating the exemplary archer (and all other fantasy tropes) that all others would aspire to become and has inspired probably hundreds of hopeful, but copycat D&D characters in many basements over the decades. Legolas is virtually flawless, the only blemish on his resume being a single orc that he hit, but did not kill immediately when he needed to. With or without his bow, he essentially could do no wrong to the point of it being roll-your-eyes humorous. Throughout the War of the Ring, no one piled up as high a body count as Legolas and he did it all with impressive shots from his bow (and a little with his knife). With very little doubt, he is the most deserving of this top spot.
There you have it, the best archers of all time. All with very convincing and quantitative explanations that leave little room for argument. Where would Lars fit into all of this? Hard to say, since some actual (and probably jealous) archers seem to be convinced that he is an inaccurate fraud that has only become proficient in various trick shots. Still, he has one advantage over everyone on this list; he actually exists...as if that mattered.
