-Prior to yesterday's Red Sox home opener, Rays designated hitter/outfielder Luke Scott made sure he wasn't going to be well-received by the Boston crowd after he had some unflattering words about Fenway Park. Scott said that while the fans might enjoy coming to a historic park, it was not fun for the players who had to work there, as conditions are very cramped. This comes on the heels of comments Scott made about Sox fans last year while a member of the Orioles, when he said he didn't like how they took over other team's ballparks and thought they were a vulgar group. Now, as a defender of all things Boston you might be expecting me to stick up for the park. Well, other than saying that allowing an opposing team's fans to take over your stadium when they come to town tells me more about the Orioles and their fans than anything else, I can't really disagree with Scott. I outgrew Fenway when I was 12, so I'm not going to fight him on his contention that the park is too cramped. Also, there are members of every fan base that take things too far and that includes Red Sox Nation. But, if Red Sox fans want to take solace in anything, they just need to remember that for all his talk if the Red Sox had offered Luke Scott the most money this offseason he would be playing in Fenway every day while talking about its rich traditions and the amazing passion of Red Sox fans. In other words, he's a whore and you should never pay attention to anything a whore says.
-In a recent interview with Time magazine, new Miami Marlin's manager Ozzie Guillen expressed admiration for Cuban Dictator Fidel Castro, saying he was impressed that Castro was able to stay in power for 60 years despite everyone trying to get rid of him. As you can imagine, this did not go over well in a Miami community filled with Cuban ex-pats who had to flee their home country out of fear of Castro. Protests immediately sprung up and one anti-Castro group said they would never go another Marlins game until Guillen was fired. Ozzie flew home during an off day in Philadelphia to apologize in person, but even that was not enough to satisfy some as they protested during his press conference. The Marlins have currently suspended him for 5 games, but that also hasn't appeared to have appeased anyone. Considering the Marlins brought Guillen in specifically to appeal to the Latino community and he clearly hasn't done that, if this story continues to drag on it could very well cost Guillen his job. Now, I'm not going to pretend that I know how offensive comments like this are to someone who is Cuban, but I do think Guillen was sincere in his apology. This is not the first time Ozzie has said something stupid, but this is the first time I have ever heard him apologize for his comments. He made a mistake and he is being punished for it, but I really don't think firing him is the answer. I know this much, if he does keep his job from now he should stick to only talking about baseball.
-One guy who won't be able to talk his way out of his latest mess is former Arkansas Razorback football coach Bobby Petrino. About a week ago Petrino was in what was initially reported as a one-person motorcycle accident. Then, a couple days later it was reported that Petrino had a passenger - a 25 year-old former Arkansas volleyball player who now works in the football department. Ok, not exactly a good sign, but the school could still hide behind the idea that this incident was a matter for Petrino and his family. (Their ability to hide was made easier by the fact the Razorbacks finished 5th in the nation last year and have 15 starters returning, so it's not like the alumni were up in arms.) However, then it was revealed that the woman got her job out of a pool of 150+ more qualified candidates and received a salary above what was allotted for the position. Since Arkansas is a state school, that means taxpayers were essentially paying for Bobby Petrino's mistress. That was the last straw and on Tuesday night Petrino was fired from his job. Now, Arkansas probably brought this embarrassment on themselves by hiring Petrino as he has a checkered past devoid of loyalty, which saw him interviewing for other jobs during the first year of his contract and leaving other teams mid-season, so it is not like he is a humble figure who just screwed up this once. They say that when you wrestle with a pig you're the one who ends up dirty. Funny, you would have thought a school with a Razorback for a logo would have known that better than anyone.
-One last coaching item: Despite my public plea a couple weeks ago for it to happen, Bill Parcells came out a few days ago and said he would prefer to stay retired rather than coach the New Orleans Saints for this season while current head coach Sean Payton serves a one-year suspension for his role in a bounty scandal. Now, there are conflicting reports as to how close this ever came to actually happening, as it appears Payton was the only one in the Saints organization really excited about the possibility, with the rest of the front office preferring to promote from within to ease the transition. On the surface you can understand their logic - after all Parcells is a big personality and might want to bring in a few of his own people, which could add additional tension around a team which is already in for a long year. So, the idea of choosing from the in-house coaches sounds all well and good, except this week the Saints named assistant coach Joe Vitt as the interim head coach. Normally this would be expected, as Vitt already was the assistant Head Coach. The thing is Vitt is himself facing down a six-game suspension for his role in Bounty-gate and has to be away from the team once the preseason ends. What that means is the Saints will then have to name an interim to the interim. What happens if that guy starts out 4-2? Does Vitt still get the job? What if he is 6-0? Do you really make a coaching change at that point? Oh, yeah, this is shaping up to be a much smoother transition than if you brought in Parcells.
-Early in the week, following another sub-par effort and reportedly a verbal altercation with team owner Mark Cuban in the locker room, the Dallas Mavericks deactivated forward Lamar Odom for the rest of the season. For some reason this seems worse than releasing him, as that would allow him to sign with a team for the rest of the season (though not be on the playoff roster). Instead they just sent him away to do nothing until next training camp, thinking it would be addition by subtraction. When Odom was traded from the Lakers for just a low-first round draft pick and a trade exemption, everyone thought the Mavericks were getting a steal. Instead Odom never seemed to be all that interested in playing for Dallas and appeared to just go through the motions. Reportedly the notoriously sensitive Odom is having a rough year off the court, experiencing a death in the family and marital problems. (He's married to a Kardashian, so imagine my surprise there. Those girls are like athlete kryptonite.) You know, I'm sorry Odom is having a bad few months, but millions of people go through this kind of stuff every day and they are forced to just suck it up and deal. The Mavericks have said they will try to trade Odom in the offseason, but good luck getting anything close to a return on your investment now. Only the Lakers can manage to trade a guy for nothing in return and still make out better in the deal.
-With the Summer Olympics fast approaching, the USA men's basketball team is once again expected to take home the gold. And Dwayne Wade thinks the players should be getting a little something for the effort. On Wednesday Wade said he thought the players should be paid for their time over-seas and the amount of jerseys they sell (Ray Allen has said he agrees with Wade, but since Allen has zero chance of being on another Olympic team, we'll focus on Wade here). By Thursday Wade had backed off from this comments, but I don't know why because I don't think he's totally wrong. Being an Olympic basketball player is a lot of strain on a player's body, considering most of the members of the team will make deep playoff runs and have played a lot of games between December and June. Not to mention this is technically their offseason so they should be resting because, unlike most sports in the Olympics, a gold medal is not the biggest prize basketball players are going for. (On more than one occasion I have been thankful members of the Celtics haven't been asked to be Olympians.) Now, I don't think they should be paid just for being on the team, but Wade suggested the players should be compensated for the jerseys they sell and that seems reasonable to me. As someone who has a lot of Dream Team jerseys in my closet I know that I was influenced by the name on the back just as much as the country on the front. Those jerseys are being sold because of who the players are, so I have no problem with those players getting a little cash for that. I know a lot of Olympians from other sports are going to complain because the basketball players already make a very good living and a little extra jersey money won't even dent their bank accounts whereas it could really change the lives of other Olympic athletes, but to that I simply say this: life isn't fair. Maybe you shouldn't have spent your childhood getting really good at a sport no one cares about for three and half years at a time.
-During last Sunday's final round of The Masters, South African Louis Oosthuizen scored one of the rarest feats in golf - a Double Eagle. Also known as an Albatross, it means you shot a 2 on a Par-5 and it is much harder to pull off than a hole-in-one, as evidenced by the fact that Oosthuizen's was only the fourth in the history of the tournament. But, what was weird is that he didn't seem to care that much and casually tossed the historic ball into the crowd behind the green. Now, before the round was even over it was reported that the man who caught the ball gave it back to Augusta National. At first I couldn't understand why you would give something like that away, especially when some websites were offering $20,000 for the ball should Louis win the tournament. But, I've come around on this. First off, the people who can afford to go to the last round of The Masters don't exactly need the money. Secondly, it's not like this guy had anything to do with the Double Eagle - he just caught the ball afterwards. Had he demanded a king's ransom he would have been just like one of those guys who catches a foul ball and then holds it hostage and I hate those guys. Thirdly, this is Augusta National. Something tells me he was well-compensated for letting them have the ball, even if details of exactly what he got will probably never come out. (My guess is he'll get to be a member for a day.) So, let this serve as a reminder to all the sports fans out there: sometimes the way to make sure you get the best deal possible is to not negotiate at all.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Friday, April 13, 2012
Code Breaker
If you have ever spent any time looking for a new place to live, you probably learned pretty quickly that the majority of real estate listings are written in code. At its core selling real estate is nothing more than face-to-face marketing at its finest, so just like Pepsi needs a catch-phrase when they launch a new product, real estate agents are always looking for new buzz words to put in their listings to reel people in. These agents know that no one is going to waste their time even looking at a dump in a bad section of town, so they tell you the place is a "fixer-upper in an up-and-coming" neighborhood. An apartment is no longer a cramped studio, instead it is a "micro-condo designed to help you rid the clutter out of your life" and that house is no longer old, it now has "character and history." Technically they aren't lying to you, but it still doesn't feel like the most honest way of doing business. The problem is that the only way to learn how to break the code is by finding yourself at one of these really bad apartments which the ad made you believe was going to be the best deal ever.
Of course, this tactic of attempting to mask a bad trait by dressing it up to sound like a good one is hardly exclusive to real estate. You see it in music with the band who isn't unsigned by a major label, they are just sticking true to their indie roots. You see it in sports when a quarterback doesn't have a weak throwing arm, he manages the game situations. You even see it in the dating world, because that girl on the singles website isn't a psychotic animal right activist who thinks blowing up a science lab is perfectly acceptable, she's simply passionate about the issues which are important to her. But at the end of the day, nowhere is this practice more relentless than in the world of advertising. Cars no longer have weak engines - they are fuel-efficient and a cheap couch should not be considered flimsy but lightweight and easy to move around the house. After a while you nearly become numb to some of the dumb things ads want you to believe they think are positive attributes. But, the other day I saw an ad featuring one of these buzz/code words and it actually made me laugh out loud.
It was an ad for Ace Hardware stores and featured a man lamenting that it takes so long to find things in those huge warehouse stores like Home Depot and Lowe's. That is why he wanted everyone to go shop at Ace, as their stores are "Speedy-Sized" and would get you back to your weekend sooner. That may be the most creative description of "small and with less of a selection" that I have ever heard. First off, I regularly shopped at an Ace Hardware when working on the beach house, as for a long time it was the closest hardware store, so I have to question their "speedy" claim. I have found having to go to a second hardware store when Ace doesn't have what you are looking for is not exactly a time-saver. But even with that I can admit they are kind of in a difficult position, as they don't have the space to compete with the super stores, yet they are a big enough chain of stores they can't be considered a small, local business everyone in the community is happy to pay a little extra to support. As such they seem to fall into the hazy middle ground. Still, acting as though you aren't carry the same amount of product as though it is on purpose is amusing.
I don't want anyone to think I'm picking on marketing people. I took my fair share of marketing classes in college so I know that while it might often be said that if you don't have anything nice to say than you shouldn't say anything at all, when your business demands you say something you occasionally have to work extra hard to find that positive aspect. Still, the ads that I think carry the most weight are the ones in which the marketing teams have highlighted the product's actual assets, not desperately tried to make themselves measure up against the competition. I feel like all that does is give the other guys free advertising in your commercial. If you can't beat the other store's selection, then you should make sure you carry higher quality items and let that be the focus of your marketing campaign. Stop hiding behind buzz words and let your assets really be an asset, because that will be the thing which really brings in loyal customers who appreciate honesty. Also, before you rush out to see that "cozy" apartment, be aware that it really means you'll be living in someone's closet.
Of course, this tactic of attempting to mask a bad trait by dressing it up to sound like a good one is hardly exclusive to real estate. You see it in music with the band who isn't unsigned by a major label, they are just sticking true to their indie roots. You see it in sports when a quarterback doesn't have a weak throwing arm, he manages the game situations. You even see it in the dating world, because that girl on the singles website isn't a psychotic animal right activist who thinks blowing up a science lab is perfectly acceptable, she's simply passionate about the issues which are important to her. But at the end of the day, nowhere is this practice more relentless than in the world of advertising. Cars no longer have weak engines - they are fuel-efficient and a cheap couch should not be considered flimsy but lightweight and easy to move around the house. After a while you nearly become numb to some of the dumb things ads want you to believe they think are positive attributes. But, the other day I saw an ad featuring one of these buzz/code words and it actually made me laugh out loud.
It was an ad for Ace Hardware stores and featured a man lamenting that it takes so long to find things in those huge warehouse stores like Home Depot and Lowe's. That is why he wanted everyone to go shop at Ace, as their stores are "Speedy-Sized" and would get you back to your weekend sooner. That may be the most creative description of "small and with less of a selection" that I have ever heard. First off, I regularly shopped at an Ace Hardware when working on the beach house, as for a long time it was the closest hardware store, so I have to question their "speedy" claim. I have found having to go to a second hardware store when Ace doesn't have what you are looking for is not exactly a time-saver. But even with that I can admit they are kind of in a difficult position, as they don't have the space to compete with the super stores, yet they are a big enough chain of stores they can't be considered a small, local business everyone in the community is happy to pay a little extra to support. As such they seem to fall into the hazy middle ground. Still, acting as though you aren't carry the same amount of product as though it is on purpose is amusing.
I don't want anyone to think I'm picking on marketing people. I took my fair share of marketing classes in college so I know that while it might often be said that if you don't have anything nice to say than you shouldn't say anything at all, when your business demands you say something you occasionally have to work extra hard to find that positive aspect. Still, the ads that I think carry the most weight are the ones in which the marketing teams have highlighted the product's actual assets, not desperately tried to make themselves measure up against the competition. I feel like all that does is give the other guys free advertising in your commercial. If you can't beat the other store's selection, then you should make sure you carry higher quality items and let that be the focus of your marketing campaign. Stop hiding behind buzz words and let your assets really be an asset, because that will be the thing which really brings in loyal customers who appreciate honesty. Also, before you rush out to see that "cozy" apartment, be aware that it really means you'll be living in someone's closet.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Positively Anonymous
The other afternoon I was wasting far too much time in one of my favorite sections of any store - the used DVD section of Newbury Comics. Browsing through loads of movies I didn't particularly enjoy but still thought about buying because they were on sale for $2.99, I noticed that a lot of the packages still have the old-school marketing tactic of putting favorable reviews on the front of the DVD case. The more I thought about it, the stranger it seemed to me, because who exactly is going to buy a DVD based on the review? Sure, you may rent something you've never seen if it has positive feedback, but when was the last time anyone could physically hold the case of a movie they planned to rent? The only time I ever see movies in their cases anymore is when they are for sale and I don't know of anyone who would plunk down $20 to buy a movie they have never seen before. Like almost everything else, people can usually see the reviews online now and have a general idea of how the movie was received by the public before they add it to their queues, so putting the reviews on the cover feels like a waste of time and ink. It just struck me as another one of those practices companies continue to do for no other reason than that is they way they have always done it.
Now, you can't blame the distribution companies for this because at the end of the day it is still good press and you can never have enough good press. (That is why I think it still makes perfect sense to put positive reviews in commercials for movies which are still in the theater.) If some famous writer from a big paper tells people that your movie is good you want as many people as possible to know about it. Newspapers may not have the power they once had, but some names still carry weight. That is why as a general rule of thumb you tell how good a movie is by how low they have to sink when looking for a positive review. If the best review they could find for the cover was from some person no one has ever heard of and comes from a movie review blog which hasn't been updated in a year, then it is a safe bet that is a pretty awful movie. But, you can tell these kind reviews still matter to movie companies by a story which came out a couple years ago. Some bored reporter was looking at a DVD case (unfortunately I don't remember which movie) when they noticed the positive review on the cover was supposed to be from a newspaper in a nearby town. They did ten seconds of research only to discover that the entire thing was made up - neither the paper or the reviewer existed.
Still, I think even a made-up review carried more weight than what I saw last night. I was watching "South Park" when they ran a promo for "Ugly Americans", the show which comes on immediately after. [Sidebar: A show that I actually want to know how and why it is still on the air, as it is truly awful. I gave this show a legitimate shot when it first came out, watched most of the first run and never found it funny. But because I like "South Park" and "The Daily Show" I often find myself catching the first and last few minutes of it and I still have never laughed, even once. It may get decent ratings, but you could stick a test pattern in a slot between two great shows like that and it will be watched by a couple million people who are simply too lazy to get up and change the channel. I refuse to believe this is the best Comedy Central can do.] Anyway, the best reviews they could come up with to run during this promo were from fans off Twitter. Now, I have come to love Twitter in the last couple of years, but it is not where I go to get my movie reviews. I don't even like to follow people I don't actually know in real life, so I'm certainly not about to watch something based on the positive words of @MonkeyFarts69. (By the way, I apologize if that handle, which I just made up for comedic effect, actually belongs to a real person. I'm sure your Twitter feed has a lot of savvy political insight on it.)
I imagine that on some level this is Comedy Central trying to show us how hip they are. "Look, kids, we take our reviews right from you! You don't need press credentials to let your voice be heard." But, while I can understand what they are trying to do, I think Comedy Central would be better served by finding more official-sounding endorsements. I know that at the most basic level a film or TV critic is nothing more than a person who got lucky enough to land a sweet job and that their opinion shouldn't count more than any one else with something to say, but at the same time at least you know they are using their real name and taking what they are writing seriously. Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure 95% of the things people say on Twitter should be read with a sarcastic tone. There is an above-average chance that the people giving positive reviews of "Ugly Americans" on Twitter were high while doing so. I know that to some people a compliment is a compliment no matter what, but occasionally you need to consider the source. If the only positive review you can come up with is a random person off the internet who might not even be real, you may be better off not having any at all.
Now, you can't blame the distribution companies for this because at the end of the day it is still good press and you can never have enough good press. (That is why I think it still makes perfect sense to put positive reviews in commercials for movies which are still in the theater.) If some famous writer from a big paper tells people that your movie is good you want as many people as possible to know about it. Newspapers may not have the power they once had, but some names still carry weight. That is why as a general rule of thumb you tell how good a movie is by how low they have to sink when looking for a positive review. If the best review they could find for the cover was from some person no one has ever heard of and comes from a movie review blog which hasn't been updated in a year, then it is a safe bet that is a pretty awful movie. But, you can tell these kind reviews still matter to movie companies by a story which came out a couple years ago. Some bored reporter was looking at a DVD case (unfortunately I don't remember which movie) when they noticed the positive review on the cover was supposed to be from a newspaper in a nearby town. They did ten seconds of research only to discover that the entire thing was made up - neither the paper or the reviewer existed.
Still, I think even a made-up review carried more weight than what I saw last night. I was watching "South Park" when they ran a promo for "Ugly Americans", the show which comes on immediately after. [Sidebar: A show that I actually want to know how and why it is still on the air, as it is truly awful. I gave this show a legitimate shot when it first came out, watched most of the first run and never found it funny. But because I like "South Park" and "The Daily Show" I often find myself catching the first and last few minutes of it and I still have never laughed, even once. It may get decent ratings, but you could stick a test pattern in a slot between two great shows like that and it will be watched by a couple million people who are simply too lazy to get up and change the channel. I refuse to believe this is the best Comedy Central can do.] Anyway, the best reviews they could come up with to run during this promo were from fans off Twitter. Now, I have come to love Twitter in the last couple of years, but it is not where I go to get my movie reviews. I don't even like to follow people I don't actually know in real life, so I'm certainly not about to watch something based on the positive words of @MonkeyFarts69. (By the way, I apologize if that handle, which I just made up for comedic effect, actually belongs to a real person. I'm sure your Twitter feed has a lot of savvy political insight on it.)
I imagine that on some level this is Comedy Central trying to show us how hip they are. "Look, kids, we take our reviews right from you! You don't need press credentials to let your voice be heard." But, while I can understand what they are trying to do, I think Comedy Central would be better served by finding more official-sounding endorsements. I know that at the most basic level a film or TV critic is nothing more than a person who got lucky enough to land a sweet job and that their opinion shouldn't count more than any one else with something to say, but at the same time at least you know they are using their real name and taking what they are writing seriously. Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure 95% of the things people say on Twitter should be read with a sarcastic tone. There is an above-average chance that the people giving positive reviews of "Ugly Americans" on Twitter were high while doing so. I know that to some people a compliment is a compliment no matter what, but occasionally you need to consider the source. If the only positive review you can come up with is a random person off the internet who might not even be real, you may be better off not having any at all.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
A Titanic Ego
This week is the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic. Now, we'll actually get into this anniversary a little more in a couple days, but in the mean time I have noticed the Discovery Channel has spent the last couple of days increasing their Titanic-centric programming to coincide with this event. One of the new shows they aired was "Titanic: The Final Word with James Cameron". The point of this show was to thoroughly examine the wreck site, then go back and do the most accurate computer reconstruction of the sinking of the ship possible based on that data and hopefully answer a few lingering questions along the way. To make sure they were on the correct path with their theories and conclusions Cameron assembled a dream team of experts, among them a member of the Titanic Historical Society, ship architects, a deep-sea salvage expert and a Navy engineer. With that much mental firepower and experience at his disposal you might think Cameron would take a back seat in the discussion, act like more of a moderator and bow to their combined years of knowledge and expertise. That is not even close to what happened.
It is often said that the people who know the least about a subject try to mask their ignorance with the sheer volume of their voice. So, it should come as no surprise that Cameron tried to be the loudest voice in the room from the start of this thing. And, on the one hand you can understand why - his name was on the marquee and he was clearly the most famous person at the table, which is probably how the majority of panel discussions get decided in Hollywood. Also, as a director, he is used to calling all the shots and people ultimately doing what he wants no matter what. But, this isn't Hollywood, so just because he was at the head of the table it doesn't mean his opinion should be treated as if he is the smartest person, as if those two traits are somehow connected. It is one thing to let the crazy person talk - the mistake comes when you give their opinion any weight. I think of one the experts gave us a glimpse about what the experience of filming this show must have been like when he said, "James will allow you disagree with him as long as you can back up your argument." It is the first part of that statement which annoyed me. He'll allow you to disagree with him? When did this show become a dictatorship? I know Cameron made a few hundred million dollars bring the story of the Titanic to the masses, but that doesn't make him a Titanic expert, it simply makes him the best storyteller.
There was one exchange which I thought perfectly summed up Cameron's hubris in this situation. Towards the end of the program they had a segment in which the panel discussed what they may do differently if they could be transported back and take over as Captain immediately after the ship hit the iceberg. Some of them were debating making a run for a ship which was reportedly a few miles away, while some thought going for an ice pack also a few miles away was the better solution, since you knew for certain it was there. The question they were struggling with was whether the damaged ship would have been able to make it that far when Cameron chimed in with, "Why not just sail the ship backwards?" His thinking was that if the damage was in the front it couldn't be made worse by sailing backwards. At first a couple people asked him to repeat himself, because they couldn't believe he was being serious. You could tell that a couple of guys had smart-ass comebacks to this idea, but they didn't want to say them out loud because Cameron was probably footing the bill for this thing. Instead they all tried to diplomatically call his idea crazy by saying they would have to "respectfully disagree" with him. Cameron then followed his "sail the ship backwards" idea with the concept of getting the passengers to climb onto the iceberg itself, as that would be a better alternative to getting the in water. This time the panel didn't even ask him to repeat himself and laughed that idea off. Honestly, I was kind of sad they cut this segment short, because I wanted to know what Cameron's next insane idea was going to be.
Look, I'm happy James Cameron found a hobby which he is enthusiastic about. And believe me when I tell you I am fully aware of how fascinating a subject the Titanic can be. But enthusiasm does not equal expertise. Just because he has actually visited the wreck site on two occasions and spent a few months on a sound stage with a life-sized replica of the ship does not mean James Cameron knows more about this subject than the people whose jobs it is to do this kind of thing for a living. I'm an enthusiastic golfer, but you will never find me in a room with Tiger Woods, Jack Nicklaus, Michael Breed and Robert Trent Jones Jr. attempting to take over the conversation. I just would love to see how James Cameron would react if the situations were reversed and they were doing a panel discussion on movie making. Based on his reputation, I get the feeling Cameron is reluctant to listen to other filmmakers, so I really don't think he would appreciate the opinions of people from outside the industry telling him how things need to be done. After all, this is the same guy who once declared himself "King of the World" just for winning a few Oscars. I'm willing to bet that if someone told him to run his movies backwards not only would he disagree with them, but it also wouldn't be done very respectfully.
It is often said that the people who know the least about a subject try to mask their ignorance with the sheer volume of their voice. So, it should come as no surprise that Cameron tried to be the loudest voice in the room from the start of this thing. And, on the one hand you can understand why - his name was on the marquee and he was clearly the most famous person at the table, which is probably how the majority of panel discussions get decided in Hollywood. Also, as a director, he is used to calling all the shots and people ultimately doing what he wants no matter what. But, this isn't Hollywood, so just because he was at the head of the table it doesn't mean his opinion should be treated as if he is the smartest person, as if those two traits are somehow connected. It is one thing to let the crazy person talk - the mistake comes when you give their opinion any weight. I think of one the experts gave us a glimpse about what the experience of filming this show must have been like when he said, "James will allow you disagree with him as long as you can back up your argument." It is the first part of that statement which annoyed me. He'll allow you to disagree with him? When did this show become a dictatorship? I know Cameron made a few hundred million dollars bring the story of the Titanic to the masses, but that doesn't make him a Titanic expert, it simply makes him the best storyteller.
There was one exchange which I thought perfectly summed up Cameron's hubris in this situation. Towards the end of the program they had a segment in which the panel discussed what they may do differently if they could be transported back and take over as Captain immediately after the ship hit the iceberg. Some of them were debating making a run for a ship which was reportedly a few miles away, while some thought going for an ice pack also a few miles away was the better solution, since you knew for certain it was there. The question they were struggling with was whether the damaged ship would have been able to make it that far when Cameron chimed in with, "Why not just sail the ship backwards?" His thinking was that if the damage was in the front it couldn't be made worse by sailing backwards. At first a couple people asked him to repeat himself, because they couldn't believe he was being serious. You could tell that a couple of guys had smart-ass comebacks to this idea, but they didn't want to say them out loud because Cameron was probably footing the bill for this thing. Instead they all tried to diplomatically call his idea crazy by saying they would have to "respectfully disagree" with him. Cameron then followed his "sail the ship backwards" idea with the concept of getting the passengers to climb onto the iceberg itself, as that would be a better alternative to getting the in water. This time the panel didn't even ask him to repeat himself and laughed that idea off. Honestly, I was kind of sad they cut this segment short, because I wanted to know what Cameron's next insane idea was going to be.
Look, I'm happy James Cameron found a hobby which he is enthusiastic about. And believe me when I tell you I am fully aware of how fascinating a subject the Titanic can be. But enthusiasm does not equal expertise. Just because he has actually visited the wreck site on two occasions and spent a few months on a sound stage with a life-sized replica of the ship does not mean James Cameron knows more about this subject than the people whose jobs it is to do this kind of thing for a living. I'm an enthusiastic golfer, but you will never find me in a room with Tiger Woods, Jack Nicklaus, Michael Breed and Robert Trent Jones Jr. attempting to take over the conversation. I just would love to see how James Cameron would react if the situations were reversed and they were doing a panel discussion on movie making. Based on his reputation, I get the feeling Cameron is reluctant to listen to other filmmakers, so I really don't think he would appreciate the opinions of people from outside the industry telling him how things need to be done. After all, this is the same guy who once declared himself "King of the World" just for winning a few Oscars. I'm willing to bet that if someone told him to run his movies backwards not only would he disagree with them, but it also wouldn't be done very respectfully.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Sweet Screw-Up
I've always believed you should never show up to a party without at least calling ahead to ask if the host wants/needs to you to bring something. Even if you just show up with extra ice, you should try to make the evening easier for them whenever possible. So, this Easter I decided my contribution to the afternoon's festivities was going to be a dessert I was recently informed about called Banoffee pie. For those of you who have never heard of Banoffee pie, it is essentially this: a graham cracker crust, caramel, banana slices, more caramel, whipped cream and topped with chocolate shavings. Since I like all of those things (which I feel is the key factor in any dessert you ever try to make) I decided to bring one on Sunday, thinking it would make a new, if unusual addition to the holiday. There are several recipes online I could have picked from and, as we have come to expect on the internet, they all contained varying degrees of difficulty. I could build everything from scratch or I could buy most of the items from the store and simply assemble the concoction. It was up to me to decide how involved with this pie I felt like being. Since I consider myself just a novice in the pie-making world, I went for one of the easier recipes.
Still, for as many steps as I tried to cut out, there was one I couldn't really skip and that was the actual making of the caramel. On the surface it appeared to be a very simple step. According to the recipe I was using all you had to do was get a couple of cans of sweetened condensed milk, drop them into boiling water, come back periodically to make sure there was still enough water to keep the cans covered the entire time and two and a half hours later you had the main ingredient to the pie. I thought nothing of it, but apparently that is because I was never much for science class. Because everyone else I told about this step had the exact same reaction - "Aren't you worried those are going to explode?" No, I wasn't actually. The thought had never crossed my mind until this second. But, now I'm very concerned about it. Thanks for the peace of mind you just took from me. Originally I had just planned to check on the cans every hour or so, but with the threat of an explosion in my kitchen I was in there every 20 minutes. Fortunately I made it through the two and half hours without a single pop or finding a large circle of caramel on the kitchen ceiling, though listening to the cans rattle around in the pot did not exactly make the time fly.
Obviously, this is one of those times when ignorance would have been bliss. The thought of an explosion made me worry when I didn't have to. Still, it leaves me wondering just how in the hell did someone discover this particular chemical reaction? Who was the first person to throw cans of condensed milk into boiling water and know when they opened them up later it was going to be something totally different? I imagine it had to be by accident. Maybe they just knocked the can in, spent nearly three hours waiting for an explosion which never came, figured they got very lucky and then opened the can to discovered they had actually made a very sweet treat for themselves. That had to feel like a twice-lucky day. (Unless it was a couple of pranksters who were trying to make the cans explode like in a movie and failed. In which case I at least hope the discovery of the caramel brightened their spirits slightly.) Either way, I can't imagine this was done on purpose and if it was it had to be done by someone like me who was blissfully unaware of the potential danger, because no one who thinks a can is going to explode when exposed to that high heat for that long would ever do it on purpose. Basically, the first person who made caramel this way had to be really stupid or really confident.
It also makes me think of all the other inventions which have come along by accident. For example, did you know brandy was originally just wine which had been extra distilled to make it last longer while it was being transported? The wine sellers had planned to add the water that had been distilled out back to the mix before people drank it, but discovered that by letting what was left sit in wooden casks it had become an entirely different kind of alcohol. Or that the people who originally made Play-Doh had been trying to figure out a chemical compound to aid in removing wallpaper and made a toy instead? [Note to self: never let any kids put Play-Doh near their mouth.] Both of those things could easily be classified as "happy accidents" which had to feel like magic. I guess this leaves me with two observations: 1. Just because you didn't succeed at making the product you had set out to, that doesn't mean you failed and 2. Screw high school science classes. Clearly a few of these people failed basic chemistry and they turned out just fine.
[Sidebar: it occurs to me I shouldn't talk this much about the pie and not let you know how it turned out. It wasn't bad, if I do say so myself. Those of you interested in trying it for yourself can just Google it for all the various recipes, but the really simple one I used can be found here. After making the caramel (which can be done as far ahead of time as you want), the actual construction of the pie can be done in 20 minutes or so. I initially found the final product to be too rich for my blood. (Seriously, a diabetic might go into a coma just looking at this dessert.) But, as long as you stick with small slices it isn't overwhelming. The better suggestion came from my sister who told me it would make a much better ice cream topping. I tried it that way the next day and discovered she had the right idea. So, the way I really recommend having it is to add some cold vanilla ice cream to bowl that has a slice of Banoffee pie in it, stir it all together, then add a little extra whipped cream and you have got yourself one heck of a treat.]
Still, for as many steps as I tried to cut out, there was one I couldn't really skip and that was the actual making of the caramel. On the surface it appeared to be a very simple step. According to the recipe I was using all you had to do was get a couple of cans of sweetened condensed milk, drop them into boiling water, come back periodically to make sure there was still enough water to keep the cans covered the entire time and two and a half hours later you had the main ingredient to the pie. I thought nothing of it, but apparently that is because I was never much for science class. Because everyone else I told about this step had the exact same reaction - "Aren't you worried those are going to explode?" No, I wasn't actually. The thought had never crossed my mind until this second. But, now I'm very concerned about it. Thanks for the peace of mind you just took from me. Originally I had just planned to check on the cans every hour or so, but with the threat of an explosion in my kitchen I was in there every 20 minutes. Fortunately I made it through the two and half hours without a single pop or finding a large circle of caramel on the kitchen ceiling, though listening to the cans rattle around in the pot did not exactly make the time fly.
Obviously, this is one of those times when ignorance would have been bliss. The thought of an explosion made me worry when I didn't have to. Still, it leaves me wondering just how in the hell did someone discover this particular chemical reaction? Who was the first person to throw cans of condensed milk into boiling water and know when they opened them up later it was going to be something totally different? I imagine it had to be by accident. Maybe they just knocked the can in, spent nearly three hours waiting for an explosion which never came, figured they got very lucky and then opened the can to discovered they had actually made a very sweet treat for themselves. That had to feel like a twice-lucky day. (Unless it was a couple of pranksters who were trying to make the cans explode like in a movie and failed. In which case I at least hope the discovery of the caramel brightened their spirits slightly.) Either way, I can't imagine this was done on purpose and if it was it had to be done by someone like me who was blissfully unaware of the potential danger, because no one who thinks a can is going to explode when exposed to that high heat for that long would ever do it on purpose. Basically, the first person who made caramel this way had to be really stupid or really confident.
It also makes me think of all the other inventions which have come along by accident. For example, did you know brandy was originally just wine which had been extra distilled to make it last longer while it was being transported? The wine sellers had planned to add the water that had been distilled out back to the mix before people drank it, but discovered that by letting what was left sit in wooden casks it had become an entirely different kind of alcohol. Or that the people who originally made Play-Doh had been trying to figure out a chemical compound to aid in removing wallpaper and made a toy instead? [Note to self: never let any kids put Play-Doh near their mouth.] Both of those things could easily be classified as "happy accidents" which had to feel like magic. I guess this leaves me with two observations: 1. Just because you didn't succeed at making the product you had set out to, that doesn't mean you failed and 2. Screw high school science classes. Clearly a few of these people failed basic chemistry and they turned out just fine.
[Sidebar: it occurs to me I shouldn't talk this much about the pie and not let you know how it turned out. It wasn't bad, if I do say so myself. Those of you interested in trying it for yourself can just Google it for all the various recipes, but the really simple one I used can be found here. After making the caramel (which can be done as far ahead of time as you want), the actual construction of the pie can be done in 20 minutes or so. I initially found the final product to be too rich for my blood. (Seriously, a diabetic might go into a coma just looking at this dessert.) But, as long as you stick with small slices it isn't overwhelming. The better suggestion came from my sister who told me it would make a much better ice cream topping. I tried it that way the next day and discovered she had the right idea. So, the way I really recommend having it is to add some cold vanilla ice cream to bowl that has a slice of Banoffee pie in it, stir it all together, then add a little extra whipped cream and you have got yourself one heck of a treat.]
Monday, April 9, 2012
Airing It Out
If you read this blog about 40 days ago, you may recall that for Lent this year I had decided to give up not doing sit-ups. Aiding me in my quest was a product called the Magic Ab Bean, which is essentially a curved air mattress designed to help people do sit-ups without as much strain on the neck and back. Now, for the first 39 days of Lent "Beaning for Jesus" had been working out well for me. However, on Saturday I went to take the Bean out of the corner of my room where I store it when not in use and found that it wasn't quite as inflated as it had been the day before. At first I tried to chalk this fact up to falling asleep with the windows open. I thought the cool night air had changed the air pressure enough for the Bean to lose some of its steam. It wasn't until after I had reached the end of my exercises that I knew something was seriously wrong, because normally the Bean keeps me about of foot off the ground and on this day I was closer to six inches. Losing that much air in just a few minutes left me with only one conclusion - my Bean had officially sprung a leak.
Now, at first you could simply count this one as convenient timing. After all, it sprung a leak on Saturday and Sunday was Easter. So, the Bean had lasted just long enough to make it through Lent. I probably should take this is as an Easter miracle and move one. However, much like last year when I began "Biking for Jesus" and then kept right on going after Lent was over, I had planned to continue Beaning after Sunday. So, this morning I decided to pump the Bean back up and see if I could still make it through my routine. Ultimately, I was able to finish, but was again almost on the ground by the time I was done. It was clear that I was either going to have to find and repair the hole, get used to filling the Bean up every day or just buy a new one. Clearly, repairing the hole is the best solution. The problem with this is I only know one way to find leaks in large air-filled things and that is to hold them underwater. The Bean is not exactly small, so I'm not sure where I would be able to do this. Apparently I could also spray it with water and leak would begin to create bubbles, but I'm not totally sure how well that would work. The other thing is that I'm at the point where I have begun to question how much I want to fight with things like this. Much like my father with Christmas lights, there comes a time with certain items at which you begin to ask yourself if it is just easier to buy a new one than spend time repairing the broken one you already own.
I decided to try and fix the Bean, but do so by going as low-maintenance as possible. First I would over-inflate the Bean, then sit on it and see if I could feel air leaking out, old-school style. After all, I had a general idea of where I thought the leak was. In addition to the sit-ups I do a few resistant-band training exercises and thought perhaps the bands rubbing against it had caused a friction break in one of the seams. I wasn't positive of which seam, but I figured at least I knew which half to check. However, after 10 minutes the Bean was almost out of air, I was nearly sitting on the ground and still no leak had been found. I began to wonder if I was going to be able to find a replacement Bean on the internet since the website was no longer operational. At the very least I was going to need to pump it up a few more times until a replacement could be found so I got out the pump and began to blow it back up. Imagine my surprise as I was standing there using the foot pump to re-inflate the Bean and I could feel air blowing on my leg. Turns out the leak was dead-center on the bottom of the Bean, nowhere near where I expected it to be and not even on a seam. Also, there was no hole to be seen - air just appeared to be leaking out of nothing. Honestly, I never would have found this thing.
Like most inflatable things, the Bean does come with a repair kit, but I currently have no idea where it is. However it doesn't really matter because, let's be honest with one another, there is no need to go hunting for an actual repair kit in this kind of situation. All a "repair kit" for this kind of thing will be is a smaller patch of tape that is the same color as the rest of the Bean. If that is the case I happen to have a homemade repair kit which is just as effective - it's called duct tape. Sure, it may not look as pretty but it will cover the problem area just as well as anything I would find in the official repair kit. Heck, for all I know it may even work better. (If I felt like going for overkill I would spread some super glue and then lay down the duct tape, but for the moment that appears unnecessary.) So far it appears to be working as I pumped the Bean back up and it hasn't lost as much air as it did before. Of course it may just seem that way, as I never paid attention to how much air it held before this, so I couldn't really tell how bad the leak had gotten until it was well passed too late. But all that really matters is how it does tomorrow when the bigger test will come, as I attempt to do my normal round of exercises. I guess if I find myself lying on the ground I will know I need to do more patching. Before that I just have to find someone who has a really big tub they feel like letting me use for a few minutes.
Now, at first you could simply count this one as convenient timing. After all, it sprung a leak on Saturday and Sunday was Easter. So, the Bean had lasted just long enough to make it through Lent. I probably should take this is as an Easter miracle and move one. However, much like last year when I began "Biking for Jesus" and then kept right on going after Lent was over, I had planned to continue Beaning after Sunday. So, this morning I decided to pump the Bean back up and see if I could still make it through my routine. Ultimately, I was able to finish, but was again almost on the ground by the time I was done. It was clear that I was either going to have to find and repair the hole, get used to filling the Bean up every day or just buy a new one. Clearly, repairing the hole is the best solution. The problem with this is I only know one way to find leaks in large air-filled things and that is to hold them underwater. The Bean is not exactly small, so I'm not sure where I would be able to do this. Apparently I could also spray it with water and leak would begin to create bubbles, but I'm not totally sure how well that would work. The other thing is that I'm at the point where I have begun to question how much I want to fight with things like this. Much like my father with Christmas lights, there comes a time with certain items at which you begin to ask yourself if it is just easier to buy a new one than spend time repairing the broken one you already own.
I decided to try and fix the Bean, but do so by going as low-maintenance as possible. First I would over-inflate the Bean, then sit on it and see if I could feel air leaking out, old-school style. After all, I had a general idea of where I thought the leak was. In addition to the sit-ups I do a few resistant-band training exercises and thought perhaps the bands rubbing against it had caused a friction break in one of the seams. I wasn't positive of which seam, but I figured at least I knew which half to check. However, after 10 minutes the Bean was almost out of air, I was nearly sitting on the ground and still no leak had been found. I began to wonder if I was going to be able to find a replacement Bean on the internet since the website was no longer operational. At the very least I was going to need to pump it up a few more times until a replacement could be found so I got out the pump and began to blow it back up. Imagine my surprise as I was standing there using the foot pump to re-inflate the Bean and I could feel air blowing on my leg. Turns out the leak was dead-center on the bottom of the Bean, nowhere near where I expected it to be and not even on a seam. Also, there was no hole to be seen - air just appeared to be leaking out of nothing. Honestly, I never would have found this thing.
Like most inflatable things, the Bean does come with a repair kit, but I currently have no idea where it is. However it doesn't really matter because, let's be honest with one another, there is no need to go hunting for an actual repair kit in this kind of situation. All a "repair kit" for this kind of thing will be is a smaller patch of tape that is the same color as the rest of the Bean. If that is the case I happen to have a homemade repair kit which is just as effective - it's called duct tape. Sure, it may not look as pretty but it will cover the problem area just as well as anything I would find in the official repair kit. Heck, for all I know it may even work better. (If I felt like going for overkill I would spread some super glue and then lay down the duct tape, but for the moment that appears unnecessary.) So far it appears to be working as I pumped the Bean back up and it hasn't lost as much air as it did before. Of course it may just seem that way, as I never paid attention to how much air it held before this, so I couldn't really tell how bad the leak had gotten until it was well passed too late. But all that really matters is how it does tomorrow when the bigger test will come, as I attempt to do my normal round of exercises. I guess if I find myself lying on the ground I will know I need to do more patching. Before that I just have to find someone who has a really big tub they feel like letting me use for a few minutes.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Happy Easter!
Happy Easter
Everybody!
Hope you are enjoying this day of eating candy, finding brightly-colored eggs and giving plants to the women in your family. Easter is also great because it allows you to go shopping in the very back of your closet. You know that random yellow, pink, purple or teal shirt you own but can't remember why you bought it because you can't think of a single day where you would ever wear it, as it is far too loud for your normal tastes? Congratulations, today is the day you can finally bring it out. Hopefully you get to spent some time today with your family. To our Jewish friends celebrating the third night of Passover, Chag Pesach Same'ach and I hope you find the Afikomen.
As for this week's musical interlude, you would be surprised how hard it is to find songs with bunny or eggs in the title which do not completely suck. Fortunately, I had a lot more luck once I searched for songs about rabbits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)