so i got sucked into watching this tonight at nellie's house and i had just a couple of random thoughts/questions. i have only seen two episodes this season. this episode was down to the final 3. he took them to barbados and had a day-long date with them. i wonder how much of this show is actually staged and scripted. my sister lindsey was sort of involved in a reality show a couple years ago in vegas. she said that it was hardly reality and very much scripted. granted, you could tell just by watching it that it was scripted, but i wonder how much. at the end of the show he eliminates 1 girl. there are three girls left. one is the blonde bimbo from malibu that isnt as attractive as the other girls and pretty much an idiot. she is 22 and im sure she has been on this show this long because she is sleeping with one of the producers. the other girl is a brown haired girl that he should be with only because she is the mature, respectable girl. she says 'like' like every other like word. but if he was really in it to find a legit marriage material girl, she is the one to pick. but he's a guy so he is going to pick the other girl that is also blonde and you can tell he really wants. its hard to say if she is even into him. probably not. it seems a little forced. just because he has picked all of these girls doesnt mean they are actually picking him. anyways, at the end of the show, he eliminated the brown haired girl. which made me wonder how scripted it really is. i wonder if he told them he already knew he was going to pick chelsea in the end so they said to have him eliminate the brown haired girl because the other one is a bimbo and creates more controversy because it will be so shocking if you pick her so you have to keep her because people will be dying to watch just to make sure you dont pick her....and she's sleeping with one of the producers.
speaking of sleeping, the other thing i was wondering is if he is actually shacking up with 3 different girls in 3 consecutive nights. at the end of each of their dates he gives them a card which 'is from the producer' that basically tells them that they have booked two different hotel rooms for them, but if they so desire and want to have any chance at winning, they can sleep in the luxury suite with him. they all went to the luxury suite of course and all acted like they were going to or willing to throw themselves at him once the cameras and lights went off. wouldnt it be funny if once the cameras went off they were just like, 'well, thats a wrap, im just going to head off to my own room now, ill see you tomorrow.'? is it purely naive and stupid to think that he isnt getting busy with 3 different women? i know this isnt something to lose sleep over and dwell on, but they definitely imply that he is, and if he is, is everyone alright with this? im sure he is, hopefully not, but are the ladies? he proposes to one of them at the end of the show. how does that go over?
him: will you marry me?
her: um, remember how last week you slept with two other women?
him: oh. right. yeah, vaguely i suppose. was that just last week? man, i swear that felt like it was so long ago.
her: no. it was just last week. you sure you love me?
him: what? love? you? oh yeah. totally. wanna just forget about that other girl stuff?
her: no. not really.
him: right. yeah. i can see why you wouldnt. wanna just put this engagement ring on anyways for sake of the show and then we will break up after the show is over?
her: (crying) yes.
producer: and...cut. great. thats a wrap. lets cut everything but that first and last line. thanks guys.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Sunday, April 27, 2008
summer movie preview 2008
so i did this last year and i figured i would do it again. i realize that its only april and so summer wont be starting for another month or so, but finals begin in 2 weeks and then there is this exam in july called the bar that i have to take. anyways, im told i should study for it, so i dont know when ill really get a chance to sit down and give my two cents on summer movies. not that anyone should care about my movie thoughts. im no movie buff, although i do consider myself a movie snob. i would attribute most of that to my college roommate dave. he's the 'best boy' ever. he's also the movie buff and through our years of living together he tutored me and trained me to reject theater trash and other types of movie vomit. speaking of dave, he works in santa monica for a cable station called the 'soundtrack channel.' its a small channel that is trying to expand and grow. id tell you what exactly he does but i never remember. however, he does do the 'stc news' and all of their hollywood headlines. you can watch all of them on itunes under soundtrack channel podcasts: stc news. dave has always wanted to be on tv and majored in film to help jump start his tv career (it had nothing to do with film or love for writing) so i know how much this means to him which is why im giving him this plug.
speaking of plugs, i saw the movie 'run fatboy run' the other week. it was fantastic. the main actor is outstanding. he was also in 'shawn of the dead' and 'hot fuzz.' he's really great. i cant get enough of him. he's the best british export since ricky gervais, muse and posh spice. plus, its a fun story. props to david schwimmer (he directed it). its the first time i have respected him since he was in 'wonder years.' he spent so many other years being a complete whiney and annoying loser and forcing me to not watch 'friends' that i was sure he wasnt capable of doing anything worthwhile for the rest of his life. he's proved me wrong. matt leblanc has yet to do so though.
anyways, last year i organized them by how likely it was that i would see movie. given that ill be studying for the bar this summer and probably wont even see my girlfriend most days, i doubt ill see many, if any of these movies. im sure there are many movies that i am overlooking, but here are some thoughts about a few that i was able to see online:
who funds this stuff?
what happens in vegas - i know this is a chick flick so i was going to put it there, but i had to bump it up to this category because it looks like crap. but sadly it will make money. plenty of girls will see every chick flick that comes to the theater. plus it has ashton which all girls like, even though he slapped every girl in the face by hooking up with demi moore. still so strange. it also has cameron diaz. i dont think she has looked that attractive since 'the mask.' it looks terribly stupid and predictable from the previews. i bet, after they both do so much to try and get the other person to file for divorce, that they actually end up liking each other and falling in love. maybe they wont though, maybe it will end with ashton taking the money, shacking up with a woman twice his age, while cameron diaz (a prettier, but not pretty woman that is his age) sits in confusion on the street wondering why he is with the older woman.
you dont mess with the zohan - here's the problem. when i was in jr. high i went with my friend chris jahnke and saw 'happy gillmore' on the opening weekend and we laughed. so i cant get mad when i see another adam sandler movie coming out because i once thought he was funny so surely other people do too, but they cant be over the age of 14 right? does any adult find this guy funny? if they do, would anyone claim him or her as their friend? i'd stay away from someone like that. they have nothing to contribute to a solid friendship. nothing.
tropic thunder - ben stiller and adam sandler should just get on a boat together and go to an island alone together where they can live in peace and wont bug anyone.
meet dave - eddie murphy. and to make things better, he has a mini eddie murphy living inside of him. how did the conversation for this movie go?
producer: you know eddie, you just arent quite the star you used to be. you cant carry a film on your own anymore.
eddie: yeah, youre probably right. how about we have mini me as a supporting character?
producer: mini me? the midget from austin powers?
eddie: no. i mean, me, just small. living inside of big, main character me.
producer: yeah, that will probably work. it sounds as crappy as everything else you do that sells to whoever your audience is. did we ever figure out who these people are that see your films?
eddie: no. not yet.
oh, i dont know:
bangkok dangerous - the tagline from the preview was, 'nothing is more dangerous than a hitman...that hits back.' that sort of makes me upset inside because i could come up with something like that. this movie would be the best if it has the song 'one night in bangkok' throughout all of it. thats such a great song. how can you make a movie with bangkok in the title and not have that song in it? i think its impossible.
the happening - its another m. night shamalyhanahdananan movie. there will probably be a twist of some sort. it has mark whalberg in it so it has my attention. i know that sounds gay, but he's great. if it wasnt for him i wouldnt even think about seeing it. that sounds even more gay. moving on.
redbelt - the only reason i bring this up is because it has tim allen in it. everything he does is usually terrible (except for all the toy story's and the first santa clause). im not saying this movie will be good, it probably wont, but its totally unlike anything else he has ever done, which is respectable that he is branching out.
para todos:
speed racer: ok, when i first saw the poster i was a little upset and bummed. everyone knew eventually that someone would make this movie and i was expecting something different. like a racy pg-13 movie with fast cars and crap actors. but then i realized i already have 'fast and the furious' in my life to fill that void. and i actually think on the big screen and even on imax, that this could be a very visually entertaining film. i cant say that i think it will be brilliant, but definitely good on certain levels. i know i wouldnt be upset if i had to take a 10 year old to see it.
wall-e, kung fu panda and space chimps - alright, these are three of the animated films that are coming out this summer. first, wall-e. ive heard some people say that they dont think it looks that great and arent really excited about it so they might not see it. really? thats like the beatles coming out with a new album and people saying they arent sure if they are going to listen to it because they didnt like 'rubber soul.' i feel like with the track record of pixar, you have to see it. some say they didnt particularly care for 'ratatouille' so they might not see this one. but that is what is sad in my opinion. pixar just does brilliant stuff. if you dont see it then you arent appreciating or paying much attention to the movie. they put so much effort and creativity into every movie that nothing is left out and every line or scene is carefully planned. its a shame when even if you dont necessarily like the movie (like 'cars') that you cant at least appreciate the attention to detail.
so, lets compare them. pixar or wall-e would be like 'arrested development' (which did btw, announce a movie coming out in '09. i already cant sleep thinking about it) where everything is planned and its brilliant but on many levels so that you continue to appreciate it long after you have seen it. it lasts. kung fu panda is pure crap trying to hide behind a big name star. they figured they could make something that wasnt funny, but put a 'funny guy' in the main role and people would laugh and not realize that what they are watching isnt good. the problem is that the main guy's ship has sailed, well, its about to pull away from the dock and leave the harbor. im not sure if jack black could ever carry a comedy, but he really cant now. kung fu panda is like when they gave chevy chase a talk show. that was real bad and based on faulty logic similar to kung fu panda. animated films are big, jack black is funny, this will work. talk shows are in, chevy chase is funny, this will work. im probably being too hard. im sure it will be a smashing success. either way, it wont be as bad as 'space chimps.' i dont even know what tv sitcom i would compare this to. maybe 'freddie' the short lived freddie prince jr. show. just watch the trailer. the jokes are bad. so bad that im not even sure that a child would laugh at them. at every moment you can think to yourself, 'i could have come up with that.' and you could have, unless you arent over 9. so why would you want to pay money to someone that is doing something that you could do, but you never bothered to do it because you realized that it wasnt anything unique or brilliant? you also didnt bother to do it because you dont know someone that will pay you 20 times what you are making now to make the lame show.
for the ladies (and some dudes):
mamma mia - i should see this because i love the 'abba' music. but im sure i wont. i could listen to 'abba gold' every day. i never saw the musical which is still upsetting to me. problem is, it comes out on the same weekend as the new batman, so the only part most of america will see of this movie is whatever is on the poster when they are waiting in lines to get into batman.
another sisterhood and more pants - my brain shut off just trying to think of something to say.
made of honor - nellie said the other day that she really wanted to see this. dont get me wrong, some chick flicks are great. i really enjoy some. sometimes its not a terrible thing when a girl drags you to one. some of them are entertaining with a decent and not entirely predictable story line and good supporting cast. i feel like i dont need to see this since i saw 'my best friend's wedding' a few years back. either way, im glad i have the legitimate 'i have to study' card and can pull it at will this summer. it will come in handy for this movie, but not nearly as much as this next one:
sex and the city - alright, ive never seen an episode of this show so i cant really knock it. it might be good. maybe its well written and some guys had to sit through so many episodes with their lady that they enjoy it. it might be pretty good, but having never seen it and just seeing the previews, it looks like the mother of all chick flicks. its almost worth going to as a guy, only because you could pretty much drag your woman to anything after she took you to this. 'no honey, we are going to the van halen concert, or we are going to watch all 7 games of the nba finals....remember 'sex and the city'?
blockbusters:
ironman - um...its a marvel movie. too hard to predict in my opinion. action? yes. stars? yes. they will always come because fans will always go see it. will there be a plot? perhaps. will the jokes be terrible or legit? impossible to say. many moments where the movie just gets ridiculous? of course, no idea if it will be too much. but its a 'blockbuster' so its supposed to just be fun and exciting. of course its a little concerning it comes out so early in may as though it cant compete with other movies on later summer weekends. im guessing most reviews will be 'eh, it was fine.'
incredible hulk - again, a marvel movie. its hard to exactly say what it is that makes some of these respectable and a good time, and others that just arent any fun at all. its the difference between any spiderman movie and a fantastic four movie. on many levels, its the same movie, but in one of them you can tell that they put thought into it and actually tried to make a movie with a decent plot and didnt just rely on 'cool effects' with 'sexy stars' to get through the movie. its entertaining, just not memorable and you usually arent happy you spent money on the movie. you arent upset and wanting your money back, but you arent completely fine with having given your money away. im not sure if any of this makes sense, but i think ironman will be along the same vein as fantastic four while incredible hulk will be like spiderman.
indiana jones - so this should be fantastic. not just because its an addition to an already classic trilogy, but because it has kept harrison ford away from making movies like 'hollywood homicide.' its also prevented him from being in the news with that calista flockhart. how is it that they are together again? she's hideous. anyways, i dont know what to say about this movie. how can you not want to see it? its george lucas at his best, by producing it. its speilberg at his best by directing it. and its harrison ford as indiana jones. he's the all american hero. it should be just a great and enjoyable time at the movies, which is what 'summer movies' are all about.
chronic(what)cles of narnia - i didnt particuarly like the first one. many people did though, so i think im in the minority. im not terribly excited for this even though it looks good. i recommend it though because im sure it will be good and most people will like it, i just will probably use the 'bar study' excuse.
the dark knight - alright, i already raved about this movie in another post. nellie and i were fortunate to see the first 10 minutes as a preview of 'i am legend.' it looks phenomenal. seriously. now, im supposed to do nothing but study for 15 hours a day in preparation for the bar and according to everyone i talk to, bar study requires about that much time for 2 solid months. knowing that, and having fully committed to that by paying a few grand for a bar prep course, i will see this movie opening weekend. i think everyone should make an effort to see it in the theatres this summer. having only seen 1o minutes, im guaranteeing everyone will like it. if you dont, ill personally come sit down with you after im done with the bar and explain to you why you have poor taste in movies.
anyways, there are a ton of other movies. a steve carrel comedy and a mike myers one as well. both could be great and also just as easily pretty terrible. there is another 'hellboy' coming out and another 'mummy' movie to complete the much anticipated trilogy. there is also a will smith movie called 'hancock.' i usually enjoy most of his stuff so im sure it will be pretty good, this post is just getting too long and its one of those things where there will always be more movies to talk about so instead of trying to cover them all, ill just quit here.
speaking of plugs, i saw the movie 'run fatboy run' the other week. it was fantastic. the main actor is outstanding. he was also in 'shawn of the dead' and 'hot fuzz.' he's really great. i cant get enough of him. he's the best british export since ricky gervais, muse and posh spice. plus, its a fun story. props to david schwimmer (he directed it). its the first time i have respected him since he was in 'wonder years.' he spent so many other years being a complete whiney and annoying loser and forcing me to not watch 'friends' that i was sure he wasnt capable of doing anything worthwhile for the rest of his life. he's proved me wrong. matt leblanc has yet to do so though.
anyways, last year i organized them by how likely it was that i would see movie. given that ill be studying for the bar this summer and probably wont even see my girlfriend most days, i doubt ill see many, if any of these movies. im sure there are many movies that i am overlooking, but here are some thoughts about a few that i was able to see online:
who funds this stuff?
what happens in vegas - i know this is a chick flick so i was going to put it there, but i had to bump it up to this category because it looks like crap. but sadly it will make money. plenty of girls will see every chick flick that comes to the theater. plus it has ashton which all girls like, even though he slapped every girl in the face by hooking up with demi moore. still so strange. it also has cameron diaz. i dont think she has looked that attractive since 'the mask.' it looks terribly stupid and predictable from the previews. i bet, after they both do so much to try and get the other person to file for divorce, that they actually end up liking each other and falling in love. maybe they wont though, maybe it will end with ashton taking the money, shacking up with a woman twice his age, while cameron diaz (a prettier, but not pretty woman that is his age) sits in confusion on the street wondering why he is with the older woman.
you dont mess with the zohan - here's the problem. when i was in jr. high i went with my friend chris jahnke and saw 'happy gillmore' on the opening weekend and we laughed. so i cant get mad when i see another adam sandler movie coming out because i once thought he was funny so surely other people do too, but they cant be over the age of 14 right? does any adult find this guy funny? if they do, would anyone claim him or her as their friend? i'd stay away from someone like that. they have nothing to contribute to a solid friendship. nothing.
tropic thunder - ben stiller and adam sandler should just get on a boat together and go to an island alone together where they can live in peace and wont bug anyone.
meet dave - eddie murphy. and to make things better, he has a mini eddie murphy living inside of him. how did the conversation for this movie go?
producer: you know eddie, you just arent quite the star you used to be. you cant carry a film on your own anymore.
eddie: yeah, youre probably right. how about we have mini me as a supporting character?
producer: mini me? the midget from austin powers?
eddie: no. i mean, me, just small. living inside of big, main character me.
producer: yeah, that will probably work. it sounds as crappy as everything else you do that sells to whoever your audience is. did we ever figure out who these people are that see your films?
eddie: no. not yet.
oh, i dont know:
bangkok dangerous - the tagline from the preview was, 'nothing is more dangerous than a hitman...that hits back.' that sort of makes me upset inside because i could come up with something like that. this movie would be the best if it has the song 'one night in bangkok' throughout all of it. thats such a great song. how can you make a movie with bangkok in the title and not have that song in it? i think its impossible.
the happening - its another m. night shamalyhanahdananan movie. there will probably be a twist of some sort. it has mark whalberg in it so it has my attention. i know that sounds gay, but he's great. if it wasnt for him i wouldnt even think about seeing it. that sounds even more gay. moving on.
redbelt - the only reason i bring this up is because it has tim allen in it. everything he does is usually terrible (except for all the toy story's and the first santa clause). im not saying this movie will be good, it probably wont, but its totally unlike anything else he has ever done, which is respectable that he is branching out.
para todos:
speed racer: ok, when i first saw the poster i was a little upset and bummed. everyone knew eventually that someone would make this movie and i was expecting something different. like a racy pg-13 movie with fast cars and crap actors. but then i realized i already have 'fast and the furious' in my life to fill that void. and i actually think on the big screen and even on imax, that this could be a very visually entertaining film. i cant say that i think it will be brilliant, but definitely good on certain levels. i know i wouldnt be upset if i had to take a 10 year old to see it.
wall-e, kung fu panda and space chimps - alright, these are three of the animated films that are coming out this summer. first, wall-e. ive heard some people say that they dont think it looks that great and arent really excited about it so they might not see it. really? thats like the beatles coming out with a new album and people saying they arent sure if they are going to listen to it because they didnt like 'rubber soul.' i feel like with the track record of pixar, you have to see it. some say they didnt particularly care for 'ratatouille' so they might not see this one. but that is what is sad in my opinion. pixar just does brilliant stuff. if you dont see it then you arent appreciating or paying much attention to the movie. they put so much effort and creativity into every movie that nothing is left out and every line or scene is carefully planned. its a shame when even if you dont necessarily like the movie (like 'cars') that you cant at least appreciate the attention to detail.
so, lets compare them. pixar or wall-e would be like 'arrested development' (which did btw, announce a movie coming out in '09. i already cant sleep thinking about it) where everything is planned and its brilliant but on many levels so that you continue to appreciate it long after you have seen it. it lasts. kung fu panda is pure crap trying to hide behind a big name star. they figured they could make something that wasnt funny, but put a 'funny guy' in the main role and people would laugh and not realize that what they are watching isnt good. the problem is that the main guy's ship has sailed, well, its about to pull away from the dock and leave the harbor. im not sure if jack black could ever carry a comedy, but he really cant now. kung fu panda is like when they gave chevy chase a talk show. that was real bad and based on faulty logic similar to kung fu panda. animated films are big, jack black is funny, this will work. talk shows are in, chevy chase is funny, this will work. im probably being too hard. im sure it will be a smashing success. either way, it wont be as bad as 'space chimps.' i dont even know what tv sitcom i would compare this to. maybe 'freddie' the short lived freddie prince jr. show. just watch the trailer. the jokes are bad. so bad that im not even sure that a child would laugh at them. at every moment you can think to yourself, 'i could have come up with that.' and you could have, unless you arent over 9. so why would you want to pay money to someone that is doing something that you could do, but you never bothered to do it because you realized that it wasnt anything unique or brilliant? you also didnt bother to do it because you dont know someone that will pay you 20 times what you are making now to make the lame show.
for the ladies (and some dudes):
mamma mia - i should see this because i love the 'abba' music. but im sure i wont. i could listen to 'abba gold' every day. i never saw the musical which is still upsetting to me. problem is, it comes out on the same weekend as the new batman, so the only part most of america will see of this movie is whatever is on the poster when they are waiting in lines to get into batman.
another sisterhood and more pants - my brain shut off just trying to think of something to say.
made of honor - nellie said the other day that she really wanted to see this. dont get me wrong, some chick flicks are great. i really enjoy some. sometimes its not a terrible thing when a girl drags you to one. some of them are entertaining with a decent and not entirely predictable story line and good supporting cast. i feel like i dont need to see this since i saw 'my best friend's wedding' a few years back. either way, im glad i have the legitimate 'i have to study' card and can pull it at will this summer. it will come in handy for this movie, but not nearly as much as this next one:
sex and the city - alright, ive never seen an episode of this show so i cant really knock it. it might be good. maybe its well written and some guys had to sit through so many episodes with their lady that they enjoy it. it might be pretty good, but having never seen it and just seeing the previews, it looks like the mother of all chick flicks. its almost worth going to as a guy, only because you could pretty much drag your woman to anything after she took you to this. 'no honey, we are going to the van halen concert, or we are going to watch all 7 games of the nba finals....remember 'sex and the city'?
blockbusters:
ironman - um...its a marvel movie. too hard to predict in my opinion. action? yes. stars? yes. they will always come because fans will always go see it. will there be a plot? perhaps. will the jokes be terrible or legit? impossible to say. many moments where the movie just gets ridiculous? of course, no idea if it will be too much. but its a 'blockbuster' so its supposed to just be fun and exciting. of course its a little concerning it comes out so early in may as though it cant compete with other movies on later summer weekends. im guessing most reviews will be 'eh, it was fine.'
incredible hulk - again, a marvel movie. its hard to exactly say what it is that makes some of these respectable and a good time, and others that just arent any fun at all. its the difference between any spiderman movie and a fantastic four movie. on many levels, its the same movie, but in one of them you can tell that they put thought into it and actually tried to make a movie with a decent plot and didnt just rely on 'cool effects' with 'sexy stars' to get through the movie. its entertaining, just not memorable and you usually arent happy you spent money on the movie. you arent upset and wanting your money back, but you arent completely fine with having given your money away. im not sure if any of this makes sense, but i think ironman will be along the same vein as fantastic four while incredible hulk will be like spiderman.
indiana jones - so this should be fantastic. not just because its an addition to an already classic trilogy, but because it has kept harrison ford away from making movies like 'hollywood homicide.' its also prevented him from being in the news with that calista flockhart. how is it that they are together again? she's hideous. anyways, i dont know what to say about this movie. how can you not want to see it? its george lucas at his best, by producing it. its speilberg at his best by directing it. and its harrison ford as indiana jones. he's the all american hero. it should be just a great and enjoyable time at the movies, which is what 'summer movies' are all about.
chronic(what)cles of narnia - i didnt particuarly like the first one. many people did though, so i think im in the minority. im not terribly excited for this even though it looks good. i recommend it though because im sure it will be good and most people will like it, i just will probably use the 'bar study' excuse.
the dark knight - alright, i already raved about this movie in another post. nellie and i were fortunate to see the first 10 minutes as a preview of 'i am legend.' it looks phenomenal. seriously. now, im supposed to do nothing but study for 15 hours a day in preparation for the bar and according to everyone i talk to, bar study requires about that much time for 2 solid months. knowing that, and having fully committed to that by paying a few grand for a bar prep course, i will see this movie opening weekend. i think everyone should make an effort to see it in the theatres this summer. having only seen 1o minutes, im guaranteeing everyone will like it. if you dont, ill personally come sit down with you after im done with the bar and explain to you why you have poor taste in movies.
anyways, there are a ton of other movies. a steve carrel comedy and a mike myers one as well. both could be great and also just as easily pretty terrible. there is another 'hellboy' coming out and another 'mummy' movie to complete the much anticipated trilogy. there is also a will smith movie called 'hancock.' i usually enjoy most of his stuff so im sure it will be pretty good, this post is just getting too long and its one of those things where there will always be more movies to talk about so instead of trying to cover them all, ill just quit here.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
dear del taco
hi. how are you? im good. thanks. as you know, i frequent your fine franchise often. well, it has tapered off in recent years, but dont be offended, ive tapered off with all fast food. its not you. its me. and its no so much all of me as much as just my bowels. they just dont react like they used to after i eat at your fine establishment. but i do think you are great. really i do. ever since i first met you back in high school i felt you were superior to taco bell. your chicken soft tacos really sold me. they were only 79 cents. what a deal! especially since taco bell's were well over a dollar. which is a big difference in high school when you only have about $1.50 for lunch (sadly, not much has changed). but i appreciated how cheap you are. and your fries. so good. just like they were straight out of a bag and out of the oven. im actually pretty sure they are since i can buy the exact same tasting ones at the supermarket with the same zig zag shape. but im not going to go through the effort of buying the bag, turning on the oven, waiting, putting the fries in, waiting, taking them out, waiting, and then eating them when i can head to one of your many convenient locations and get them in a fraction of the time. sure they might not always be hot and sometimes are soggy, but they are cheap and its easy and i dont have to wait.
anyways, i write this letter to discuss your shakes. mainly your strawberry shake. i was introduced to your shake a couple years ago. recently, as im sure you have noticed, there has been a shake revolution of sorts at fast food chains. they all put whip cream on them. some even add a cherry. they usually come in clear containers. they have larger straws. sometimes even colored ones. the flavors range from traditional fruits to cereal flavors. and you have joined the revolution. i cant blame you. peer pressure is hard to resist. we all fall to it during our lifetime. you have whipped your top, domed your lid and made your container clear.
but you still add fruit chunks to your strawberry shakes. and i think the chunks are bigger. lets just be honest with each other: we both know the fruit isnt real. it isnt any more real than those balls that you put in the soft tacos that you claim are chicken. chicken doesnt come in balls and it it shouldnt be gummy. same thing with your tacos. i mean seriously, you are selling tacos for 39 cents. do you really think we, the consumer, think anything inside a 39 cent taco is real? we know the meat is powder filler and dirt chunks. the lettuce is just soft plastic pieces colored green and the cheese is hopefully fake because there is no way fast food chains are treating their dairy properly; we hope its fake and not being shipped all over the country in the back of warm semi's. but that's the thing: i dont care. if i did, i wouldnt go there. i dont go to your restaurant looking for real food. i go looking for a meal that will taste good and flush me out later. so why are you putting the 'fruit' in there? no one is thinking that you used actual strawberries to flavor your shake and that its evidenced by the fact that some strawberries werent grounded up and they somehow ended up whole in the bottom of your cup. we all know that they came from a bag in the freezer and before that they came from some factory in peru.
but even if you dont want to give up the gimick and want to continue to try and fool your customer, its just impractical to have them in there. why? because the strawberries sink to the bottom where the bottom of the straw sucks up the shake. the strawberries clog up the straw. we, your consumers, suck and suck until our jaw hurts and cheeks our numb. you are losing out on a valuable 'post wisdom teeth operationee in need of a shake' consumer market. if we cant do it, there is no way they can either. the 2 inch strawberry doesnt go up the 2 cm hole. it cant happen. something went wrong in r&d and somehow this was overlooked. im not sure what happened or how it was missed, but it was. its an easy fix. just remove the strawberries. no one wants them. no one eats them at the end. they just get in the way. you can do this. i know you can.
sincerely,
kent
p.s. love the addition of the $1 churros. they are great. they dont cost $5 like at disneyland and they dont have a bitter after taste like the ones at 'el pollo loco.' i think they are using sourdough. dont worry, im sending them a letter too.
anyways, i write this letter to discuss your shakes. mainly your strawberry shake. i was introduced to your shake a couple years ago. recently, as im sure you have noticed, there has been a shake revolution of sorts at fast food chains. they all put whip cream on them. some even add a cherry. they usually come in clear containers. they have larger straws. sometimes even colored ones. the flavors range from traditional fruits to cereal flavors. and you have joined the revolution. i cant blame you. peer pressure is hard to resist. we all fall to it during our lifetime. you have whipped your top, domed your lid and made your container clear.
but you still add fruit chunks to your strawberry shakes. and i think the chunks are bigger. lets just be honest with each other: we both know the fruit isnt real. it isnt any more real than those balls that you put in the soft tacos that you claim are chicken. chicken doesnt come in balls and it it shouldnt be gummy. same thing with your tacos. i mean seriously, you are selling tacos for 39 cents. do you really think we, the consumer, think anything inside a 39 cent taco is real? we know the meat is powder filler and dirt chunks. the lettuce is just soft plastic pieces colored green and the cheese is hopefully fake because there is no way fast food chains are treating their dairy properly; we hope its fake and not being shipped all over the country in the back of warm semi's. but that's the thing: i dont care. if i did, i wouldnt go there. i dont go to your restaurant looking for real food. i go looking for a meal that will taste good and flush me out later. so why are you putting the 'fruit' in there? no one is thinking that you used actual strawberries to flavor your shake and that its evidenced by the fact that some strawberries werent grounded up and they somehow ended up whole in the bottom of your cup. we all know that they came from a bag in the freezer and before that they came from some factory in peru.
but even if you dont want to give up the gimick and want to continue to try and fool your customer, its just impractical to have them in there. why? because the strawberries sink to the bottom where the bottom of the straw sucks up the shake. the strawberries clog up the straw. we, your consumers, suck and suck until our jaw hurts and cheeks our numb. you are losing out on a valuable 'post wisdom teeth operationee in need of a shake' consumer market. if we cant do it, there is no way they can either. the 2 inch strawberry doesnt go up the 2 cm hole. it cant happen. something went wrong in r&d and somehow this was overlooked. im not sure what happened or how it was missed, but it was. its an easy fix. just remove the strawberries. no one wants them. no one eats them at the end. they just get in the way. you can do this. i know you can.
sincerely,
kent
p.s. love the addition of the $1 churros. they are great. they dont cost $5 like at disneyland and they dont have a bitter after taste like the ones at 'el pollo loco.' i think they are using sourdough. dont worry, im sending them a letter too.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
follow up
before a quick follow up to my previous post, i will mention something funny (since these posts are anything but). today is april fools day and im not one to make many or any practical jokes. not that im against it, but i just never really think to do it, but i think they are funny and always admire when other people do. i especially admire it when something like youtube is mature enough to not take itself too seriously and have fun for a day. go to youtube.com and click on any one of the 'featured videos.' (if it is no longer april 1, then it might not be there anymore. but if you clicked on any one of the featured videos, then this video would come up. pretty good. the song is actually pretty good, catchy and classic (sort of), but the video is just epic).
anyways, just a quick follow up to the previous post that no one seemed to read or care to comment about. my brother in law read it and sent me an email. he is well versed in poorer countries and many problems that they face. he is doing his medical residency and has spent a good amount of time in africa and south/central america doing work with poor communities. anyways, he just commented that the solution to these major problems (like human trafficking) is to focus on improving health, education and commerce. he also mentioned that another solution is to make penalties so severe that people will be afraid to do it. that is a possibility, but a problem with that one (which we discussed in my class) is that the government is so corrupt. there are actually severe penalties for any sort of participation in human trafficking, even in cambodia. but if anyone is ever caught and charged with some sort of participation, they can and do just pay off judges and government officials and get themselves released. so basically there are two options, work on the solution from the top down, or from the ground up. both are possible, but i cant do much about the top down one and getting judges or officials that arent corrupt in office. but my brother in law gave a couple of solutions for working on things from the ground up. they both seem great. i really like the first one because not only do the families get money, which is good so they arent wanting to sell their children, but its based off of the children going to school, which helps solve some of the education problems, which would eventually benefit the community. anyways, here they are, with some explanations of each:
Cambodia
anyways, just a quick follow up to the previous post that no one seemed to read or care to comment about. my brother in law read it and sent me an email. he is well versed in poorer countries and many problems that they face. he is doing his medical residency and has spent a good amount of time in africa and south/central america doing work with poor communities. anyways, he just commented that the solution to these major problems (like human trafficking) is to focus on improving health, education and commerce. he also mentioned that another solution is to make penalties so severe that people will be afraid to do it. that is a possibility, but a problem with that one (which we discussed in my class) is that the government is so corrupt. there are actually severe penalties for any sort of participation in human trafficking, even in cambodia. but if anyone is ever caught and charged with some sort of participation, they can and do just pay off judges and government officials and get themselves released. so basically there are two options, work on the solution from the top down, or from the ground up. both are possible, but i cant do much about the top down one and getting judges or officials that arent corrupt in office. but my brother in law gave a couple of solutions for working on things from the ground up. they both seem great. i really like the first one because not only do the families get money, which is good so they arent wanting to sell their children, but its based off of the children going to school, which helps solve some of the education problems, which would eventually benefit the community. anyways, here they are, with some explanations of each:
Poor, rural and often illiterate Cambodian parents tend to keep their daughters from attending school, preferring them to remain home to tend the fields, cook, keep house and mind younger children or otherwise generate income for the family. Girls are taught to be shy and refrain from participating in the activities of the community. To encourage these resistant parents to keep their daughters in school in a culture that does not value educating girls, our partner organization, American Assistance for
Partner: American Assistance for
Founded in 2003, the
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)