The Ultimate in First-World Problems, and a case of Foolish Economy

Check out this article from CNN published today:  https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/disney-price-hikes-visitor-demand/index.html.  It opens with the sad, sad story of an adult woman who decided to fly to Southern Florida to go to Disney World but then, when she found that the entrance price had increased by "forty or fifty dollars" (which one?  Why the estimate rather than an actual price? Does it fluctuate?) made the decision to "cut her trip by a day."  

What the actual heck?  This woman spent god knows how much money to fly across the country to visit some stupid theme park but decided she needed to save $50 by only going to that park for a day instead of her originally-planned two?  This would be like me flying to Paris and then not visiting the Eiffel Tower because the cost of the elevator had risen from $20 to $40.  Or me spending $4000 for a week in Ireland and then not buying a t-shirt because, hey, it's that $20 again.  I mean, is this really the moment I'm going to choose to save some money?

I am not even going to get deeply into the whole "problem" of a theme park in which attendants are constantly assaulted by commercials while waiting in endless lines (and are encouraged to pay extra to get into slightly shorter lines, essentially creating a caste system right there in the park by charging more for the "experience.")  Theme parks are not grocery stores and rides are not food or medication.  If Disney World, Disney Land, Six Flags or Hershey Park become "too expensive," people will stop going, and the prices will come back down.  This is called Capitalism and while I'm not a fan, I do get how it works and how pointless it is to complain about it (and how dumb it is to make the decision to spend a thousand dollars traveling a thousand miles and then deciding it's time to economize over forty or fifty bucks.  What did that stupid woman do with the extra day she had because she didn't go to Disney World?  Did she just fly back home early, or did she stand in the parking lot at Disney World looking through the gates at the exhausted, sweaty People of Means having "fun" in there?) 

And oh, one more thing- Times are Tight.  Millions of people are struggling to pay their grocery bills and rent and other Necessary Expenses.  If a day at Disney World (but not a cross-country flight) seems a bit pricey to you right now, seriously, touch grass.  I don't care about this particular "problem," sorry. 

LeBron, Lilly, and thirty seconds of pointless noise

To answer an all-too-common question in the comment section:  No, LeBron James and Lilly did NOT film this commercial together.  They are never in the same room during their takes.  Not even once.  I mean, that's obvious- but I had to say it anyway, because OMG some of you people are dense.

But more to the point, why was this ad even made?  Oh right, because LeBron James agreed to mouth a few lines in front of a camera which could then be spliced in with everyone's favorite Yesterday's Darling Lilly (seriously, enough already.  Let's move on please.)  And got paid with more money than most of us make in several years for doing it.  The result is a cringe-fest which is hard to watch and even harder to listen to.  And an ad that makes both people extremely punchable.  And making the audience very jealous of the fact that they never had to be in the same room together.  We'd like to avoid this too, but as long as we are addicted to watching sports on the weekend, we are kind of stuck with both of them.

That Taco Bell "apology" commercial with Pete Davidson misses the point.

 

So Taco Bell is "apologizing" for its "complicated" breakfast options- I think they are specifically aiming at some waffle monstrosity that just didn't land well with its audience.  So Pete Davidson is here to let us know that TB is going "back to basics" with something that a bachelor would make in his own kitchen with ingredients he found in the fridge- eggs, sausage and potatoes, all stacked on top of each other and wrapped in bread.  For a very low price, I assume.  I don't know for sure, because I'm pretty sure I've never been to Taco Bell.

To me, this is like Alex Jones apologizing for his vocal fry.  Taco Bell owes us an apology, but not for "overly complicating" breakfast.  Taco Bell owes the country an apology for its generous contribution to our obesity epidemic, something it seems determined instead to continue to feed (no pun intended) with highly-palatable, calorie-dense garbage disguised as a "simple" breakfast.  Promoted by an overrated comedian some of us kind of remember from SNL, maybe.  

Um, thanks for the "apology," Taco Bell.  Insulin is still really expensive though.  

An Extra-Stupid Gum Commercial

 

1.  I've never once had a waiter ask "one bill or separate?"  The waiter just brings the bill.  What the hell kind of vibe did the waiter pick up from this couple that made him think that maybe they were going Dutch Treat?

2.  So the question causes the male on the date to panic.  Why?  What was the conversation about all dinner?  Was it about Toxic Masculinity?  I mean, what could possibly have been the topic of discussion to make this poor shlub react in such a way to a simple (though perplexing in that it comes from the waiter) question?

3.  Poor shlub reacts to the question- and his panic- by jamming a piece of gum in his mouth, to buy time I guess.  Yeah, sorry, buddy, but you've already blown it.  At this point you might as well say "separate checks, please" because you aren't seeing this particular girl again, ever.  Nobody is desperate enough to come back from more of this nonsense.

Learn your lesson, buddy.  Guys pay.  Just pick up the check, and if your date objects, apologize and agree to separate bills- but try to pick up the check first.  This isn't rocket science.  Oh, and save the gum- despite your actions on this night, you aren't twelve years old.  You shouldn't be worrying about your mom smelling alcohol on your breath.  Grow up.  And better luck next time. 

"The Terminal" (2004) and a fantasy sponsored by Burger King

 

Oh sure- in 2004, a hamburger at an airport terminal Burger King cost 74 cents.  Of course it did.  And a full meal including a Whopper, salad, fries and a drink cost what looks like five dollars in quarters- uh huh, sure I totally buy that. 

Come on.  I've been in plenty of airports over the years.  The prices are ridiculously inflated- after all, you're limited in your options, you're traveling, you're either in a hurry or you're stuck waiting for a delayed flight but (like Tom Hanks' character here) you really can't leave to seek cheaper facilities elsewhere.  It's like eating in a sports complex- you take what you can get and you pay what they want to charge.  

This scene exists because Hanks' character had three quarters and Burger King threw money at the producers.  This being the case, it would hardly do to have the cashier turn a very hungry Tom Hanks away because he (obviously) lacked sufficient funds to buy ANYTHING on the menu- that would have been right up there with burning an American Flag.  I mean, this is Forrest Gump and Captain Miller- he fought in Vietnam AND World War II!  And when Hanks' character has five dollars, he's going to go right back there to Burger King where, instead of getting that hamburger and MAYBE a small soda, he's going to be handed what would cost $15 at a typical strip mall Burger King or closer to $25 at an airport terminal BK.  

The only realistic part is that Hanks keeps rushing back to BK several times over the course of the day to ravenously gulp down the garbage they serve up there- because the stuff is highly palatable, hyper-processed, low-nutrient and extremely addictive Nothing that will leave anyone extremely hungry within hours after consuming it.  Hanks being trapped in that terminal for months is kind of a metaphor for the rest of Burger King's customers, except they can't see the walls they've created for themselves with every trip to the Drive-Thru. 

Who- or what- is Orbit afraid of?

 

Notice how interracial couples have basically become the norm in commercials EXCEPT when it comes to Asians?  We've reached the point when I am genuinely surprised to see an all-white or all-black couple, and homosexual couples don't merit the bat of an eye.  But whenever I see an Asian guy in a commercial who is part of a couple, I know the other half of the relationship is going to be an Asian girl.  It never fails. 

Why is that?  Is it the same reason why every blockbuster film includes a Chinese actor (who is always one of the good guys?)  Something to do with a rather large market on the other side of the planet that we must avoid offending with our Crazy Western Sensibilities?  Just a thought. 

The Fox Bet Super 6 Something To Do Before the Next Powerball Drawing Insult

 

A few weeks ago I snarked on the concept of commercials promoting gambling addiction.  Well, here's Fox's NFL programming offering a fix by giving viewers a chance to win a million dollars from everyone's favorite brain-damaged ex-Quarterback It's Ok To Laugh At* He Doesn't Mind It's Basically Been His Job for More than Half his Life. And it's never been entertaining.  

*I can honestly say I've never once laughed at Terry Bradshaw.  Not because I was taught it was rude to laugh at the obviously disabled, but because Terry Bradshaw has never once done or said anything that struck me as remotely funny.  Go figure.