Is That Your Final Answer?

Mom turned 65 today, and the family took her to Disneyland. This was something of a surprise, which is why I haven't spoken about it until now. (Mom's a lurker around these parts.)

So, we spent yesterday in California Adventure (Disneyland's under-appreciated little sister) and we popped in for the 4:00 show of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire -- Play It!" Here's how it works -- they set up a "studio" to look exactly like the Millionaire set, load the audience with 625 theme park guests, throw a guy in a suit down there to play host, and let some lucky audience member play the game (for prizes -- not cash). Here's the twist -- everyone in the audience has a little keypad, and everyone plays along with the whole game. When the person in the "hot seat" finally gets a question wrong (as they inevitably do), the next person selected to play is the person in the audience who answered everything right the fastest (up to that point).

I've been to the park a bit over the past few years (what with being local and all) and I've played this maybe a half-dozen times.

Here's what I didn't know. It has groupies. Addicts. Obsessed Fans. Whatever you want to call them.

Now, let just add right here that I'm not one to judge. I've exhibited behavior most sane people might call a little obsessive here and there. (Anyone here familiar with the word "Jekkie"? No? Good.) What I'm saying, though, is I don't really have a problem with someone liking something so much they see it, y'know, REPEATEDLY. Hey, "Some good, more better" are perfectly good words to live by. As long as it doesn't involve stalking, or actually interfere with your daily life, hey, knock yourself out. Harmlessly obsess all you want.

And still, with all those disclaimers, let me just say: Dang.

I sat next to a woman who comes to the park weekly. When she comes, she comes to EVERY show of Millionaire. (Which is upwards of 5 a day, IIRC.) She knows other fans who come as often, and where they sit. She knows all the "cast members" by name. She knows that once you've been in the "hot seat," you can't go again for 30 days, and she knows (roughly) the eligibility status of all the other regulars.

But what really got me about this, was despite knowing all this stuff, what she DIDN'T know was the answer to the 4000 point question. Seems you can love the game and spend all your spare time there without actually being any good at it. Dang.

Mini-Rant

I'm not pissed off enough about this to build up a full head of steam or anything, but could someone please explain to me why the people at Jiffy Lube are unable to close your car door and give the keys to the cashier?

Here's how it works: Cashier says, "Hey, NZ, your car is ready."

"Oh good," says I. I look out the window. I see that my car is, in fact, ready. Sitting there, outside the service bay.

Cashier offers to go over the recommended Jiffy Lube schedule with me. I take a pass.

Cashier asks for money. I give her a credit card and stand there while it processes.

She prints out my receipt. I look it over to make sure all my car's vital fluids have been appropriately topped off.

I go to my car. I walk around to the driver's side and find the door sitting there wide open. Keys in ignition. The dome light is on because the door is open. The car is pinging its cheerful, "You left your keys in the ignition, moron" alert. This state of affairs has apparently been ongoing while I was futzing around with the cashier.

Now, I figure they must leave the door open because they must have locked customers' keys in the cars one time too many. But the current plan has something of a downside. Like it must be running down my battery. Cars don't light up and ping on their OWN, you know. Not to mention it is letting all the OUTSIDE air into my climate controlled interior. (An issue that would piss me off a lot more if I didn't live in Southern California, but still.) And, y'know, it can't be good from a car theft point of view to just leave cars wide open with keys in them ready to be driven off.

Would it be that freakin' difficult for the service tech to lock the car and then give my keys to the cashier? Thereby accomplishing the twin goals of keeping my car safe and shut, and keeping me from driving off without paying. Looks like a win-win to me.

Another Oscar Thought

Did y'all know that "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was nominated for Best Picture in 1982? It lost to "Chariots of Fire," but still.

I found out this interesting fact while doing research for what was SUPPOSED to be a rant on "who the heck decides what makes a picture Oscar calibre rather than just a big summer movie?" 'Cause sometimes these decisions make no sense to me. A friend of mine questioned why "Master and Commander" was somehow special enough to be included (rather than just a nice action-adventure piece) and I've been asking a similar question about "Titanic" for years.

So, I wanted to go find a random really good hugely fiscally successful action-adventurey movie, and say, "Look, it didn't get nominated. Who makes these decisions?!" And instead, I learn that "Raiders" did, in fact, get nominated for Best Picture. So did "Star Wars." So did "E.T." ("Jurassic Park" didn't, but seeing as that was the same year Spielberg made "Schindler's List," it's more than understandable. And besides, that year they *did* nominate "The Fugitive" for Best Picture. "The Fugitive!")

Fact is, if you look back over the list of really successful action-adventure movies -- and disregard the stuff like the 'Star Wars' prequels which made lots of money but were, y'know, crap -- they tend more often than not to actually be nominated.

The Academy's bias, if anything, isn't against some sub-species of non-epic action-adventure movies, but against comedies. Your most successful live-action comedies -- even the ones we think of as "classics" -- "Ghost Busters," "Beverly Hills Cop," that sort of thing -- are completely overlooked.

So if you're asking, "What makes 'Master and Commander' the sort of the thing the Academy likes, but 'Pirates of the Caribbean' just a big successful summer movie?" the answer seems to be, "'Pirates' was funny."

Gender Equality

Yeah, ok, we got equal pay for equal work. But I won't believe this society has really accepted gender equality until I see someone correct the huge disparity between the genders in Electric Razor technology.

Men get rechargeable. Men get floating heads. Men get self-cleaning. Men get "closest shave ever."

Women get some sad little thing with pink flowers on it.

My last foray into the sad world of women's electric razors was a little number from Remington (who I figured would know SOMETHING about electric razors). Actually "little" is the wrong word. I splurged for their big super model, with TWO floating heads and an adjustable "length trimmer," whatever the hell that is.

What that is, I learned, is tetanus waiting to happen.

It's basically a (non-electric) razor unto itself. It's metal, it's sharp, it's serrated, and (depending on how high you put it) it sits either just above or just below the nice, safe, floating heads, and (and this is the key part) it is the first part of the Remington shaving experience to have contact with your legs.

I have NEVER cut myself as badly as this thing gashed me. And then, to add injury to injury, the damn thing rusted. Despite all promises of being suitable for wet shaving. (The floating heads didn't -- it was just the adjustable length trimming thing.)

To review, then -- rusty serrated blade ripping into your skin. Niiiiice.

Where's the three floating heads that mold themselves to my skin for a close shave without nicks and cuts? Where's the self-cleaning model that I don't have to wash, rinse and dry to prevent rust forming? Give me my high-tech girly razor!

Oscar Nominations

Well, they're here. (There'd be a link if I wasn't on a Mac. But, dude, you should be able to find them.)

Yesterday, I'd been thinking I'd have to go out and see more movies, as I'd figured I'd only seen two of the Best Picture nominees, but with "Cold Mountain" getting virtually shut out, all of a sudden I've seen three of five. Not like I think "Master and Commander" or "Seabiscuit" really stand a snowball's chance in hell of taking home the big one. Given the results of the Golden Globes, it's the two I haven't seen ("Mystic River" and "Lost in Translation") that look to be the potential roadblocks for "Lord of the Rings" -- not to mention they might seriously be slugging it out for Best Actor.

Yeah, wasn't Best Actor a surprise? Yay for Johnny Depp. And Jude Law gets nominated for "Cold Mountain" but not Nicole Kidman. Surprising -- I would've thought Nicole Kidman was one of those actresses who the Academy likes so much she just gets nominated whatever she does. Nicole's probably muttering something nasty about that "Whale Rider" girl as we speak. Not that it really matters -- I think we're just talking about nominations that are their own reward -- my money is on Bill Murray and Charlize Theron at this point. (Theron, particularly, is a lock, as far as I'm concerned.)

Now, you know how I feel about Best Director. The only one I see possibly standing in Peter Jackson's way on this is Peter Weir. Not so much because I thought "Master and Commander" was particularly well-directed, but because Peter Weir's never won one yet, he certainly deserves to have one on his shelf, and the Academy has a tendency to give out Oscars on a "lifetime achievement" basis. (I mean, hell, when you get right down to it, I'm pulling for Peter Jackson on the strength of his last three pictures.)

And -- even with the relatively weak field that LOTR is facing for Best Picture -- I still wonder if the Academy has the cajones to give it the award. I pose the following question -- how often does the Academy give "Best Picture" and "Best Director" to something that doesn't take home any acting awards? Only ones I can think of in semi-recent memory are "Platoon" and "Rocky." And (oscar.com oddly lacks this information), weren't those at least NOMINATED for acting awards?

Unfriendly?

Just a little note to all the folks out there who must think I'm being terribly unsocial.

I've received an invite or two to join some journalling groups.  I've inevitably been honored by the request (since it means someone is reading me and wants my company - or, at the very least, has found me on some Master List of AOL Journals and gone to the trouble of writing).   So, y'know, I'm touched.  Insert the standard Sally Field impersonation here.

The thing is, I've always declined the request, and will continue to do so.  This for the simple reason that I have a very limited amount of time to devote to journals, and that time gets allocated first and foremost to writing entries in this journal; and, secondarily, to reading other journals.

Fact is, I barely have the time to do that.  I still haven't updated my "other journals" links, and I've fallen down on reading other journals I like (usually having one big weekly catch-up session, rather than reading daily).  I just haven't the time to chat or read messages about the journalling experience - I have to just hunker down and make with the experience of journalling.

This is not to say that I decline the friendships and casual acquaintance-ships I'm made in the AOL-J community, nor am I opposed to forming others.  It's just that I'm not looking for another construct in which to form those relationships.  I'm just a happy little journal-writer and journal-reader.   Adding another layer of discussion on top of that might be a worthy endeavor, but it isn't something I've got the time for now.

My Moment on Reality TV (1 of 2)

About a decade ago, I was meeting my mother for a weekend in New York. Her plane was late, so I had to do the checking in at the hotel all by myself. Mom had told me to ask for upgrade. I was still pretty young, hadn't travelled much, didn't think they handed out upgrades for just ASKING, and was sure they wouldn't hand one out to me.

But, y'know, I follow directions. I got to the hotel and checked in and asked if maybe, perhaps, could they... y'know...?

Well yes, they could. The receptionist called over to the bellman to escort me to my room.

This was the first problem -- I didn't have a buck to tip the guy, and had prepared to just carry my bag myself. The bellman was insistent. Escorted me up to a high floor. We walked down the hall. He then unlocked a hidden door which led to a private elevator. Took me up to a higher floor. Unlocked a room.

A huge room. A phenomenally huge room. I mean, it had a grand piano in it. WAY OVER THERE. Spiral staircase leading up the bedrooms. Dining room table for twelve. Not a small place.

OK, even *I* know there's a mistake here. An upgrade is one thing, but this is the Really Rich People Suite. I don't belong here. But the nice bellman (who graciously waved off my fumbing attempts to tip him) assured me there was no mistake. He leaves.

I want to call the airport and check on my mother's flight. There's no convenient phone book. The phone rings. I pick it up. I'm told a mistake was made. ("Duh," I think.) The mistake, they say, is that they sent my butler to the wrong room. Can they send up a fruit basket to make up for the delayed butler? Yeah, sure, whatever. I'd rather have a phone book, actually, but I don't mention that.