Only in Blogs

I always used to hate it, years ago, when movie ads would end by saying, "only in theatres!" I was like, Geez, what else would it be? Movies open in theatres, then come out on video months later; that’s the way of the world. How hard is that to understand? But of course, you know they have to say that because there's that one person who would try going to Blockbuster expecting to rent the big movie that just came out that weekend.

I know that sounds weird, but we've all met that one person who just doesn't understand how the world works, even if they've lived in it all their lives. You know, the one who tries to order a Big Mac at Burger King, and is genuinely surprised and angry that they can’t get one.

It would be convenient if there was a name for such a person, like the way we decided that “Karen” would mean self-important complainers. That made it easy for all of us to have a simple name to refer to the concept, even if it did poison the name and lead to prejudice against thousands of innocent people. Maybe for this concept, we should choose a name that's already fallen out of favour. How about Millicent? It’s a rare name, so whatever anger they have over this will be offset by the fact that we're mentioning them.

Anyway, that's why the "only in theatres" line bothered me: the ignorance that it was coddling. I mean, I try to be patient of ignorance, but in this case it's a kind of wilful ignorance. To misunderstand the world so badly, you must be ignoring everything around you. And advertisers were just encouraging it. It would be like airlines placating Flat-Earthers by guaranteeing that none of their flights would go near the edges of the earth.

Though really, I suppose the “only in theatres” line wasn’t to protect the ignorant consumers from wasting their time at Blockbuster, so much as to protect the movie studio from irrational complaints from Millicents disappointed they couldn’t rent the movie hours after its release. And in the process, they’re also protecting that poor kid working for Blockbuster who would have to explain the logistics of the movie industry to angry customers. Customers who probably also thought they could use their Subway Club card to rent at Blockbuster.

But what really bugs me is that today the ads have to specify, "only in theatres," because they might actually be making a major release on streaming services. Sure, it’s convenient that there are so many ways to distribute movies today, but I feel like the simpletons won.

But another way of looking at this is that however complex the world of the 90’s used to seem to these people, that’s how complex the world has actually become. The world was inevitably bewildering to a person who thought they could buy something at Kmart and then return it for their money back at Sears. But now, that’s how complex the world is even to normal people. Today, we are all Millicent.

What A Show, Eh?

See, if the Blue Jays had succeeded in signing Shoehi Ohtani, then that headline is the pun we’d all be getting tired of. Aren’t you glad we dodged that bullet? No, me neither.

It's been a weird offseason for the Blue Jays. It started with a sense of doom:  The team has kind of painted itself into a corner: Several players have expiring contracts, and the team’s offence needs improvement, but this year there isn’t a lot of offence available in this year’s free-agent class. There was a sense that there was little to look forward to.

Then, unexpectedly, the Jays made a major push to sign Shohei Ohtani. This is a team that has rarely gone after the top free agents, and then they go after the biggest free agent ever. Even though the contract was expected to be at least three times the biggest contract the Jays had ever signed. Nevertheless, as the rumour mill’s list of suitors dwindled, and the Blue Jays slowly rose to the top of the list of potential destinations.

And then, suddenly, it was over. It was like reality reasserted itself, and Ohtani signed with the Dodgers just as everyone expected. Of course, it's entirely possible that the chances of his signing with the Jays was always remote, and it was exaggerated to drive the final price up. For Jays fans it was doubly a let down, missing out on Ohtani, and him signing with a super-rich team, as if to emphasize that fantasy time was over now. Okay, it was refreshing that it wasn’t a super-rich team in the Jays’ division for once. I heard some people suggest that Ohtani’s contract decision was a missed marketing opportunity for Major League Baseball, and they should have made it into a televised spectacle, like LeBron James' first free agency. But it seems to me that would be a disappointment, seeing as the result was so predictable.

(And fittingly, my first attempt to spell Shohei was autocorrected to "Sorry")

The whole experience was very strange, and I'm not sure how to describe it. It was like we jumped into an alternate universe, then got pulled back to reality. The effect was similar to watching this video, which hinges on the odd fact that Tom Brady was drafted by the Montreal Expos:

Unfortunately, the timelines of that alternate reality don't quite line up, since Larry Walker left as a free agent a few months before the Expos drafted Brady. But that's part of the experience I'm trying to describe: surreal dreaming, and now back to a dull reality where you realize that dream wasn’t really possible. But after being allowed to dream, it seems extra depressing. 

On a practical level, the Blue Jays are back in the predicament that began the offseason. But on an emotional level, this incident contributes to a long-running frustration for Jays fans: we'd just like to know what type of team we have. There are big-spending teams like the Yankees and Dodgers, cheap teams like the Rays or Royals; some teams spend strategically, like the Cardinals, and some spend wildly, like the Mets. The Jays, on the other hand, seem to jump between personalities. 

They spent big in the World Series years, then turned into a small-market team for a couple of decades. That was at least predictable. Since then, it's been a crap shoot. They might spend big, or not. They might try patiently building a team of talented youngsters. Or they might go after the biggest free agent in the history of sports. I just wish we could adjust our expectations.

Outback II: Electric Bugaboo

When the Outback Steakhouse started to get big, with its pseudo-Australian stylings, I wondered what a Canadian version of that would look like. And now I’ve stumbled across the fact that there was, indeed, an American chain of Canadian-themed steakhouses.

Bugaboo Creek Steakhouse appears to have been limited to the North East, but there were quite a few of them. The interiors modelled on a Canadian lodge, with log-cabin stylings. Unfortunately, they didn’t survive the Great Recession, so it’s nothing but memories and grainy YouTube videos now.

But wait, it wasn’t just Canadian symbols applied to the Outback formula, it was also a mashup with Chuck-E-Cheese. It had wall-mounted animal heads that spoke with animatronics, and a tree that would give you nuggets of Canadian trivia.

I’m kind of dumbfounded by all this. Partly that it existed at all, and partly that it isn't legendary in Canada. Usually we're obsessed with how Americans see us, and here's this very concrete artifact of their collective mental picture. You’d think this would be a part of our collective lore right up there with that car with skis on the roof and American plates that we all remember seeing that one time.

Bugaboo Creek was founded in the early nineties, and my family did a road trip through New England in the late-eighties, so we just missed it. I can’t imagine the shock we would have had if we had driven through a New Hampshire tourist-town, down that street with all the family restaurants on it, and seen this in between the Denny’s and the Ponderosa. I’m sure we would have run screaming as soon as the moose over our table started talking.

But surely some Canadians saw it — it’s not like it was sequestered in Nebraska, or some other part of the U.S. that Canadians are unlikely to go. You’d think some New Brunswicker looking for cheap beer and cigarettes in Maine would have wandered into the Bugaboo Creek in Bangor. He tells his friends, and the next thing you know, Rick Mercer is interviewing that tree for a “Talking To Americans” segment.

But when I Googled Bugaboo Creek Steakhouse, all I could find — in between pages on the real-life Bugaboo Provincial Park in British Columbia — were the reminiscences of Americans who missed going there, or were freaked out by the robots, or a bit of both. Even when I specifically Googled “what Canadians thought of Bugaboo Creek Steakhouse” I couldn’t find anything.

There are still a few menus left on line, but they’re just standard steakhouse stuff. Except for a few moose and snowbird references in the names, there was nothing to distinguish it. There were none of the bad Canadian puns I was hoping for. “Prime (Minister) Rib?” “Fill-Eh Mignon?” “Sir John A. Loin?” Also, no actual Canadian stuff like poutine or Nanaimo bars or milk served in bags. So in the end it’s a half-pound nothingburger, not arousing Canada’s indignation or appreciation. Plus creepy robots.

Protesting Proverbs

You know that proverb: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Is it though? When was the last hellish thing that started with good intentions? Sure, we can all come up with examples of trying to do something good and it went wrong. But the saying isn't, "The road to mild unpleasantness is paved with good intentions." — that's a statement I could get behind. No, it's the road to hell, where you're headed straight to Satan but you couldn't afford the same toll as AC/DC. How often do truly hellish things happen because of good intentions? There's a few, but probably not enough to act as a practical paving surface. 

The other problem with the saying is that it doesn't consider that the road to heaven is probably paved even more completely with good intentions. You know, not often that heavenly things begin with bad intentions. Okay, continuing the metaphor of second-rate versions of religious rock allegories, it would be the ladder to heaven because you couldn't find the stairway. See, even if good intentions sometimes result in a little satanic asphalt, it's far more likely to actually do some good.

Really, this saying just exists as an excuse to be an asshole. You know, i'd like to help, but this saying tells me that it would only result in our eternal damnation. Sorry, my hands are tied.

And good thing your hands are tied, because Idle Hands are the Devil's Plaything. Or the Devil’s Playground, though that sounds more like a documentary on pre-safety-code city parks. Either way, it’s another convenient-religious-excuse saying. First, have you seen idle hands? The fidgeting is annoying, but if that's what the devil is working on these days, then humanity has nothing to worry about. Secondly, if you have to keep your hands occupied to keep from doing evil, you're either in a really low-rent horror movie, or you're not that good to begin with. In that case I'd rather you stay idle. Just get yourself a nice fidget spinner.

Ink’s Awakening

You know what’s weird? I never got used to symmetrical nose piercings. See, as a kid in the seventies and eighties, piercings never strayed from the earlobe, unless you wanted to completely leave society behind. Then in the nineties, people started piercing the side of the nose. That was pretty unprecedented in western society, but I thought it looked good. Some time around the turn of the century they moved to piercing the middle part of the nose, and I never could get used to it. I’d like to think that there’s some aesthetic principle at work here, but more likely, it’s just the old fact that adults aren't able to accept new ideas that the kids come up with. If that is the case, it’s a strange example, since middle-nose-piercing became common only a few years after nose-side-piercing, which would imply that I went from open-minded free-thinking youngster to grumpy and intolerant adult in the short space between the two trends.

To be clear, this is just the gut reaction I have. I realize there’s no good reason that one type of piercing is acceptable and the other isn’t. I don't look down on people because of piercings, I'm just being honest about my emotional reaction, and hoping young people will understand that it's a nonsensical habit cast years ago, now continued unconsciously and with some regret. Same with putting two spaces between sentences. I know it makes no sense; but I had to learn to do it to pass typing in grade nine and now I can’t stop.

Tattoos had a similar story. In the nineties, tattoos started getting wider acceptance, but people were just getting small tattoos. Again, this was something I found easy to accept. And then tattooing went from a minor accent on the body to something you turn your entire body over to. Again, this came after I became an adult.

So there're still some aspects of tattoos that I  struggle with. First, tattoos don’t fit the person. I mean, the stereotype of the person. You know, everyone has a picture of what the heavily tattooed person looks like. And yet, so often it’s their polar opposite who has the full-back skull tattoo peaking over their neckline. I’m used to seeing large tattoos, but less-so when they’re peaking over the neckline of a conservative sweater, rather than a Slipknot T-shirt.

And this leads us to the odd fact that the need to conceal hasn’t gone away. In my previous post about tattoos, I referred to the nineties trend of small, easily-concealed tattoos to let people feel badass without anyone actually seeing that you have a tattoo. What’s weird is that people still place a value on the idea of tattoos you can cover up. The difference is that we’ve gone from a tiny tattoo on the ankle that can be covered with a boot or a sock, to a full-body tattoo up to the neck that can be covered by a full set of clothes. But the principle remains bizarrely the same. That's a commentary on today's society: we want to stick it to the man, as long as the man doesn't find out.

Of course, there are people who bravely cross that threshold and get a tattoo on the side of the neck or back of the neck, or maybe behind the ear. But  there’s still an aversion to tattoos around the face and front of the neck. Yes, there are a few who cross that line, but they're rare compared to the total number of people who have tattoos. Mostly, the parts of a person we interact with are off-limits. I’m sure there’s some cognitive scientists who could explain that because we see faces in a different way than we see others objects, we prefer to avoid artificial changes to that area. Or it could be that the face is the ultimate uncoverable place. If it's on your arm, a long sleeve will cover any embarrassing testament to an ex, or The Bloodhound Gang, or the Sega Saturn or something. But the face is the ultimate commitment.

And the fact is that people aren't really committed to anything that much. Another thing that hasn't changed is that people want a tattoo, not a tattoo of something. In another old post, I mentioned that a big reason I have no tattoos is that there is nothing I’m so dedicated to that I would want it permanently on my body. But that clearly doesn’t stop most people. There are so many tattoos of generic things that it’s clear that they want a tattoo, and the subject matter is less important to them. I suppose that's a strange commentary on our society too: people want to make a public, life-long commitment to something, but they aren't sure what.

Things The Teenage Me Would Never Have Believed About Life In The Future, #44

The theme music for Monday Night Football is a cover of “In The Air Tonight” performed by a country star and a rapper.

Winning (More) Time

How about this NBA in season tournament? It’s an idea borrowed from soccer and grafted on to a North American basketball league. It's a new and unprecedented idea in basketball <does some research> Oh, the WNBA has already done it three times? Well, I'm just going to blame their lack of Canadian teams for that, rather than examine my own latent sexism.

Anyway, I would have thought hockey was the sport where an extra tournament makes the most sense. As many have pointed out, hockey playoffs are infinitely more intense than any regular season game. So artificially creating even more playoff hockey would sound like a good idea. I mean, except for the whole hockey culture-hates-change thing.

But I actually like this idea of the NBA in-season tournament, and the biggest reason is that it gives some intrigue to the NBA's neglected middle. So many teams get trapped in that Catch-22 of not good enough to contend for a title, not bad enough to draft the superstar they need to contend for a title. So the only intrigue for fans of those teams is whether they'll just miss the playoffs, or get in and get smoked in the first round.

This tournament will offer them a bit of hope, and thus, more reason to pay attention. Yes, the favourites for the in season tourney will be the same as the favourites for NBA champion. But as a single-elimination tournament (after the brief round-robin) there's some randomness thrown in. With one game to decide who goes on, there's more chance of an upset, and those good-but-not-great teams can dream of riding a hot streak to glory.

It also addresses one of the big, but rarely-mentioned aspects of modern team sports: there are a lot of teams, but not much glory to go around. If your league has thirty or so teams, you’re going to be waiting a while for a championship. Unfortunately, our ideas of what to expect from team success were set in an era when there were half as many teams. We expect to win lots of championships, when really, we can expect to see just two to three in an average lifetime. Having more titles available is one way to make it more tolerable as you wait that couple of generations between championships. 

I know, lots of pundits will complain that it’s not a real title. There will be plenty of hot takes the first time a team raises an in-season tournament banner — especially if it goes to a team that’s never won a championship. There have been plenty of complaints when a team commits the sin of celebrating a win in the play-in games to get the final playoff seeds. But I don’t think there’s any danger of watering-down the importance of the overall championship — just look to European soccer to see that. And the in-season tournament will be worth something — I know those hot takes are even now looking for a way to compare it to a participation trophy, but it will be a difficult thing to win. You could make the argument that a single-game-elimination tournament has too much randomness to be a good test of merit, but that argument would invalidate March Madness, so I don’t think we’ll hear it too often. And having special courts with wild colours for the tournament, thus distracting all the hot takes, was a stroke of genius.