I clicked on that link and neb's floral sport coat is still following me around the internet. Like anybody who buys anything from that store has ever seen the inside of a Taco Bell.
Sure, it's a happy development, but don't you think it's just a little half-assed? Why is there just lettuce and cheese inside the chalupa shell? Why not, like chicken nuggets? Or a hot dog? When is Taco Bell going to make a hard taco shell out of crispy bacon, coat it in Dorito dust, and fill it with boneless hot wings and ranch dressing?
You have to walk before you can run. I'm confident that there will eventually be a version filled with pulled pork and gravy, flash-fried in funnelcake dough, and rolled in powdered sugar.
With a fast-food CEO becoming Secretary of Labor, surely we are on the cusp of a golden age of creativity in that sector.
3: Don't forget the electrolytes!
"but it isn't all bad news."
Bread and circuses, Apo.
(Also, some kind of bread substitute that is made out of fried chicken?!? How is this even a thing? Would you like some fried chicken with your fried chicken? So: fried chicken dough and circuses, I guess).
On the hijacking of C-SPAN by RT does anyone remember the hilarious CCCP1 ("3CP1 on your dial, Russian Television. Do not adjust set!") segments on the old SCTV? Some of the funniest bits on one of the funniest sketch comedy TV shows ever.
Also, some kind of bread substitute that is made out of fried chicken?!? How is this even a thing? Would you like some fried chicken with your fried chicken?
That concept is old news. Taco Bell is just applying that, um, innovation, to a different "cuisine".
Fast food chains in my current country of residence have some exciting offerings. First, apparently Burger King is a big deal and considered a fancy meal out. At any of the bars on the street you can get two beers plus two appetizers for $4. But BK meals are about $6-7. At this very moment I'm looking at the ads in their window for new specials:
1. The King Steakhouse- bun with two beef patties, four slices of cheese, several slices bacon, fried egg, tomato, and fried onions.
2. The Long Nacho- long bun with correspondingly shaped beef patty, jalapeño cheese sauce, two slices of cheese, nacho chips, and another layer of jalapeño cheese sauce.
Were those the ones with John Candy? I remember those.
2. You have to pull a gun on a 12-year-old to get chicken nuggets. Also, think how healthy it is with all that veg. and protein and whatever the hell they put in the shells to make them work right.
Yes, it was John Candy.
"Oh no! Uzbeks drank my battery fluid!"
This is where I get to point out, again, that my dislike for fast food isn't strictly snobbery-based. I don't think this is inherently wrong-headed or gross or whatever. I think that they've fucked up the execution, because look how thin it is. I guaran-damn-tee you that the chicken layer will be thinner than the breading layers, and that the breading layers won't be very good. At which point, why eat that?
I've never tried a double down because, good Lord that's a lot of food, but I assume that the actual chicken "buns" are fine. Also, I bet you could get a good chicken Milanesa and wrap it around some tasty ingredients and have something worth eating.
But this? There's like a 5% chance that it doesn't suck.
I feel like you don't get Taco Bell.
It's for when Burger King seems too healthy/fancy/clean/whatever.
That was unfunny enough to preempt any laughter for the next 24 hours.
I thought you were a real Taco Bell fan. Once I insulted them (with love, because I did eat there back when I was young enough that death was a thing that happened to other people) before realizing I was talking to one of their executives.
14 That's one of my favorite bits.
Sorry for the gratuitous insult! I should probably disable this pugnacious-asshole module again. It's not as fun or cathartic as I was led to believe it would be.
The unfunny is an essential part of it. It's hard to explain and it may not translate, (or it may, and still may not be your kind of thing) It's not satirizing soviet television so much as the kind of excruciatingly unfunny low-budget Canadian (and US and British television) that was all over the Canadian channels in the 1970s and 80s. They just took the unfunny and not-good and earnestness that much farther, in almost an endurance-test way. I get why a lot of people wouldn't like it, but honestly it still makes me roll on the floor. Not one bit on its own usually, but 5 or 6 lined up over time. It was not that much different from the experience of real tv but just nudged.
SCTV had a few big fans when I was in high school, but I never thought it was great. "Love at Stake" was most of the same guys and really good, if teenage-me has any taste.
I had never heard of Love at Stake, filmed in Kleinburg Ont. I know some people in that. I can't believe they never mention it.
I'm delighted to see that obliging costume designer Juul Haalmeyer plays the executioner.
Catherine O'Hara wanted bad dancers for the Bouncin' Back to You segment with Lola Heatherton. O'Hara auditioned professional dancers, but they couldn't dance poorly, so she asked Haalmeyer, the show's costume designer, to put something together with whoever was available. O'Hara named the dance group The Juul Haalmeyer Dancers because it sounded similar to the June Taylor Dancers.
The dance group changed with each episode they appeared on, with Haalmeyer being the only constant. The dancers were made up of the show's cast members who weren't busy elsewhere, the show's writers, and miscellaneous crew members who were available.
All the dancers were dressed identically, with Haalmeyer creating the costumes. The choreography and dance routines were kept simple and jointly developed by the dancers. The signature exit move -- fingers pointing down while backing up -- was developed by Eugene Levy
Here are the Juul Haalmeyer Dancers, including Martin Short. You really have to imagine that there's no Internet, no one programs for your age cohort and you get three channels. And maybe you're high.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=990OaFr8EYw
I like that the wikipedia page for the movie notes that plans to build in a mall in colonial Salem are an anachronism.
You're welcome! I messed the link to Mr. Haalmeyer's wiki page:: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juul_Haalmeyer. His CV is such a lovely mix of fine projects and schlock and funny stuff. I bet he's a joy in person.
It turns out I'm not the only one with a strong curiosity about Juul Haalmeyer. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ry7AD5Vg3Qs
He seems exactly as I would have hoped.
Those were great comments, Penny, belated thanks.
Oh hey! Perhaps we (i.e. you all) can argue about this New Yorker piece?
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/23/how-jokes-won-the-election
Trump was a hot comic, a classic Howard Stern guest. He was the insult comic, the stadium act, the ratings-obsessed headliner who shouted down hecklers. His rallies boiled with rage and laughter, which were hard to tell apart. You didn't have to think that Trump himself was funny to see this effect: I found him repulsive, and yet I could hear those comedy rhythms everywhere, from the Rodney Dangerfield "I don't get no respect" routine to the gleeful insult-comic slams of Don Rickles (for "hockey puck," substitute "Pocahontas") to Andrew Dice Clay, whose lighten-up-it's-a-joke, it's-not-him-it's-a-persona brand of misogyny dominated the late nineteen-eighties. The eighties were Trump's era, where he still seemed to live. But he was also reminiscent of the older comics who once roamed the Catskills, those dark and angry men who provided a cathartic outlet for harsh ideas that both broke and reinforced taboos, about the war between men and women, especially. Trump was that hostile-jaunty guy in the big flappy suit, with the vaudeville hair, the pursed lips, and the glare. There's always been an audience for that guy.
I fucking hate Trump-ology, but I love being humorless (so very much!), so my feelings are mixed.