The Yin Blog

Disneyland and property rights in tickets

Due to a family matter, I had to head down to Los Angeles last week, so naturally my wife and I took our two little boys to Disneyland as well.  While there, the following two possibly analogous incidents occurred that got me thinking about property rights in tickets.

The first was that we decided to go on California Soarin' (in California Adventures), which is kind of a flight simulator ride with a big curved screen and suspended roller coaster-like seats that tilt with the picture to enhance the feeling of motion.  It's a popular ride, so the line gets long, and it's also one of the rides that Disney offers "Fastpass" to mitigate lines for those willing to work.  The way Fastpass works is that you insert your park entry card into a machine near the ride, and the machine gives you back your entry card and a ride ticket.  The catch is that the ride ticket lets you bypass the "standby" line only for a one-hour period, and that one-hour period is in the future.  So, if you visited the Fastpass machine at 10 am, you might be given a return window of 12 noon to 1 pm.

Anyway, we decided to brave the approximately 45 minute stand-by line, but as we were walking up to the end of the line, a woman approached us, asked if we were going to ride Soarin', and when we said we were, she gave us her Fastpass tickets, which we about to become valid.  Woo hoo!  So instead of having to wait 45-55 minutes, we bypassed the long line and had about a 5 minute wait (basically for the designated simulator to clear out).  I'll get to the potential issues involved in a moment.

The second incident occurred later that same day.  As we were exiting the park (well before closing time), a young woman approached us and asked if we were leaving.  When we said we were, she asked, "Can I have your tickets?"  Naturally, we refused.  It would have been pointless, since the regular Disneyland tickets require a valid hand-stamp for re-entry that day, and you can only get a hand-stamp if you've already been in a park, which of course requires that you already have had a ticket.

Nevertheless, the woman's request struck me as quite wrong for reasons beyond the pragmatic.  It would represent revenue loss to Disneyland, since the only other way she could get in would be to buy a ticket.  But then I started wondering about how I was able to Fastpass the Soarin' ride.  The lawyerly side of me could respond that there was no revenue loss to Disneyland, since the Fastpasses are free (but you essentially can only have one active at a time).  Therefore the situations are completely different.  And from Disneyland's perspective, I would think that is right.  On the other hand, I suppose the other customers waiting in the stand-by line might have had a complaint, since we (marginally) extended their wait, which would not have happened had we gone through the stand-by line.  Then again, the customers were no worse off than if the original Fastpassing woman had used her Fastpass instead of giving it to us, and one can wonder why those customers would care who imposed the marginal increase in wait time. . . .

"24" and baby names?

My new colleague Jack Bogdanski wonders about some of most popular baby names in 2008, including Chloe and Ethan.  I say, it must be a "24" effect, with Chloe O'Brien (CTU tech goddess) and Ethan Kanin (first female President's chief of staff -- and, I'm guessing, romantic interest in season 8).

The end of "Battlestar Galactica"

I finally finished watching season 4 of "Battlestar Galactica" -- all on DVD(!) -- and . . . wow.  (Spoilers ahead, obviously.)  From various heated comments on the TiVo users forum that were harshly critical of BSG creator Ron Moore, and from Amazon reviewers, I had the sense before watching it that season 4 had somehow self-destructed into some kind of awful, unwatchable mess.

But as the season unfolded, I saw the various story arcs being tied together in a way that made me think maybe Moore really did have a plan from the start.  Unlike seasons 2 and 3, which both started and finished strong but sagged in the middle, season 4 seemed consistently good throughout.  The Cylon civil war, with the Leobens, Sixes, and Sharons (except for Boomer) on the "good" side, and the Cavils, Simons, and Dorals on the "bad" side, was captivating.

What I especially liked about the series was that it was dark and grim, not just for the sake of being so, but because it was narratively important.  BSG was never shy about killing off characters, but until season 4, they were rarely key players.  (Offhand, the only exception I can think of was President Roslin's chief aide Billy Keikeiya, and that was driven by the actor's desire to leave the show.)  In this season, the body count soars, and it starts to touch major characters.  And unlike, say "24," which I love but dislike its gaudy way of killing main characters (look, Jack Bauer has to shoot his buddy Curtis!), the deaths in BSG made sense.

- Cally Henderson: "spaced" by Tory Foster for discovering that Tory, Tyrol, Tigh, and Anders were the original Cylons.  This was a truly brutal scene, with Tory having appeared conciliatory, taking Cally's son (whom she intended to kill with herself), then smacking Cally and then opening the airlock.  It made sense, though, because the writers had taken care to depict Tory, unlike the other newfound Cylons, as embracing her inner Cylon ruthlessness.

- Anastasia Dualla: shot herself in the head after the crew's discovery that "Earth" was nuclear wasteland.  Totally shocking at the time, but upon reflection, it made sense that *someone* would simply be unable to handle the shattering of the dream of Earth.

- Tom Zarek and Felix Gaeta: executed by firing squad after Gaeta's mutiny is turned back.  I always liked Gaeta, since he was the "nerd" of the ship, and I was sad to see him embrace the dark side.  But this too was foreshadowed well, starting with his ostracization by the rest of the crew for his perceived treason on New Caprica to the loss of his leg by what turned out to be one of the original Cylons.  And Zarek walked the line between terrorist and demagogue effectively, but this was a fitting end for him too.

- Sharon "Boomer" Valerii: shot by Sharon "Athena" Agathon.  Redemption isn't always an option.  Boomer has turned on the other Sharons by siding with the Cavil/Doral/Simon trio in the civil war, so her days were going to be numbered by the surviving Cylons anyway.  But not only that, she seduced Athena's husband and kidnapped her daughter!  Sure, she ended up bringing the daughter back, but it was understandable that Athena would shoot her.

- Sam Anders: piloted the humans' ships into the sun.  When the only thing keeping you alive is the Cylon hybrid technology that keeps you immerse in a tank of goop, are you really alive still?  But at least his torment induced by Kara Thrace is over.

- Laura Roslin: died of cancer.  This was a bittersweet end for the Admiral Adama-President Roslin romance.  I really thought when he took her for her last ride in the Raptor that he was planning on crashing and killing himself as well.  I would've been happy for him, but I would have felt cheated as a viewer, if there had been some magic cure for her condition (though they kind of did that earlier with the Cylon-human hybrid fetus blood).

Did it make sense that they landed on our Earth 150,000 years ago, gave up technology, and blended in/mated with the humanoid creatures at the time, eventually spawning us?  That's a little hard to take, but I guess the 150,000 year mark was dictated by the real-life finding of the mitochondrial DNA of "Eve."  It was still an interesting and narratively-sensible end to the series.  Really, it was almost a flawless resolution of the show, the one weakness being the end of Kara Thrace's saga.  Having her just disappear into thin air was the one deus ex machina aspect of season 4 . . . .

14 or so hours 'til my new HD TiVo goes online!

Back when I was setting up the utilities for our new home in Portland, I was confronted with the cable company vs. phone company dilemma.  I opted for the cable company (Comcast) partly because I was concerned about having satellite TV in a location where it rains so much.  And Comcast's triple-bundle deal was pretty good.

However, I was prepared to abandon my beloved TiVo because the two Series 2 machines that I have aren't HD compatible, and Comcast threw in free use of an HD DVR for 6 months.

WIthin a couple of days of using the cable DVR, though, I couldn't stand it.  It's not just that we're used to the comforting doo-doo-doo sound that TiVo makes when you fast-forward; it's that TiVo's interface is technologically superior in just about every way you can imagine.  When you super fast-forward and then hit play, TiVo is smart enough to rewind a few seconds back.  That way, when you see your show start again (after speeding through commercials), the auto-rewind gets you to the right spot without forcing you to rewind manually.  Not so with the Comcast DVR.

And then when it comes to scheduling recordings . . . .  I can't believe how stupid the cable DVR is.  Although I selected the option of recording only first run and not repeats, it somehow gets confused by cable network shows like "Burn Notice."  I ended up having to delete manually a bunch of repeat episodes -- ones that I'd watched within the last 30 days(!).

So, I called up TiVo, found out that I was eligible to upgrade my dual-tuner Series 2 TiVo and get a new HD TiVo for $100 off.  Cool deal!  It arrived today, and the Comcast tech is scheduled to come tomorrow to put in the cable smart cards, and then I will be reunited with my beloved TiVo!

Sarah Palin and "Prison Break"

For some reason, when I first saw that Sarah Palin was quitting as Governor of Alaska, I wondered if it was an instance of life imitating art -- specifically, "Prison Break"'s season 2, episode 19 ("Sweet Caroline"), in which President Caroline Reynolds surprisingly announces her resignation.  Why?  She was being blackmailed by both the Company and protagonist Michael Scofield, and resigning was the only way out of her dilemma.

Of course, I don't really think this, but the hasty announcement does make you wonder . . . .

Signs of the end of TiVo?

As I've blogged before, I absolutely *love* my TiVo . . . .  But I'm afraid that I see signs of the end of its viability as a company.

With my move to Oregon less than a month away now, I've been getting utilities set up.  For water, gas, electricity, and garbage/recycling, there was no choice, but for telephone/Internet/TV, it was basically between Qwest/DirectTV or Comcast.  (VerizonFiOS is available in parts of Portland, but apparently not where we're going to be living.  Boo.)  From doing some research online, it seemed like the choice came down to Qwest's being cheaper but possibly slower online and definitely more frustrating on customer service, compared to Comcast's higher expense.

Anyway, the part relevant to TiVo is that both Comcast and DirectTV apparently scramble their signals, so you need their unscrambling boxes to watch anything.  This is great for them, since they can sell you their DVR service, but it looks to be pretty bad for TiVo, which can't do the nifty "season pass" recording and all the other smart stuff it's known for.

The sound you really don't want to hear when you're driving a truck full of bio/chemical weapons

. . . is "sssssssssssss."

Jay Leno, a free show for the unemployed, and M*A*S*H

NBC's late night talk show host Jay Leno decided to put on a free comedy show for unemployed workers (or those just facing hard times) in Detroit, Michigan.  That's pretty admirable; he's actually going out of his way to give something to the much less fortunate.

However, when he found out that some people who got tickets were auctioning them off on eBay, he complained:

On Monday night’s NBC program, Leno said, "Here is something that annoys me. I look on eBay today and I see four tickets to my show for sale. ... You're out of your mind to pay $800 to see me. ... I would like to ask the people on eBay to take the tickets down. There is nothing for sale here.”

Economist Greg Mankiw has covered the economic analysis of Leno's position:

If a person down on his luck prefers the cash to the opportunity to watch Leno live, why would Leno object? Is it altruism that is really motivating Leno here? Is he really sure that the unemployed person in Detroit would be better off with an evening of laughs than $800 in his pocket? Or does Leno want to play to a live audience of unemployed workers so he will seem altruistic to his television audience?

Meanwhile, I'm reminded of an episode of M*A*S*H, set around Christmas time, where Major Winchester -- pursuant to a family custom -- anonymously donates a nice big package of chocolate candy to a nearby South Korean orphanage.  Later, when he finds an American GI eating one of the pieces of candy from the package, he learns that the GI bought the candy on the black market.  Winchester confronts the director of the orphanage, who admits that he sold the candy.  The orphanage director explains that, had he given the candy to the orphans, they would have had a nice treat that would have lasted for one night.  By selling the candy instead, he got enough money to be able to feed the orphans for an entire month.  Suitably chastened, Winchester says that he is the one who's learned something about the Christmas spirit.

Upshot: Winchester had something valuable to donate, and he did.  The orphanage director greatly appreciated Winchester's gesture, but was able to turn the gift into something far more useful for the orphans.  It seems to me that if you replace "chocolate candy" with "Jay Leno performance," and "orphans" with "unemployed workers," the stories sound the same.  Too bad the outcome wasn't.

UPDATE: Something else that occurred to me . . . .

I haven't watched "The Tonight Show" lately, but I've usually enjoyed Jay Leno's shtick.  Yeah, I know that David Letterman is considered more hip and all that, but what can I say?  Indeed, before we left Los Angeles to come to Iowa, I thought about trying to get seats for "The Tonight Show."  If we didn't have kids and we got free tickets to a Leno performance, I'm sure that my wife and I would go.

But we do have kids, so if we got free tickets today, what would we do with them?  To go, we'd have to hire a babysitter, but if the point is to do something for the unemployed, how does it help them to make those kids have to find and pay for a babysitter just to go to a comedy show?

What would have made "Dollhouse" more interesting

Joss Whedon apparently has something of a cult following based on his past works, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Firefly," which meant that his new show, "Dollhouse," started with a built-in fan base.  Personally, I never got into "Buffy" or "Firefly" -- the former because it seemed too "teen" for me (in a way that "Veronica Mars" did not), and the latter because it got canceled almost overnight.  But I decided to give "Dollhouse" a try, especially after the similarly-themed "My Own Worst Enemy" got yanked after 8 or so episodes.

The premise of "Dollhouse" is that a secret organization keeps a group of "actives" available for paying clients; each active can be downloaded with different personality composites, allowing them to be anything needed, from hostage negotiator to safecracker to whatever.  (If you're thinking that this premise was done in NBC's mid-1990s thriller "The Pretender," you're right.)  When the mission is over, the active is "wiped" and returned to an innocent state, waiting in the Dollhouse for the next mission.

You can see the appeal of such a show for an actor/actress: you get to play a different character every episode.  (Reportedly, this is why Martin Landau turned down the role of Mr. Spock in the original "Star Trek" in favor of Rollin Hand on "Mission: Impossible"; Hand was the team's master of disguises.)

Unfortunately, Eliza Dushku, who plays "Echo," isn't gifted with the most acting range, so she ends up playing each mission more or less the same.  Just compare her to Dichen Lachman, who plays Sierra (another active), and you can see the difference in acting range.

In addition, it's hard to build any emotional connection to a character who is the same physically but otherwise a chameleon in personality.  The show is attempting to address this by suggesting that the "wipes" aren't working 100%.  Maybe that will work.

But I think it would have been far more interesting if they had done essentially the reverse -- have the personality be downloaded into different "bodies."  This is a pretty common theme in modern British sci-fi, particularly work by Richard K. Morgan and Peter F. Hamilton.  Morgan's "Takeshi Kovacs" series posits a future where cortical stacks copy your mental processes and memories, and physical bodies are just "sleeves" to be grown as needed.

Of course, this would obviate the need for any "star," since every episode would be a different body (though you could return to favorite bodies from time to time, I suppose), but would allow the development of a long-term character.  Indeed, it would be interesting to see how different actors approach the challenge of playing the same character!  (For a pretty good example, see how Nicolas Cage and John Travolta played each other's characters in "Face Off.")

Why "24" is captivating my attention again this season

Last week's episode of "24" (day 7, 8:00-9:00 pm) was a pretty good microcosm of everything that's gone right with this season of the show.  To be sure, looking better than the awful mess that was season 6 is not a very high bar to surmount.  And I don't know if the show will ever be as good as it was in its heyday (season 5?).  And of course, it's still full of the ridiculous things that have come to define "24," like the ability of computer nerds to access and control virtually any aspect of American life with a keyboard and T1 line.

Still, let's review what was so good about the episode.  In case you've forgotten, the hour began with Sangalan General Juma holding President Allison Taylor, her daughter, Jack Bauer, Bill Buchanan, and dozens of White House staff hostage, while FBI agents waited outside for the go-ahead to storm the building.  Only, the feckless -- or perhaps conspiratorial? -- Vice-President insisted on having a clear picture of where the President was before authorizing an attack.  (But how are the FBI agents supposed to have a clear picture if they don't storm the White House? - Hey, I didn't say this season was perfect!)

1. Bill's sacrifice

At the beginning of this hour, Juma is going to force the President to admit to all kinds of war crimes, etc. on an Internet-streamed video.  Jack decides the only way to stop this is to create a distraction.  He notices a gas leak and figures that one gunshot in the right spot will ignite the gas, kill some terrorists, and allow the hostages to fight back.  Of course, he is going to be the sacrificial lamb, but then Bill Buchanan tells Jack to get to the bottom of the conspiracy and sacrifices himself.  The ruse works, and 15 minutes into the episode, Juma is dead and Jack has saved the President.

Don't get me wrong -- I like Bill Buchanan.  He was a decent, level-headed guy, the kind you'd want running someplace like CTU.  But "24" has always been pretty ruthless about killing off long-time characters.  (At this point, Jack,Tony Almeida, and retired Secret Service agent Aaron Pierce are the only survivors from season 1, and even if you go back to season 3, you only add Chloe O'Brian to the list.)  The question is whether beloved characters get to die in a meaningful way, or a stupid and pointless way.

Take CTU agent Curtis Manning, who for a while seemed like the only competent field agent other than Jack.  The writers contrived a silly situation that forced Jack to kill Curtis, just for shock value.  Only, it required that Curtis act totally out of character.  I get the desire to "stain" Jack's soul with another killing of a friend/colleague.  But it was done much better in season 3, when he was forced to assassinate Ryan Chappelle to stave off another biological virus attack.

So, having Bill sacrifice himself to save the President, while tragic, was a heroic, not pointless, death, and befitting of the honorable character.

2. Special Agent In Charge Larry Moss

Jack has always had issues with his superiors, and not surprisingly, because they are usually portrayed as simpering bureaucrats who get in his way, are wrong about the ground situation, and sometimes turn out to be allied with the bad guys.  About the only competent superior he's had had been Bill Buchanan, and Bill was usually on his side.

What I like about SAIC Moss is that he's not portrayed as a buffoon (even though Jack is right), and I especially liked his first encounter with Jack, where after rejecting Jack's suggestion for some kind of action, faces Jack off when Jack stands up with that intense look and then said, "What, are you going to torture me now?"

3. Worth Adversaries

Juma didn't really hold his own as an adversary for Jack (which was probably a waste of fabulous actor Tony Todd), but the new sub-arc has brought Jon Voight's group into focus.  As Jack interrogates a traitor in the hospital, the conspiracy's assassin -- a kind of anti-Jack Bauer -- does a nifty job of infiltration.  Not only is he as skilled as Jack is, he even carries around an equipment bag, much like Jack did during seasons 4 and 5!  And wow, you have to admire a bad guy who can come up with a plan that involves looping the video feed of the hospital room to conceal what happens next, then dosing Jack and the traitor with a paralyzing nerve gas, then getting Jack's fingerprints on a shard of glass from a broken vase, using the shard to cut the traitor's throat and stab him in the heart, and then escaping -- thus setting up Jack to look he murdered the traitor!

Jack deserves worth adversaries.  It makes for more interesting TV when the writers create intelligent and resourceful adversaries.