Last Tuesday’s Family Dinner. Biscuits and gravy, hashbrowns (made in the oven), and fruit. You can’t really see the food in this picture, but my sisters are usually the most fun part of Tuesday night dinners, anyway, so you get to see them!
12.09.11 Dinner
Pork roast with carrots, potatoes, and onions. We were supposed to have this the day before we did, but I forgot to plug the Crock Pot in. This is not the first time this has happened, either….
Tour of St. Louis Breweries Update
Since moving away from St. Louis in May, 2010, a ridiculous number of new breweries have opened, mostly within the “midtown” area. This explosion in the St. Louis brewing scene has been important enough to make national news in New York Magazine, among others. Of course, all this happens after we move away, but now that we’re back, we can finally partake in some of their wares. I assume they are springing up because St. Louis does a good job with their water supply (in support of Anheuser-Busch…). At the very least, I’m glad they’re mostly springing up in the City itself instead of the various surrounding municipalities.
Last night, I went along with old college roommate buddy, Tony, to Perennial Artisan Ales, located in an old Coca-Cola plant that has since been converted to lofts. Tony lives above the place, so he goes down for a fresh pint from time to time (likely more often than anyone should…). The neat thing about this place is that they really focus on different beer styles with odd flavorings, so they are purposefully trying to make a distinction between their beers and others in the city. Their on-tap roster consists of a Southside Blonde, “Saison de Lis” Chamomile Saison, Hommel Bier, and Abraxas (a Mexican Chocolate Stout). Each week, on Thursdays, they host tastings of some new beer they are unveiling, done on a small, 5 gal scale. Basically, the head brewer just does what any home brewer does and then, if it’s good enough, they consider scaling it up to a full batch. They just invest a little bit in materials to test it and then get their customers to tell them whether it’s worth production or not. Last night’s was a Rye beer that tasted quite good, though the color left much to be desired (i.e. it wasn’t the most attractive beer I’d ever had, but after you taste it, you forget what it looks like).
I tasted a few of them. The Hommel was the “hoppiest” beer they had, so it’s the one I ended up buying for the evening. I tasted their Chamomile Saison, which was pretty fascinating. Chamomile is one of those flavors/scents that you recognize, but can’t always name, but believe you me, you could tell it was in this beer. The flavor was good and very distinctive. They also have a Strawberry Rhubarb Tart on occasion. I can’t begin to imagine what it would taste like.
But that Abraxas.
Wow.
Seriously, it may be one of the best beers I’ve had in a long time. And I didn’t go there thinking I’d like it that much. The closest descriptor I could come up with as I had some was “it tastes like Christmas.” It was chocolaty, but wasn’t overwhelming. Its texture was definitely stout-like, but not too thick. The beer was 10% alcohol, so I didn’t want to have a whole one and then drive home later, but geez did I want one. They sell wine bottle-sized versions of their beers that you can take home, but it was going to be $20 for that one. Perhaps after Christmas, I’ll grab one so Brooke can try it.
Their location is about as far south in St. Louis City as you can go, and they aren’t in what I’d consider to be a very good location. I certainly hope they survive, at least long enough to keep their production going there and then sell their beers through bars in the city. These guys are offering what few others are and are truly innovative, I think.
After having the beer at Perennial, I went upstairs to Tony’s and he shared some Black IPA he and his brother brewed awhile back. Truly spectacular. I don’t think I can let him have any of ours because his is far better. That, or we’ll have to switch to full mash brewing techniques…
When Meg was staying with her grandparents a few weeks ago, Brooke and I checked out another new brewery, Urban Chestnut, and were pretty pleased with that one, too. They are located closer to SLU, so their building is a bit easier to get to and probably a popular destination with college students and other loft dwellers from that region of the city. Their offerings are a bit more standard, with a variety of German-inspired beers to choose from. We tasted 5 or 6 of them, and then got a pint each. If I recall, the Pilgrim 7 was Brooke’s favorite, and I ended up having a Holzrauch, which is German for “wood smoke.” Now, this isn’t a beer I would ever attempt to have a 6-pack of, but it was so different, I had to have a full pint. In the end, I think it would be best consumed with food, rather than just sipped, but it was still very good.
Overall, I’d say I preferred Urban Chestnut’s location (they have a very nice covered outdoor area with a fire pit and wood chips down, to let you sip your beer by an open fire…a nice touch!) over Perennial’s, but I preferred Perennial’s beers over Urban Chestnut’s. Still, the important thing is that St. Louis’ brewing scene is getting even larger, making our move back to the are all the more fortunate.
The Value of Content
I watched “Page One: Inside The New York Times” on Netflix Sunday. It’s a documentary that focuses on the NYT as an institution in news reporting in the United States and the world, but also discusses the changing face of media (e.g. blogs, Twitter, etc.) and the ability of just about anyone to put out “unfiltered” news directly to the general public, as in the case of the WikiLeaks debacle from last year. The documentary is pretty interesting, though I think they “bounced around” a bit more than I would prefer without any good transitions.
One of the recurring themes in the documentary was the battle currently being waged between “Old Media” and “New Media.” For example, you can go to practically any news blog now for your news as many people do, but practically all of them just re-word and re-post the same information that was originally presented in the NYT. Thus, the regular consumer of news gets their information for free without every having to visit the NYT website or pick up a paper, and therefore, the NYT never gets any ad revenue or subscriber fees from the reader.
Which leads to the central question of the documentary: how long will this be sustainable? Or, re-worded, how long can the New York Times, and institutions like it, survive in a “digital world” using their traditional economic models?
I heard a related story on NPR last week talking about Amazon and Apple (but mostly Amazon) and how the European Union is investigating them for antitrust violations with regards to e-book prices on their respective stores. These two companies essentially dictate to the publisher how much money they will sell their books (typically around $10), while the publishing companies used to be able to charge quite a bit more than that for a hardcover new release (let alone the fact that they set the price, not the distributor).
Now, in the case of the Times, I’m not really sure what the solution is. They have already taken steps to increase revenue by charging for their website, and I think that’s helping. At the very least, they’re making an attempt to survive the transition into digital media. Likely, as tablets broaden their reach to consumers, they will be able to charge for their app, or access to stories, effectively turning tablets into digital NYT readers. There is certainly money to be had if you produce a good app, and the NYT has a pretty decent one. It’s unfortunate that a lot of people out there don’t understand where news comes from and that most of these blogs a). don’t actually investigate their own news (they just re-post it from other sources), and b). frequently have some kind of agenda, so it may not be as objective as it should be to be considered capital-J “Journalism.” There is a value in actual news and people are willing to pay for it: the NYT just needs to figure out how to sustain the same standard of Journalism while operating under realistic expectations of what the public will pay for it.
In the case of book, movie, and music publishers, though, I think they need to adjust their model quickly. For example, if one considers a new-release book at Barnes and Noble, it’s likely it would cost you $20 or more. It simply doesn’t make sense to charge $20 for a digital copy (as publishers would love to do). The same thing goes for movies: I’m not going to spend the Bluray price of a movie for the digital version.
Now, those full prices don’t typically occur for movies and books because of the digital systems that have grown up to deliver the content for you. For a new movie like Rise of the Planet of the Apes, you’ll spend $22.99 for the Bluray and you’ll spend $14.99 for the digital version, so there’s some premium for the physical copy and some discount for the digital copy. In video games, this typically isn’t the case, however. When the newest Call of Duty game came out on PC, it was $60, regardless of whether you got a physical disc in a box or if you downloaded it. With games, though, there has been something of a “relationship” developed between the publishers of games and the retailers (e.g. Gamestop, Wal-Mart, etc), where the publisher could offer a discount on a digital version, but in order to appease the brick-and-mortar retailer, they keep it the same price so you still may go into their store.
Ultimately, “Old Media” needs to realize that they can’t support the distribution systems that they used for the past few decades. This is starting to happen with books, where locations like Borders went bankrupt because they couldn’t make the transition to a digital age. Companies like Gamestop are starting to make the transition, offering a digital streaming service not unlike Netflix Instant. Companies like Wal-Mart will probably just stop offering games and movies, eventually, but they’ll survive because they sell other things (among other reasons).
But the publishers still have much to worry about. Their teams of editors, binders, layout people, and so on and so forth. Teams of people that were needed in order to lay out print for publication or to set up distribution chains for each product. Or that were needed to design the inside of game manuals. Or to design the cases that your DVD or Bluray came in. These are all things that just aren’t (as) necessary in a fully digital world. You don’t need to worry about distribution when you can just sell it on the internet to everyone. However, publishers are still trying to charge additional money on the digital side in order to support these folks on the physical side of their product.
Now, my solution to this problem is to increase the cost of the physical media and further decrease the cost of the digital one. If there’s anything apps on the iPhone or Android have shown developers, it’s that selling your product for $1 means that you’ll sell to additional people, and you’ll make your money back on volume. I mean, if you could just buy a new release movie for $5, would you do it? Would you even think about the purchase? Would you care if you only watched it one time? That’s cheaper than a single ticket to go see the movie in theaters. If new movies, digitally distributed, without any special features were $5, I think they’d sell more.
But again, publishers should still hang on to their “physical media” production scheme, as there will still be people that want an actual Bluray disc. And I definitely know that there will be people that want a physical book, rather than an e-reader form. But wouldn’t more people buy books if they were $5 for a new one, rather than $20? Sure, pay the premium if you want a nice, hardcover, bound, indestructible copy of a book for your collection, but don’t make people that just want to read the book help finance other people’s need for a physical copy.
There’s a somewhat longstanding psychological “principle” in gaming related to the $100 price point. Once any gaming console hits $100, then many consumers won’t even think about the price. It’ll become an impulse buy. A similar phenomenon happened with the Wii when it released, and it cost $250. But at that price, it was cheap enough as an impulse buy for many people just to play Wii Sports.
“Old Media” publishers need to find the “impulse buy” price for their products. In the case of movies and books, I think $10 is a fair price to charge, but $5 is the “impulse buy” price. Once publishers start selling their wares down there for a digital form, I think they’ll make their money back on volume, and only then will they survive.
Edit: I read this article from Slate today, discussing Amazon and its tactics that end up hurting brick and mortar bookstores. I particularly liked this line:
But say you don’t care about local cultural experiences. Say you just care about books. Well, then it’s easy: The lower the price, the more books people will buy, and the more books people buy, the more they’ll read.
Yup.
12.05.11 Dinner
I can’t give away all of the details for this one because a part of it is going into some Christmas gifts. I can tell you that it was a delicious take on Swedish meatballs with cheese and that Meg LOVES peas!
12.02.11 Dinner
Beer cheese soup with roasted garlic bagel croutons. I veered off of our meal plan for this one, but it was totally worth it!
11.20.11 Dinner
I guess I’m a little behind. This one was bean soup made with Plochberger “soup beans.” Descriptive, right? Sometimes, I use the beans to make a bean with bacon sort of soup with veggies, but this is the way the beans were intended: a little bacon grease, celery salt, and pepper for seasoning and some rice to thicken it up!
Meg liked it too! (well, at least she liked to make a mess with it…)
11.19.11 Dinner
Pizza with peppers (from our Iowa garden!), onion, and meatballs. I really had enough crust for two pizzas, but I wanted to get it out of the fridge, so I had to prebake it for a few minutes before adding the toppings.
11.15.11 Dinner
I don’t know what this casserole is officially called, but it basically has chili on the bottom and cornbread on the top. We had it with cole slaw for something a little less dense!
Review: The Muppets
My history with the Muppets doesn’t really involve The Muppet Show, per se. While it’s a show I’ve seen countless clips of over the years, it’s just nothing I’ve ever been a huge fan of. My memories are of The Muppets Take Manhattan, Muppet Babies and A Muppet Family Christmas (which we had taped one year and watched religiously each holiday season). So my interest in the new film, The Muppets, stemmed more from the way it was made rather than the subject matter itself.
Jason Segal (of “How I Met Your Mother” fame) stars in The Muppets, but he also co-wrote the screenplay. He discussed it on NPR last week, which piqued Brooke’s interest and further solidified the fact that I/we needed to see the movie. The article discussed a range of things, but the points that were of greatest interest to me personally was that they wanted to make the movie with as little CGI as possible, and they wanted to produce a comedy that relied on “old fashioned ideals,” rather than most of the other comedies out in theaters today (e.g. anything by Judd Apatow…not that it’s a bad thing, but it’s nice to see an intelligent “family comedy” from time to time).
The movie itself centers on Segal’s character (Gary) and his brother, Walter, who is a Muppet (Note: it is not explained how, exactly, this happened. Brooke and I wonder whether Walter was adopted, or whether Gary was, as we never see the parents. I’m hoping I never have to explain this kind of genetic splicing to Meg someday). Walter goes with Gary and his girlfriend, Mary (Amy Adams), to Hollywood to see the old Muppet Theater, something that Walter had dreamed about since he was a child. Once they get there, they find out that an evil businessman (Chris Cooper) wants to buy the theater and tear it down to drill for oil, leading Walter and the gang to round up the other Muppets to organize a telethon to raise the money to buy it back.
It was great seeing all the memorabilia around the theater, including old photos and clips from the old Muppet Show. As I mentioned before, it’s not like I watched the original show all that much, but it was still neat seeing that history displayed with such reverence on the big screen again. The movie seemed to be reaching back into television history to a time when a show like that could make it on television, where in today’s world, the only way you’ll see Kermit The Frog on prime time is if he’s on an island or is living in a house with strangers. Many of the themes in the film could be considered “traditional,” but in this presentation, it seems more like “timeless” than anything.
The movie was also pretty funny. Not really “laugh out loud” funny or anything, but definitely chuckle-worthy and amusing. The self-referential humor was the most entertaining to me: stuff that may fly by a kid, but would still be funny to an adult. Chris Cooper would say “maniacal laugh…maniacal laugh…” rather than actually laughing in that evil way, for example. Or that they would “travel by map” to get from one location to another quickly in the story (like taking a car from the U.S. to Paris).
I was a little disappointed that they didn’t give the actors more to do, however. Amy Adams was in it from the beginning, but didn’t really do much until the last half of the movie. During the telethon, there were almost countless cameo appearances, but while you saw folks like Judd Hirsch and Neil Patrick Harris answering the phones, they didn’t have any actual lines of dialog (while others like Zach Galifianakis and Jim Parsons were a bit more prominent). It was obvious that the writers brought people in from multiple generations, so there would be cameos from people practically anyone would recognize (who the heck is Selena Gomez, anyway?).
But, this was a movie about the Muppets: not about the humans. And in the end, you’re left with a “feel good,” entertaining movie that brings a lot of familiar faces back together, and together for the first time. They did a great job with this movie, and they did it without 3D and with barely any CGI, proving that you can still tell a great story and make a great movie for kids and adults that only involves puppets and a few supporting people.
In today’s world (and if the previews before the movie are any indication, where almost all the previews were for upcoming CGI or 3D movies…) that’s certainly an accomplishment.