Chi-Chi's is Coming Back

A while back I did a deep-dive roundup on old restaurant chains. I have two updates.

Firstly, the Friendly's that was near me that was barely hanging on has since closed. As I noted then, there was nothing I could do.

Secondly, and more importantly, Chi-Chi's is coming back. From wikipedia:

On December 3, 2024, it was announced that the restaurant chain will re-launch in the United States in 2025. Michael McDermott, son of original owner, Marno McDermott, will lead and operate the new restaurants under Chi-Chi's Restaurants, LLC. Hormel Foods, the current owner of the Chi-Chi's trademark, has allowed the use of the Chi-Chi's name for the physical restaurant locations. A few months later, McDermott announced that he will convert his two Rojo Mexican Grill restaurants in St. Louis Park and Maple Grove to the revived Chi-Chi’s brand.

As far as I can tell, the St. Louis locations are the only announced locations. Stay tuned. 

1980s Drug PSA

This is a drug PSA that aired in the mid-80s.

I saw this repeatedly when I was 4 or 5 and it freaked me out and haunted my dreams. I've been looking for it for a while but all I remember is a creepy girl waving a white stick and I remembered it involved climbing stairs, for some reason. Finally found it.

It'll make you feel good, good, good, good.

The Video for L.A. is My Lady

There's a lot going on in the music video for Frank Sinatra's "L.A. is My Lady."

The song is yacht rock and the video resembles the Yacht Rock web-series. 

It features Donna Summer(?), James Ingram, Quincy Jones; Latoya Jackson is drinking with Dean Martin. Michael McDonald puts an orange in a grocery bag, the orange travels and disappears. There is an implied Michael Jackson but they couldn't get the real one, so they show archival footage. 

It's bonkers.

What Was the Deal with Dukes of Hazzard?

 

This might be a question for a non-existent audience - people that remember "Dukes of Hazzard" probably know the deal, and most of the kids today probably have never heard of the show and don't care. But in case this is a public service to at least 1 or 2 people in the world... Let's answer the question, "What was the deal with "Dukes of Hazzard?""

The enigma that needs solving goes like this:

"Dukes of Hazzard" was about outlaws trying to escape the police. But they had a home and the police knew where they lived. So... how? How is this not a contradiction and how does it continue week after week?

This was bothering me for a while so I watched the first few episodes and, while not a thorough exploration, I think I get the picture enough to satisfy the question.

Let's go episode by episode.

Episode 1. In episode 1, we get the backstory: the Duke Family are moonshiners, they were arrested and let out on probation on the condition that they never again run moonshine. In this episode they steal a shipment of slot machines and resell them around town. Daisy Duke is arrested but escapes jail. Through a scheme of chicanery, by the end of the episode, the Dukes are completely let off the hook.

Episode 2. Episode 2 is not relevant to the topic except they do blow up a cop car with no repercussions.

Episode 3. The Duke boys (accidentally) run moonshine and get away from the police. There is no acknowledgement that the police have positively identified them and their license plate, the fact that the car outran the other car means there can be no legal action, apparently.

Episode 4. The Duke Boys buy a car, flee the police, bust through a barn (property damage) and are arrested for supposedly stealing the car they bought. Though being accused of a crime they didn't commit, they still resisted arrest and damaged property. Then things get much more complicated and the end doesn't make sense.

Episode 5. Skipping this one.

Episode 6. The Dukes get caught running guns but they run from the arrest and ditch the truck in a lake. In the end, they can't be charged because there's no evidence... Except for the guns in the truck in the lake... but out of sight, out of mind??? 

Conclusion:

So I think I've seen enough to understand the idea of the show. The Dukes are constantly on thin ice with the law and the reason they can simultaneously be outlaws and have a steady residence is that by the end of each episode they've gotten away with it somehow. The show can be fairly summarized by the phrase "They see me rollin', they hatin', patrollin' and tryna catch me ridin' dirty."

The show is somewhat reminiscent of "Hogan's Heroes" in the way the plot usually revolves around getting a job done while evading the authorities. Except that "Hogan's Heroes" is a smart show and "Dukes of Hazzard" is quite dumb. Don't get me wrong, the show has a lot of charm and I still have great nostalgia for the car, the sweet car chases and the sweet car jumps (yes, those 3 things deserve to be listed individually) but there's no getting around the fact that it's not a show that ever engages the mind. And to the extent that you do engage your mind, it will probably hurt.

The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper (1988)

 

In a previous post, I mentioned it was the exact anniversary of Jack the Ripper's first murder. I would like to correct that, or adjust that slightly. London in 1888 was full of murders and there is some disagreement about what the official Jack the Ripper murders are and which are not, so the day of the first one is a matter of dispute.

But also in that post, I mentioned the possibility of tracking down a documentary from the 1980s which I saw as a child and which somewhat haunted me. The above video is that documentary, in full, on youtube, not to be confused with the TV miniseries "Jack the Ripper" also from 1988.

The first surprising thing about it is this: it's actually quite good. I was expecting to post this as an ironic joke but I'm posting it now as a legitimately entertaining video.

A special TV event from 1988 where a group of experts is going to determine who the real Jack the Ripper is sounds like it should have aged poorly and come off as a joke in network tv cliches. That's fully what I was expecting but this isn't that. It is somewhat dated, for sure, but it's actually well-made, compelling and holds up quite well. Yes, some of it is dated - I love the "going live" to London for no real reason as well as the solemn and pointless studio audience. But those are minor details.

One of the points on which I think the documentary is laughable is probably a matter of controversy. I may be in the wrong, and call me an uneducated rube but am I supposed to believe that even though we haven't the slightest clue who Jack the Ripper was, the FBI can tell that he came from a broken home and had a domineering mother, etc., etc? I try to keep an open mind but it sounds like a parody of real investigation. Not buying your Freudian nonsense. Do better, FBI. (Is it "do better" or "be better?")

My second surprise is this: I watched this as a child and can't fathom how. It starts with a viewer discretion warning, there's rape, prostitution, murder, Satanism... a ghastly crime scene photo (fortunately for my child-self it was an 80s television low-resolution version, the modern one is horrific)... syphillis... suicide... and more murders... that I would see anything like this makes no sense at all. NO sense. I was thinking maybe there was an edited version but any info about where and how it aired is hard to come by. The internet can't even agree whether it was for British television or American. I can't explain the circumstances by which I saw this - you solve a mystery you open a new one.

The host of the program is Peter Ustinov who. is having definite. trouble reading his. cue cards. I immediately imagined the Best of the Worst guys laughing that he was drunk or on drugs. He's not slurring and he lived a long while after this so I think he maybe just didn't care. What a coincidence that in the same time of life and in the same location I saw this, I also fell in love with the Disney version of "Robin Hood" in which Ustinov plays Prince John (and King Richard.) I wonder if I recognized the voice as being the same. Doubtful.

Visiting a 7-11 at 2:30AM in 1987

 

We're supposed to think that styles and fashion and food all change over time but human nature doesn't. So I'm on very shaky philosophical ground if I suggest that people have changed in the short time from 1987 to now.

The people in this video have joy, particularly mirth, or at least the spark of life. If a teen took out their phone and started filming people in a 7-11 today, would they find anything other than misery and annoyance? I'm generalizing of course, but I think it's true. It would be wrong to say that human nature has changed but - what would you say - the personality of our society has changed.

Random Footage From a 1988 Burger King

 

The thumbnail shows that they're serving Pepsi products. The description explains that they switched over to Coke in 1990.

How weird would it be to be watching this in 2023 and see your 1988 self in the video? Of course, I suppose, you would go into it remembering being in a BK once and seeing someone with a camera, lessening the impact a great deal, but still.

Roy Rogers Restaurants Still Exist

 

Driving on the highway on Saturday, I see a sign saying that there was a "Roy Rogers in X Miles." I says, "There's an old sign that needs to be taken down." But once I reached my destination, I looked it up. It is real. Roy Rogers Restaurants still exist and there is one within 45 minutes driving.

I am a lazy man, by nature, but I'm saying now that I'm going to try to go there and report back.

When I was a kid we went to Roy Rogers all the time but I considered it an extinct franchise. It made me think, what other franchises might also be available. Here are some of the ones that came to mind.

• Roy Rogers - Still exists, in a fraction of the country. They have a store if you want to buy shirts or hats.
• Orange Julius - Also still exists! They were bought by Dairy Queen. The locations page on their website just yields an error but you can try google maps.
• Little Caesar's - Still around, I think they're trying to make a comeback by making the cheapest pizza in the world. Not sure if it'll work. I was a huge fan but tried it recently and didn't real feel the old feelings.
• Boston Market - Still hanging on. I was a fan and tried to support them and every time I do there are definite problems with quality and consistency. If they're not good enough to keep a hardcore fan like me, I don't think they'll last much longer.
• Cinnabon - Still appears to be going strong. You have to figure their reliance on malls is putting a squeeze on their business. I have a plan that the next time I have something to celebrate, I'm going to do the most decadent thing I can think of: order Cinnabon delivery. Any day now...
• Chi-Chi's - Fully extinct as a restaurant but they sell a line of food products online. I loved Chi-Chi's.
• Ground Round - Went bankrupt, name was bought and trying to make a comeback. Only a few locations exist.
• Pizza Hut - Of course it still exists, what I mean is: perhaps the most "of its time" restaurant I can think of is the sit down/dine-in Pizza Hut. Are those still around? They still exist but the closest to me is about an hour away and it's not the same without the old decor anyway.
• The Sizzler - Still exists but only on the West Coast.
• Ponderosa/Bonanza - They're the same company and they still exist. None around me.
• Friendly's - They're still around. Similar situation to Boston Market - I love them, would gladly be a regular customer but I think the quality has slipped and it's hard to keep going back. Plus, I can't find anyone who wants to go to Friendly's with me and I don't want to go alone.

A few more recent notes. I was a huge Quiznos fan. Those are still around but I suppose the franchise is on the decrease. There isn't one anywhere close to me. I was also a huge fan of Moe's Southwest Grill, I think those are decreasing also but I'm not sure. Bennigan's is down to 12 locations in the U.S. and Applebee's is still around though I don't understand how.