I know I tell a lot of jokes on this blog, and I make a lot of posts that are goofy, but more or less meaningless. But today, I want to discuss something very serious - something very near and dear to my heart. Today, I discuss which Harrison Ford role is better: Han Solo or Indiana Jones?
Normally, I start these with a quick summary of the subjects being compared. But if you aren't familiar with either of these names, then this blog really isn't the place for you. Both of these roles are played with a typical Harrison Ford swagger: Solo being the mercenary, smuggler pirate-pilot (that's hard to say) while Jones is the archaeologist with no rules, killing any Nazi or Thuggee cult member that gets in the way of precious artifacts and the museums they belong in. Jones reputation is legendary; from the fedora that he never loses to his handy whip to his rugged attitude, his cultural impact is undeniable. Having recovered the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy Grail, and a few glowing rocks in the second movie, there's a reason Indy's name has become synonymous with adventure. Solo, however, is just as iconic of a character as the pilot of the Millenium Falcon and having one of the most famous co-pilots of all time, Chewbacca. Solo has an equally impressive resume (if not more impressive) - he had a hand in destroying both Death Stars - the galaxy's ultimate weapon. Though he technically didn't destroy either, neither one would have been blown up without his contributions (I guess he gets the assists - call him Steve Nash).
No one watches Star Wars in English, anyways
One disadvantage Solo has against Jones is the fact that he's technically a sidekick. As whiny and annoying as Luke Skywalker may be, he is ultimately the one responsible for helping his father fulfill his destiny and restoring the Jedi Order. Jones, on the other hand, gets to lead whatever adventure he's on, and pretty much making it up as he goes, like he tells Sallah and Marion.
Both have a memorable cast of friends and partners. Indy gets to roll with people like Sean Connery and Short Round (to whom I apologize for not calling him Dr. Jones). Solo gets to roll with Chewie, though, and who wouldn't want to do that. He also made friends with a whole tribe of Ewoks, something that we all want to do. He's also cool with Lando Calrissian, and Lando + Colt 45 = a good time (can you imagine when Solo, Lando, and Chewie get together? That must be a wild time). And each has some less desirable companions: Indy has Kate Capshaw; Solo has Luke, Jabba, and just about every bounty hunter in the galaxy.
However, the one thing that separates Han Solo from Indy is his ability to get the girl in the end. Although Indy has a different female companion in each of the 3 movies, he can never seem to keep them around. Solo, however, ended up with Princess Leia without even trying. He spent most of the trilogy mocking her, and when she finally confessed her love for him, he simply replied, well you know what he said. Even though he was constantly disrespectful, it worked anyway. You may be thinking, "Wait a second. In the fourth movie, Indiana Jones and Marion reunite and get married." But as far as this blog is concerned, the fourth Indiana Jones movie never happened and, therefore, doesn't count. So to that, I say, "I don't know what you're talking about." Solo gets the girl and the win.
And Leia doesn't scream every five minutes
PS: Call me a nerd, but I'm going there. Not only does Han shoot first, but Indy does as well.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Abandon all hope, ye who read this blog: Dante's Peak vs. Dante's Inferno
Ever since Dante's Peak was introduced to the world so long ago (1997), the comparison to Dante's Inferno has been inevitable. One tells the story of the devastating effect of a volcano's eruption on a small town; the other tells of a man's journey through the depths of Hell.
Dante's Peak has been praised for its scientific accuracy. Okay, so it's not exactly accurate, but compared to most disaster movies (remember Tommy Lee Jones in Volcano?), this movie actually made an attempt to portray how volcanoes actually work. This beats the accuracy of Dante's Inferno, which describes the continents all on the Northern Hemisphere, while Hell cuts through the center of the earth, where you can climb out Satan's legs and end up in the Southern Hemisphere, which is where Purgatory is. Clearly, Dante's Peak has the edge here. But honestly, no one watches disaster movies to see good science, nor do you read the Divine Comedy to get a better understanding of geography and astronomy.
One thing you have to consider is star-power. Dante's Peak gets its star-power from Pierce Brosnan playing the lead role. Pierce is easily recognizable as he has played James Bond five different times, as well as starring in The Thomas Crown Affair. And who could forget his performance in Mamma Mia? I mean, I've heard he was in that, too. Also, Pierce's likeness was used in GoldenEye, one of the coolest N64 games ever. So there's that.
Dante's Inferno has a bit of star-power of its own. First of all, Dante Alighieri puts himself in the place of the main character. While he doesn't come out and say it's him, naming your main character after yourself isn't exactly subtle. But for a story about a literal journey through Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven, subtlety was probably not Alighieri's intention. Beyond that, there's his guide, Virgil, legendary Roman poet who wrote the Aeneid. Dante and Virgil travel through each of the rings of Hell, encountering all kinds of star-studded cameos. On their journey, they encounter Homer, author of both the Iliad and the Odyssey. Then they meet Greek mathematician, Euclid. They run into a few other familiar faces, such as Socrates, Aristotle, Julius Caesar (notice there's no Mike Ilitch), Saladin, Dido, Helen of Troy, Paris, Achilles, and Agamemnon. Dante also encounters creatures from Greek and Roman mythology like the Minos, the Furies, Medusa, the Minotaur, Harpies, and Centaurs. Dante also runs into Lancelot and Guinevere, Alexander the Great, Odysseus, Ulysses, Diomedes, the prophet Muhammad, and a handful of Popes. There may or may not have been a Pontius Pilate sighting. (There's also a medieval mathematician named Michael Scot, who would undoubtedly be played by Steve Carrell if this was going to be made into a movie in the next couple years.) I almost forgot, Brutus and Cassius are there too. And Judas. Dante also sees the devil himself, and not only does he see him, but he climbs his legs out of Hell. These are a few of the recognizable names that show up in the Inferno (did I mention this is only the first part of a three part story?). Even though Pierce Brosnan was in Robinson Crusoe, I think Dante's Inferno wins the battle of star-power.
While we're on the subject, let's think about the implications of all these famous figures in the Inferno. Let's not forget that all these characters' appearances insinuates that they are in Hell. Who has the balls to do that? The same kind of people who write themselves as the main characters, that's who. Not only does Dante's Peak not have the star-power of the Inferno, they missed the opportunity to mess with some famous people's personas. Dante put Popes in Hell - that's quite a statement. If Dante's Peak had done the equivalent, they could have had more contemporary authors, philosophers, and world leaders getting rocked by a volcano. Can you imagine if they had put Stephen Hawking trying to escape the eruption, or having Bill Clinton killed by a rush of lava? (He'd probably end up in the same ring as Lancelot and Guinevere). What if they put Pope John Paul in there? It could have been real controversial. Instead, they played it safe, and because of that, I have to give props to Alighieri because his epic poem beats what imdb calls "not a bad disaster movie." Dante's Inferno wins.
PS: I mentioned Centaurs appearing in Dante's Inferno. I just thought I'd point out that Pierce Brosnan played a Centaur in that new Percy Jackson movie. Just something to chew on..
Dante's Peak has been praised for its scientific accuracy. Okay, so it's not exactly accurate, but compared to most disaster movies (remember Tommy Lee Jones in Volcano?), this movie actually made an attempt to portray how volcanoes actually work. This beats the accuracy of Dante's Inferno, which describes the continents all on the Northern Hemisphere, while Hell cuts through the center of the earth, where you can climb out Satan's legs and end up in the Southern Hemisphere, which is where Purgatory is. Clearly, Dante's Peak has the edge here. But honestly, no one watches disaster movies to see good science, nor do you read the Divine Comedy to get a better understanding of geography and astronomy.
One thing you have to consider is star-power. Dante's Peak gets its star-power from Pierce Brosnan playing the lead role. Pierce is easily recognizable as he has played James Bond five different times, as well as starring in The Thomas Crown Affair. And who could forget his performance in Mamma Mia? I mean, I've heard he was in that, too. Also, Pierce's likeness was used in GoldenEye, one of the coolest N64 games ever. So there's that.
Dante's Inferno has a bit of star-power of its own. First of all, Dante Alighieri puts himself in the place of the main character. While he doesn't come out and say it's him, naming your main character after yourself isn't exactly subtle. But for a story about a literal journey through Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven, subtlety was probably not Alighieri's intention. Beyond that, there's his guide, Virgil, legendary Roman poet who wrote the Aeneid. Dante and Virgil travel through each of the rings of Hell, encountering all kinds of star-studded cameos. On their journey, they encounter Homer, author of both the Iliad and the Odyssey. Then they meet Greek mathematician, Euclid. They run into a few other familiar faces, such as Socrates, Aristotle, Julius Caesar (notice there's no Mike Ilitch), Saladin, Dido, Helen of Troy, Paris, Achilles, and Agamemnon. Dante also encounters creatures from Greek and Roman mythology like the Minos, the Furies, Medusa, the Minotaur, Harpies, and Centaurs. Dante also runs into Lancelot and Guinevere, Alexander the Great, Odysseus, Ulysses, Diomedes, the prophet Muhammad, and a handful of Popes. There may or may not have been a Pontius Pilate sighting. (There's also a medieval mathematician named Michael Scot, who would undoubtedly be played by Steve Carrell if this was going to be made into a movie in the next couple years.) I almost forgot, Brutus and Cassius are there too. And Judas. Dante also sees the devil himself, and not only does he see him, but he climbs his legs out of Hell. These are a few of the recognizable names that show up in the Inferno (did I mention this is only the first part of a three part story?). Even though Pierce Brosnan was in Robinson Crusoe, I think Dante's Inferno wins the battle of star-power.
While we're on the subject, let's think about the implications of all these famous figures in the Inferno. Let's not forget that all these characters' appearances insinuates that they are in Hell. Who has the balls to do that? The same kind of people who write themselves as the main characters, that's who. Not only does Dante's Peak not have the star-power of the Inferno, they missed the opportunity to mess with some famous people's personas. Dante put Popes in Hell - that's quite a statement. If Dante's Peak had done the equivalent, they could have had more contemporary authors, philosophers, and world leaders getting rocked by a volcano. Can you imagine if they had put Stephen Hawking trying to escape the eruption, or having Bill Clinton killed by a rush of lava? (He'd probably end up in the same ring as Lancelot and Guinevere). What if they put Pope John Paul in there? It could have been real controversial. Instead, they played it safe, and because of that, I have to give props to Alighieri because his epic poem beats what imdb calls "not a bad disaster movie." Dante's Inferno wins.
PS: I mentioned Centaurs appearing in Dante's Inferno. I just thought I'd point out that Pierce Brosnan played a Centaur in that new Percy Jackson movie. Just something to chew on..
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Get Crunk in Nottinham: Little John vs. Lil Jon
Naming himself after such a recognizable literary figure, Lil Jon is really begging for this comparison to be made. That's where I come in.
Little John and Lil Jon do have some similarities; both belong to an esteemed "band." Little John of Robin Hood fame belongs to the band of Merry Men, while Lil Jon is a member of Lil Jon & the East Side Boyz. While they both have high rank in their respective group, Lil Jon has a position of greater authority as he is the leading member of the East Side Boyz. Little John, however, is second in command to Robin Hood. The advantage here appears to go to the rapper. But when considering their positions in their groups, we must also consider what exactly each group does. Lil Jon and the gang get together and make songs that pretty much are all about some combination of shawties, skeet skeet, and/or getting crunk. While you have to admire his unique diction, the subject-material is a bit repetitive and, frankly, unintelligent (according to Wikipedia, Lil Jon admitted that people must dumb themselves down to listen to his music). Little John accompanies Robin Hood on noble adventures to do things like rob from the rich and corrupt, give to the poor, and overthrow the disastrous John, younger brother of former King Richard I. Though he's just a sidekick, it seems a lot cooler (not to mention more important) to be Number 2 in a group devoted to stamping out tyranny and restoring justice rather than taking all the glory for albums like Crunk Juice.
Lil Jon's greatest enemy is himself
Though Lil Jon's music career has been somewhat short-lived and seems to be fading, he has made a positive impact simply because he's so easy to make fun of. His tendency to repeat the same exclamations ("What?! Okay!") has led to lots of great parodies (like this YouTube classic), most notably the "A Day in the Life of Lil Jon" sketches on Chappelle's Show. But Little John is no stranger to parody, as Robin Hood: Men in Tights is arguably one of Mel Brooks' best satires (Initially, it appears that Lil Jon's affiliation with Dave Chappelle should secure his victory, since Chappelle is a member of the Hall of Ballin'. But since Chappelle was also in Robin Hood: Men in Tights, the Chappelle factor cancels out). Plus, Little John has been popular since the 14th Century, while Lil Jon was popular for a handful of years. Today, he's not even the most relevant rapper with the "Lil" prefix (Congrats, Lil Wayne).
This may traumatize children who watch Lazy Town
Looking at the Robin Hood legend - and when I say legend, I mean the Disney cartoon - we see Prince John portrayed as a self-involved leader who sits on a throne sipping from his diamond-studded chalice and sucking his thumb. His reign does not last long in the movie. Lil Jon, leader of the East Side Boyz, is known to sit on giant chairs with bling, a crown, and a sparkling pimp cup of crunk juice. His reign did not last long, either. Though he shares a name with Little John, the Robin Hood character he most resembles is Prince John. This is an easy victory for Little John and the Merry Men.
Gotta love mash-ups
PS: If being Sean Connery's son was enough to edge Indiana Jones over Dora the Explorer, then let's add insult to injury. In 1976, Sean Connery starred as Robin Hood in Robin and Marian opposite Audrey Hepburn (weird, right?). If Sean Connery is Robin Hood, then Little John is friends with Sean Connery, automatically making him the cooler one (As Connery might say, "Suck it, Lil Jon"). But while we're talking about it - try to imagine a Robin Hood adaption where Connery stars as Robin and Lil Jon plays his trusty companion, Little John. My head almost just exploded from sheer juxtaposition.
PPS: According to Wikipedia, Lil Jon's phone number is the same as Miley Cyrus' old one. Imagine your surprise if you were a 12 year old girl trying to call Miley and Lil Jon picked up.
Caller: Hello, is this Miley?
Lil Jon: What??
C: Can I speak to Miley?
LJ: Whhhat??
C: Miley. Cyrus. Is she there?
LJ: .....whhhhhhat??
C: All right, I think I have the wrong number..
LJ: Okayyyy!!
Little John and Lil Jon do have some similarities; both belong to an esteemed "band." Little John of Robin Hood fame belongs to the band of Merry Men, while Lil Jon is a member of Lil Jon & the East Side Boyz. While they both have high rank in their respective group, Lil Jon has a position of greater authority as he is the leading member of the East Side Boyz. Little John, however, is second in command to Robin Hood. The advantage here appears to go to the rapper. But when considering their positions in their groups, we must also consider what exactly each group does. Lil Jon and the gang get together and make songs that pretty much are all about some combination of shawties, skeet skeet, and/or getting crunk. While you have to admire his unique diction, the subject-material is a bit repetitive and, frankly, unintelligent (according to Wikipedia, Lil Jon admitted that people must dumb themselves down to listen to his music). Little John accompanies Robin Hood on noble adventures to do things like rob from the rich and corrupt, give to the poor, and overthrow the disastrous John, younger brother of former King Richard I. Though he's just a sidekick, it seems a lot cooler (not to mention more important) to be Number 2 in a group devoted to stamping out tyranny and restoring justice rather than taking all the glory for albums like Crunk Juice.
| Chappelle's Show | ||||
| A Moment in the life of Lil Jon - Oprah | ||||
| ||||
Lil Jon's greatest enemy is himself
Though Lil Jon's music career has been somewhat short-lived and seems to be fading, he has made a positive impact simply because he's so easy to make fun of. His tendency to repeat the same exclamations ("What?! Okay!") has led to lots of great parodies (like this YouTube classic), most notably the "A Day in the Life of Lil Jon" sketches on Chappelle's Show. But Little John is no stranger to parody, as Robin Hood: Men in Tights is arguably one of Mel Brooks' best satires (Initially, it appears that Lil Jon's affiliation with Dave Chappelle should secure his victory, since Chappelle is a member of the Hall of Ballin'. But since Chappelle was also in Robin Hood: Men in Tights, the Chappelle factor cancels out). Plus, Little John has been popular since the 14th Century, while Lil Jon was popular for a handful of years. Today, he's not even the most relevant rapper with the "Lil" prefix (Congrats, Lil Wayne).
This may traumatize children who watch Lazy Town
Looking at the Robin Hood legend - and when I say legend, I mean the Disney cartoon - we see Prince John portrayed as a self-involved leader who sits on a throne sipping from his diamond-studded chalice and sucking his thumb. His reign does not last long in the movie. Lil Jon, leader of the East Side Boyz, is known to sit on giant chairs with bling, a crown, and a sparkling pimp cup of crunk juice. His reign did not last long, either. Though he shares a name with Little John, the Robin Hood character he most resembles is Prince John. This is an easy victory for Little John and the Merry Men.
Gotta love mash-ups
PS: If being Sean Connery's son was enough to edge Indiana Jones over Dora the Explorer, then let's add insult to injury. In 1976, Sean Connery starred as Robin Hood in Robin and Marian opposite Audrey Hepburn (weird, right?). If Sean Connery is Robin Hood, then Little John is friends with Sean Connery, automatically making him the cooler one (As Connery might say, "Suck it, Lil Jon"). But while we're talking about it - try to imagine a Robin Hood adaption where Connery stars as Robin and Lil Jon plays his trusty companion, Little John. My head almost just exploded from sheer juxtaposition.
PPS: According to Wikipedia, Lil Jon's phone number is the same as Miley Cyrus' old one. Imagine your surprise if you were a 12 year old girl trying to call Miley and Lil Jon picked up.
Caller: Hello, is this Miley?
Lil Jon: What??
C: Can I speak to Miley?
LJ: Whhhat??
C: Miley. Cyrus. Is she there?
LJ: .....whhhhhhat??
C: All right, I think I have the wrong number..
LJ: Okayyyy!!
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Et tu, Pizza Pizza? Caesar vs. Ilitch
Yup, that's actually today's match-up. But considering the fact that Mike Ilitch, founder of Little Caesar's Pizza, decided to name his company after the great Roman rulers, I really can't resist this discussion.
It's safe to say that the Caesars were a pretty influential family. Obviously, the two most prominent Caesars were Julius and his nephew, Octavius (Augustus). Julius was the first ruler of the Roman Empire, one of the most powerful civilizations in history. Augustus picked up where his uncle/adopted father left off and also ruled the Empire (although he wouldn't call himself a dictator, but we know the real story). Much like the Caesars, the Ilitch family is involved in leadership. Like Caesar founded the Roman Empire, Mike Ilitch founded a fast-food empire - Little Caesars. Eventually he created Ilitch Holdings which encompasses all of his companies, such as the pizza chain, Olympia Entertainment, and the Detroit Red Wings and Tigers. And like Augustus took over where his uncle left off, Mike appointed two of his children, Christopher and Denise, as co-president and CEO of Ilitch Holdings. Denise has since stepped down from her position of power (more than any Caesar can say), leaving Christopher in charge.
Undoubtedly, both families have left remarkable legacies on their respective locales. Walk around Rome and you'll still see examples of this - the Forum of Julius, Temple of Saturn, as well as plenty of statues and aqueducts. Around Detroit, Ilitch's effect can be seen in Comerica Park or the renovated Fox Theatre. And like James Earl Jones (first-ballot inductee to the Hall of Ballin), Mike Ilitch has received the key to the City of Detroit. But then again, so has Saddam Hussein, so scratch that. Both Caesars have had months named after them, cementing their legacy into our everyday lives over 2000 years later. But neither of them can claim to have their name etched on the Stanley Cup.
Ilitch's victories are notable - four Stanley Cups and an American League Championship (although he fell short of the World Series). Julius Caesar conquered Gaul and invaded Britain (although fell short of British occupation). Augustus, however, continued Julius' expansion into areas such as Spain, Portugal, and defeating Mark Antony and conquering Egypt.
Of course it hasn't been all good for either party. Though Julius Caesar is the first ruler of the Roman Empire, the ugly side of that is how he dismantled the Roman Republic in order to keep his emergency powers. He felt the consequences of this, seeing as how he was assassinated and all. Augustus Caesar claimed to be the leader of a restored Republic, but really maintained the power of a dictator. Ilitch has struggled, too. First of all, look at Little Caesar's commercials. Also, the Tigers had 12 losing seasons out of 13 under his ownership. However, they have since become more respectable, winning an ALCS and coming a game short of the division championship last year. Before Ilitch owned the team, the Red Wings were known by the unsympathetic nickname, "Dead Wings." Since he took over, though, Detroit now has the nickname "Hockeytown," a significant turnaround.
The fact that Mike Ilitch called his franchise "Little" Caesars seems a bit emasculating. You'd certainly never see the OC (Original Caesar) give themselves such a moniker (although if either of them were to return today as a rapper, it's likely their stage name would be Lil' Caesar).
However, when it comes to thinking of the Roman Empire, we have to consider its size. Phrases like "The sun never sets on the Roman Empire" or "Rome wasn't built in a day" indicate the immense expansion of the Empire. Covering almost all of Europe and stretching to northern Africa and the Middle East, its size is formidable, to say the least. However, Ilitch has done some expanding of his own empire. Though Little Caesars is most prominent in Michigan, the franchise has expanded globally. From Japan to Peru to Egypt, Little Caesars has locations in 26 countries that span five continents (North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa). Rome at its height touched three (Europe, Asia, Africa). As formidable as the OC's Empire was, it never expanded as widely as Ilitch's empire. Considering that expansion is what Rome is best remembered for, it should be able to surpass Little Caesars, but it does not. With the first store in Garden City, Michigan, the Little Caesars empire certainly wasn't built in a day. But one thing is for sure: the sun never sets on Mike Ilitch's empire. Ilitch wins.
PS: All right, so Little Caesars pizza (Pizza!) isn't actually that good. But how convenient is the Hot-N-Ready? Five dollar pizzas ready to go? You walk out with change. Brilliant. As annoying as their commercials are (and as mediocre as the product itself is), I can't pass up that Hot-N-Ready. Too bad Caesar never came up with anything that revolutionary.
It's safe to say that the Caesars were a pretty influential family. Obviously, the two most prominent Caesars were Julius and his nephew, Octavius (Augustus). Julius was the first ruler of the Roman Empire, one of the most powerful civilizations in history. Augustus picked up where his uncle/adopted father left off and also ruled the Empire (although he wouldn't call himself a dictator, but we know the real story). Much like the Caesars, the Ilitch family is involved in leadership. Like Caesar founded the Roman Empire, Mike Ilitch founded a fast-food empire - Little Caesars. Eventually he created Ilitch Holdings which encompasses all of his companies, such as the pizza chain, Olympia Entertainment, and the Detroit Red Wings and Tigers. And like Augustus took over where his uncle left off, Mike appointed two of his children, Christopher and Denise, as co-president and CEO of Ilitch Holdings. Denise has since stepped down from her position of power (more than any Caesar can say), leaving Christopher in charge.
Undoubtedly, both families have left remarkable legacies on their respective locales. Walk around Rome and you'll still see examples of this - the Forum of Julius, Temple of Saturn, as well as plenty of statues and aqueducts. Around Detroit, Ilitch's effect can be seen in Comerica Park or the renovated Fox Theatre. And like James Earl Jones (first-ballot inductee to the Hall of Ballin), Mike Ilitch has received the key to the City of Detroit. But then again, so has Saddam Hussein, so scratch that. Both Caesars have had months named after them, cementing their legacy into our everyday lives over 2000 years later. But neither of them can claim to have their name etched on the Stanley Cup.
Ilitch's victories are notable - four Stanley Cups and an American League Championship (although he fell short of the World Series). Julius Caesar conquered Gaul and invaded Britain (although fell short of British occupation). Augustus, however, continued Julius' expansion into areas such as Spain, Portugal, and defeating Mark Antony and conquering Egypt.
Of course it hasn't been all good for either party. Though Julius Caesar is the first ruler of the Roman Empire, the ugly side of that is how he dismantled the Roman Republic in order to keep his emergency powers. He felt the consequences of this, seeing as how he was assassinated and all. Augustus Caesar claimed to be the leader of a restored Republic, but really maintained the power of a dictator. Ilitch has struggled, too. First of all, look at Little Caesar's commercials. Also, the Tigers had 12 losing seasons out of 13 under his ownership. However, they have since become more respectable, winning an ALCS and coming a game short of the division championship last year. Before Ilitch owned the team, the Red Wings were known by the unsympathetic nickname, "Dead Wings." Since he took over, though, Detroit now has the nickname "Hockeytown," a significant turnaround.
The fact that Mike Ilitch called his franchise "Little" Caesars seems a bit emasculating. You'd certainly never see the OC (Original Caesar) give themselves such a moniker (although if either of them were to return today as a rapper, it's likely their stage name would be Lil' Caesar).
However, when it comes to thinking of the Roman Empire, we have to consider its size. Phrases like "The sun never sets on the Roman Empire" or "Rome wasn't built in a day" indicate the immense expansion of the Empire. Covering almost all of Europe and stretching to northern Africa and the Middle East, its size is formidable, to say the least. However, Ilitch has done some expanding of his own empire. Though Little Caesars is most prominent in Michigan, the franchise has expanded globally. From Japan to Peru to Egypt, Little Caesars has locations in 26 countries that span five continents (North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa). Rome at its height touched three (Europe, Asia, Africa). As formidable as the OC's Empire was, it never expanded as widely as Ilitch's empire. Considering that expansion is what Rome is best remembered for, it should be able to surpass Little Caesars, but it does not. With the first store in Garden City, Michigan, the Little Caesars empire certainly wasn't built in a day. But one thing is for sure: the sun never sets on Mike Ilitch's empire. Ilitch wins.
PS: All right, so Little Caesars pizza (Pizza!) isn't actually that good. But how convenient is the Hot-N-Ready? Five dollar pizzas ready to go? You walk out with change. Brilliant. As annoying as their commercials are (and as mediocre as the product itself is), I can't pass up that Hot-N-Ready. Too bad Caesar never came up with anything that revolutionary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
