If you don’t have any plans for dinner, consider eating at Subway tonight. There’s apparently a movement on to get as many people as possible to eat at Subway today in an effort to save the NBC show Chuck, which just keeps getting better and better. So if you like the show or are amenable to eating there for those of us that do, I recomment it.

I meant to say something earlier. I heard about this last week. I decided that I haven’t eaten at Subway in forever and it sounded good. One of the main reasons I haven’t eaten at Subway recently is that it’s rarely convenient to. The one that exists on my drive home from work often doesn’t have any parking available.

So wouldn’t you know it, since deciding that I was going to eat at Subway today, I have had one opportunity after another to eat there thrown at me. Every chore I went on over the weekend, there’s been one right there. And the one on my drive home actually had parking available when I stopped at a nearby gas station. But each time I had to forego so that I would be sure to eat there today.

Makes me wonder if Subway isn’t losing money on the deal.

Update: I decided to get two subs. Considering that my current eating habits only allow me to eat 6″ at a time, I know what I’m going to be eating for the next couple of days. That, combined with the left-overs from the Mexican restaurant we ate on Sunday night, will prevent me from eating much in the way of ravioli and Spam for a while.


Category: Kitchen, Theater

About the Author


15 Responses to What Are You Doing For Dinner Tonight?

  1. ? says:

    Mrs. ? and I have been fans of the show. In fact it is the only show that we both willingly watch.

    But episode 13 of season two finally broke the spell. Our dissatisfaction with the brazen sexual immorality of some of the ancillary characters had been building, and I at least began to tire of the overmilked what-are-Sarah’s-true-feelings plot point.

    But in episode 13, it was the tranparent implausibility that the “housewife” across the street would throw herself sexually at Chuck. It was 100% predictable that she would turn out to be a FULCRUM agent; what I couldn’t buy was that Chuck, at least, wouldn’t suspect this, considering his experience with his ex-girlfriend.

  2. trumwill says:

    But in episode 13, it was the tranparent implausibility that the “housewife” across the street would throw herself sexually at Chuck.

    Interesting. That didn’t really raise flags for me. Not because it wasn’t implausible in any realistic sense, but because I thought it was a manifestation of the anti-suburbia bias in Hollywood that draped over that entire episode.

    I’ve never cared much about the what-are-Sarah’s-true-feelings plot. They’re trying waaaaay too hard.

    I liked the Jill plot and the more recent plot involving Chuck’s quest to liberate himself from the Intersect to be more interesting.

    It’s interesting that you seemed to like it at first and then had your interest wane. It was the opposite, for me, where I could take it or leave it at first but have become steadily more interested in it since.

  3. David Alexander says:

    I periodically watch the show, and it’s probably one of the few shows that I actually do bother to sit down to watch. Despite this, my TV is usually tuned to BBC America and Top Gear. I suspect part of Chuck’s problem is that it’s potential fan base is wooed away by a show that talks about foreign supercars and has periodic comedic adventures in cars. OTOH, BBC America isn’t a mainstream channel, and it’s still lacking on some decent sized cable systems. Maybe airing against House on FOX and Big Bang Theory and How I Met Your Mother isn’t ideal…

  4. Sheila Tone says:

    Our dissatisfaction with the brazen sexual immorality of some of the ancillary characters had been building,

    That seemed to be an issue for you on our old blog, too.

  5. trumwill says:

    Oddly, I think I am so desensitized to sex on television that I’m not entirely sure what Phi is talking about. Or maybe I’ve just forgotten. I’m guessing it had to do with some of the subplots between Morgan and his lady?

  6. trumwill says:

    David,

    I’ve never heard of Top Gear, but you’re right about the schedule. I’ve commented before that almost all the shows I watch come on either Monday or Thursday nights. If I watched TV legit, there’s no way I would be watching Chuck. The Big Bang Theory in particular is likely swiping a good portion of their audience.

  7. David Alexander says:

    I’m amazed that you’ve never heard of Top Gear

    Regardless, as the wikipedia article states, it’s a English TV show that basically focuses on cars. The general format of the show will feature a review of a high end sports car, a British celebrity driving a car around their race track, some auto news, and either a solitary challenge (e.g. Porsche Boxster and Mercedes Benz C-Class Coupe versus British soldiers or a Toyota Yaris soccer match) or a group challenge where the competitors each buy a car relating to a theme (e.g. best cars from the 80s) under a certain price point and must fulfil various tasks.

    I’m in love with the show, and I’d kill to be in the studio audience, but I could imagine that the humour could be an acquired taste for some people, especially since the show has a lot of English cultural references and sharp humour. I’d still recommend the show to anybody. There are enough clips on YouTube and Bittorent to either entice you to watch or hate the show…

  8. trumwill says:

    Being that I am a guy that couldn’t ask for much more than the Ford Escort he currently owns, it’s no big surprise that I haven’t heard of that show.

  9. ? says:

    I’m guessing it had to do with some of the subplots between Morgan and his lady?

    Exactly. To my shame, I too am desensitized to sex in movies and TV. And I recognize that our social arrangements in this area are increasingly improvised.

    But I was put off by Morgan’s chirpy announcement that he and Anna were going to “take the next step” by . . . shacking up? Without even the discussion of an engagement? I know this is make-believe, but shouldn’t there be at least a residual awareness that this is disreputable?

    Believe it or not, I don’t live in a church, but that notwithstanding, I’ve never seen anyone announce his or her intention to start living in sin. People usually keep this kind of thing quiet. So quiet, in fact, that I seldom find out about it unless I catch any stray gossip.

  10. ? says:

    I think the handling of the Morgan-Anna shack-up brings up the issue of what I refer to as “shared space.” I know this sounds weird, considering that we’re talking about broadcast television, which is itself an example of a shared space, but bear with me. In the context of the show itself, it’s one thing to see the characters behaving immorally. (In real life we are concerned about the externalities that immorality generates, but this never happens in TV world.) I didn’t even particularly react to the Ellie-Awesome arrangement, although now that I think about it, this too might be an example. But, in the context of the show, these relationships are kept private. The problem was that Morgan’s announcement, in the context of the show, was an affront to public standards of decency. If I had been in attendance, I would have regarded it as a pollution of our shared space, no less than if he had . . . oh, I dunno, dumped his trash in the park or something.

    It’s one thing to know in general that X amount of immorality is going on. It’s another to have it thrust in your face. This may sound slightly hypocritical for somebody watching television, but I hope I’ve communicated what I’m trying to get at.

  11. Becky says:

    “Living in Sin” — In the context of the show, everything they do is a little over the top (esp. the Buy More crew), so it would’ve been out of character for them to have done anything quietly.

    We watch the show and hope it comes back, but if buying a sub sandwich is the only way to ensure it, then it’s probably not worth having back.

  12. Abel says:

    Not being a viewer of “Chuck” — what does eating at Subway have to do with saving the show?

  13. trumwill says:

    But I was put off by Morgan’s chirpy announcement that he and Anna were going to “take the next step” by . . . shacking up? Without even the discussion of an engagement? I know this is make-believe, but shouldn’t there be at least a residual awareness that this is disreputable?

    Uhmmm… not in TV and not in real life. I’m old school when it comes to premarital cohabitation, but it’s been a source of alienation for me. For a lot of people it’s now the official step after sex and exclusivity but before getting seriously engaged and married.

    My sisters-in-law expressed a degree of disapproval that my wife and I didn’t move in together before we got married. Not that Clancy was bad for doing it, but perhaps she was being a little unwise (and they had nothing against me personally). They would never do such a thing.

    Yeah, we’re still a little bit aggravated by that.

    My brothers found the in-between point. They cohabitated after becoming engaged.

  14. trumwill says:

    Becky,
    It won’t save the show. From what I understand, it’s toast. I view Subway as a measure of solidarity as much as anything else.

    Abel,
    Subway is the show’s chief sponsor or something like that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

If you are interested in subscribing to new post notifications,
please enter your email address on this page.