Page 6 of 8
Re: Amusing Menu Item or Copyright Infringement?
Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:00 am
by Main Streeter
CBeilby wrote: Heck, there's a Mimi's right across Harbor from Disneyland.
1400 S. Harbor Blvd, just as Cheshire Figment posted. See Mimi's twice daily on the shuttle. Made "note to self" ;) to glance at address last night.
Re: Amusing Menu Item or Copyright Infringement?
Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:16 pm
by PatchOBlack
Goofyernmost wrote:I am of the firm belief that vanilla is not a flavor...it's just white paste. Now Chocolate...that's a whole nother story. :D:
darph nader wrote:Damn Skippy Goofyernmost. And that 'stuff' they call 'White' Chocolate,don't get me started on that. :mad:
I feel I must step up for the humble flavor known as "vanilla". I believe that it has gotten a bad rap. While "vanilla" has come to be used to mean "plain", "dull", and so forth, that really isn't true, at least not if you are having real vanilla. Do you know why vanilla ice cream is white, and chocolate is brown? It is because the amount of real vanilla you need to flavor the ice cream is very small, while you need to put a great deal more of the chocolate in to get it up to snuff. Also, vanilla "plays well" with other flavors, so it can be used with a wide range of toppings and such.
By the way, both "regular" chocolate and "white" chocolate both are derived from chocolate liquor. "Regular" chocolate uses the cocoa solids from it, while "white" chocolate uses the cocoa butter instead. This makes both "chocolate".
Re: Amusing Menu Item or Copyright Infringement?
Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 1:51 pm
by Lasolimu
PatchOBlack wrote:I feel I must step up for the humble flavor known as "vanilla". I believe that it has gotten a bad rap. While "vanilla" has come to be used to mean "plain", "dull", and so forth, that really isn't true, at least not if you are having real vanilla. Do you know why vanilla ice cream is white, and chocolate is brown? It is because the amount of real vanilla you need to flavor the ice cream is very small, while you need to put a great deal more of the chocolate in to get it up to snuff. Also, vanilla "plays well" with other flavors, so it can be used with a wide range of toppings and such.
By the way, both "regular" chocolate and "white" chocolate both are derived from chocolate liquor. "Regular" chocolate uses the cocoa solids from it, while "white" chocolate uses the cocoa butter instead. This makes both "chocolate".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V97th9ixh7o
Re: Amusing Menu Item or Copyright Infringement?
Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 2:18 pm
by PatchOBlack
Ah, yes, Alton Brown is an inspiration to all us foodies.
Re: Amusing Menu Item or Copyright Infringement?
Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:12 pm
by scpergj
PatchOBlack wrote:Ah, yes, Alton Brown is an inspiration to all us foodies.
Alton Brown and Emeril are the reason I can cook as good as I do...well, them, and Iron Chef. Seriously. SWMBO can cook just fine if she has a recipie to follow; me, I look at what we have and improvise.
Mine usually turns out better.... :p:
Re: Amusing Menu Item or Copyright Infringement?
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:57 am
by thankwalt
Whenever my friend's son orders at Mimi's he tells the waitress, "I'll have the Mickey Mouse pancakes." He just sees the shape and identifies it as Mickey Mouse. It has always made me wonder how Mimi's can have something so close to a Disney trademark on their menu, and it has been there for years. I find it impossible to believe that Disney is not aware of this, especially with a Mimi's right across the street from the park. Maybe Disney and Mimi's already worked out the legal issues.
Re: Amusing Menu Item or Copyright Infringement?
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:21 pm
by PatchOBlack
thankwalt wrote:Maybe Disney and Mimi's already worked out the legal issues.
That is a possibility. I would think, though, that if Mimi's had made such an arrangement with Disney, it would have included naming them "Mickey Mouse Pancakes". Then again, maybe Disney gave them a price break as long as they didn't use Mickey's name. As the King of Siam would put it, "It is a puzzlement!"
Re: Amusing Menu Item or Copyright Infringement?
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:05 pm
by Goofyernmost
PatchOBlack wrote:That is a possibility. I would think, though, that if Mimi's had made such an arrangement with Disney, it would have included naming them "Mickey Mouse Pancakes". Then again, maybe Disney gave them a price break as long as they didn't use Mickey's name. As the King of Siam would put it, "It is a puzzlement!"
And then there is the possibility that discussing this on a public forum, sometimes monitored by Disney might mean the end of Mimi's pancakes. Hope no one really liked them.
Re: Amusing Menu Item or Copyright Infringement?
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 11:57 pm
by lady ulrike
PatchOBlack wrote:
As the King of Siam would put it, "It is a puzzlement!"
I love that movie. :) I really need to get it on DVD.
Re: Amusing Menu Item or Copyright Infringement?
Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 1:59 pm
by PatchOBlack
Goofyernmost wrote:And then there is the possibility that discussing this on a public forum, sometimes monitored by Disney might mean the end of Mimi's pancakes. Hope no one really liked them.
You will excuse me if I don't lose much sleep over that happening. If the pancakes get removed due to copyright violation, then Mimi's shouldn't have been offering them in the first place. A crime is always illegal, not just when someone notices that the law is being broken.
lady ulrike wrote:I love that movie. :) I really need to get it on DVD.
Have you ever seen a live performance?