Written by Scott Graveline (guest blogger):

When it comes to great movies, word of mouth is a good thing—maybe the best of things.  

“We couldn’t pay people to see The Shawshank Redemption in theaters,” director/screenwriter Frank Darabont once confessed. I had the pleasure of meeting Darabont, and I didn’t even care that he sparked up a cigarette-or-clove-or-whatever-it-was indoors while we talked. I almost boasted to him that I actually saw Shawshank on the big screen, but that would be like winning the “last one awake” contest at a sixth-grade sleepover—a solitary celebration indeed. However, his box office bomb miraculously went on to become one of the highest-grossing rentals of all time. This anomaly has fascinated me for years.

Shawshank: Warming the Cockles of Countless Souls
The Shawshank Redemption ranks among my top three film experiences of all time, rubbing elbows with Casablanca and The Godfather saga. I’m not the only one. It’s hailed as a heartfelt favorite by scores of casual and serious moviegoers. A high percentage of people I meet—guys especially—have carved out a special place for this film. A few years back, my former roommate and I were under its spell weekly. Most twentysomethings who choose the couch over life’s responsibilities do so because of the hippie lettuce; we only had TNT and its steady rotation of the addictive prison saga to blame.

Even actor Tim Robbins claims that fans talk Shawshank with him more than anything else in his body of work. Some have called the film life changing. The critics are also on board; the gripping drama is ranked in numerous greatest films of all time lists and was nominated for seven Academy Awards.

Sneaky Powerful, Sneaky Unconventional
Seeing Shawshank for the first time is like going to the DMV and meeting your future spouse; you’re completely ill-prepared for such a momentous occasion. I can rave about the film’s message of hope, deliverance, restitution, and freedom for days, but I’m more impressed with its subtle escape from predictable movie formulas. The film ranks among the greats despite:

• No present female love interests, save for a poster of “fuzzy britches”
• Two lead male characters who develop an authentic friendship and seldom quarrel
• All that screen time in one dismal location
• A covert 20-year escape plot of which the audience is not aware
• Prison rape (never fun)

 

So Where Was the Box Office Love?
Let’s take an inventory: Critical acclaim? Check. Joe Moviefan acclaim? Check. Recognizable actors? Check. Released in a theater near you? Check. Then why did this now-beloved film take in a box office gross so paltry that it barely covered its $25 million budget? Let’s get busy hypothesizing…

Pulp Gumption
Turns out, 1994 churned out some fine movies. Juggernauts such as Pulp Fiction and Forrest Gump boxed out Shawshank for Oscars nods. The Lion King, True Lies, and Speed were also killing it in theaters that year. Is a crowded box office reason enough to completely disregard a brilliant movie offering? If anything, I’m fired up to see more movies after I view something gripping or thought-provoking.

Even though a film’s marketing budget is always a factor, I’m not focusing on that here because: a) Exceptional low budget independents like Pulp Fiction get seen and b) I’m entirely too lazy to research it. Get this: some of the inferior films that out-earned Shawshank in ’94 include: In the Army Now, Richie Rich, Timecop, Street Fighter, and, gulp, A Low Down Dirty Shame. Indeed it was a shame. 

Share of blame: 5% 

The Stephen King Non-Horror Scare
Hey, Robert Mondavi is experimenting with beer now; eager to spend your hard-earned cash on it? This is the best analogy I could come up with to explain the Stephen King brand being attached to a non-horror movie in 1994. King’s hope-driven prison novella was without bloody prom queens, resurrected rabid pets, or psycho killer clowns.

However, after Shawshank grew astounding rental and cable legs—and the world accepted King in such a genre—Darabont adapted King’s The Green Mile and it generated over $136 million. It was solid, but can it make you at one with your couch this weekend? I don’t dare put too much weight on the King factor contributing to Shawshank’s maiden failure; nobody goes to movies for the writers, except the writer’s mom. 

Share of blame: 10% 

The Poster Featuring Morgan Freeman’s Rerun Beret
The primary Shawshank movie poster displayed a rain-soaked, quasi-homoerotic close-up of Robbins and Freeman. And Freeman was modeling a backwards beret that played much cooler in the movie than the poster. The title and poster gave us no hint of incarceration, tribulation, corruption, escape, or general awesomeness. Instead, it gave us an all-male cast of Singin’ in the Rain 2. Was a studio insider sabotaging this thing? When men—the demographic that would later make the movie famous—saw this poster, it didn’t have a prayer. 

Share of blame 30% 

Worst Title Ever
When I first fell in love with the film in ‘94, I quickly devoured the Stephen King novella, Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption. The good news is that Darabont and company dropped the lengthy, confusing title for the movie adaptation. The bad news is they replaced it with an abridged version that was equally repulsive and perplexing. Absolute box office poison. If I cut a dog crap sandwich in half, is it any more appealing to you? Don’t get me wrong, this title plays after you’ve seen the film, but it sucks on a movie marquee that features 19 better-titled films.  

I was a teenager working at Blockbuster at the time Shawshank found its remarkable second life in the rental market. Its resurgence was insane—all word of mouth. Droves of customers would request the film, and less than half could pronounce it. Shank-shaw Redemption was the most common error. My porn-minded associate called it Schlongspank Redemption, but I think he had his own thing going on. 

Share of blame: 55% 

Conclusion
Much like Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption was set up for failure. Some good films survive weak titles or minor marketing gaffes, but this campaign had numerous somebody-better-be-fired blunders and paid for it in theaters. Just imagine if a picture of this caliber was released before rental and cable—only astute film professors would reference it in passing. One thing’s for sure: The Shawshank Redemption crawled through a river of box office excrement and came out clean on the other side.

We've recently outgrown our 4 door sedan and decided it was time to upgrade to a SUV/Crossover.  We reserached and drove 5 of them before deciding on the Mazda CX-9.  Our insurance company offered a new car buying service through ZAG.  ZAG is a thrid party that negotiates pricing with dealerships and then offers you a "guaranteed, no-haggle price."  They email you a "Pricing Certificate" that you take to the dealership who then sells you the car at that price.  On ZAGs website (zag.com) it says "... allows us to guarantee upfront pricing and a sales experience that is fast, predicatble, and hassle-free."

 

We drank their cool-aid and built the car on their site that we wanted.  I researched the inventory at our local Tustin Mazda and found a 2009 CX-9 Sport Black with Black interior and power/heated seats.  ZAG's pricing showed that Tustin would give us $5,800 below invoice!  Not MSRP but, dealer invoice.  Our total price would be $22,971 for a car with a $31,000 sticker price.  I printed the Pricing Certificate and headed in to Tustin Mazda.  I sat down with the sales person, handed him the inventory for their website and the pricing certificate and said "I want this car at this price."  He went to talk with his manager and came back saying "I don't know where you got that inventory but we sold that car months ago.  We don't have any 2009's left but we can get close on a 2010 if you want."  I thought it was BS but said "fine, what's the price?"  I went outside with Cherish and Ainsley while he went to talk with a manager again.  While we were out there I spotted a Black, 2009 CX-9.  I checked the VIN and it was the exact one I had printed and asked to buy.  I went inside to see what they would come up with on the 2010 (just in case it was going to be really close in price) and wasn't going to mention the car out front right away.  They were $6,000 over what the $22,971 that we had intended to pay.  Not sure how they considered that "close" but, that's another story.  I then told him I saw the car outside so we went outside to verify the VIN and indeed, it was the exact car.  This is a perfect example of a bait and switch program; they have a car online for a certain price and when you get there, they try to sell you the newer model at more money while lying about their inventory.  Very disappointing from a dealership that has a good reputation.  

We went back inside while the salesperson asked about the car.  He came back about 10 minutes later to tell me that they couldn't sell it to me for my guaranteed, no-haggle price and that it was going to be $2,000 more.  I asked for his manager who came out and gave me some story about how ZAG messed up on the pricing.  I said, "I don't care who messed up.  This is a guarantee so, I want that car at that price."  I knew I was getting in to a losing battle so we walked out.

The next day I contacted ZAG and asked them if they were going to stand by their guarantee.  They said they would research the pricing and get back to me.  About an hour later they came back and said that the dealership was correct, there was an incentive that was being counted twice on ZAG's website and that the price was $1500 more, bringing it to $24,471.  I pushed them on the "guaranteed" price and they wouldn't do anything.  So, they say there is a guarantee but there is actually on guarantee.  They blamed the dealership for putting in the wrong price.  I searched and found that dealerships all across the country had the exact same price so it wasn't Tustin Mazda, it was ZAG's fault.

I ended up talking with Jim Feinstein, the owner of Tustin Mazda, and we talked through the issues.  He was a little upset when I told him I felt I had been a victim of bait and switch but, anyone reading this blog, tell me if you would have though anything different.  I provided a price (that they didn't want to honor) with a VIN number they looked up in their computer and then claimed it was sold months ago.  Only after I found the car myself did they cough up to the fact it was there and that they didn't want to honor the price.

Who is to blame?  Mazda USA?  Tustin Mazda?  ZAG?  I think ZAG.  I'm shocked that they wouldn't honor their guarantee!  How can you base your entire company on a simple guarantee and then not honor it?  I wonder what their investors would think if they knew that the single item that allows them to be in business is a lie.

I recommend staying away from ZAG.  It doesn't give you any guarantee and frankly, it added 3 extra days of headaches than if we had just went in to negotiate to begin with.

After all of our hassles, Jim and I came to an understanding and negotiated a good deal.  It wasn't the $22,971 but it was within a few hundres dollars.  We love our new car!

Today MSNBC.com has a front page (above the fold/scroll) headline: Mortgage modifications moving at snail's pace.

We've been discussing this since Dec. 11, 2008 on my blog here: http://www.4bcj.com/4bcj.com/post/2008/12/11/Wells-Fargo-Mortgage-Loan-Modification.aspx#comment. To date that blog has generated 40 comments from 5,546 page views and not one is from a happy Wells Fargo customer.  I've tried to get some media attention about the problem but no news outlet would respond to the idea. It's bigger than just "moving at a snail's pace," people are hurting their credit and losing their homes because of the recommendations from Wells Fargo to stop paying their mortgage!  Why isn't the media reporting that?  How about Chris Hanson doing a "to catch a predator" on Wells Fargo instead of going after the 7/11's in the world that are taking away lottery winnings (which is horrible too!).

Hopefully MSNBC's article will help everyone that is about to lose their home but, I wouldn't hold my breath if your mortgage is through Wells Fargo.

Starting in July, you can trade in your old "clunker" for a new car and receive a $3500 or even $4500 voucher. The purpose of this bill is to put more fuel efficient vehicles on the road and get rid of guzzlers. It sounds like a good idea but their oversites have failed to make it a great idea and therefore have failed completely.

What would have made it better?

• Why just improve gas mileage? Why not improve emissions too? A car from 1990 has a higher emissions standard than a 2010 model. Why not get rid of the 1990 car and get a cleaner burning car on the road?
• Why not use this as a time to help stimulate the economy and help the failing car manufactures? Since it’s the US tax dollars that are paying for the vouchers, why not have given an extra bonus for buying a GM, Ford or Chrysler?

 

There are so many problems with the implementation that the program is worthless. First, you have to trade in your old car for a new one that improves the combined fuel economy by at least 2 MPG for light duty trucks and 4 MPG for passenger cars. If you improve your truck or car by 5 or 10 MPG, respectively, you will get the full $4,500 voucher. Why is the 2/4/5/10 MPG a problem? Because, in 2008, they changed the way they rate MPGs of cars. Starting in 2008 the EPA changed the rating to be at a faster speed, faster acceleration, air conditioner on and colder outside temperatures. This means that the new car ratings are more accurate but what it really means is that the MPG rating for your "clunker" is going to be inflated and makes it almost impossible to achieve the improvements needed for the voucher.

My dad has a 1993 GMC Sonoma truck. It’s considered a light-duty truck and therefore requires a 2/5 MPG improvement for the vouchers. The best way to describe his 16 year old truck is to call it a clunker. The EPA says it gets a combined 18 MPG. In order for him to qualify for the $3,500 voucher, he will have to buy a vehicle that gets 20MPG or better. Good luck finding that in a truck. After calling the NHTSA, they recommended he buy a sedan or a hybrid truck. Get real! A GMC Sierra Hybrid starts at $39,365 and it’s rated at 21/22 MPG for a combined 21 MPG. The non-hybrid GMC Sierra starts at $20,350 and is rated at 15/21 MPG for a combined 18 MPG. That means a 3 MPG improvement costs $20,000. The improvement in emissions and gas mileage are virtually nil. The improvement over a 18 MPG GMC Sierra and his 1993 GMC Sonoma are a real 3 MPG improvement (real, not over inflated EPA ratings) and a huge improvement in emissions.

The government is not encouraging my dad to buy a new truck. Therefore they are not:

• Getting rid of a large polluting vehicle
• Improving real gas mileage
• Stimulating the economy.  For a bankrupt American car manufacture!

-FAIL-

 

 

Michael Savage, a talk show host, said to avoid "contact anywhere with an illegal alien... and that starts with restaurants... don't know if they wipe their behinds with their hands!" Wait, seriously? I guess I have it all wrong, only illegal aliens don’t wash their hands. And only illegal aliens can spread the disease.

Frankly, I'm appalled with the racism surrounding the H1N1 virus! I think people are scared of the virus and they are too emotionally stunted to express themselves so the only thing they can do is conjure up hatred. People are using this outbreak as a way to promote their racist agenda. I mean, who is going to complain about a racist comment here or there about the supposed dirty people that gave us this flu?

Hispanic people are not dirty, they are not sub-Human and they are not all illegal aliens. Let people know this kind of racism disguised as stupidity is unacceptable (here is a list of stations that stream Michaels Savage's radio show).

When need to work together to get past the H1N1 virus, not against each other.

Our cable internet has been going down about 6-7 times a day.  It's incredibly frustrating now that Cherish and I are both working from home.  Today COX came out to look and said the signal was strong and there was nothing wrong with the connection.  The tech recommending buying a new cable modem.  I looked online for his recommended Motorola Surfboard and found that Bestbuy had it for $79.99 and Walmart had it for $49.99.  No-brainer, right?  Wrong!

I got to Walmart and More...

We've all been in a movie theater, business meeting, fancy restaurant or even taking a test in school when someone's cell phone rings... and they answer it! I can't think of anything more frustrating than the ringer of a cell phone or shouting a conversation into a phone in an inopportune moment.

Restaurant owners, movie theaters and even schools are so frustrated with the problem that they buy illegal cell phone jammers for their establishments. Not only are they risking thousands of dollars in fines and a year in jail but they put every person in range of the jammer in danger of not being able to make an emergency call if necessary. The jammers also extend well past their intended area and disrupt emergency service’s communication. As a parent, I would be upset to hear that my child’s school was implementing such a dangerous device to combat the problem.

Soon there will be a safe, legal and elegant alternative: Zone of Silence. Zone of Silence is not a cell phone jammer and does not disrupt the cell phone signals in any way. Instead, it sets up a zone of a configurable size that communicates with software on the phone to limit functionality. A zone can be configured to control one or more of the following:

• Inbound calls
• Outbound calls
• Inbound text
• Outbound text
• Ringer volume
• Maximum screen brightness
• Whether or not the camera can take a picture
• And more!

911 emergency calls are always allowed.

The device can be configured to allow certain cell phone and numbers to not be restricted. Further, it can be configured to allow incoming calls from a certain number to a certain number. For example, a school can put in the student’s cell phone number and link it to their parents’ cell phone numbers so that the parents and students can still call and/or text eachother even if calls and texts are being blocked.

ZoS is safe because it allows 911 calls at any time without any intervention from the owner of the ZoS Device or the cell phone owner. It can also be turned off remotely by ZoS in the event of a natural or other disaster.

ZoS is legal because it doesn’t block or broadcast on regulated frequencies. It communicates with the phones over wi-fi and Bluetooth; both part of an unregulated spectrum.

ZoS is elegant because it allows such granular control of the phone functionalities and allows the ZoS Device owner to designate unrestricted phones. Unlike a cell phone jammer, it notifies the recipient that they have missed a call or text so that they walk outside the zone to return it.

The possible uses of Zone of Silence are endless! Schools can block inbound and outbound calls and text messages for students while allowing the teacher’s phone to be unrestricted. Theaters can block all calls, set the ringer to vibrate mode, allow text messages but set the maximum screen brightness to 50% so that the phone doesn’t annoy the other paying customers. Restaurants can block all calls and all text messages so that the patron will be notified of the missed call or text and they can walk outside the zone to return it. High security buildings can use ZoS Devices to block everything including the camera. Gyms can even install the ZoS Devices inside their locker rooms to stop the camera from taking pictures while still allowing all other features to function normally,

As Zone of Silence says: Own your zone.

Visit Zone of Silence to read more and fill out information on the Contact Us page to stay informed of progress.

AIG is going to pay out $165 million in bonus after 1) taking $170 billion tax payers dollars and 2) losing $61.7 billion in 2008 Q4, the largest in corporate history.  People should be angry about this!  It's appauling for a company to lose money and pay bonuses at the same time.  How do I get a contractual obligation that if my company loses $61.7 billion a quater that I get a bonus?  This is just another example of corporate greed putting themselves before anyone else.

I think the Obama administration should stop payment on the checks and put a retroactive law in place saying that any company talking bailout money is not allowed to pay cash bonuses to their employees or executives until over dollar is paid back.  Since tax payers as a whole own 80% of the company, we should all be allowed to cast a vote for the board and CEO to get rid of these crooks!

Bravo! Bravo!

After the Quiznos Million Sub Giveaway fiasco, I was reluctant to give another food chain a try.  But, a friend sent me a link to a free mini-pizza at Pasta Bravo (a Southern California chain).  I filled out the form, joined their club and was emailed a coupon for a free mini-pizza.  Last night Cherish and I went there and were beyond pleased with the offer - I actually felt a little guilty about getting the free food.  This was the East Bluff location, 2 doors down from the Quiznos.  Not only did they give us the free mini-pizza with a smile but the gentleman that served us was friendly, personable and funny.  He had great customer service and made sure we enjoyed our food.  Any company would want him working for them.  I've only been to Pasta Bravo once before but I can promise you know that I will be back.

Pasta Bravo should be proud of the promotion and even prouder of their employee, Facundo.

I got the email yesterday for a free Quizno's sub.  Apparently they are trying to give 1 million away for free.  I signed up, my friends signed up, and my family signed up.  I didn't bring lunch in to work today because I was looking forward to a free sub and (paid) chips and a drink.  Three of us guys at work went to Quizno's in Newport Beach at East Bluffs and were greeted by the manager saying he can't afford to honor the coupon.  He said he could give us a free drink but not a sub.  I've had Quizno's once in my life and didn't care for it because it was too salty - I figured a free sub would give them a second chance to redeem their food and it might have made a future customer out of me.  Instead, we walked next door to Carl's Jr.

I talked to a friend of mine, Scott (honorable mention here: Why Wikipedia is worthless), who took his family to get a free sub and the place turned him away because they had "hit their free sub quota."

Quizno's website has a tracker about how many free subs they have given away.  It should say how many email addresses they have collected with the false hopes of a free sandwhich.  I feel bad for the owners of the restaurants because their corporate office wouldn't subsidize their promotion and didn't think about their store owners going out of business to honor the free subs. 

To Quizno's marketing team: Please add back 8 to your counter because these "free subs" aren't worth the tree we've killed printing them or the carbon emissions our cars have emitted to get there!

 

Want to read another complaint about Quizno's Million Emails Collected And No Subs Given in perfect Iambic pentameter?  Check out Neil's Blog. - just kidding about Iambic pentamter, it's actually haiku.