Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

My "Sunrise" Story

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Bill Anderson

unread,
Jul 18, 2007, 10:33:51 PM7/18/07
to
The big corporations aren't always heartless.

Once upon a time, just a few years ago, Fox Studio Classics was offering
the "Sunrise" DVD to the public, but through what seemed to me a very
odd product promotion. Fox published a list of classic films to be
released during the year and told us that if we'd purchase only three of
them, we could receive "Sunrise" as a gift, or whatever.

Fine. So I looked through the list of upcoming films and I saw "The Day
the Earth Stood Still," and I knew I wanted that one, and I saw "Laura,"
and I knew I wanted that one, and I saw ... other nice films, but
nothing else I really wanted to buy.

So I worked through a little logic. I decided that if I'd been given
the opportunity to purchase "Sunrise," I definitely would have.
Therefore, I could just pick some not particularly desirable film as my
third purchase, and pretend to myself that I'd paid for "Sunrise," and
the less than desirable film would be the nice-to-have promotional gift.
I picked "All About Eve," and I was happy.

So I ordered "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and "All About Eve," and
the DVDs came, and I waited until, I think it was November when "Laura"
would become available and I'd have three films in the bank and I could
get my free copy of "Sunrise." But when November arrived -- horrors!
Fox announced that "Laura" wouldn't be available after all. They named
another couple of movies in its place, but neither of them interested
me. I wanted LAURA!

So I called the customer service department at Fox Studio Classics and
complained.

"But Mr. Anderson, we can't release "Laura."

"But you promised."

"But Mr. Anderson, be reasonable: We have other fine films to choose from."

"But you promised."

"But Mr. Anderson, 'Laura' just isn't available now."

"But you promised. AND I WANT 'SUNRISE!'"

"We'll call you back."

And so they did. And they sent me "Sunrise" without my having to buy a
third film. And I was so mollified and so happy and so appreciative
that I bought "Laura" when it finally went on the market.

"Sunrise" turned out to be every bit the mighty fine movie it was
supposed to be and they all lived happily ever after amen the end.


--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog

David Oberman

unread,
Jul 18, 2007, 11:21:05 PM7/18/07
to
Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Sunrise" turned out to be every bit the mighty fine movie it was
>supposed to be and they all lived happily ever after amen the end.

Well, you have better luck than I do with the multinationals.

____
Remember, folks, streetlights timed
for 35 mph are also timed for 70 mph."

-- Jim Samuels

Alric Knebel

unread,
Jul 19, 2007, 4:19:57 AM7/19/07
to

What an odd promotional tack. I hadn't heard of this movie SUNSHINE
until you mentioned it, but your enthusiasm for it made me look it up on
IMDb. Is the SUNSHINE you're talking about the 2003 Australian film?
If so, I wonder why it was given as a gift as part of the marketing for
the much, much older classic films.

--
_________________
Alric Knebel

http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com

Alric Knebel

unread,
Jul 19, 2007, 4:39:30 AM7/19/07
to
Bill Anderson wrote:

And another thing, about how corporations sometimes act suddenly like
generous human beings. A few years back (ten or so), I wrote to Scotch
about their VHS tapes. For years, when VHS was newer, Scotch
manufactured and packaged their VHS tapes in a black plastic slipcase.
Even though the product was relatively new, the color and slipcase gave
immediately gave it a classic look. Very classy. When I bought VHS
tapes, I always bought Scotch brand, because of that durable plastic
case and the overall look of it. These tapes cost a few cents more, but
I had always taped a lot of stuff and preserved it, and I loved the look
of those tapes on the shelf. Then Scotch changed the packaging to a
cardboard slipcase, just like every other brand. Not only that, they
quit putting in an extra set of labels. I tolerated this for a while,
then one day, just to let them know what some of their customers were
thinking, I wrote to them about the change. I wasn't hostile or
snarling. The point was to share a reasonable opinion, my argument
framed rationally, as a customer who's generally pleased. The final
point in the letter was that there was now no real incentive to
exclusively buy Scotch brand VHS tapes, as that just about all brands
were comparable to one another.

About a month or so later, long after I'd forgotten that I'd written, I
got a package. It contained two high-end Scotch VHS tapes, which came
in even classier black plastic slipcases (indicating that these
slipcases would never be cardboard); a couple of transparent plastic
slipcases with no logo on it; and a stack of labels. I was surprised
that anyone had even read the letter in such detail. Of course, I was
very appreciative over the attention they gave to my criticism.
However, they intended to continue packaging their VHS tapes in the
cheaper cardboard slipcases. But because of their response, for a
couple more years afterward, I continued to buy the Scotch brand VHS
tapes. Then later on, I switched to whatever brand-name tapes were on
sale. Regardless, I've had a positive reaction whenever I think of the
Scotch brand ever since.

Jim Beaver

unread,
Jul 19, 2007, 5:51:28 AM7/19/07
to

"Alric Knebel" <alric@[cableone.net]> wrote in message
news:139u7lg...@corp.supernews.com...

>
> What an odd promotional tack. I hadn't heard of this movie SUNSHINE until
> you mentioned it, but your enthusiasm for it made me look it up on IMDb.
> Is the SUNSHINE you're talking about the 2003 Australian film? If so, I
> wonder why it was given as a gift as part of the marketing for the much,
> much older classic films.

SUNRISE. SUNRISE. SUNRISE. Not SUNSHINE.

Alric Knebel

unread,
Jul 19, 2007, 8:26:36 AM7/19/07
to
Jim Beaver wrote:

Excuse me. Mybad.

(Jesus.)

Alric Knebel

unread,
Jul 19, 2007, 8:27:54 AM7/19/07
to
Jim Beaver wrote:

And is that the 2003 film from Australia the one we're talking about?

(I'm still trying to get my head around that reaction.)

Undecided

unread,
Jul 19, 2007, 11:02:11 AM7/19/07
to
Jim Beaver wrote:

> SUNRISE. SUNRISE. SUNRISE. Not SUNSHINE.

Yes, that's correct, Eternal Sunrise of the Clerical Mine. It's about a
sweatshop in the accounting division of a large corporation and their
effort to plumb solar panels to radiate down to the drones in the bowels
of the building. Starred Chips Rafferty and Mitzi Gaynor. Unlisted.


--
Doubting Timus
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
http://tremonius.blogspot.com/

Frank R.A.J. Maloney

unread,
Jul 19, 2007, 11:49:57 AM7/19/07
to

Sunrise, sunset
Sunrise, sunset
Swiftly flow the days
Seedlings turn overnight to sunflowers
Blossoming even as we gaze

Sunrise, sunset
Sunrise, sunset
Swiftly fly the years
One season following another
Laden with happiness and tears


--
Frank in Seattle
____

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"Millennium hand and shrimp."

David Oberman

unread,
Jul 19, 2007, 1:58:47 PM7/19/07
to
Alric Knebel <alric@[cableone.net]> wrote:

>And is that the 2003 film from Australia the one we're talking about?

Alric, although I didn't read all of Bill's post, I think he's talking
about the Murnau silent.

Marv Soloff

unread,
Jul 19, 2007, 2:49:18 PM7/19/07
to
That would probably be "Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans" (1927).

Marv

Calvin

unread,
Jul 19, 2007, 4:08:47 PM7/19/07
to
On Jul 18, 11:21 pm, David Oberman <doberman@etc.> wrote:

> Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"Sunrise" turned out to be every bit the mighty fine movie it was
> >supposed to be and they all lived happily ever after amen the end.
>
> Well, you have better luck than I do with the multinationals.

All they really owe is your money back if they can't deliver
on the original agreement. However, most businesses are
run by nice guys who will do more, if for no other reason
than to keep your good will for future deals, and for good
word-of-mouth.

David Oberman

unread,
Jul 19, 2007, 4:43:30 PM7/19/07
to
Marv Soloff <mso...@verizon.net> wrote:

>That would probably be "Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans" (1927).

Gott in himmel! I've never heard anyone call it that, Marv. In fact, I
didn't even know there was any sort of secondary title (although I
should have guessed, it being Murnau). It sounds idiotic that way.

Remember the kid here who used to say "Nosferatu: A Symphony of
Horror" in _every_ reference to that movie? I couldn't take it any
more at one point, & I told him to knock it off.

Now please, don't the rest of you start referring to "Tabu: A Tale of
the South Seas" or "Faust: A German Folk Legend" or "The Hunchback &
the Dancer: A Timeless Love Erotic For The Ages."

Hmmm. . . I think Arthur C. Clarke had the same tic. . . .

I'm going to go watch "Flicka: A Tale of Equine Woe."

George Peatty

unread,
Jul 19, 2007, 5:28:59 PM7/19/07
to
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:43:30 -0700, David Oberman <doberman@etc.> wrote:

>Remember, folks, streetlights timed
>for 35 mph are also timed for 70 mph."

Not so. All lights timed for 70 mph are also timed for 35 mph, but all
lights timed for 35 mph are not necessarily timed for 70 mph as well ..

Alric Knebel

unread,
Jul 19, 2007, 5:40:36 PM7/19/07
to
Frank R.A.J. Maloney wrote:

> Jim Beaver wrote:
>
>> "Alric Knebel" <alric@[cableone.net]> wrote in message
>> news:139u7lg...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>> What an odd promotional tack. I hadn't heard of this movie SUNSHINE
>>> until you mentioned it, but your enthusiasm for it made me look it up
>>> on IMDb. Is the SUNSHINE you're talking about the 2003 Australian
>>> film? If so, I wonder why it was given as a gift as part of the
>>> marketing for the much, much older classic films.
>>
>>
>> SUNRISE. SUNRISE. SUNRISE. Not SUNSHINE.
>
>
> Sunrise, sunset
> Sunrise, sunset
> Swiftly flow the days
> Seedlings turn overnight to sunflowers
> Blossoming even as we gaze
>
> Sunrise, sunset
> Sunrise, sunset
> Swiftly fly the years
> One season following another
> Laden with happiness and tears

Thanks for a lively thread. All of this due to the fact that I
accidentally typed "Sunshine" instead of "Sunrise." Perhaps God was
working through me.

David Oberman

unread,
Jul 19, 2007, 6:15:24 PM7/19/07
to
George Peatty <peattyg...@copper.net> wrote:

>Not so. All lights timed for 70 mph are also timed for 35 mph, but all
>lights timed for 35 mph are not necessarily timed for 70 mph as well ..

That stupid Jim Samuels. All right, I'll change my sig.


____
[Terence] Hawkes and [Alan] Bass have taken the signifier/signified
distinction in Saussure to be the same as that between words & things;
but that would be a misconception so fundamental as to be disabling."

-- John Ellis

Marv Soloff

unread,
Jul 19, 2007, 8:16:55 PM7/19/07
to
David Oberman wrote:
> Marv Soloff <mso...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>That would probably be "Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans" (1927).
>
>
> Gott in himmel! I've never heard anyone call it that, Marv. In fact, I
> didn't even know there was any sort of secondary title (although I
> should have guessed, it being Murnau). It sounds idiotic that way.
>
> Remember the kid here who used to say "Nosferatu: A Symphony of
> Horror" in _every_ reference to that movie? I couldn't take it any
> more at one point, & I told him to knock it off.
>
> Now please, don't the rest of you start referring to "Tabu: A Tale of
> the South Seas" or "Faust: A German Folk Legend" or "The Hunchback &
> the Dancer: A Timeless Love Erotic For The Ages."
>
> Hmmm. . . I think Arthur C. Clarke had the same tic. . . .
>
> I'm going to go watch "Flicka: A Tale of Equine Woe."
>
>
It's written that way to differentiate "Sunrise: A Tale of Two Humans"
from the
little known sequel "Sunrise: A Tale of Three Humans" (1928-30)

Bill Anderson

unread,
Jul 19, 2007, 9:29:41 PM7/19/07
to
David Oberman wrote:

I didn't read all of Bill's post

Gasp!

0 new messages