Is Shawshank a ripoff of Alcatraz?
Comparing these two movies pokes the hornet's nest.
The Shawshank Redemption, considered to be one of the greatest movies of all time by many, was released 1994.
Escape from Alcatraz, while not nearly as well known but still darned good, was released 1979.
Like a lot of people, I saw Shawshank first and Alcatraz later. There are many who say Shawshank rips off Alcatraz big time.
Does it?
I'll describe some differences first.
Shawshank is about the characters and has loads of dialogue, including tons of narration. Alcatraz is more about the story, dialogue is kept to a minimum, and it has no narration whatsoever.
Shawshank is a fictional story. Alcatraz is based on events that actually happened.
The story of Shawshank spans over a long period of time. Alcatraz's story has a much shorter timeline.
And where the similarities are concerned, oh yeah, there are plenty.
Both movies are about a prison break.
Frank Morris (lead character of Alcatraz) hides the tool he uses to tunnel through the wall of his prison cell in a Bible.
Andy Dufresne (lead character of Shawshank) also hides his tool in a Bible.
Morris is requested to go assist in the prison library.
Dufresne also is requested to do the same.
After spending time in "the hole", one of the inmates sends Morris a welcome back message on a piece of paper.
Dufresne also receives a welcome back message on a piece of paper after being assaulted and then a stay in the infirmary.
Litmus, the old, friendly character in Alcatraz has a pet mouse that he feeds in the cafeteria.
Brooks, the old, friendly character in Shawshank has a pet bird he feeds in the cafeteria.
In addition, Litmus asks Morris for food specifically to give to the mouse, and Brooks asks Dufresne for food specifically to give to the bird.
Morris, using a fingernail clipper, discovers the concrete in the wall has weakened over time and tunnels through it to make his escape.
Dufresne, using a small pick axe to carve his name into the wall, discovers the concrete in the wall has weakened over time and tunnels through it to make his escape.
Morris disposed of the concrete wall he took apart by carrying it into the prison yard.
Dufresne disposed of the concrete wall he took apart by carrying it into the prison yard.
And there's more, but...
Are they the same movie?
That is The Big Question.
No.
Shawshank outright lifted A LOT of stuff from Alcatraz. It's really obvious.
However, the two stories are different, and it's the actual titles of the films that really set them apart.
Alcatraz is all about the escape. That word is directly in the title. True, it doesn't start out that way, but ends up being that at the end.
Shawshank is about redemption, and that word is directly in its title. It's redemption on two levels. Getting something out of your time there, and salvation from sin.
Alcatraz is story driven, Shawshank is character driven; that's why Shawshank isn't just a retelling of Alcatraz.
Agree? Disagree? Are you sure? Watch Escape from Alcatraz first, then watch The Shawshank Redemption second back-to-back and decide for yourself.
The best "fast basic 24 fret Strat", Charvel Pro-Mod DK24 HH HT E
This is for player who wants "all guitar" with no fluff whatsoever.
Something you'll notice about some famous guitar players is that they purposely play instruments that are very stripped down to only the absolute minimum hardware required to get the job done. Why? Two reasons. To eliminate as much as possible that could unnecessarily break, and to avoid distraction.
This brings us to the Charvel Pro-Mod DK24 HH HT E.
Side note to Charvel before continuing: Could you please stop using guitar model names that read like a serial number? Thanks in advance.
Moving on..
I've mentioned the Pro-Mod before as it literally is the 24-fret Stratocaster.
The DK24 HH HT E is of that same generation but in hardtail HH flavor, and in the color speed guitar players like, satin black.
What a lot of guitar players want is "basic but built very well", and that's exactly what the DK24 HH HT E is. You get the best of everything with premium hardware and a very simplified layout.
"Best of everything" means premium Seymour Duncan pickups, 500K EVH Bourns low friction pot, no-load tone control, and 5-position pickup selector. Mo push-push or push-pull is necessary since the single-coil positions that matter are already built into the switch. You also get die-cast locking tuners, graphite-reinforced neck with satin urethane coating, rolled fingerboard edges, 12"-16" compound radius ebony fingerboard, and jumbo frets.
When you look at this and ask, "Where's the output jack?", it's on the back and in the perfect position where your cable is always out of the way seated or standing.
This is the 24-fret Strat that gets rid of all the fluff, keeps everything basic and has all the premium stuff already built in.
Priced lower than you think because it's Charvel branded and not Fender.
My only knock against the guitar is the model name. Not exactly memorable. And if I didn't tell you about it, you probably wouldn't even know it existed.
Relic of 2000s styling, the "tribal graphic"
Some styles of the past come back into fashion. This one didn't.
A clarification up front: I'm not talking about tribal art. When you look up tribal art, you'll see many interesting art pieces, much of which is ceremonial and/or religious...
...but that's not what a tribal graphic is.
In the mid-to-late 2000s, tattoos were the Thing of The Moment. There were even a few television shows made just about tattooing, such as Miami Ink. Every tattoo show was all sorts of terrible. Trash TV at its finest.
Tattoo culture birthed what's known as the tribal graphic. And with that I have to make another clarification...
...this graphic style isn't tribal tattooing, such as for Polynesian styles. A tribal graphic is just your generic swoopy thing that looks like a mixture of wave, fire and blade. It's totally unoriginal, overdone many times over, generic, bland. Put another way, a tribal graphic is the clipart of the tattoo world.
I don't have any tattoos myself, but back in the day you could not avoid the tribal graphic tattoo. It was EVERYWHERE, because tattoos were the in thing, and tribal was "cool". If you were anywhere between the ages of 18 and 30 back in the mid-2000s, someone you knew had the stupid tribal graphic tattoo be it friend or acquaintance.
The two most popular placement areas for the tribal graphic tattoo was on the arm for men, and above the butt for women (yes, I'm talking about the infamous "tramp stamp").
For a brief period of time, the tribal graphic appeared on guitars. Namely, the B.C. Rich Warlock. Several variations of the tribal graphic appeared on this guitar.
I do have to admit however that the Warlock guitar shape does in fact take to the tribal graphic very well. That guitar body shape is very angular, and the tribal design with its fire/wave/blade-like appearance actually does work with it.
Are you a dork if you own this guitar?
No.
The B.C. Rich Warlock with tribal graphic is one of those 2000s things that still holds up now if for no other reason that it's unique. It's a heavy metal guitar, and there's no question about that. Any guitar player that plays metal would look right at home with one of these.
As for those dopey broads that got tramp stamps 20 years ago, um, yeah, that tattoo looks awful now. But the guitar still looks cool.
Jackson Kelly JS32T, the cheapest Explorer shape
If you gotta have that Explorer-like shape for new and cheap, this is your only option.
I should note up front there is a distinct difference between the Jackson Kelly JS32 and the Jackson Kelly JS32T. If it's a JS32, there will be a Floyd-Rose Licensed Jackson tremolo system present. If it's a JS32T, that's a string-thru body with no FR system, i.e. hardtail.
Let's talk about Explorers first before getting into the Jackson.
The Gibson Explorer has never been cheap. It doesn't matter which model it is. If you want one of those, you will pay a pretty penny for it.
Epiphone Explorers aren't exactly cheap either. You'll part with at least $500 to get one. My favorite of the bunch is the '58 Korina Explorer. I'd actually prefer that over a Gibson, and no, I'm not joking.
Then there's the Jackson Kelly JS32T, a "sharper Explorer", if you will.
If it's a look that agrees with you, this axe has some good stuff going on. It's technically an offset waist body. And while the neck is bolt-on, there is graphite reinforcement present in the construction. Yes, you get that on a sub-$400 guitar. Frets are X-Jumbo on compound radius 12"-14" fretboard, which means you can set the action ridiculously low, play fast and not fret out.
Here's something that shocks most players: The Kelly is actually easier to live with compared to the Explorer.
The Kelly body is easier for both seated play and when playing while standing. It is much easier to access the higher frets on a Kelly compared to an Explorer because of the way Jackson does the cutout in the back. The controls are easier because it's just master volume, master tone, pickup selector and that's it.
Kelly offers a lot for a little.
Would I own one personally? Said honestly, I would always take the Jackson Rhoads JS32T first, which is a V shape with the short fin on the bottom. Always loved that style and it's my favorite V guitar of all time. You can go "full fin" with the King V, but I always liked the short fin better...
...even though I know you really can't play that guitar seated, which is why it's nice a Kelly shape option exists. You get the Explorer-like shape and can actually play it seated easily.
Bear in mind JS series is the entry level. Jackson makes several different levels of the Kelly guitar, with one of the highest tiers being the USA Select Kelly KE2. That one has the best of everything. Floyd-Rose Original tremolo system, Seymour Duncan pickups, compound radius fingerboard made of super-dark ebony, and so on. Every single thing is top tier, and the price reflects that.
One tier down from the USA select is the X Series Kelly. Much more agreeable price, neck-thru construction and many more cool color options.
If you try a Kelly and really like it, yes you can upgrade to better models. I'm glad Jackson offers the JS Series Kelly, where it's easy to get in the door with this shape at a low price.
I love '70s Stratocasters (but I'd never own one)
Love the way they look, but that's it.
I make it no secret that I have a thing for the big, goofy headstocks from CBS-era Fender Stratocasters, specifically from years 1968 to 1979. My favorites in particular are '68, '69, '73, '74, '75, some of '76, '78 and some of '79...
...and I would never actually own any of these guitars. Bear in mind I have been in the presence of, held and strummed an actual '69.
If I wanted truly wanted one of these, Fender makes one new right now that fits the bill very nicely, the American Vintage II '73. It's better than the original not just because it's new with warranty but because it has a 5-way switch instead of the 3-way. There is absolutely no question I would get one of these if I wanted it badly enough.
Instead, I own the "cheap '69", the current Squier Affinity Strat. Good colors, has the big goofy headstock, correct font, SSS, HH or HSS available, and yeah, good. True, it's a slim profile body with modern 2-point bridge, but it all works. I play mine regularly.
What I don't like about '70s Stratocasters
I'm talking actual real-deal ones and not the new one Fender makes.
Simply put, the majority of them are boat-anchor heavy, almost everything before '77 is a 3-way and not a 5-way, it has a thick neck (which I like) with really tiny frets (which I don't like), 7.25" fretboard radius, chunky body with less-defined contours, 3-screw bolt plate with an arguably useless micro-tilt, and a vibrato system in which there were several years where it was almost too easy to snap the arm right off with normal play.
The funniest thing I've ever heard from actual owners of these is the claim that the boat-anchor weight makes it a "man's guitar". That's nothing more than a rather pitiful excuse for owning a guitar where the wood used for construction was just too damned heavy. A Strat at absolute heaviest should be no more than 8.5 pounds, and you're saying your 9.5 to 10 pound Strat is more "manly". Yeah, sure pal. Last time I checked, shoulder pain wasn't considered manly at all. Enjoy your boat anchor and having to pop two ibuprofen after playing it for 15 minutes, sir. You sure showed me!
As for the sound, insert any descriptor here for "not full" and it applies. Tinny, thin, brittle, weak, quiet, whatever. The tone is just not good...
...but I do not buy into the belief that the 3-screw plate is the sole reason why most '70s Strats sound bad. My belief is it's the electronics more than anything else.
Were it true the 3-screw plate was so awful, the new American Vintage II '73 would sound terrible. Guess what? It doesn't, and there's a 3-screw plate on that guitar.
Then there's the whole Worst Finish Ever thing going on with some '70s Strats. I don't know the exact year range this applies to, but when painted Strats of this era start doing that poly peel thing, it's sharp enough to draw blood. I'm not kidding.
Ordinarily, most people see refinishing a vintage Fender as a really bad idea. If a '70s Strat does the poly peel thing, TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE to refin that because otherwise you're literally risking legitimate injury just playing the thing.
I'll try to put this in perspective for you. Have you ever dealt with a guitar that had fret sprout where a few frets stick out and it's SHARP? Yeah, that. Imagine feeling that on the body right where your arm rests. That would be bad, because it is bad.
It's no wonder to me why the "natural" finish Strats stayed as-is whereas a whole ton of the painted ones got a refin.
If you have your heart set on acquiring a 1971-1977 Stratocaster and are absolutely intent on keeping it 100% original, get one that has a factory natural or Mocha finish.
I know some owners of these that have a painted model will say, "I have one with factory paint and the finish never peeled or flaked!" If that's you, you got lucky. A lot of others had a much worse fate.
But that headstock...
...is what makes me love certain CBS-era Strats. Specifically, darker ones that have a bit of wear and some wood grain lines can be seen. It's like a combination of very old-timey 1800s and vintage American Western style going on. Very unique. It's functional art. Love it...
...but I know the rest of the guitar is nothing I would ever get along with, hence why if I were absolutely intent on getting one, I'd just get the new Am Vin II '73.
Nothing I say here will stop anybody from going after a real '70s Strat if they're set on getting one. And if you do, again, go for a natural or Mocha finish. Thank me later.