February 04, 2007

And Your Favorite Super Bowl Ad Was ... ?

I missed the first 20 minutes or so of the game, but from what I saw my clear favorite was the Emerald Nuts ad with Robert Goulet. What did you think?

Posted by armand at February 4, 2007 10:41 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Culture


Comments

The sad GM robot and the Snickers not-a-kiss were the favorites here (we had a small crowd over for bbq and ad-watching).

Posted by: jacflash at February 5, 2007 07:05 AM | PERMALINK

Holy cow... I was just watching the clips from Prince's halftime show. Damn!

Posted by: binky at February 5, 2007 08:50 AM | PERMALINK

[Robert Goulet arrives with Bart at his tree-house Casino]

Robert Goulet: Are you sure this is the Casino? Mr. Burns' Casino? I think I should call my manager...

Nelson (shaking fist): Your manager says for you to shut up!

Robert Goulet: Vera said that?

Posted by: norbizness at February 5, 2007 08:53 AM | PERMALINK

i vote for the robot as well, although i liked the first careerbuilder spot as well.

Posted by: moon at February 5, 2007 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

I didn't see the Snickers ad (though according to today's coverage of the ads your groups isn't alone in considering that a favorite). Ya'lls response to the robot ad is interesting - kinda dark, after all.

Posted by: Armand at February 5, 2007 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Okay - having watched a few more of these over lunch: the Snickers ad didn't do much for me and I'm stumped as to why the rock/paper/scissors ad got high marks (talk about a lack of originality), but I did like the Blockbuster ad, the one with the mouse instead of a mouse.

Posted by: Armand at February 5, 2007 01:48 PM | PERMALINK

Just popping into this thread again to note the GIGANTIC audience for these commercials. The game was atrocious. One of the worst Super Bowls I've seen. But apparently it had more US television viewers than any show in US history, save the finale of MASH and Super Bowl XXX (Cowboys over Steelers). So no matter what you thought of the ads, they clearly had an audience.

Posted by: Armand at February 6, 2007 08:39 PM | PERMALINK

What do you think of the brouhaha over the Snickers ad?

Posted by: binky at February 7, 2007 07:52 AM | PERMALINK

I found the ad pretty tiresome if that's what you mean. And does it continue to enforce male insecurities and fear of the gays? Sure.

Posted by: Armand at February 7, 2007 09:23 AM | PERMALINK

There's been a slew of protest. I think Americablog has the most coverage of it (incuding info on the political contributions of the company... see "vast right wing conspiracy"). Snickers ended up pulling the ad from the web, and cancelling future use of it.

Posted by: binky at February 7, 2007 09:39 AM | PERMALINK

Well I won't miss it. I'm much more concerned, as these things go, about the Veronica Mars brouhaha. And I think whe I do finally get a chance to see season 3 that I might skip that episode entirely. No point in needlessly raising my blood pressure.

And I'm still taken aback that that game, such a bad Super Bowl, got those kinds of ratings. But hey, Prince was good.

Posted by: Armand at February 7, 2007 09:55 AM | PERMALINK

The Veronica Mars thing sounds like stupid all around. Not only do they conflate PlanB with RU-486, but they give misinformation about how RU-486 actually works. I know this kind of stuff happens all the time with translating the real world to television, especially fictionalizing medicine for soap operas (why yes, he has amnesia, again!), but one would expect more from a show that has such a good record for quality writing.

Posted by: binky at February 7, 2007 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

Yep, though everybody, their mother, and their red-headed step-child has noted that the quality of that show has plummeted this season. Whether it's due to budget cuts, moving it from high school to college - well whatever the reason, it's not what it was (supposedly, I still haven't seen one episode of season 3).

Though yeah, given the show's rep you'd expect more from them.

As I read more about it, it sounded to me more and more like the writers must have switched it from EC to RU-486 mid-way through the writing process ... with predictably messed-up results.

Posted by: Armand at February 7, 2007 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

It's interesting to note that our crowd liked the Snickers ad almost without exception, and I think I was the only straight-identified adult in the room.

Posted by: jacflash at February 7, 2007 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

Well at the time I saw it it wasn't the homophobia that bothered me. That came later. My second by second as I watched it response was - this AGAIN? I mean I've seen the concept done in about 50 million bits of advertising or film or whatever (or so it seems - American Pie 2 and the like). The complete lack of originality (like the rock paper scissors beer ad) made me want to fire the ad company. But then they made it even worse by throwing in that gross chest hair thing.

So sure I disliked it from a political standpoint - but my more passionate initial respons to it was that it was boring and ugly. And it sure didn't make me want a Snickers.

Posted by: Armand at February 7, 2007 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

i finally just went and rewarched the snickers ad, which i didn't pay a whole lot of attention to during the game. honestly, it looks like a tempest in a teapot to me. it's aesthetically regrettable, but beyond that it just strikes me as a big fat mistake for any number of reasons. the biggest, probably, is the fellatio imagery, which makes the kissing thing kind of minor (and since i haven't followed the commentary, i'm going to have to assume that i'm not the first to make the observation. and my point in that isn't the gay thing 'cause, whatever, you've all covered that, but in mainstream venues that degree of suggestion of oral sex isn't tolerated as to men or women. i mean, sure, we've got women (and men, with less frequency) with their junk hanging out all over the place on tv, but primetime, 100-million-viewer sorts of things generally don't incorporate that sort of imagery. even the bawdiest sit-coms only do so far more gingerly and obliquely than the snickers ad did. and if sexual suggestion is the sort of thing that worries the moral majority, i think the snickers ad should be far more offensive than janet's wardrobe malfunction.

i don't really know what i'm adding, except that, albeit perhaps for slightly different reasons, i'm thinking someone needs to be fired.

although i assume it goes without saying that i'm personally only offended by the aesthetic inadequacy of the spot. the rest is, at worst, mild from my point of view.

Posted by: moon at February 7, 2007 02:30 PM | PERMALINK

The big complaint seems to be about the alternate endings, as well as the broadcast of the Colts players acting disgusted (according to Americablog, at least).

Posted by: binky at February 7, 2007 09:29 PM | PERMALINK

Link for moon: The most complete rundown I've seen is here but he has multiple posts over the last week including here.

Posted by: binky at February 8, 2007 02:06 PM | PERMALINK

okay, i'll grant that, assuming accurate explanations, showing football players manifesting revulsion to the ad, and the more violent response alternate endings might point to something more nefarious, and of course where there's that smoke it suggests even the first, most tame version that aired has a fire of some sort behind it.

in and of itself, however, i still hold that revulsion at sexual permutations (involving oneself) is part and parcel of "good" (read, well-heeled, liberaltarian (i do so love that word)) society across gender and orientation boundaries.

don't get me wrong, to the extent this ad makes an implicit comparison to more universal disapproved things -- as santorum has done with, e.g., bestiality, incest, pedophilia, and whatever else -- i'd reject it sternly, as naturally i see no comparison. but lots of things gross me out and might prompt a melodramatic response in the right company without signaling my hatred, per se, of those things or of people who like those things. i find liverwurst disgusting, and i'm liable to recoil from it rather dramatically if you shove it in my face. i won't hate you for the liver, but i won't apologize for my response either. i'll kindly thank you for not hating me for hating the liver.

and yes, i'm being glib, but taken in isolation, and adjusting for the ridiculous overstatement endemic to ads (someone was mentioning the rock paper scissors business earlier), were it not for the snickers website, i'd still hold that there was no manifest gay-hating going on in the original 30-second spot.

then again, i might not be making any sense, addled by grief over anna nicole as i presently am. speaking of a straight's revulsion at putatively straight things.

Posted by: moon at February 8, 2007 04:31 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?