Posts Tagged ‘commercial

20
Sep
19

I’m Sick of These M-F’n Tools Saving Every Species on the Planet!

***

That was my weak attempt at sounding like Samuel L. Jackson in that infamous movie about snakes on a plane.

But, let’s talk about a bigger tool.

Common, you’re such a tool. Those AI ads he keeps doing…just rub me the wrong way for some inexplicable reason. And, the latest one really struck a sour note.

One more pitch to save some “endangered” species.

I’ve got nothing against respect for nature and being concerned about all life on the planet. But, if nature decides to eliminate any species, we need not be responsible.

Do you understand what I am saying?

Nature decides what species will live, what new species will join the rest and which will become extinct.

As much as humans like to play god, and as much as Americans like to boast being the best at everything these days, we humans are responsible for the crimes we commit against nature as well as how much we are willing to treat it right. We are capable of maintaining the planet better than any other species. But, we cannot be the overprotective parents, especially when our energy and resources are needed to save ourselves from our own mistakes and from nature’s harsh backlash, probably for the crimes we’ve committed and thus are rightfully doomed to face.

If someone is pitching an AI solution to keep every species known on the planet alive and thriving, isn’t that a bit silly?

For one reason, what happens if, among all of the preserved species, new ones appear in small numbers? Well, we have to protect those, too. And, the next group? Yep. Them, too. Before long, we have a planet swallowed up in lifeforms without adequate resources to sustain them all, sort of like the junk lady in that 1980s Labyrinth movie piling stuff up on Sarah’s back.

[If I may be so blunt, are we just preserving these species because they make pretty photographs for some wildlife magazine you want to print on excess glossy paper which is just going to end up in a landfill when the multitude of shrinking attention spans cast them aside like yesterday’s hot topic?]

Ya know why the big ol’ dinosaurs went extinct? It wasn’t just some massive rock from deep space that created a sinkhole in the planet and devastated the climate. It was a population boom that couldn’t be supported by available resources. And, nature took them out, replacing them with a wide assortment of lifeforms, including us, sort of like an American football team replacing its most expensive player with a few cheaper ones to fill some holes in the defensive line. Now, we are the dinosaurs. And, if we don’t get a grip on our actions……..

Secondly, the planet will be overrun with technological gizmos, not just those keeping watch on every animal like some high-tech spies for some company surely getting something out of this access to what is probably some privacy nature did not intend us humans to take.

Those gizmos will require maintenance and resources we must provide, further depleting our time and resources which could be applied to means capable of preserving all life, not just one rare species at a time, invading the privacy of nesting and other rituals. And, just as your personal computer-phone puts out enough “heat” to fry an egg or your ear, and just as cellphone towers and electrical towers in general put out invisible radiation which impacts all life around them in negative ways, those flying and roving gizmos sent with the supposed intent of protecting all of these other species are sure to put out something that could very well be harmful to something if not everything in its path, because when have humans been known to create anything perfectly clean and safe? Mmm…never? At least, it seems everything we’ve made has had some negative output in the news.

[Can you imagine some drone appearing outside your bathroom, claiming it’s just making sure you’re still alive while you stand there naked about to take a shower? How long before that becomes so annoying that you change your washing habits and/or your whole daily routine, ultimately impacting your life expectancy? And, what if that supervising drone puts out some kind of radiation to scan your home and detect your body heat or some other signature? More invisible rays passing through your body and everything you hold dear, possibly invading your sleep cycle, causing you to wake with the feeling something weird was buzzing in your ear like a mosquito, a species we certainly do not need to preserve unless we are using them as weapons…and that is dangerous talk.]

[What if it doesn’t stop at drones? What if we get tags like all those species humans tag to track their numbers? That, too, is a human habit I find repulsive. Yet, we spend enough energy doing just that while water supplies and other resources continue to become hazards to us all. Would you want to walk around with some colorful plastic tab clipped to your ear or neck or ankle for the rest of your life? Maybe if your the sort who likes tattoos and/or piercings. But, not me.]

We are as responsible for upsetting the environments of all these other species as we are preserving them. But, two wrongs don’t make a right. And, yes, in a way, boxing every life form into some kind of human protection system isn’t right.

I know it’s a bigger and more vague goal to correct the other wrongs we have done to the planet, but that’s the homework we need to get done. Not being the policing, over-protective parents of the planet’s population.

If the world loses its snow leopards, it will go on. But, if the world loses its clean water supply or safe atmosphere, more than the snow leopards will suffer; all species will suffer. If one more human tribe puts its faith in nuclear power as a resource, more than a few snow leopards will suffer for a longer time than any human petition mob can survive to protect those snow leopards.

If you spend your time and resources sending machines to watch over some small cluster of one or two species instead of cleaning up the environment or protecting all life in a particular area you can manage, your effort is futile. If you are in a desert and give all of your water to a lone lizard you think is the only one of its kind, you will die in that desert before you learn that the lizard will be just fine on its own.

And, if no one bothers to read this, if it doesn’t make an impact on improving the way we humans treat the planet, then it was a waste of my time, energy and technology. All of which could have been saved had I not bothered to turn on the TV and see the man, calling himself Common, in one more lame commercial.

 

 

03
Aug
19

Tay and Capital One? Scary or Redeeming?

****

So, I WASN’T imagining things when I caught a glimpse of the lovely Taylor Alison Swift in a Capital One commercial.  It exists.  [I just looked it up.  And, Tay, you are looking uber extra swiftly cute in those simple costumes.  Lovin’ the “easter eggs,” cuz, if you’ve noticed, I’ve been using some dedicated to you, too.]

But, in light of recent events with the whole hacking of Capital One account records/software…WHY?  Why is she suddenly aligning herself with the company?  Jennifer Garner has been doing ads for a while.  Did Tay do one previously that I missed or forgot?  If not, why now would she start?

On top of that, it wasn’t too long ago I heard about her having problems with securing her master records.  Is that the reason?

Is she in some sort of financial trouble and being forced to make some shady deals?  Say it isn’t so, Tay!

Please, Tay, be smart and stay safe.

If you are the angel trying to save Capital One, why?  It’s a credit card company.  It’s plastic.  It’s a temptation to mankind to spend what they don’t have and accrue debt they refuses to pay.  But, maybe, if you’re that good, you can set things right.

But, if you are not the woman I think you are, if you are involved in some sinister scheme…I don’t know what to say.

09
Apr
19

Fashions Signaling The World’s End?

***

When Target commercials are worse than Old Navy commercials, I fear the world (of fashion) coming to an end.  Seriously, I don’t expect much from a retailer like Target.  I know they are not a “high-end” clothing store, but they used to have options I…well, liked.  But, some years after they began airing ads with trendy songs-of-the-summer and montages of jagged shifting imagery, and years after certain feature fashion designers started boasting their lines at the stores, Target seem to have lost their money-lovin’ minds.  I used to say the same about Old Navy.  I used to think Target put Old Navy on the endangered shopping list.  Now, it seems things have shifted.   And, that really scares me.  A place with OLD in its name showing clothes better than what you can get at what used to be a favored department store.  Sad times, indeed.

What am I talking about?  What is so bad at Target?  Let me put it as clearly as I can, in my personal opinion, mind you.  I don’t like pastels.  I detest melon orange and shades of aqua-marine/sea foam/turquoise, even if the last one is said to be lucky for Sagittarius.  I am tired of the same old striped crap that looks like the bottom of the wallpaper or card stock barrel.  I am tired of pants too tight for my man parts, apparently designed by gay folks looking to score some action in the rear…just sayin’.  And, in general, as I say again and again, I am astounded there aren’t more options and that, it seems, no one cares to design or make quality men’s clothing that isn’t cheaply screen-printed tees and sloppy pants or costly suit-and-tie combos that do nothing outside of an elitist boardroom or convention event.  It seems I will have to scrounge around the shady import websites, these “pop-up” outlet malls of the Far and Middle east, and pay ridiculous shipping, no doubt, to get anything more appealing to my artistic and heterosexual senses.

As if shopping for men’s clothes isn’t bad enough, these days.

Vent complete.

25
Jan
19

Too Much Advertising Ruins Sales!

writingboltVStheworld_scottpilgrim-fastspace_apsample-1****

Is there such a thing as too much advertising? You betcha. And, lately, some advertisers are getting WAY too much exposure. Thanks, digital TV systems capable of skipping commercials, though it works better in some modes than others which makes little sense…but that’s human technology for ya.

The days of diverse commercial line-ups seem to have drifted into the crapper. Now, we get ads that reappear every seven minutes, and sometimes twice in a three-minute window, because no one else seems interested in advertising.

You might think this is a golden opportunity to get cheap advertising/air time. But, hold your corny sales pitches and lame “real people, not actors.” An excess of ads spoils business. At least, for me it does. It’s like those movies that feature some poor shlub handing out flyers only to get bumped and spill the fliers all over the city.

I do not respond well to repeating commercials. I really get annoyed by them. And, the dumber the commercial, the worse I respond.

So, the next time you feel like promoting yourself, make sure your ads are spaced out nicely. Or, you will end up on my grumbly list. And, you don’t want to end up there. Because I will proceed to bad-mouth your product or service to the point that I annoy the people I meet.

Ever heard of the domino effect? Tim-stop-the-madness-ber.

18
May
18

Friend-Less, the Solution to “Icky Drama”

****

[The setting: Woman-A meets with her friend, Woman-B at a cafe for lunch. They start talking and eventually reach a disagreement which gives Woman-A a bad case of indigestion and gas (because her emotions are tied to her digestive system). Woman-B decides to use the Ladies’ Room while Woman A maintains her distance and hopes no one complains about her flatulence. A female stranger, Woman-C, notices the discomfort of Woman-A and joins her.]

Woman C: Is your friend giving you digestive problems?

Woman A: Urp! *sigh* …Yeah.

Woman C: Then you need Friend-Less. She’s 100% human but without the complicated emotional upsets. You’ll never have to endure a conflict of interests, again!

Woman A: Sounds *B-Lurp!* great. Where can I find…uh, her?

 

[You won’t find Friend-Less in any restaurant, workplace, club, yoga class, pharmacy or department store. Science hasn’t worked out all the bugs on this one, yet. And, even if someone did, it would be a crime against nature (unless a higher power chose a lack of emotional upsets as a step in evolution, as an adaptation). ‘Sort of like any food/drink that has been tampered with to boast a lack of side effects. It’s NOT 100% anything except guaranteed to be manipulated.]

06
Feb
17

Super Bowl 51, Poetry and Disappointment

*****

Some moments in history can be quite poetic, regardless how great or awful they may leave you feeling. The US disaster of 9/11 was one of those moments when numbers started clicking like gears in a clock, turning what seemed like a big shock into a conceivable puzzle, one that could have been orchestrated. Likewise, Super Bowl LI (51) has a few numbers that fell perfectly into place. And, if we look hard enough, we might uncover more.

Consider this.

Tom Brady of the Patriots was looking for his fifth win/ring, and he got it. Now, he’s got himself an infinity gauntlet. He’s half way to becoming a Super Bowl Mandarin. [Those were nerdy Marvel Comics jokes, in case you were wondering.]

The Falcons were apparently denied every previous ring/trophy they ever snatched from the hands of every team that fell one round short in all their previous championship years. This would have been their first win. They were denied, again.

You see? This was Super Bowl 51, and Brady got his fifth while denying the Falcons what was very close to being their 1st. 5 and 1.

And then, consider who scored the much needed touchdown to tie the game. I don’t know if he scored the 2-point conversion, too. But, we’ll say it was #28 who tied the game at 28, sending it into overtime. The first Super Bowl to ever go into overtime? I highly doubt that.

What else have I got to make this more poetic? Actually, that was it. But like I said, there may yet be other numbers that fit into place. And, I would not be surprised.

All poetry aside, let’s not forget the two reasons I really watch these championship games: the commercials and the halftime show.

Sadly, there wasn’t one commercial that I wanted to see multiple times or discuss with friends/family/coworkers the rest of the week/year. The one about the internet being a skinny “wiry” guy who LIKES everything; that was…interesting, I guess. Mr. Clean got a chuckle. Melissa McCarthy, that chubby siren, she was so cute…pitching a car that sounds a lot like a mad Roman emperor who watched his world burn. A metaphor for the oil industry? The traditional favorites seemed missing until, near the end, I saw glimmers of the old advertising magic, including the ghost of Spud the Budweiser dog and one lame Sprite commercial that fell flat faster than the soda does when left uncapped.

But, the biggest disappointment of all might be that no one made a commercial with Chun Li in it to commemorate the number of the game. [I kid.  But, I did make my own ad for that.]

Lady Gaga was a sight to behold with her halftime show, making some sharp costume variations.  Hair and makeup were both fantastic and simple.  Yet, compared to a few previous shows with female contenders, hers was washed out. Some might have questioned her lack of a supporting artist. She didn’t call in Lenny, Bruno, Madonna or the Black Eyed Peas. She held her own. And, she did all right. She kept it clean, nothing too edgy, daring or controversial. But, something was missing…

…And, “social media” was not it! I get it. Everything on television has to be geared toward teens who must eat, sleep and breath the clicking of a keyboard as they get programmed for war in the future. But, seriously? I need to know how many “tweets” or clicks or beeps are happening during a game or right after a performance? That’s like going to see a Broadway show and finding out how many people coughed or sneezed at the end. SHUT THE FRAG UP! I turned the TV off and waited for the madness to stop.

I am so sick of all the tech talk! I’m tired of robot football players flashing signs, drones popping up everywhere you look, boasting camera angles that could zip into a guy’s nose hairs…and, cripes sake, stats about finger clicks and swipes. E-NOUGH! Even if the game was played by robots to eliminate all the painful injuries and losses…only to rack up other losses and repair jobs…it would not interest me to be so robotic or computerized. Without a certain human element in this game, I don’t think I’d have the same interest. It would be like watching a giant, ridiculously expensive video game. And, maybe it already is just that…and I should stop watching before I hate it like NASCAR.

Ehem. Neck roll to relieve pent up stress.

Truth be told, fitting a stellar show into 12 minutes is rather daunting. I’d suggest two alternative strategies next year:

1) The artist picks 2 or 3 songs–not a full album–to spotlight with grand props, special effects…the works. That’s roughly one song per four minutes, slightly longer than the average music video. But, we get to revel in each song in ways that a normal concert might not be able to provide.

2) Make the halftime show at least 30 minutes long. That may seem like a drag to the teams in the locker rooms, but it would give the performers more time to develop a stellar show rather than appear like they’re rushing to get a touchdown before the clock expires.

In conclusion, I went into this game not caring who won. The team(s) I wanted to play were denied entry. And, personally, I’m a little sick of Tom Brady and the Patriots. When one quarterback can score 5 rings/trophies in his career–granted, not as easily as the Dallas Cowboys made it look some years ago–while my favorite team(s) are lucky to see 1 ring/trophy in a decade…and that’s after changing coaches, quarterbacks and/or who knows what…it grinds your gears a bit.

Not to mention, there was the year the Patriots–if I am correct–were accused of photographing an opponent’s playbook. And, just last year, we were grumbling over “Deflategate,” when the Patriots were accused of messing with the air in the balls used in the final game on an exceptionally cold night. Topping that off, Brady wins this one after pretty much sitting back and relaxing for three quarters before shaking off his lion-skin cape and breaking out the bazooka. It’s as if someone told him the last scandal would get wiped from his record if he took a few hits and threw a few rounds in the ring before unleashing the eye of the tiger. And, it wasn’t like the Patriots needed the overtime period. That ended about as fast as their last drive, in under a minute. All the Patriots really needed was another 30 seconds on the clock, maybe 51 seconds.

Anyway, the big spectacle comes and goes, making way for the next season of tycoon arena sports. Thankfully, I care even less about that one. I don’t waste more than a minute looking at the car-nage. But, what an expensive gambling setting, source of pollution and waste of resources. All thanks to our beloved troops who make it possible, right? Whatever. [And, all of the local crimes behind the troops backs really make us feel safe at night.]

26
Jan
17

The Lady in the Car with Glasses and a Gun, 2015/2016 Movie Review

****

Call me a cab and find a shrink. I may need some help sorting out my feelings about “The Lady in the Car with Glasses and a Gun,” a French film starring Scottish actress Freya Mavor, and the mad people behind it. I am as much aroused and intrigued as I am puzzled and disgusted…which–from my understanding of the director’s explanation–seems on par with French cinema.

[NOTE: This film is either closely or loosely based on a novel I have not read, a novel the director claims is “insane” (though he loves it) and about a woman raised by a nun who still speaks to her as a conscience. My views are based solely on the DVD film and the interview I watched subsequently. And, I’d recommend watching both at least twice to have any chance of grasping every detail…unless you are just so damn observant that you miss nothing the first time through.]

The story seems to take place in the mid-1970s, resembling the TV series Mad Men. Dany, a tall, timid and short-sighted secretary (a 23-year-old Catholic school girl version of Donna from “That 70s Show”) is asked by her ad agency boss to type up his rough rewrite of some fifty-page “report” by the end of the day. Concealing her sexual fantasies, she is willing to tackle the task but confesses to a lack of typing speed. The boss offers her a chance to complete the work at a house shared by his wife and young daughter, provided she tells no one. Dany quickly begins to imagine him leaving his wife and child to toy with her. On top of being a daydreamer, she has a bad habit of “complicating” matters with questions which quickly get on the nerves of the boss and Anita (the wife and Dany’s former secretary school rival who may have “fooled around” with her “ages ago” which is actually a little over three years before the story begins).

When the report is finished, the boss makes one more request of his most trusted secretary. Accompanying the family to the airport, Dany is left with a teal Thunderbird and the “simple” chore of driving it back to the family’s Paris home. While the boss and his family are away, Dany decides to play, motivated by a tempting voice in her head. She takes the car south, in hopes of spending a few hours at the beach, but soon finds herself running into people who claim to have seen her earlier, a flirtatious stalker and amassing evidence that may convict her of murder. Whether or not the ending is a happy one remains debatable.

Though fairly brilliant in terms of cinematography (aside from maybe one or two poorly lit scenes), casting and music, the intentionally “trippy” and disorienting short story is not unlike something Quentin Tarantino would devise, except, thankfully, lacking his usual excess of gore. It has many of the touches I long to put in a similar movie: the fashions (though some, including the frequently featured “dress,” are a bit revealing), the moody lighting and music, the variety of camera shots, the comic book panels (without being panels), the bookish beauty with hidden sides to her personality and a backstory (though not flushed out in the movie) to explain her behavior, the scandalous/suspicious encounters, the well-devised plot of the villains played out (not perfectly) in the background, etc. There’s a somewhat magical flow to the whole product which some have said is a 95-minute music video. I prefer to think of it as a daring perfume ad (which could be ironic, considering the protagonist works for an advertising agency).

Even after two viewings, I have some questions. One, why can’t a half-dozen auto mechanics catch a man either entering or exiting a restroom at their gas station/cafe? Two, why would a religious young secretary hook up with a guy who admits to disabling her (borrowed) car and daringly climbs inside with her before she knows his name (considering she aspires to hooking up with her boss, unless both men are nothing more than a night of fun to her)? How does she stay so calm with the guy when he’s obviously dangerous in more than one scene? How does such a damsel in distress get from the wilderness to a truck stop, track down a missing car and then walk some unknown distance down a seaside road alone to find said missing car? Where were the parents of the boy at the beach? And, why would he want to climb in the car of a strange older woman when he knows something is amiss with the trunk?

While I can accept the nudity and sex as typical of adult films and more commonly accepted in non-American films (which is a bit surprising, considering the general impression I get of Americans being comfortable with casual sex and rape), the amount presented in the film was still more than I care to see. I also didn’t care for a young actress consistently playing with a religious necklace between her sexually daring exploits. [This may have been included to reflect the character’s childhood in the care of a nun (if the movie is sticking true to what the director says of the novel). But, viewing the film without such knowledge, I felt the necklace was unnecessary and misused. If it provided moments of conscience, I question Dany’s morals.]

The “naught bits” justify what some have said of the director. Or, at least, I assume what the director said of those who question his work is true and agree with the sentiments. He says people accuse him of “getting off” on his actresses and abusing certain camera shots. Well, despite his claims to the opposite, he DOES seem to play with women in a manner I’d say is either erotic or pornographic. He prefers the term “fetish.” His little collection of paintings and admission to designing pornographic comic books–the former displayed in his enclosed interview for the film–do not depict him as an entirely honest man, either.

Let me pause right here to address more about the interview portion of the DVD. Why is it certain (if not all) French “artists” speak with contradicting thoughts? Why is something “utterly useless” obviously valued by the person? Why is trash worth discussing at any length? Why build something just to tear it apart? And, why does the explanation for one idea spring off in some other direction that seems completely unrelated? [I have tried drumming up an example–without jotting down every word the guy says–but it just gives me a headache.] Is this simply some attempt at being modest (versus boasting)? Am I right in being puzzled? Or, is someone doing a poor job of translating the interview?

Just as I fuss and fume over some of Tarantino’s work, this little tale *directed* by Joann Sfar is a steamy pot of artistic potential. It’s not utter trash…nor is it a blissful masterpiece. But, with a little more editing, I’d be inclined to describe it as the latter. [Why do some artists poop on their creations?]

This is a DVD I’d keep on hand for reference material but would have a bit of a hard time watching regularly/casually (particularly with anyone who is not a lover). And, I’d consider working with those responsible for the camera shots/editing, provided they can cope with making some changes to their “routine.” While I might share some of the same fetishes, I would do more to keep the nudity, sex and violence blurred/veiled or–better yet–suggested (versus “in-your-face”).

[And, as I often say, if I am going to dabble in nude artwork, I’d keep such pieces private between me and my lover. It feels wrong to paint (or draw) nude and/or provocative images of someone working with me who is not (my lover). It is inexcusable to claim you are protecting actresses while displaying nude and/or scandalous images of them on publicly released material.]

“The Lady in the Car with Glasses and a Gun” (2015/2016)
Directed by Joann Sfar
Editted by Maryline Monthieux and Christophe Pinel
Original “opera” music by Agnes Olier




Archives