"It was a key moment in the game, but Jack wasn't there. He was in the restroom, going again..."
"A great photo, but Bob wasn't in the picture. He was in the men's room, going again..."
Here are a few things I would like to see banned from tv ads: Any mention of "weak streams" or "unsteady flow." "Having difficulty going" or "going over and over." Last year, I was stunned to see the problem actually put to music, as we saw a guy running frantically into a rest stop to the tune of "Gotta Go Gotta Go Gotta Go Right Now, Gotta Go Gotta Go Gotta Go!"
The guy's gonnna wet his pants if he can't get to a toilet! OBVIOUS ENOUGH FOR YOU?
I'm willing to deal with the "it MAY be signs of an enlarged prostate" because heck, that's kind of important. But I don't need to be shown one picture after another of middle-aged guys rushing into restrooms while the narrator explains to me that these guys have to urinate. I mean, I just ASSUME that's the reason guys are going to the restroom. I DON'T NEED IT EXPLAINED TO ME! And I don't need urination explained to me, either.
So please, Flomax: Treat your potential customers with a modicum of respect, please. When we see a guy rushing to use the restroom, we know that means they have an excess of bodily fluids that they need to dispel in a sanitary fashion.
Unless, of course, that guy happens to be Larry Craig. If that's the case, all bets are off.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Biting the Bullet, Writing the Cialis Post
I've been putting this off for so long, mainly because it's just too easy. Those smarmy, uncomfortable, hideous "these ugly middle aged people who could be your PARENTS are about to have sex" Cialis commercials have deserved snark from the very beginning- but I just couldn't bring myself to comment on them.
So I decided to compromise with myself- I'll just comment on one especially horrible aspect of these things- the ubiquitous bathtubs. They are everywhere in these commercials, including places where they make absolutely no sense unless you are making a Saturday Night Live sketch making fun of Cialis Commercials: Bathtubs in open fields. Bathtubs on mountaintops. Bathtubs on spacious beaches. And, of course, naked people in the bathtubs. Holding hands. Taking in the view.
Why, Why, Why? What the HELL does this all mean? Who the hell has ever done this? Are we supposed to believe that these idiots had bathtubs lugged to incredibly inconvenient locations and filled with water, and then stripped down, hid their clothes ( I don't see them lying anywhere) and then walked naked some considerable distance until they could sit in them? And then what? Stare at each other, stare at the view, relax for a few seconds, then start to think "how the HELL are we going to get out of these and back home without being seen?"
I mean, Jesus, it's like a common reoccurring nightmare you describe to your shrink: "I was in a bathtub, naked, in the middle of nowhere!" What does this have to do with Erectile Disfunction?
Here's a Real-Life nightmare to consider: that some people will actually attempt to copy what they've seen in these commercials. Imagine innocently walking along the shore or in the woods and suddenly coming across two ugly morons in bathtubs! AGGGGG!
When I was very little, there was a really horrible comedy on tv called Love, American Style. Nearly every skit on the show ended with a huge bed being inserted on to the set, to uproarious laughter. I had no idea why the bed was supposed to be funny, or what it meant-- to my mind, not yet warped, twisted and depraved by the journey into adulthood, beds were to be slept in, so what was the joke? Now I find myself wishing that I could look at these morons sitting in bathtubs and just think "gee, it's nice that these people like to take baths so much."
How about that- Cialis commercials suitable only for children.
It's bad enough that the airwaves are polluted with people talking about problems which used to be whispered behind closed doors in commercials which should include "Warning: Sexual Content" disclaimers. Adding illogical/virtually impossible behavior doesn't make it any better. It just makes me frightened at what might be behind the next bend of the trail, or what I might find when I take my early morning walks at low tide. Thanks, Cialis.
So I decided to compromise with myself- I'll just comment on one especially horrible aspect of these things- the ubiquitous bathtubs. They are everywhere in these commercials, including places where they make absolutely no sense unless you are making a Saturday Night Live sketch making fun of Cialis Commercials: Bathtubs in open fields. Bathtubs on mountaintops. Bathtubs on spacious beaches. And, of course, naked people in the bathtubs. Holding hands. Taking in the view.
Why, Why, Why? What the HELL does this all mean? Who the hell has ever done this? Are we supposed to believe that these idiots had bathtubs lugged to incredibly inconvenient locations and filled with water, and then stripped down, hid their clothes ( I don't see them lying anywhere) and then walked naked some considerable distance until they could sit in them? And then what? Stare at each other, stare at the view, relax for a few seconds, then start to think "how the HELL are we going to get out of these and back home without being seen?"
I mean, Jesus, it's like a common reoccurring nightmare you describe to your shrink: "I was in a bathtub, naked, in the middle of nowhere!" What does this have to do with Erectile Disfunction?
Here's a Real-Life nightmare to consider: that some people will actually attempt to copy what they've seen in these commercials. Imagine innocently walking along the shore or in the woods and suddenly coming across two ugly morons in bathtubs! AGGGGG!
When I was very little, there was a really horrible comedy on tv called Love, American Style. Nearly every skit on the show ended with a huge bed being inserted on to the set, to uproarious laughter. I had no idea why the bed was supposed to be funny, or what it meant-- to my mind, not yet warped, twisted and depraved by the journey into adulthood, beds were to be slept in, so what was the joke? Now I find myself wishing that I could look at these morons sitting in bathtubs and just think "gee, it's nice that these people like to take baths so much."
How about that- Cialis commercials suitable only for children.
It's bad enough that the airwaves are polluted with people talking about problems which used to be whispered behind closed doors in commercials which should include "Warning: Sexual Content" disclaimers. Adding illogical/virtually impossible behavior doesn't make it any better. It just makes me frightened at what might be behind the next bend of the trail, or what I might find when I take my early morning walks at low tide. Thanks, Cialis.
Nintendo Just Can't help but insult its Target Audience
This commercial must have caused at least SOME argument during production-- a fortysomething guy is reminiscing how, back in the 80s, he was a champ at the Nintendo video game Super Punch-Out. (Being of that age group, I remember that game too, and I don't own a Wii but this might have convinced me to buy one if the commercial didn't tick me off so much.)
In between fond thoughts of how he used to kick butt in Super Punch-Out, we see him playing the game with his kid. Oh, how cool. The guy used to be great at this game, so his experience will FINALLY allow him to win a contest with his little kid and show how awesome his old man is (because you know that in TV land, the father has never won ANY previous contest with his son- no game, no argument, no battle of wits, NOTHING.)
Except- that doesn't happen. For all of his status as a Super Punch-Out Veteran, the guy keeps getting knocked out by his kid. Again. And again. And again. "Best two out of three!" the guy insists. "Best four out of seven!" "Best six out of....whatever!" (The final being muttered as Our Hero is now bathed in sweat, totally frazzled and frustrated in his inability to beat his kid at the game.)
Ok, what the hell is going on here? I thought that the whole idea of re-introducing games like Super Punch-Out in Wii format was to hit the Nostalgia Bone in people like me- "Yeah, I remember having fun playing these games! Yeah, I want to recapture my childhood! I'm buying that!" But then we see commercials which tell us hey, just because you could play the old game, doesn't mean you can play the new one- because it's played differently. The skills you used twenty years ago to mop your friends off the floor in this game won't do you a damn bit of good now- you have to learn new skills. Sorry, you won't be able to show off to your kid using this game.
So-- WHAT IS THE FREAKING POINT?
Here's the Freaking Point, in my opinion-- Nintendo wants men my age to buy Wiis for themselves and their kids. But their desire to get into my wallet isn't large enough for them to depart from their "kids rule" theme, even for a few seconds. Even to make ONE commercial make a LITTLE sense. Because come on- here's the way this commercial could have been funny, and effective:
Fortysomething guy tells camera about how his little boy beat him in ever game they played. Until, that is, he brought home Super Punch-Out. Then we see him beating his astonished kid at this 80s Retro game, again and again and again. Kid is drenched in sweat. Maybe kid's friends look on in admiration, and want tips from Suddenly Cool Dad.
But no. That would have required a tear in the fabric of the Universe, I guess. I mean, can you imagine- Dad coming out on top over kid? No way. Doesn't matter that it would have been more logical- Kids Must Triumph Over Adults, All The Time. That message is more important than making a good commercial.
My money is back in my wallet.
In between fond thoughts of how he used to kick butt in Super Punch-Out, we see him playing the game with his kid. Oh, how cool. The guy used to be great at this game, so his experience will FINALLY allow him to win a contest with his little kid and show how awesome his old man is (because you know that in TV land, the father has never won ANY previous contest with his son- no game, no argument, no battle of wits, NOTHING.)
Except- that doesn't happen. For all of his status as a Super Punch-Out Veteran, the guy keeps getting knocked out by his kid. Again. And again. And again. "Best two out of three!" the guy insists. "Best four out of seven!" "Best six out of....whatever!" (The final being muttered as Our Hero is now bathed in sweat, totally frazzled and frustrated in his inability to beat his kid at the game.)
Ok, what the hell is going on here? I thought that the whole idea of re-introducing games like Super Punch-Out in Wii format was to hit the Nostalgia Bone in people like me- "Yeah, I remember having fun playing these games! Yeah, I want to recapture my childhood! I'm buying that!" But then we see commercials which tell us hey, just because you could play the old game, doesn't mean you can play the new one- because it's played differently. The skills you used twenty years ago to mop your friends off the floor in this game won't do you a damn bit of good now- you have to learn new skills. Sorry, you won't be able to show off to your kid using this game.
So-- WHAT IS THE FREAKING POINT?
Here's the Freaking Point, in my opinion-- Nintendo wants men my age to buy Wiis for themselves and their kids. But their desire to get into my wallet isn't large enough for them to depart from their "kids rule" theme, even for a few seconds. Even to make ONE commercial make a LITTLE sense. Because come on- here's the way this commercial could have been funny, and effective:
Fortysomething guy tells camera about how his little boy beat him in ever game they played. Until, that is, he brought home Super Punch-Out. Then we see him beating his astonished kid at this 80s Retro game, again and again and again. Kid is drenched in sweat. Maybe kid's friends look on in admiration, and want tips from Suddenly Cool Dad.
But no. That would have required a tear in the fabric of the Universe, I guess. I mean, can you imagine- Dad coming out on top over kid? No way. Doesn't matter that it would have been more logical- Kids Must Triumph Over Adults, All The Time. That message is more important than making a good commercial.
My money is back in my wallet.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Chaser: Because the Worst Thing that can possibly happen to you if you drink is that you get a Hangover
This is one of those commercials that I ONLY see broadcast during baseball games: It's for a product called "Chaser," which promises to minimize the hangover you'll get if you continue your fun-loving, Drink-Way-Too-Much lifestyle- which of course you want to do, because drinking too much is what life is all about.
Anyway, the narrator of this commercial tells us that we "have a choice- stop drinking, or take Chaser." No, I'm not kidding. "Stop Drinking" (photo of snarling Buzzkill grandma-type) or "take Chaser" (photo of smiling young couple.) "Stop Drinking" (photo of sad-looking teetotaller with a milk mustache) or "take Chaser" (photo of two gleaming, enormous mugs of beer.)
The punchline, coming almost as an aside: "Drink Responsibly."
Um, excuse me? You spend an entire commercial telling people that they no longer have to limit their alcohol consumption for fear of a headache the next morning, then think that "Drink Responsibly" is an adequate disclaimer?
How about "here's what Chaser WON'T do: It won't reduce the impact of alcohol on your ability to operate heavy machinery. It won't reduce the impact of alcohol on your judgement- meaning that you are as likely to get into a car driven by a drunk or have unprotected sex with the cute girl you just met whether you take this stuff or not. But if you survive the night, when you wake up the next day, whether it's in a hospital room, a rape crisis center, a trash-filled alley, or your own bed, you won't be as groggy and headachy as you sometimes are when you overdrink without taking Chaser."
"So if you think, as we do, that the worse thing about heavy drinking is the hangover, take Chaser. If you're sick of stopping after a couple of beers, and want to drink all night without that annoying Morning-After pain, take Chaser."
Real Responsible. And to think, some chemists devoted perhaps months of research to producing this stuff. I bet some of them even dreamed of curing cancer once.
Anyway, the narrator of this commercial tells us that we "have a choice- stop drinking, or take Chaser." No, I'm not kidding. "Stop Drinking" (photo of snarling Buzzkill grandma-type) or "take Chaser" (photo of smiling young couple.) "Stop Drinking" (photo of sad-looking teetotaller with a milk mustache) or "take Chaser" (photo of two gleaming, enormous mugs of beer.)
The punchline, coming almost as an aside: "Drink Responsibly."
Um, excuse me? You spend an entire commercial telling people that they no longer have to limit their alcohol consumption for fear of a headache the next morning, then think that "Drink Responsibly" is an adequate disclaimer?
How about "here's what Chaser WON'T do: It won't reduce the impact of alcohol on your ability to operate heavy machinery. It won't reduce the impact of alcohol on your judgement- meaning that you are as likely to get into a car driven by a drunk or have unprotected sex with the cute girl you just met whether you take this stuff or not. But if you survive the night, when you wake up the next day, whether it's in a hospital room, a rape crisis center, a trash-filled alley, or your own bed, you won't be as groggy and headachy as you sometimes are when you overdrink without taking Chaser."
"So if you think, as we do, that the worse thing about heavy drinking is the hangover, take Chaser. If you're sick of stopping after a couple of beers, and want to drink all night without that annoying Morning-After pain, take Chaser."
Real Responsible. And to think, some chemists devoted perhaps months of research to producing this stuff. I bet some of them even dreamed of curing cancer once.
So who ARE you back on the bike for, Lance?
Lance Armstrong, shown doing a variety of staged exercises with staged shots of Armstrong riding his bike- "They call me a cheat. They say I can't let it go. They call me washed up. A doper. Over The Hill. A Fraud. All that matters to me is, I'm back on my bike."
And the punchline: "Because I'm not doing this-- for THEM."
1) Get the hell over yourself, Mr Armstrong. Believe it or not, the Sport That Requires Dorky Pants is not at the forefront of our minds as we approach the July 4th holiday. Nor is the Tour de France, that ridiculously melodramatic bike race which is interrupted at one stage by a plane ride. Believe it or not, you really haven't been missed all that much since your tortured, controversial, rumor-scarred "retirement."
2) Who is the "they" who is saying all these horrible things about you? Because again, what I've heard most is Silence. As in, "why am I supposed to give a shit about Lance Armstrong, that guy who used to pop into the public consciousness for a few weeks every summer because he was in the process of winning a bike race?"
3) Armstrong tells us that all these criticisms that only he seems to hear while the rest of us less self-absorbed Non-Lances are kind of busy with our own lives (Jesus, how about you stop bitching for a minute, and then use that minute to thank us for all those 'Live Strong' rubber bands we bought?) aren't the reason he's racing again. He's not doing it "for Them." So who IS he doing it for? Ah yes- we see the Nike Swoosh and "Just Do It."
He's doing it for the money. Because damn it, the thing about sponsorship money is, it tends to dry up when you stop performing.
For the love of God, get off your freaking high-horse, you self-absorbed, doping fraud. You'd be amazed at how many people will be rooting against you not because they think that you are a cheat, but because they are sick to death of your constant self-promotion, which has now extended to creating a "me against the world" theme out of thin air for the benefit of your bottom line, and Nike's.
Good luck in the Tour de France. Break a leg.
And the punchline: "Because I'm not doing this-- for THEM."
1) Get the hell over yourself, Mr Armstrong. Believe it or not, the Sport That Requires Dorky Pants is not at the forefront of our minds as we approach the July 4th holiday. Nor is the Tour de France, that ridiculously melodramatic bike race which is interrupted at one stage by a plane ride. Believe it or not, you really haven't been missed all that much since your tortured, controversial, rumor-scarred "retirement."
2) Who is the "they" who is saying all these horrible things about you? Because again, what I've heard most is Silence. As in, "why am I supposed to give a shit about Lance Armstrong, that guy who used to pop into the public consciousness for a few weeks every summer because he was in the process of winning a bike race?"
3) Armstrong tells us that all these criticisms that only he seems to hear while the rest of us less self-absorbed Non-Lances are kind of busy with our own lives (Jesus, how about you stop bitching for a minute, and then use that minute to thank us for all those 'Live Strong' rubber bands we bought?) aren't the reason he's racing again. He's not doing it "for Them." So who IS he doing it for? Ah yes- we see the Nike Swoosh and "Just Do It."
He's doing it for the money. Because damn it, the thing about sponsorship money is, it tends to dry up when you stop performing.
For the love of God, get off your freaking high-horse, you self-absorbed, doping fraud. You'd be amazed at how many people will be rooting against you not because they think that you are a cheat, but because they are sick to death of your constant self-promotion, which has now extended to creating a "me against the world" theme out of thin air for the benefit of your bottom line, and Nike's.
Good luck in the Tour de France. Break a leg.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
How Did We Ever Survive before McDonalds?
Woman opens up her refrigerator, only to have a couple of eggs fall to the floor at her feet. She looks mournfully at the mess.
Guy opens up a bottle of milk and sniffs it. From the expression on his face, we can surmise that the milk was purchased sometime during the Bush Administration.
Woman attempts to flip a pancake (why? Because she saw it done in a movie once?) It falls on the burner and catches fire. She looks mournfully at the mess.
"You only get one shot at breakfast...." according to the narrator. Except that two of the three people shown didn't even get that one shot. So starvation is inevitable. But wait- McDonald's is offering two Egg McMuffins for only three dollars! Thank Goodness! Not only do you not have to risk burning down your house to avoid morning hunger, but you can get an overdose of grease, fat and salt without doing much damage to your wallet! Yay McDonalds!
Seriously, though. We aren't capable of 1) putting eggs in the refrigerator so they dont' fall on the floor when you open it, 2) buying milk on more than a bi-annual schedule, or 3) using a spatula. So we need everyone's favorite Obesity Factory and it's Menu of Death.
Well, no thank you, McDonalds. I think I'll continue to risk my life pouring milk into the bowl with my Cheerios. Maybe I'll mess it up on ocassion, but wiping up a spill is still easier than recovering from a stroke.
Guy opens up a bottle of milk and sniffs it. From the expression on his face, we can surmise that the milk was purchased sometime during the Bush Administration.
Woman attempts to flip a pancake (why? Because she saw it done in a movie once?) It falls on the burner and catches fire. She looks mournfully at the mess.
"You only get one shot at breakfast...." according to the narrator. Except that two of the three people shown didn't even get that one shot. So starvation is inevitable. But wait- McDonald's is offering two Egg McMuffins for only three dollars! Thank Goodness! Not only do you not have to risk burning down your house to avoid morning hunger, but you can get an overdose of grease, fat and salt without doing much damage to your wallet! Yay McDonalds!
Seriously, though. We aren't capable of 1) putting eggs in the refrigerator so they dont' fall on the floor when you open it, 2) buying milk on more than a bi-annual schedule, or 3) using a spatula. So we need everyone's favorite Obesity Factory and it's Menu of Death.
Well, no thank you, McDonalds. I think I'll continue to risk my life pouring milk into the bowl with my Cheerios. Maybe I'll mess it up on ocassion, but wiping up a spill is still easier than recovering from a stroke.
Um...are you going to actually eat that thing?
I've been looking forward to an opportunity to comment on one of my pet peeves concerning food commercials- the "food is to be carried and/or admired, not eaten" motif. This is different from the "Infinite Food" motif which dominates commercials for KFC (the bucket on the kitchen table is overflowing with chicken, even after everyone's plate is full) and McDonalds (no matter how many sips of the not-milkshake are taken, no matter how many french fries are consumed, the containers stay at the same level.) No, this is the Contemplation of Cold Food phenomena that I find really, really annoying and I'm likely to post about on more than one ocassion.
I'll start today with a quick comment on Dunkin Donuts and their commercial for their 99 cent Wake-Up Wrap. A woman is standing in an elevator, holding one of these things in her hand, sans napkin. In her other hand she holds the inevitable half-gallon cup of iced coffee, no doubt liberally doused with heavy cream (I'm convinced that there's a gentleman's agreement among fast-food places to banish any mention or display of hot coffee in commercials aired between Memorial Day and Labor Day.) A guy standing next to her says "hey, that looks good."
Woman: "It's a Dunkin Donuts Wake-Up Wrap. I got it for only 99 cents" (I'll snark in the future on the concept of tax-free fast food in the alternate Commercial Universe.) Then- "no breakfast for you?"
(Does anyone eat breakfast at home any more? Wouldn't any REASONABLE person just ASSUME that the guy in the elevator who ISNT carrying food with him ate at home?)
I'm not going to comment on the whole "belt-tightening" thing. Way too easy, and too stupid. I'll stick to my original thought and bring it to a logical conclusion by asking a few simple questions:
1. Where is the Dunkin Donuts in relation to the elevator? (How long as this woman been holding that Wake-Up Wrap? Isn't it cold by now?)
2. Why no napkin between her Wake-Up Wrap and her hand?
3. When the hell does this woman plan on actually EATING this thing? When she gets to her office? As a mid-morning snack? Is she going to eat it before she puts it down? If not, what does she plan to put it down ON?
I could ask this question of a lot of commercial-land people: the woman sitting in the middle of a field, contemplating her milkshake (because there's a McDonald's right behind the barn, I guess.) The idiots who don't understand that the drive-thru at Sonic exists to get them their food fast, not to give them a place to contemplate the mysteries of life and how they relate to their cheeseburgers. But for now, I'd settle for an answer from the woman who seems content to just carry around her Wake-Up Wrap until it's ice-cold- and sneer at the concept that some people might actually enjoy eating HOT food, at HOME.
I'll start today with a quick comment on Dunkin Donuts and their commercial for their 99 cent Wake-Up Wrap. A woman is standing in an elevator, holding one of these things in her hand, sans napkin. In her other hand she holds the inevitable half-gallon cup of iced coffee, no doubt liberally doused with heavy cream (I'm convinced that there's a gentleman's agreement among fast-food places to banish any mention or display of hot coffee in commercials aired between Memorial Day and Labor Day.) A guy standing next to her says "hey, that looks good."
Woman: "It's a Dunkin Donuts Wake-Up Wrap. I got it for only 99 cents" (I'll snark in the future on the concept of tax-free fast food in the alternate Commercial Universe.) Then- "no breakfast for you?"
(Does anyone eat breakfast at home any more? Wouldn't any REASONABLE person just ASSUME that the guy in the elevator who ISNT carrying food with him ate at home?)
I'm not going to comment on the whole "belt-tightening" thing. Way too easy, and too stupid. I'll stick to my original thought and bring it to a logical conclusion by asking a few simple questions:
1. Where is the Dunkin Donuts in relation to the elevator? (How long as this woman been holding that Wake-Up Wrap? Isn't it cold by now?)
2. Why no napkin between her Wake-Up Wrap and her hand?
3. When the hell does this woman plan on actually EATING this thing? When she gets to her office? As a mid-morning snack? Is she going to eat it before she puts it down? If not, what does she plan to put it down ON?
I could ask this question of a lot of commercial-land people: the woman sitting in the middle of a field, contemplating her milkshake (because there's a McDonald's right behind the barn, I guess.) The idiots who don't understand that the drive-thru at Sonic exists to get them their food fast, not to give them a place to contemplate the mysteries of life and how they relate to their cheeseburgers. But for now, I'd settle for an answer from the woman who seems content to just carry around her Wake-Up Wrap until it's ice-cold- and sneer at the concept that some people might actually enjoy eating HOT food, at HOME.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)