Posted on 02/06/2007 2:41:10 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
We need to go back for one more bite of that Snickers Super Bowl ad.
Monday a blogstorm kicked up over the ad that showed two mechanics fighting over a Snickers bar and inadvertently kissing, with the largest gay civil rights group calling on the Mars Inc., the candy company, to pull several alternative endings and related material from its Web site.
And before the day was done, the material had been pulled, as were plans to show one of the alternate endings during the Daytona 500 telecast.
Here was Ameriblog's mid-day headline: "Snickers Superbowl Web site promotes violence against gays and lesbians. Bears & Colts players react in disgust, on camera, to gays."
The ad, which aired during Sunday's game, showed two guys working on a car. One is leaning over the hood, eating a Snickers bar. The other can't help but start chewing on the free end. They work their way toward the middle until they realize their lips have touched. Then, calling for a manly act, each rips a clump of hair from his chest.
But that wasn't the problem.
"You ain't seen nothin' yet," writes John Aravosis, a DC political consultant on his Ameriblog site. Aravosis, who had advocated against anti-gay actions in creating the StopDrLaura.com site and the Matthew Shepard Online Resources, took issue with the now-down Snickers site's showing the reactions of three Bears and two Colts players who had watched the ad. He also questioned three alternative endings to the spot.
I didn't see video of the player's reactions before the site was changed. Aravosis reports that one player said, "That ain't right." A second made a face twisted with disgust.
"These guys are role models for kids, and they're telling America's kids ... that two guys kissing ain't right," Aravosis writes.
One of the alternative endings had a third guy approaching after the close encounter. Brushing his hair from his eyes, he asked "is there room for three on this Love Boat." In another, instead of pulling out chests hair after the kiss, they drink motor oil and anti-freeze.
Aravosis writes, "They guzzle it down, screaming at the top of their lungs, making them sick to their stomachs. The ad is vaguely violent - better to die than be gay."
The next one might be worst, by Avarosis' account. After the kiss, one picks up a wrench and attacks the other. Then the second slams the hood of the car of the head of the other. Aravosis: "Yes, the appropriate reaction to a guy kissing you is to beat the crap out of the guy who kissed you. Maybe Snickers should rename this ad 'Matthew Shepard."
He concludes:
The entire thing is absolutely sickening. And while I can appreciate that Snickers didn't overtly think that promoting violence against gays and lesbians is "funny," they knew what they were doing. They were gay-bashing for fun. And they didn't just cross the line - they left the line in the dust.
My first reaction when I read this, was that he was making much ado about nothing. Particularly when the progressive blogger noted that the family that owns Mars is a big supporter of the Republican party. Leaving his feet to the throw a punch, I thought.
But what was up with showing ball player after ball player react to the video? And after watching the now-pulled alternative endings, which can still be seen here, I'm wondering what the ad agency and Mars officials were going for. Making fun of rednecks? As some Ameriblog readers concluded.
Not everyone reading Ameriblog was as outraged. A commenter, signing his opinion Just Some Guy, wrote:
Now I realize that with the new Democratic majority in Congress, and the rising liberal sentiment in this country, that some people are going to want to flex their muscles. And rightfully so.
However, wouldn't it be best to use some form of restrain, rather than picking knee-jerk fights over every little thing which may offend someone? The entire air of "political correctness" from the '80s is exactly the vehicle the neofascists rode in to power, and it's resurgence was used by GWB to rally his base.
There's a difference between a racist tirade by Michael Richards or Michelle Malkin, and a joke by Sara Silverman or Lisa Lampinelli. The difference is malice, and I just didn't see the malice in the commercial.
I would suggest shrugging off things said in jest. Otherwise you are going to end up crying wolf, and that's the same reason people are currently tuning out GWB and his fearmongering. Please, don't set yourself up to be tuned out- it weakens us all.
190#'s of 6' guy.lol
You got to remember this is also the Super Bowl of commercials which companies pay millions to advertise on it. They are all competing for our attention and doing ANYTHING to make us remember their add. The Super Bowl is one football game I don't want to take a potty break at the commercial break because I might miss something good.
My kids know better than to talk when a game is on but they can yak away during commercials. When they started talking Sunday during the first commercial break I told them to shut up and they looked at me like I was drunk. LOL
Either you get it or you don't. My explanation won't help.
Oh, I think I get it.
I just couldn't believe you would make such an admission on a public forum.
From an Ad perspective, I think their real mistake was making the men regret the act, and do stupid things to "make up for it".
the SMART ad would have been to have them step back in disgust like they did, wipe their lips like you would if you just kissed a dog, then have them look back at each other, get a little smirk, and the one guy says to the other "Hey, you got any more Snickers"? Or they could both run to the machine to each get a snickers and jam it in their own mouths.
Like Snickers were so good, they could even wash away the horror of having kissed a guy.
So two poor football players, seeing a commercial and having a perfectly normal reaction, are now being targetted as "anti-gay bigots".
The purpose of ads is to generate sales. Reckon' they were successful? Reading this forum, I highly doubt it.
Um, I don't think I remember Michelle Malkin going on any tirade; she tends to be spot on in her assessments.
Sarah Silverman, however, is a vitriolic anti-Christian scumbag who uses her schtick to mask her hatreds. Check out her show "Jesus is Magic". Or don't!
Well, FYI...MARS CANDY makes 3 Musketeers • Balisto • Bounty • Celebrations • Dove/Galaxy bar • Flyte • Kudos • Lockets • Maltesers • Mars Bar • M-Azing • M&M's • Milky Way • Revels • Snickers • Skittles • Starburst • Topic • Tracker • Twix....just to name a few.
I'm not sure what you think I have admitted to. Just to be clear, if I ran a garage and two of my mechanics started acting like flippers, I would be very tempted to kick their a$$e$ for acting like mo's. If the commercial had played out that way, I would also be more likely to buy Snickers. But after what I saw, Mars Inc can kiss my money goodbye. They won't see anymore of it.
So you are saying you are homolovia?
yeah thanks. I really don't care bout the company, but none of those apeal to me. I'll prob switch to an almond joy (sat fat coconut) or payday (gets stuck in my teeth)
Damn straight. Glad that's settled.
Edd Hendee was on KSEV this morning talking about his daughter at UT dropping out of her social services degree over a disagreement in approach. She was informed by the State of Texas that she could not mention religion, morals, or abstinence (but she could mention abortion) when working with at risk youths.
The Sex Positive agenda of no moral judgements on ANY sexual behavior at ANY age marches on.
So I guess he sided with Bill Clinton's "first grope is free" line of defense? Lie back and take it? Put some ice on that? Drop your pants and say "kiss it" with no expectation of rejection?
BARF BARF BARF.
Political Correctness goes back to the 1960s liberalism. It became entrenched in our universities' teaching in the 1970s and 1980s. It makes it a thoughtcrime to dissent against the liberal agenda.
GWB, "neo-fascists", barf al have nothing to do with it.
Policital Correctness experienced its first major backlash in the 1990s after the Clinton Presidents tried to nationally implement several planks.
But I won't let this pantywaisted wuss get away with stating that PC is a "hard right" thing. Not because it is unpopular... it is a lie. Despots using the very tactics they claim to decry.
The commercial left a bad taste in my mouth.
I agree, yet look at the bottom of that article, where a blogger is quoted, and see how they accuse "the right" of just such tactics.
What in heck could those people have been thinking to make something so REPULSIVE!... Other than the obvious: The queers are taking over that company too.
WHAT ELSE?
There is no mandated "fixing" of homosexuals, but there is left wing condemnation and prohibition for counseling bi- "curious" males and females in a way that may lead them to a heterosexual relationship.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.