U2 is a great band with a lot of artisitic vision, but for all their occasional posturing and protesting to the contrary, they’ve always been a very commercial band. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s a very different image from that of Dylan, who was the epitome of the 60’s anti-establishment ethos, and who has always (with justification) defended every move, from supposed plagiarism to a radical change in style that alienated many fans, as being motivated by art.
Agreed. However, the DeNiro ad was just plain sad. My first thought was that he must be in dire straits financially.
I think the U2 issue is also the fact that it’s Apple, which is almsot the anti-sellout.
“We didn’t sell out to pimp M$'s latest, greatest Windows, we went for the underdogs, fighting for their share in the market!”
Although in the case of that commercial (sicne it was for the iPod and/or iTunes) Apple actually isn’t the underdog. Still, when artists “sell out” to smaller, quirky companies, people tend to see it as good, whereas if it’s for a larger compnay, it’s bad. Go figure. If I was an actor/musician, I’d sell out everyday in everyway. I don’t know how long my career would last, and I’d like to save up as much money as possible.
Plus, iPod and iTunes are distribution media for music, which musicians have a legitimate interest in promoting for their own sake, if they believe they will increase the distribution of their music or improve the listening experience of their fans. I doubt anyone would have looked askance if Dylan had done an iPod ad.
Hey, if that’s what you want to do. But traditionally, artists have held themselves to a different standard. You can argue whether it’s a “higher” standard, a reasonable standard, or even a good one, but the fact remains that many artists resist the blatant commercialization of their work. Enough do so, that to my eyes, an actor appearing in a commercial is tantamout to his publically declaring, “I do not consider myself an artist, and I do not aspire to be one. I am a workhorse and will perform any role for sufficient renumeration and without regard to artistic merit.”
Which is fine. That’s a perfectly valid work-ethic for an actor to have, and quite a valuable one, especially when starting out. But it confuses and saddens me when I can clearly see that the actor is so much more.
A few years back, Minute Maid orange juice used Robert Loggia in a commercial that seemed to satirize the whole idea of celebrity endorsement. It featured a young kid who refused to believe his parents when they told him that Minute Maid was delicious and nutritious. So finally, the father asks “well, who would you believe?” The kid answers “I don’t know…Robert Loggia?” In walks Loggia, who confirms what the parents had been telling the boy, and the boy happily downs the juice.
The commercial didn’t run for long; I suspect a lot of people didn’t get it.
Bob Dylan in a Victoria’s Secret ad? That’s not selling out, that’s just scary!
Now I’m hearing that mumbling wheezy voice going, “they make me feel so pretty!” :eek:
Those Dennis Franz ads where he said he ‘didn’t do commericals’ were just annoying.
The only thing that surprised me about the De Niro Amex ad is that they got him to deliver the turgid lines that had been written. The script is an embarassment - “my East, my West Side”…“My heartbreak, my heartbeat”…that is all I recall through all the gagging.
“The Bronx is up and the Battery’s down” works better.
Actors’ popularity doesn’t make their opinions any more valid, as far as I’m concerned. When actors do TV commercials, it doesn’t really matter to me whether they believe in the product or are “selling out”–it doesn’t change my opinion of the product either way.
It’s just like actors who push their political agendas. Who cares? Yes, you’re cute and/or you act well. That doesn’t make your political views any more insightful or important than anyone else’s.
The only thing I dislike about celebrities doing ads is when it’s voiceover work and I can’t figure out who it is.
Because I’m anal that way.
If I were Gene Hackman. I’d feel a lot more need to apologize for making Welcome to Moosewood than I would for doing voiceovers on Lowe’s commericals.
If I were Gene Hackman, I’d feel a lot more need to apologize for making Welcome to Moosewood than I would for doing voiceovers on Lowe’s commercials.
Ya know, so many rice crackers claim to be low-cal, but only Heshigawa Rice Crackers make your interiors go bananas.
What did I do to deserve this? Oh, right…
Well, leaving “art” out of the picture - Welcome to Mooseport, however bad it may be, is clearly billed as fiction, whereas the commercial’s are not.
I feel the same way about celebrities pitching me garbage as I would if a real-life acquaintance took advantage of a pre-existing relationship to make money pitching me some product. The only out is if it’s a really exceptional product.
The difference between celebs and the actors who generally appear in commercials, is well, celebrity. The regular actors are anonymous spokesmen representing the product - the celebrities are personally endorsing a product - implying or stating that it’s a good product (I suspect they may sometimes not be entirely truthful about this).
The Queen of England is a longtime offender - does she really smoke Benson & Hedges while scarfing Jelly Babies and Chivers marmalade etc. as my grandmother used to wonder.
…foreign-born athletes trying to pitch products like toothepaste, shaving crean, razors, etc. I remember that Mexican baseballpalyer (Valenzuela) trying to pitch a product-he could hardly speak english!
And, I don’t reallt believe that Tiger Woods drives Buicks, or that supermodel Cindy Crawford wears clothes from KMART.
Yeah, but Victoria’s Secret is about sex, which is the single biggest impetus for people to start rock and roll bands. So I don’t see the conflict of interest here.
What about Tyra Banks? She’s probably more famous than Bob Dylan by now. Is she supposed to stop doing Victoria Secrets ads as well? Because if Tyra Banks in a wonder bra is wrong, I don’t want to be right.
I was thinking more of musicians, but 20 years ago, it **was **considered a sell-out if an actor did commercials. It was thought that they were in it for the money instead of for the love of the craft. Doing a commercial wasn’t (and some may argue isn’t) practicing the craft.
Jimmy Stewart selling Marlboros?
Johnny Carson selling Ban deoderant?
Barbra Streisand selling Bounce?
It was a rarity. You see much more of it today, where doing anything to make a buck is typically thought to be acceptable if not commendable.
Those Lindsay Wagner commercials for the Sleep Number make me so sad for her, as did those Robert Urich commercials for that water pick thingy.
When Urich died, there were numerous stories about his acting work, but not many about his commercials. E Online story
I just don’t get this whole “sell out” concept. I’m a writer. I write for a living. These days, I’m mostly doing books and some magazine articles, but I’ve done everything from ghost writing to ad copy.
To me, it’s my job. If somebody offers to pay me good money to write a commercial, magazine ad, “advertorial,” brochure, or data sheet, I’m just doing my job. I’m not “selling out.” I’m not detracting from my books and articles. What’s the big deal?
An actor can make more money from a 30-second TV commercial than a small part in a movie or TV show. Why should they pass it up? It’s still acting, right?