Count me in the “think it’s funny” group. Yes it’s realistic. That’s a significant part of what makes it funny. Otherwise, it’d just be Itchy and Scratchy.
Do you and the other over-reactionaries here display the same contempt and outrage for manufacturers of chocolate for their suppliers’ use of child labour and child slaves in the production of cocoa? Keep in mind, these are real children, not merely computer animated ones. Then again, thankfully, maybe that isn’t “too realistic”.
This is false advertising. I bought myself a SportKa 3 weeks ago and havent caught any cats yet. Now I hear it is CG - I want my money back.
Everyone has a pet injustice (no pun intended.) What does it have to do with this ad?
In other words, “Sure. What’s your point?”
Well, I guess my point is that there seems to be a lot of ruffled feathers about an event that didn’t even really occur. There were even two people who declared that they will never buy a Ford based upon this ad. I suppose I wonder if any of these people have declared that they will never again eat chocolate, or have suggested that Nestle and Cadbury and Hershey should offer a public apology or explanation.
Myself, I still eat chocolate. Ford wouldn’t be the first on my list for a new car, but it’s not because of this felled feline. So really, it’s not that I think that they should support my cause as opposed to any other…I don’t really have one.
I guess I wonder if these same people get their feathers just as ruffled over events that are actually real.
I don’t understand why you think they wouldn’t. It’s not a mutually exclusive situation. I’m sure peopel who were offended or creeped out about the ad are perfectly capable of being offended by unfair labor practices, or the people who died this week in floods in Mexico, or Turkish earthquakes, or Iraqi mosques, or a million other things.
No amount of marketing could make that car any less uglier than it already is.
No, when I called the customer service representative she said that (paraphrased), Ford regretted that this insensitive ad was being publicized, that they would never approve an ad that was based on animal cruelty. Her tone was apologetic and sincere which I think was wise. In other words, they didn’t just deny responsibility and dismiss the concern, which is …in my opinion, best.
AND, to answer your specific question; Should Ford apologize for not making an offensive ad…
Ford: We apologize for not making an offensive ad. We wish we could say that this is our ad, we can’t. And we are sorry for that.
Bad idea, imo.
I think they should do what they are doing. Let people know that they disapprove of the ad and that they can see why people would be offended. In this case, I think they have to issue some sort of statement. To be silent on the issue could send a message that they either don’t care or approve. While Ford may not be closely connected to the ad, people might make the assumption because it does, after all feature their product.
I guess everyone has an issue that gets them riled up. I am not an activist or anything, but I don’t mind changing my purchasing habits, or at least reviewing my purchasing habits when I am faced with something that upsets me on a personal level. I found the ad to be disturbing. I have no feathers. There is no stick in my ass. Questions and predictions about my possible reactions to other injustices or offenses are of no consequence. This is the ad in question.
Some may think I am too easily offended, uptight, riled up, misguided, have priorities out of place, reactionary, silly, stupid, or have a stick in my ass.
OK. So.
I agree cat thing was amusing if taken out of the advertising context. As is, it’s simply tasteless.
However, the pigeon ad works because it depicts the car minding its own business and protecting itself from a would-be poop vandal.
In short:
cars that kill for sport are bad
cars that kill so that we don’t have to wipe up pigeon shit are good
The cat ad is too disturbing for public consumption; It’s true that Monty Python often does things more tasteless than this, but when you tune into Python, you know what you’re doing. People don’t expect this kind of stuff when they watch ads.
Certainly, they could have done something similar, but less disturbing. For instance, if the cat managed to pull his head out of the sunroof just in time, but ended up with a bare spot down his head where the car had “shaved” his head for him? Something like that might be okay. But the decapitation is just too much.
I think one of the reasons the pigeon one is funnier is that it’s not clear that the pigeon dies. For all we know, he stands up, stunned, after a moment, and waddles off.
I found it rather disturbing and I’d be concerned if it went to air at a time when young children were likely to be watching TV, but that hasn’t happened, so, meh. Apart from that, it’s just a bit too far on the ‘sick’ side to be effective advertising to me as an adult; I’d be quite likely to make sure that there was such a thing as bad publicity (i.e. I’d vote with my custom) if it was a genuine Ford advert, which isn’t yet established.
A couple of months back, I filed a successful complaint about an advert for Fosters Lager that featured a shot of a Steve Irwin-type naturalist being decapitated by a pelican; although there was no gore involved (his decapitated neck just looked like a cut block of spam), it went out on a Sunday afternoon when my 5-year-old son was watching and he was quite distressed about it.
I probably couldn’t fit in one comfortably, but I thought it was a pretty neat looking little black car.
The ads are freakin’ hillarious! Too bad the car is so damn ugly.
Decapitated, eh? Excellent.
Sounds more like a public service message if you ask me!
Yes! You too can buy the compact sporty version of Christine?
Good Idea!
Colour me a cynic, I suppose. I am of the opinion that those who would make claims to never buy a Ford based upon the murder of this very cute but fake kitty would be highly unlikely to actually declare (and follow through on) a boycott where said boycott would actually impact their consuming choices or reduce their quality of life.
But I suspect I’m venturing too far away from the OP here.
Funny, but in bad taste.
I have a brilliant idea. If I’m ever mad at a company, I’ll make a fake tasteless and disgusting ad ( Maybe a black and white photo of Dachau with a logo- “XXXX ovens, cooking with gas for over 60 years” ), something they most definitely did not sponsor, and people won’t buy their product because of it!
Excuse me while I go look for my eyes, they’ve rolled out of my head at the hysterical overreactions in this thread. :rolleyes:
This hilarious ad would have been even funnier if it had been a real cat, or a toddler, and if the toddler went in feet first.
“Say Joe, that’s a sharp-looking car you’ve got!”
“Yeah, and an even sharper sunroof! It’s double-paned. See, the first pane pulls the cat, then the second pane…”
BTW, two cats and a dog in my house. None of them exist in my computer. Nor will watching this ad make me want to lop their heads off.
I find the pigeon one really funny and the cat one really not. They both look real, which is the point, however the cat one is too long. With the pigeon one it’s just peaceful beginning, flap flap flap SMACK, the end. The cat one is grotesque and, well, mean, because it takes so long. If it had be quicker, like the sunroof just chopping really fast it would be better (though still not good). As it is, with the motor whining, pinching through the cat’s neck more than cutting, it’s not funny, it’s just cruel.
This kind of humour can be really funny (See the pigeon ad) if it’s done properly. Violent shock humour has to be quick and to the point, the pigeon one is funny because it’s just over as soon as the joke is made. The cat one loses out because it takes too long and as such the viewer is more likely to think “I bet that really hurts” rather than laugh.
The head falling off in the car and the body sliding down the windshield and bouncing off the side mirror are just disturbing images.