Now, I know in the past, many denizens of the boards have hated some Skittles commercials, most notably the prehensile beard one, but how can you not laugh at this?
I mean honestly, that is pure, unadulterated, genius.
ETA: The “Midas/Skittles Touch” one is also pretty darn funny. But not as good.
From the Youtube comments:
"What’s to get? It’s a disturbing, completely unfunny commercial that advertises candy through implied aggravated assault.
Because, you know, chocolate candy and aggravated assault are such a natural combination."
:rolleyes:
Christ. Grow sense of humor, huh?
I’m not sure I get it. The guy looks different so the other guy beat him with a bat thinking he’d pop out chocolate skittles?
Nope, didn’t laugh.
Addendum: I have to say that the “Skittles Touch” commercial was much better.
The best I can muster is: I don’t hate this one as much as I usually hate their commercials.
I don’t understand it at all. Maybe if I did, it would be funny. Now – no, not at all.
See, the guy looks like a pinata. And so the other guy hit him with a stick, hoping that candy would come out of the first guy. Only candy didn’t come out of the first guy, because he wasn’t ACTUALLY a pinata. Because, see, the thing with pinatas is, see, they’re these paper creations that people fill with candy so that other people can hit them with sticks, break them open, and thus collect all the candy that spills out. It’s a fun game. Only, see, the thing that’s not so fun here is that the guy only LOOKS like a pinata and is not ACTUALLY a pinata, so he’s mad at the guy who hit him.
Or, it could be a commentary on race (beat the guy who looks different and be rewarded) or sexual orientation (beat the flamboyantly-attired person and be rewarded). But you’d probably have to have no sense of humor whatsoever to think either one of those things.
Is it funny? Well, not terribly. But you’d have to torture the hell out of the commercial to get it to mean “beat the different.”
This does it so much better.
The second one’s funnier. Not sure how the guy’s wearing clothes or not skittles himself, though.
The extended version has him bitterly asking the gawker, “Did you dress yourself this morning? I didn’t,” or something like that.
It’s on that one, at the seventeen second mark. I just don’t get how he could have a shirt put on without touching it with his hands.
Nitpicky, I know, but that’s because even though I find it funnier, it only caused a smile. The first one was just dumb.
These ads are brilliant, in a way. My question is – what’s the difference between chocolate Skittles and M&Ms? Chocolate is a specialty – are the Skittles people up for it?
Chocolate Skittles are “chocolate flavored” and not chocolate themselves. M&Ms and Chocolate Skittles have as much in common as regular Skittles and a bag of fruit.
**Edit: **In researching that, I just discovered Licorice Skittles used to be produced (in Europe) but were discontinued the year I was born. God hates me.
Yeah, that’s better, mostly.
I’m still fond of the banned Xbox 360 commercial, if you want fun pretend violence.
There’s kind of a gross interpretation if you think about the concept of hitting some dude with a stick until chocolate skittles come out of him.
And it doesn’t make me want to go eat chocolate skittles.
That’s awesome. It reminded me of when I was a kid playing guns. Shame they didn’t have the one guy, “Nuh uh! I’m wearing a bullet proof vest.”
That is awesome on so many levels.
A different take on beating the different, which I especially like because it reminds me of R. Kelly.
Well,* I *thought they were both funny.