Pabst Blue Ribbon Spots.

Re: Pabst Blue Ribbon Spots.

Thanks very much for helping out. That's the way I've felt, that I think it's pretty clear that it isn't meant to be serious, and it's not really so bad that I would define it as "wrong." I think there is just a differing of generations, true, but also some people really like dark humor like this, while others want their yuks to come from a slightly better place.

Glad that you thought it was funny.
 
Re: Pabst Blue Ribbon Spots.

[quote author=Monglane link=board=Clips;num=1079320254;start=0#14 date=03/15/04 at 09:55:33]
Isn't there a Supervising Board of some kind in the U.S. to greenlight or veto ads, regardless of the way they're brought to public attention ?[/quote]

Are those of you in France familiar with our recent Super Bowl debacle (i.e. halftime show and commercials)? Things are really out of control here in the U.S., but I've heard some countries in Europe aren't all that prudish either.

[quote author=XDeathOrGloryX link=board=Clips;num=1079320254;start=0#19 date=03/15/04 at 12:10:30]
anyhow, its ok if some of you wouldnt make this piece yourselves, but its seems like some of you are almost lecturing the filmmaker on why HE shouldnt have made it. if he is paying bills, and learning more about filmmaking as he goes, and getting use of his DVX,... as long as he isnt making child pornography, or anything like that, i think he's doing fine.
[/quote]

I could address the issue of the impact of the media on behavior at length. I teach psychology for the State University of New York. The problem is that the scientific investigation of this issue is quite clear. However, because the broadcast media comes out looking responsible for this, media outlets shy away from highlighting this well established finding. When the American Psychological Association released a five year review of research findings from hundreds of studies on this issue (mid 1990s), the print media covered it but the TV networks sidelined it (internet news was minimal or non-existent at that time). So people in our culture debate the issue like kids in a sandbox saying "is not" "is so," each offering an opinion as intuitive and ill informed as the next. The problem is just like the tobacco industry insisted smoking doesn't cause cancer for so many years (until huge lawsuits forced them to admit to it), the TV networks continue to maintain that what they broadcast has no influence on viewers. Then, they turn around and convince companies of the exact opposite: that what people see on TV greatly influences them. They're called commercials.

Rather than sit around like children in a sandbox, let's recognize that what we create influences people in ways that we can and cannot anticipate. Pump a society with lots of garbage for a couple of decades, and the society turns as the media leads. TV used to be unrealistic - My Three Sons, etc. But that unrealism gave us a goal to shoot for. Now, everything is unreal in the opposite way - something no one aspires to but we keep getting dragged down to.

Here's your reading assignment - just plain fun and could change your perspective on many aspects of life: "The Social Animal" by Elliot Aronson. Not only will you get a little taste of the research on the violence issue, you'll learn about why we have a tendency to "self justify" our unwise and often immoral behavior (e.g., why some in this thread may defend the second Pabst commercial). I'm not saying this at all in a moralistic way (although it may seem that way). What I'm speaking about is simply behavioral science, which the general public has minimal awareness of, so get the Social Animal and you'll begin to see what I mean.
 
Re: Pabst Blue Ribbon Spots.

[quote author=XDeathOrGloryX link=board=Clips;num=1079320254;start=0#19 date=03/15/04 at 12:10:30]...for his target audience, and in the way the piece was made, i dont think the ad will get confused for anything OTHER than satire... [/quote]

seconded.

There's stuff WAY more offensive out there. Though you may be right about Pabst trying to back out, but only because of fear, even though it may be effective advertising.
 
Re: Pabst Blue Ribbon Spots.

[quote author=dpwanab link=board=Clips;num=1079320254;start=0#22 date=03/15/04 at 20:25:33]

seconded.

There's stuff WAY more offensive out there.  Though you may be right about Pabst trying to back out, but only because of fear, even though it may be effective advertising.[/quote]

Sure, not among people with IQs in the normal range. However, there are many people out there that aren't able to pick up on things. In addition to teaching psychology (mentioned above), I work in a public school district. I know kids with IQs of 80 or lower who, at the risk of sounding unprofessional, aren't too bright. They are not retarded, but highly impressionable. If 99% of the "targeted audience" get the intended humor, but 1% don't, and they also have no dad and are in a gang and dropped out of school, and then see you walking down the street and figure you've got money in your wallet . . .

Our correctional institutions are filled with people with low intelligence combined with unfortunate upbringings. We all sit around and say we are not influenced by violence. But there is a small percentage at the bottom of the continuum who actually translate what they see into what they do. No, they don't get on websites and debate the finer points of responsible broadcast principles, but they are out there, or in jail, or sizing up your wife and the kind of purse she's carrying. We can brush the issue under the rug all we want but we need to recognize that those who broadcast have a very important responsibility, and I'm not convinced that this responsibility is being taken seriously by our broadcast media. Those of us who are "independent" should not just be like the "big guys" in terms of putting out content that is just as much garbage at what the "big guys" put out. We should aspire higher.

Yes, there are far worse things out there than that second Pabst commercial. But something wrong does not become okay because there are things worse than it. Would you feel good about being $20,000 in debt knowing that others are in greater debt than you?
 
Re: Pabst Blue Ribbon Spots.

Does that mean you are saying that we, as creator's of media in a sense, should take on a certain social morality and only create things that are good and just? That doesn't sound very good.

I agree that there is a class structure in the country, and I can definitely see how certain members are negatively affected, but again, these ads weren't geared toward that audience. They were made for, largely, college educated people who would instantly be able to recognize that the tone isn't a serious one. So it's not an issue with this ad of infecting others with its bottle-breaking message. However, I return to the question of is it necessary, when creating any form of mass media, to keep it in the back of your mind that said materials might fall into the hands of the lowest common denominator? That seems so restricting that it puts into question why we'd have a creative process in the first place. And I don't think I'm justifying my immorality to myself in this, as my output is directly affected by my social inputs, if you subscribe to symbolic interactionalism. I'm not denying my morality when I put this stuff to tape and edited it, because I rationalized "This type of behavior is bad", but when contextualized it as "It is so outlandish, so far fetched, so far removed from common standards", then I'm confirming my version of morality. That's the process I went through, as did the people who watched it and enjoyed it. For those who thought it was awful, their morality ran into a blockade because it doesn't agree with how their understanding of how society ought to function. I'm a firm believer in there not being a set morality, or guiding principles by which we all live. Boo structural functionalism! Everything is always in flux. If we're in a particularly awful, violent, "moral-less" time period, then that simply is where we're at. Wait a few hundred years and we'll be in a different place.

Waki, my creative partner in a lot of these things (although not with these Pabst ones), has his PhD in Psychology, so I should have him watch it and see what his reactions are in comparison to yours.

Interesting debate. Glad I posted these damn things.
 
Re: Pabst Blue Ribbon Spots.

i completely agree that we are all affected by what we see. seeing violence over and over on television and in movies DOES in fact desensitize us. however, i dont think that is necessarily reason enough to NOT make a spot like the second pbr commercial. first off, he knew that it wasnt going to be aired on broadcast television. second, he believed that PBR would not support the limited distribution of this piece anyway. therefore the likeliness of it affecting too many people isnt really that high.

im not trying to justify WHY he made it, cuz in all honesty its none of my business. but i will support him and maintain that it wasnt immoral of him, or a BAD decision on his part to do so.

thats like saying there should be no rated R movies, no sex, no violence, no anything... in television and movies... because we as an audience cant handle it.

im not trying to get you to AGREE with me, or his choices to make this piece. but merely trying to state my opinion, and let you know that im NOT oblivious to the effect the media has on its audience. but that doesnt mean we should start producing ONLY PG-rated material from here on out.

there IS an audience for the PBR commercial. i might be considered part of that audience. however, i am a pacifist, and i am straight edge (ie. adamantly against drinking, smoking, drugs, etc). i found this spot hillarious, and i know it wont corrupt me in anyway. and for that reason alone, i dont think it was a bad decision for him to make it.

i dunno. just my take.
 
Re: Pabst Blue Ribbon Spots.

damn, sdelahoyde posted before i could, and he sounded smarter than me. =/ oh well, but yeah. i would agree.

sdelahoyde, im glad you posted them too, cuz i saved it and showed a couple of my friends who came over today, who totally "got it" as well, and laughed their asses off. and all of us are sXe kids who dont drink, yet we still found the humor in it.
 
Re: Pabst Blue Ribbon Spots.

I totally agree with what magicdavek says about the influence of the media en people. It begins with what is written on paper : "Well, it's got to be true cause I read it in the newspaper !" How many times have we heard this, even though papers and magazines, and even "serious" reference books such as dictionaries and encyclopedias are marred with mistakes or historical errors...?

Now that a lot of those people magicdavek talks about don't read any more, or read very little, this "blind faith" has been transferred to whatever we see on a screen : movies, TV boradcasts, and of course ads.

[quote author=magicdavek link=board=Clips;num=1079320254;start=0#21 date=03/15/04 at 20:19:40]

Are those of you in France familiar with our recent Super Bowl debacle (i.e. halftime show and commercials)? Things are really out of control here in the U.S., but I've heard some countries in Europe aren't all that prudish either.[/quote]

Yes, we heard about the Super Bowl incident and we did have a major laugh at the cataclysmic proportions it took in the U.S.!

That's actually a very good example of cultural and "moral" differences between our two continents--an example I wanted to mention before but refrained from doing because I thought it might upset some of you guys...

You see, in Europe we often see commercials (e.g., for shower gels) showing a breast or two and nobody gets shocked. Why, one gets to see them by the dozen on the beach ! Pornography is a different matter altogether, but we really have a hard time understanding how something like the Janet Jackson incident (whether accidental or deliberate) could be turned into something so major... After all, the same kind of thing often happens to ballerinas at the Opera without causing any turmoil... If you think your kids will be horribly shocked because they saw one of Janet's breasts, then better rule art museums out of their education, because there they'll get to see a lot more, with all that Greek and Roman statuary out there... ;)
 
Re: Pabst Blue Ribbon Spots.

I apoligize if it seems like I'm attacking YOU. I'm not. As I said, I think the second commercial COULD have a proper context (e.g., as a spoof commercial on SNL or similar situation). When you say your audience is college educated (presumably of drinking age), then this negates much of my argument above. However, my lengthy comments were directed at the more general issue relating to impact of TV violence on violence in society. I should have made that clear because there were a few aspects of what I have been saying that apply to that general debate and not necessarily to what your work. I'm seeing this commercial and you posting it as a springboard to the larger debate out there, and I was trying to point out that most people are not informed of what social scientists have found on this topic.

Worrying about the lowest common denominator? Well, it should be at least in the back of our minds. Copy cat crimes have been studied since the 1950s. It seemed that whenever a new or unusual violent act was depicted on TV, someone was treated that same way within a week or two of broadcast. A classic example was in the late 70s-early 80s Farrah Faucet's movie Burning Bed which sought to address the issue of domestic violence (a battered woman burns her husband while he was asleep). Sure enough, a few poor slobs (probably abusers too) got torched in the next few weeks of that broadcast. When the movie was rebroadcast (which networks use to do more often back then, before cable), another guy or two got torched. The book I recommended briefly covers this as well (not Burning Bed, but other stuff).

In answer to your question - yes, we need to be responsible about what we create. In the old days, violence was portrayed all the time - - shot rings out from other room, people run in an man is lying on floor -- gives sappy last words. NOW we have incredible special effects that can portray this whole scenario with extreme graphicness. The more graphic, it seems, the more it tends to have an impact on viewers. So you can certainly display stuff that isn't "right and just" as you say, but the issue is HOW that type of material is portrayed. The issue is responsibility, and unless you've had a lot of exposure to TV and movies in yesteryear, you wouldn't know about responsible media because the networks don't practice it.
 
Re: Pabst Blue Ribbon Spots.


OMG! That second commercial was so hilarious...I still have a grin on my face. I can't wait to show people!

I can't believe this forum is full of such prudes. Oh well, my opinion anyways. Lighten up already. And don't flame me for calling you prudes (you know who you are). If you're a prude then be proud of it, the world needs you too. The funniest thing to me is prudes denying they are prudes.

My first short film: http://www.exfilms.com/downloads/promiseskept.mov

Aside from it being horribly shot, lit, acted, etc., it is also in bad taste...which in my opinion is its only redeeming quality. :P

Don't get me wrong, I normally wouldn't prefer bad taste...but when its so funny like that "Teach Your Children Well" commercial then it deserves a place.

BTW...sdelahoyde...good work! You show those in any bar and people will be laughing their asses off.
 
Re: Pabst Blue Ribbon Spots.

Looks like there keep being mixed reviews. Glad you enjoyed it.

As for what you were saying magicdavek, I know you weren't after me personally. Sorry if my retort sounded as such.

I understand your point, and can see that television does affect people, but as for your example with Burning Bed, I don't see that the film was to blame in any way for what happened to those people. Granted, it might have given them an idea about a specific violent act to perform, but couldn't that have been received anywhere? I'm sure there were half a dozen movies playing around that time that had equal levels of violence, but with different instruments used. The same argument as the Burning Bed example could be said about those kids who set fire to things because they saw it on Beavis and Butthead, or the ones that hurt themselves after an episode of Jackass, or those kids that got run over after they saw the "laying in the freeway" scene in the football movie The Program. In all of those examples, I think it's easier to blame the media than to look at how in the world these kids justified doing this sort of thing to themselves. Granted, children aren't as developed as adults, but I didn't go around setting fire to everything because I saw it on television.

Thus, because this "mirroring" seems to take place among those with less education and in the lower classes, if we alter our creative output, doesn't that hinder the forward momentum of a culture? If we're constantly having to walk around on fragile ground, then we're not really pushing ourselves forward, are we?

And lastly, before this soap box gives way, despite what we're constantly lead to believe, I think we're in one of the most progressively non-violent societies that has ever existed. You get a lot of flak by saying that, because people feel that we're in a moral sewer, but it just isn't true. Think about two hundred years ago when death and toil and just plain awful lives were the norm. Sure, today we may have the occassional person being set fire to in their bed, or a drunken broken bottle fight that leads to a death, but by and large, in this country at least, those things are in a terrific minority.

Now back to editing cartoons. (what a weird life)
 
Re: Pabst Blue Ribbon Spots.

[quote author=sdelahoyde link=board=Clips;num=1079320254;start=0#0 date=03/14/04 at 19:10:54]
"Teach"
Quicktime: http://ic.funk.nu/Quicktime/pbrfight.mov
Real Player: http://ic.funk.nu/Real/pbrfight.rm
quote]

I made the unfortunate mistake of watching that clip with my son in the room, I didn't think he was paying attention as he was so busy with his Legos.

Then today I got a frantic call from my son's school, it seems he stabbed 20 of his classmates with a broken PBR bottle. :-[

But seriously, as your target demographic (except I live in the western suburbs) I thought it was hilarious. I would have ended it with a father/son bonding over a couple beers moment, though. So where can I pick up this DVD?
 
Re: Pabst Blue Ribbon Spots.


"father/son bonding over a couple beers moment"

LMAO...that would have been perfect!
 
Re: Pabst Blue Ribbon Spots.

Hey ExFilms,

I watched your film you posted the link for (the old quarterback and cheerleader). I found it to be very clever, very sick, and very funny. You may be surprised that a prude like me (your term, not mine-I'm not supposed to admit it, remember?) would get a chuckle out of your film. It was very well shot, and I can say I enjoyed watching it (and burst out laughing at the end).

I think I didn't make myself clear, though I tried in my previous post. I was more addressing the issue of the impact of what is shown on television. Let me make it simpler: 1) there's tons of rigorously done social science out there 2) 99.9% of the population out there have no clue about it and 3) it does have an impact in ways that 99.9% aren't aware of. I hope that's clear. The rest of what I have been saying is simply commentary. Now if you'd call a physician a prude because he informs you about the latest STD, then a prude he is. I could just read these posts and let every one sit in the sandbox (a previous analogy I posted) and swap opinions. But what will establish one opinion as being a more accurate reflection of reality than another? Information. That's all I'm trying to do is provide information. I hold my opinions about the impact of television after more than 20 years of being a social scientist (although this is not my specialty area, I am quite aware of the key aspects of the research). So potent was the research even by the late 70s (I first learned of it in 1979), my college textbook in Social Psychology naively says that once the networks become aware of this data, we can expect to see a decrease in violence on TV. Those naive researchers! It only accelerated in the following years.

The good news is that starting in the middle of the 1990s, the amount of violence on TV series began to drop (increased in movies, though). Lo and behold, the incidents of violent crime began to go down. This wasn't the only factor, but we have reason to believe it was a big factor. But the networks continue their distortion of reality on the issue in a different way. Now, network television report on 5 times as many murders than they did in previous years. In the past, murders (unless they were famous people) were the grist of local news. But suddenly murders around the country became national news. This news editors tendency created the impression that violent crime was on the rise during a period when violent crime was consistently decreasing. In the last year or two it has leveled off, but we're still lower than it was in, say the late 1980s.

My point continues to be to appeal for responsible media. You can pull a move in an intersection, and because of your move two other cars collide and your car doesn't get a scratch. Now ultimately, you could point out that those cars were responsible for their own fate (gee they didn't see their way clear; one was following too close, etc.). But you were the catalyst. You can argue till the cows come home and warm your heart with the idea that whatever you put out you've washed your hands of any negative "side effects." But the fact is, what goes out over the airwaves affects people's behavior. Content producers' unwillingness to accept that fact, or lack of awareness of the science that has gone into it, doesn't change that fact one bit.
 
Re: Pabst Blue Ribbon Spots.

"Prude - One who is excessively concerned with being or appearing to be proper, modest, or righteous."

Not a bad thing...the word was never intended to be one of reproach although it is often used as such.

Honestly my post wasn't aimed MagicDaveK at all. I was talking to the people who posted:

"this world has enough violence. i would redo it right away."

"I'd be afraid to sit next to someone drinking pabst blue now... thanks alot. :'(" (if that was a :P I would have assumed sarcasm)

"i certainly wouldnt have done it. ..just not how i want my bills to be payed is all."

"I wouldn't have shot those clips for a million bucks--or euros, for that matter."

"if i killed an endangerd woodpecker in the woods and nooen ever found out, that doesnt make it right." (this one is hilariously daft)

Anyways, you're all more than welcome to your opinion and in my opinion you are prudes (mighty powerful word 'opinion').


MagicDaveK -

Of all of the people that posted you had the intelligence to rationally explain yourself (and even offer references), thereby validating your opinion in my eyes. Though I would like to comment on your posts.

I don't believe I am self justifying immoral behavior. I think of video and film as an art form regardless of whether its a feature film, documentary, short film, music video, commercial, training video, etc. I am an artist like a painter, writer, singer, or sculptor. In that light I defend the PBR Fight commercial just as I would any form of art. Like a book that someone wants removed from a library or a painting someone wants removed from a museum because it is immoral.

You mentioned the impressionable people of low intelligence and unfortunate upbringings. The kind of people that actually are capable of killing someone because of what they heard in a song or saw in a movie. I do believe those people are out there. But what do we do as artists? Stifle our creativity in every medium until it pacifies the 1% of the demographic that is at risk? I think thats the wrong answer and the problem lies much deeper. I have no idea what the right answer is (however "Bowling for Columbine" raised some interesting ideas along the lines of your comments on local news media) but I do know that censorship in any form has never been and will never be the answer.

I think your physician analogy no longer applies because my 'prude' generalization was not directed at you but I feel compelled to explain. A physician informing me of the latest STD = not prude. A physician scolding me for having premarital sex = prude. The motivation is the same but the application is different. :P
 
Re: Pabst Blue Ribbon Spots.

ExFilms

Thanks for the post. I disagree with some of your perspectives, and you can disagree with mine. That's fine. I have no problem with that. But civil discussion is the answer, not name calling as some do (and for the most part has not happened in this thread). Too bad neither of the presidential canditates will take a similar civil approach . . .
 
Re: Pabst Blue Ribbon Spots.

These are essentially parody ads that are, in fact, real ads. It's a pretty simple concept and I'd agree that the target audience will perceive them as such. However, I would never do a spot like this for a client because of the potential for this to blow up in their faces.

All it takes is one person being offended and contacting a congressman or the media and *poof*--you've got a national news story about why Pabst approved an alcoholic beverage ad with a young child and a broken beer bottle. While Wicker Park may indeed be full of hipsters with finely-tuned senses of irony, it's also a multicultural community with folks who may have different ideas about the spots. Just something to think about.

Barry S.
 
Re: Pabst Blue Ribbon Spots.

Unexpected results!

So the guy who runs this whole thing filled me in on all of the info about Pabst's reactions to this thing, and it turns out to be a weird mess of stuff that went on. Basically, it came down to them (Pabst) really enjoying both spots, and finding them both extremely funny. However, they decided that it was probably best to just run with the first ad, the bar one, as they were (obviously) nervous about the one with the kid.

The mean part of it was that the artist who did the music saw the piece and was put off by the violence and didn't want anything to do with it (even though she initially agreed). Pabst got wind of this via the guy who runs this thing, and they threatened to cancel a sponsorship deal with the record label if they didn't let us use this in our spot (the second one! with the kid!). Eventually things got smoothed out, and ultimately, I think the not using the second spot was a mix of worries about the brand's association, and the trouble with the music.

Still, it was interesting to know that the client was okay with it, for the most part. I wasn't expecting that at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top