Jaguar XF “Too Much of a Good Thing” Ad

This commercial starts out by saying: “There are those who think… (blah, blah.)” Let’s just stop right there. Those: really? What’s so great about those? These are better than those! After all, these are over here; those are all the way over there! And I don’t feel like going over there, so forget those! Besides, who cares what those think anyway? Those losers!

But let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that we did care what those thought or had to say, okay? (I mean, just as an intellectual exercise.) So apparently those buzzkills claim all the super-awesome-osity of this Jaguar is “too much of a good thing”. Oh, so we’re all just supposed to drive around in crap that sucks all the time, just because those said so? See, those are just a bunch of jerks who are trying to make life miserable for everyone, and we should always discount what those people think and say! (See? I told you so.)

Oh, but then apparently Jaguar thinks/believes something just as asinine: that “too much of a good thing is a very good thing.” Oh, so Jaguar is hogging all the good things for their cars, huh? No wonder so many cars are so lame: Jaguar is hoarding all the good things, and they’re overloading all of their cars with these great things so that only rich people can have them! And they will not even allow any other cars to have any good things, either! Well, I never! What a nerve, let me tell you! Why, they ought to be forced by the government to share some of those excessive good things with other, less fortunate cars so all vehicles are more equal. Doesn’t our Constitution say all cars are created equal? (It’s something like that, I think.) So then it’s unconstitutional for Jaguars to be such a miser of “good things”.

Or, wait a minute: Could “good thing” be a reference to illegal drugs here? Another sports car brand was (allegedly) associated with drug trafficking in the past (DeLorean), so is it possible that this ad is suggesting that…? Nah, they probably just mean they refuse to share good things with anyone else (unless they buy their cars). Greedy misers!

Oh, but even more ominous and potentially menacing is the last bit of announcer copy at the end of this ad: The announcer says: “Let your Jaguar retailer make a good thing come alive for you.” (!!!) So, they’re trying to bring this “good thing” to life, like Dr. Frankenstein, huh? Well then it’s no wonder they’ve been trying to brainwash us all by bombarding us with the idea that this is a “good thing” here! They’re just trying to make it so that we’ll support their unholy attempts to “play God”! Well, I’m not buying it, man! I remember only too well when that monster car they brought to life broke loose the last time, and other innocent cars were crushed under its brutal and uncaring tractor tires! And I’ll not stand for that again, let me tell you! (Car manufacturers are not meant to interfere in God’s domain! They’re meddling in things car makers were meant to leave alone! {This is a staple of 1930s horror movies, by the way: they almost always had their protagonist scientists say something like: “I meddled in things man must leave alone”, etc. For evidence of this, see the end of The Invisible Man, 1933.*} Oh, the horror of it all!)

Here’s the ad with too much of a good thing (It’s positively reprehensible how excessive they are with good things here! Shocking!):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6tshyEpnR0

* And here’s the end of The Invisible Man (The statement is at 7:53, near the very end.):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdBuJMAtEFI

The Kraken Spiced Rum Giant Octopus Sea Monster Ad

Isn’t it just the strangest coincidence that there would be another spiced rum with a nautical theme, after the tremendous success of Captain Morgan’s? But to be fair, their wonderful ad slogan of “Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum”, launched as it was years and years before the actual launch of the brand Captain Morgan, just to build up interest and anticipation for a pirate-themed rum beverage, was a fantastically successful “teaser” ad years before it became so ubiquitous. So the Captain Morgan’s ad agency really knew this pirate thing would catch on eventually, so they planned ahead: and it really worked well! And this was the origin of the “teaser” ad, as we all know.

Okay, so that’s just silly, but this ad and this campaign is really fun! I love the use of the black & white cross-hatched etching look to the animated imagery. But when they say the people who believe in a Kraken are never seen again, does this mean that they drink too much of it by themselves at home and become alcoholic hermits and die alone? It could be read in that way, you know. Or do they simply mean that anyone who refers to the consumption of alcoholic beverages as “monstrous” will be eradicated? It might mean that as well. But it seems kind of threatening, doesn’t it? (Unless what it really does is make you invisible? Then you could be a superhero or a spy! {But they might be able to detect you if you drink too much rum and they can smell your breath.})

Or am I misreading this spot by focusing too heavily on the language they’re using? Perhaps what they’re really going for here is the idea of the Kraken stopping and smashing ships that are engaged in drunk sailing, suggesting that we shouldn’t drive drunk unless we want to be gobbled up by a sea monster. (Hey: It could happen! I heard it happens to lots of people near the beach and stuff when they drink and drive. In fact, it is a little-known fact that the push against drunk driving has also saved lives when it prevented drivers from being attacked and consumed by the Kraken, because it can smell the rum on people’s breath. It’s true, but the government will deny it, as usual!)

What they ought to do is say that the Kraken seems all scary and stuff, but that it’s really a misunderstood “party beast”! And then they could show it at a bar in a house party as a bartender, making drinks for everyone! And to help remind people about not drinking and driving, when some buzzed partygoer tries to leave the party intending to drive home, the Kraken could take his car keys away from across the room by reaching out with one of its tentacles (while still mixing drinks, etc.)! Now wouldn’t that be a more fun way of communicating that message than we usually get in ads?

Here’s the ship-smashing sea serpent spot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyO00wEfb_w

And here’s a clip-art picture of an octopus bartender, just to give you a rough idea of what this might looks like:

http://clipart.coolclips.com/300/wjm/tf05068/CoolClips_cart1496.jpg

A Sea of Legs

In Germany’s trouncing of Greece in the Euro 2012 quarterfinal today, one of the announcers referred to one play as being “a sea of legs”. It didn’t strike me the same way, but that mental image has stuck with me anyway. I don’t think it would be easy to sail on a sea of legs, would it? But I imagine a motor boat could manage fine on a sea of legs, especially if it has a really strong engine and a big propeller. It might be kinda messy, though. I imagine that announcer guy probably does that kind of thing all the time for his recreational activity, huh? That’s probably what made him say that.

ESPN Credits German Goal to Greece in Euro 2012 Quarterfinal TV Coverage

At halftime in the Euro 2012 quarterfinal on Friday, ESPN’s television coverage showed the game highlights, after which they showed a score line of Germany: 0, Greece: 1. Is there a Eurozone soccer bailout too, and ESPN is in charge of its disbursement? And this after one of their announcers/analysts in the first half said that Philipp Lahm had scored a goal in the semifinal against Turkey two years ago. Um, two years ago it was the World Cup, and Germany lost to Spain by a score of 1-0, so no German scored any goals that day. In reality, it was four years ago that Germany played against Turkey in the semifinals like the guy meant to say, and that’s when Lahm scored that goal he mentioned.

But it’s ESPN after all: what do they know about sports anyway? Maybe I shouldn’t be so exacting in my factual standards when it comes to sports stuff on ESPN.

But Greece just scored,* so maybe they had a precognitive flash about the Greek goal, and that made them forget about the German goal from before. That happens to me all the time.

* Early in the second half (in the 55th minute).

Cristiano Ronaldo’s Euro 2012 Hair

Cristiano Ronaldo is beginning to wake up in this tournament and score important goals, moving his team forward in the Euro 2012. (Could they end up winning the whole thing?) But even with his brilliant goal against the Czech Republic on Thursday, the Euro highlights show analysis still couldn't help but remark on his hair not having one strand out of place for the post-match interview. And this is simply because he appears to use an entire bottle of hair gel on his hair every day, despite the fact that he has a faux-hawk of sorts that is extremely short everywhere except for the top (which is still not very long at only like two to three inches at most, I'd say). I guess he thinks it looks good to have plastic-looking hair, or perhaps he’s going for that plastic-looking black shellacked/lacquered hair of his namesake, President Ronald Reagan (He’s apparently named Ronaldo after Ronald Reagan: Yes, really.), like Devo did with their literal plastic Reaganesque hair in the 1980s. But with this much product in his hair during games, when he heads the ball, I keep expecting the ball to stick to his hair. Then he might get people kicking him in the head and about the face, and that might not be so good for his male-model magazine looks. Or else, maybe when the ball strikes his crunchy hair, it might crack and snap off of his head like just so much black shoe-polished pork rind, and then it would look even sillier than it does now. So maybe he should cut back on the hair products just a bit; you know, just for the games and all.

Here’s Devo with their plastic Cristiano Ronaldo hair; um, I mean, Ronald Reagan hair:

http://covers.a-go.in/max/devo_-_1981_new_traditionalists.jpg

http://www.phawker.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/devo23306_wideweb__470x3470.jpg

(BTW: I’m only joking here, so no offense, I hope. I am a big fan of Ronaldo, but this plastic-looking hair is quite a hoot. I remember hair gel from high school, and he must use a lot.)

Obama's Age Discrimination Policy?

Every time the Republicans want to reform Medicare, or Social Security, or anything like that, all the Democrats and their pundits say Republicans hate old people and want to kill them, etc. And now President Obama has finally gifted Republicans with the perfect opportunity to do the same thing back to a Democrat: He's given an executive order which gives benefits for illegal immigrants that meet specific criteria, so long as they are 30 years-old or younger. So what, does President Obama hate old people? Oh, my God, he does! He must, to do this! I knew it! He is no different than the Republicans, just like Nader said!

So basically, President Obama's new policy says it's fine to discriminate against foreigners in the country illegally, so long as they're elderly. Why, it's simply shocking! This is as clear a case of age-discrimination as I've ever seen! Oh, for shame! (<This is what Republican pundits could say on the news and so forth. Unless they've already beaten me to this, and they're already doing it. If they're not already beating this point to death, they should fire their strategists and hire me, because I can think up more bogus smears than anyone they've currently got. But I'd only agree to do this for them if I was allowed to do it for the Democrats too. After all, fair is fair, and there's plenty of false outrage out there to generate, so it would be a waste not to proliferate as much as possible; and in this economy, we can't afford to waste anything, especially false outrage, bogus smears, and red-faced pundits on TV!)

(I'm kidding. But wouldn't it be fun to see the Republicans use the same smear back? They're beginning to take pages out of the Democratic playbook, so why not this too?)

Ice Cream Politics

Ben & Jerry's is an ice cream company that as we all know tends to champion and propagandize for liberal causes. I think this is nice, as it's a welcome change from the usual bit of corporations siding with Republicans to crush the little guy underfoot, etc. But is this really in their self-interest to do so? Let's take a look:

Ben & Jerry's, as liberal-leaning ideology subscribers, must then support a woman's right to choose (full disclosure: So do I!); and it follows then that this political leaning might tend to lose them business, right? I mean, children are the largest market for ice cream, right? And so by supporting a woman's right to choose, aren't they ensuring a lower number of children coming into existence, and hence cutting into their bottom line? Oh, but then I suppose women (and liberal men; or men who support a woman's right to choose, anyway) will buy and eat extra ice cream from them to make up for this difference, just as a way of saying: "Thank you!" (Oh but then this would make them all fat, reducing their chances of mating, and further reducing the birth rate, hurting Ben & Jerry's bottom line! {While at the same time hurting its customers' bottom lines, as well; and their waist lines, and their stomach lines, etc.} Unless... What if Ben & Jerry's is doing this on purpose to cause and accelerate the obesity epidemic? A-Ha! That's it, isn't it? Those fiends! I knew it all the time!)

But wouldn't it make more sense for an ice cream company to be conservative, and oppose abortion? That way, lots more children would be born, increasing their market. Plus, many of these children would be unhappy, causing them to eat, and perhaps even be rewarded with, more ice cream per-capita, as comfort food. So then it becomes clear that it makes little to no sense for an ice cream company to support the pro-choice agenda. And maybe, just to save Ben & Jerry's bottom line, conservatives can find a way to power-abuse their way into banning ice cream companies from supporting social or political causes, if they're liberal ones, anyway. (I mean, just for their own protection, you understand. Oh, and for the children's well-being: it's always for the children, you see!)