Completely a random thought, but I have to share...



What if the ad creatives who worked on these are so arrogant that they assumed most regular people would never have viewed anything as *high-brow* as the source material?



I know an awful lot of things are assumed about the average cultural and intelligence level of target audiences, without considering who might see it who is NOT the target.



kidsleepy - My question is whether your every day people type of friends are really the type to eat BK burgers?

I*m with Jasonmccants.



*plops down in sofa next to him, shares popcorn*

I*m convinced that there has not been an original idea in our industry since about 1994...

You raise a valid point, Kidsleepy. I certainly agree with you about Burger King*s "Office" and Travelocity*s "Wandering Gnome" campaigns being blatant ripoffs without any reference to the source material. Theft is theft - whether you*re stealing ideas from a movie, a TV show or another ad campaign.



I*m less troubled by "Dr. Angus," although I*m not sure why. Maybe it*s because more people are likely to have seen "Magnolia" than "The Office" or "Amelie" and thus view the commercial as a parody rather than a shameless copy. (Although it*s not like "Magnolia" was a "Titanic"-size blockbuster.)



The thing that bothers me about "Dr. Angus" - as with most of the new Burger King work - is that it*s entertaining without being persuasive. The commercials are well acted and directed and they are light years ahead of McDonald*s cringe-inducing "I*m Lovin* It" campaign. But they don*t make the food seem very appetizing (which, granted, is a tall order). Even as cool as the "Subservient Chicken" was, everytime I*d think of ordering a chicken sandwich from BK, I*d think of a seven-foot tall ugly chicken wearing garters. Not exactly the most appetizing image.

was in a room watching the angus spot with people who aren*t directly involved with avertising in any way shape or form.



their initial reaction to the angus ad was one of total and complete outrage. like the equivalent of the pmrc in the 80*s when al gore*s wife wanted to tell us what we could and couldn*t listen to-- in this case, my friends* collective outrage was based in the fact that he movie they so loved as reduced to a parody to sell a burger. in other words, the means in their minds, did not justify the end. not by a long shot.



this led to this discussion about mickinney silver*s rip-off of the amelie/urban legend of the garden gnome.



juxtapose this with and now crispin*s blatant second rip-off, (the first being their "the office" homage) including the endline "respect the beef" of magnolia.



the philosophical question raised is-- is this the new borrowed interest? inthe new generation takes and entire show, usually three years old, and copies it as an ad.



to the people watching-- the target-- this was as unacceptable and unbelievable as yogi berra hawking aflac.



remmeber-- the people raising these isses were not ad folks but every day people-- the you know, target. remember them? and they felt this way.



thoughts?



confused