about the author

Robblink I am a copywriter in New York City, always looking for the best ads

Comments (10)

  • aiiobo's picture

    More angels, less Dylan please. This is complete shite.

    Apr 04, 2004
  • Dabitch's picture

    Anil Dash writes in a post "it's a grim day for sexy supermodels":

    But no, the problem here is his choice of product. The company he's endorsed has, I kid you not, a trademark on the phrase "very sexy". That is to say: Very Sexy

    Apr 13, 2004
  • deeped's picture

    Anil Dash is wrong. Look at those eyes... (and yes I am a heterosexual male but Bobs eyes is sexy...)

    But I can feel as Slate: it's strange to see Dylan in a lingerie-ad. But stranger things have happen, Jesus walked on water and Bush Jr was elected president. I mean - this might be one of the things that make things worth living: the mystery of the human brain.

    Apr 14, 2004
  • Dabitch's picture

    In 1965 I would have agreed with you. No really, c'mon, it's not that Dylan has reached the Golden years, it's that the object of his attention has barely left her teens I find pretty repulsive.

    Holy moly, I'm agreeing with Bob Garfields ad review at ad age!

    That makes two of us. What a disturbing scenario. You have to do a double take to see if Dylan's got wings on, too, because he doesn't look healthy. And no wonder; the man is 173 years old. Whereas the model in the ad seems to be in her upper teens. The exchange of glances, if not actually criminal, is certainly repulsive.
    The wrongness of it all...
    But apart from the grossness, there is the wrongness of it all. Folk rockers who burst into our consciousness singing war protests should not be doing lingerie commercials in the middle of a war. It's discordant, unseemly, a betrayal. Yes, maybe the times they are a'changin', but must he throw it in our face like this?

    Apr 14, 2004
  • deeped's picture

    A pile of years ago the Swedish version of Bob did something similar to this: Ulf Lundell, the poet of the nation did a photoshoot with two young models with g-strings... well - that photo-op he have digested a lot since then...

    For me the disturbance of people is almost amusing - I mean: hey, did Bob Dylan (or Lundell for that instance) ever asked to be seen as a saint and some sort of pseudosubstitute of the "right way" to see things among baby boomers who lost their dreams and ideology into the stock-hurrah of the 80's? (now I don't mean dabitch hey I just making statements :))

    I don't find it repulsive on the level of "old man young girl" - moreover I can feel it is just the way things are: women is showing skin and the men is watching. Women is the object of a man's desire. But as an ad in a world where the ways of men still is the groundrule I think it's sort of... renewal. There's some sort of "killing the darlings" and I think Bob himself wanted to do the stab of the image perfecto.

    Apr 14, 2004
  • caffeinegoddess's picture

    I still don't get the Bob connection. It would have made more sense for them to go with someone like Tom Jones- at least his audiences used to throw their "unmentionables" at him on stage. ;)

    Apr 17, 2004
  • claymore's picture

    Here's the deal with Bob. Thanks to the bizarre combination of Dylan and VS Superultramodel, pert near every single newspaper, weekly magazine, network and cable news, entertainment and late night talk show talked about it.

    Bob was the catalyst for a bajillion dollars worth of free exposure - just thank the lingerie gods that he wasn't the one exposed.

    Apr 17, 2004
  • AnonymousCoward's picture
    AnonymousCoward (not verified)

    My thought while watching it was, "They're not even on the same soundstage, are they..?"

    Apr 18, 2004
  • TDD's picture

    I know I am really late with this, but I don't think people are grasping the symbolism in the ad. In the ad, Bob Dylan is the Devil.

    Jul 14, 2005

Leave a comment