BS Thread

[nuraman00]

Both true. The commercial is shot in a different place, but I just was saying that I wouldn't assume it was fake. They could have just shot in a different place. I heard a rumor that the Jazz Bear person was a woman, but I doubt it, not because women can't do that, but because people make shit up sometimes. Jumping into splits may be easier and less painful than for men, I suppose.

The Wikipedia page specifically mentions pyrotechnics that he's famous for). Jazz Bear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The cite obviously makes stuff up as if he were a real bear. And no, Nuraman, he's not a real bear.

Here's the Cleveland Cavaliers' video referred to in the link. (It's an obvious set-up fake fan, but was a memorable thing to see on youtube (wasn't at that game).

The Jazz Bear wiki page is funny. And more detailed than the Kings Slamson wiki.

Jazz Bear > Slamson, again!

Slamson the Lion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MHSL82]

Autotrader.com has two sets of commercials.

One in which a male looks up cars. At the end, it says "when you find the right car, you'll know it in your heart". It them zooms out from his chest. During the commercials, cars were being "filtered" through his veins and arteries.

The other commercial has a female looking up cars. At the end, it says "when you find the right car, there won't be any doubt in your mind." It then zooms out from her forehead.

Why did they choose heart for male, and mind for female? Why not just use the same for both?

Is there any underlying gender stereotyping? Is the woman being stereotyped for her mind/emotions?

Is it because they didn't want to zoom out from a woman's chest?

The bold is what I thought when you asked why. I would have liked the chest better, though for that there could be better actresses. Plus, call me a cynic, but choosing the woman's mind instead of the man was lip service to women. It was a PR thing because they want to suggest that a woman has a brain. Haha. Just kidding about that last part, but if they had shown both commercials back-to-back, the Jazz would have lost. I mean, if they showed both of them and the man had the brain and the woman had the heart, it'd be seen as old-fashioned stereotype negative to women.

But, men do hold their cars closer to their hearts than women do. So it's not fair to be entirely cynical, it makes sense. The heart is where emotion is, not the brain. Men love their cars, but I think a better car could be shown for that, but what do I know? Wait, don't answer that.

 

[MHSL82]

 

[nuraman00]

The bold is what I thought when you asked why. I would have liked the chest better, though for that there could be better actresses. Plus, call me a cynic, but choosing the woman's mind instead of the man was lip service to women. It was a PR thing because they want to suggest that a woman has a brain. Haha. Just kidding about that last part, but if they had shown both commercials back-to-back, the Jazz would have lost. I mean, if they showed both of them and the man had the brain and the woman had the heart, it'd be seen as old-fashioned stereotype negative to women.

But, men do hold their cars closer to their hearts than women do. So it's not fair to be entirely cynical, it makes sense. The heart is where emotion is, not the brain. Men love their cars, but I think a better car could be shown for that, but what do I know? Wait, don't answer that.

Yes, a better / bustier actress would be nice. However, they could have always worked around any uncomfortableness there may be from zooming out from a woman's chest, by having her wear clothing that reveals zero cleavage, such as a sweater. Then it would be the same as zooming out from the male's chest, you're just looking at clothes.

Also, there have been other times in movies where things are so zoomed in that you can't even tell what's what. For example, I seem to remember a spider on a woman's breast while she was showering in Arachnophobia. But it was zoomed in so close, that I didn't really know what I was looking at. I haven't seen that movie since the early 90s, and I was watching it with cousins so it's not like I could have used a slo-mo feature or a pause button.

I also remember the movie Carrie, in which she gets period while showering. But again, I remember everything being zoomed in so close.

(I went through a Stanley Kubrick phase in college so my freshmen year, I watched The Shining; Carrie; Full Metal Jacket; A Clockwork Orange.

Oops, I now see Carrie was directed by someone else. Maybe it was a dual Stanley Kubrick AND Stephen King phase, so anything by either of them.

I still haven't seen Space Odyssey 2001).

 

[MHSL82]

Yes, a better / bustier actress would be nice. However, they could have always worked around any uncomfortableness there may be from zooming out from a woman's chest, by having her wear clothing that reveals zero cleavage, such as a sweater. Then it would be the same as zooming out from the male's chest, you're just looking at clothes.

Also, there have been other times in movies where things are so zoomed in that you can't even tell what's what. For example, I seem to remember a spider on a woman's breast while she was showering in Arachnophobia. But it was zoomed in so close, that I didn't really know what I was looking at. I haven't seen that movie since the early 90s, and I was watching it with cousins so it's not like I could have used a slo-mo feature or a pause button.

I also remember the movie Carrie, in which she gets period while showering. But again, I remember everything being zoomed in so close.

(I went through a Stanley Kubrick phase in college so my freshmen year, I watched The Shining; Carrie; Full Metal Jacket; A Clockwork Orange.

Oops, I now see Carrie was directed by someone else. Maybe it was a dual Stanley Kubrick AND Stephen King phase, so anything by either of them.

I still haven't seen Space Odyssey 2001).

Comparing a movie's use of the zoom out and this commercial, to me, are different things because they are written, directed, shot, and acted by different people - so no contradiction in use. And then, everyone knows in this commercial where they are zooming out of, and some of the movies you cited, I knew when I first saw it, but I wasn't like, "booooobies!!!"

What fun is zooming out of a woman's chest if you can't see cleavage? I'd rather them zoom out of a woman's pinky, than a covered chest. The whole reason why I watch car commercials, or commercials in general, is to see cleavage. Otherwise, I just fast forward.

I've seen other message boards use blue for sarcasm. I used it here because I'm not actually a pervert, I just play one on TV, I mean, on message boards.

 

[nuraman00]

Comparing a movie's use of the zoom out and this commercial, to me, are different things because they are written, directed, shot, and acted by different people - so no contradiction in use. And then, everyone knows in this commercial where they are zooming out of, and some of the movies you cited, I knew when I first saw it, but I wasn't like, "booooobies!!!"

What fun is zooming out of a woman's chest if you can't see cleavage? I'd rather them zoom out of a woman's pinky, than a covered chest. The whole reason why I watch car commercials, or commercials in general, is to see cleavage. Otherwise, I just fast forward.

I've seen other message boards use blue for sarcasm. I used it here because I'm not actually a pervert, I just play one on TV, I mean, on message boards.

LOL.

It's not about having fun, it's about treating males and females the same in commercials where you zoom out of internal organs.

And, perhaps by zooming out of a covered chest, they would be making a statement that it's ok to film such a public, accessible to all, commercial. And that there's nothing wrong with it.

Actually, in this commercial, I had no idea what they were zooming out of, for the male, or female. I didn't even notice the red thing was supposed to be a heart, or the blue, the mind, the first 100 times I saw this commercial. I just thought it was some weird CG thing that a director chose. I think I thought it was just some weird representation of a futuristic tunnel with filters. (Which made sense to me, since cars go through tunnels.) I thought it was more of an abstract concept, of filters.

Also, I wasn't paying that close attention to the voice-over, when I initially saw this commercial for the first X times, so I didn't pay attention to the "heart/mind" part. I just knew that this commercial would be played incessantly on TNT or on LP Broadband, so I better start tuning it out so it doesn't annoy me.

 

[MHSL82]

LOL, we really are talking about BS here. Just kidding, I think it's talking about an angle I didn't think about, so I appreciate it.

 

[MHSL82]

 

[MHSL82]

The World Famous Popovich Comedy Pet Theater

Check it out - it's hosted by "Gregory Popovich."

 

[MHSL82]

 

[nuraman00]

I don't like the Griffin commercials as much because he's not wearing Clippers gear, just some generic warmups. Which has his own logo, I believe.

They're still funny, but it is a peeve of mine.

I like the Cliff Paul State Farm one, because it shows him in Clippers gear.


I similarly liked the Grant Hill Sprite commercials, or the Hardaway Nike commercials, because they wore officially licensed NBA gear.

[YOUTUBE]OqEjnUkbB-Y[/YOUTUBE]


The new Adidas commercials that feature Rubio and Howard, they did it 1/2 way. Rubio/Love are wearing gear from their respective teams, but the players they are practicing against are wearing generic warmups, and they aren't even real NBA players.

Who cares if Rubio passes to someone who dunks on a D-League reject?

I think I would be ok if the players he passed to wore officially licensed gear. I can understand them not using real NBA players, because real NBA players would probably not want to be on the receiving end of a highlight in a commercial.

 

[MHSL82]

I don't like the Griffin commercials as much because he's not wearing Clippers gear, just some generic warmups. Which has his own logo, I believe.

They're still funny, but it is a peeve of mine.

I like the Cliff Paul State Farm one, because it shows him in Clippers gear.

I similarly liked the Grant Hill Sprite commercials, or the Hardaway Nike commercials, because they wore officially licensed NBA gear.

The new Adidas commercials that feature Rubio and Howard, they did it 1/2 way. Rubio/Love are wearing gear from their respective teams, but the players they are practicing against are wearing generic warmups, and they aren't even real NBA players.

Who cares if Rubio passes to someone who dunks on a D-League reject?

I think I would be ok if the players he passed to wore officially licensed gear. I can understand them not using real NBA players, because real NBA players would probably not want to be on the receiving end of a highlight in a commercial.

You're so NBA. You want real licensed gear. I guess, I'm different. I don't notice those things, but I may notice other obscure things. They don't want to pay more licensing fees or more superstars, and they assume that those who are taken aback by this are the minority. You factor these situations into real life to feel if the commercial seems real or should impress you.

I miss the Hill and Hardaway commercials, for different reasons (not jerseys).

Aside: Oh, and dunking, once you've done it, doesn't impress me - though I agree it's less impressive to dunk over a scrub (I say that affectionately because I'm worse than a scrub basketball wise). Wow, a tall guy can throw a ball really hard into a basket! How you got to the dunk is impressive to me, whether that be full-court hustle for a perfectly thrown full court pass by Stockton, or running through someone not set, or being so quick that you get around moving objects - not how hard you dunk it. Distance of the jump, angles, and height can impress, but honestly, it's so watered down for me because I see dunks on Sports Center that are solo, alone dunks that are just force. I don't care! I know others do, so I understand.

 

[nuraman00]

The Gallinari clip was impressive in how he got it, right?



Part of the reason I want licensed gear, is because for the Clippers specifically, it's about brand recognition and marketing. Right now, they don't have a well-known or well-liked brand.

They finally have a good team, and a few stars, therefore it should be marketed. The State Farm commercial does that.

If this was for a player on a well-known team like the Knicks or 76ers or even Jazz, I wouldn't mind the omission as much.

But for a team that has had little success in NBA history, it's about sending a positive message about your brand, and making sure you relate the player to the organization. It's about brand awareness.

 

[nuraman00]

I did also like the Hill and Hardaway commercials because they were clever too. But looking back at it, they were also smart in promoting their respective teams' brands.

Detroit hadn't been good for a while, so it was good to put them in a positive light.

And Orlando was still a relatively young team, so it was good to get their name out there too. Not just Hardaway, but Hardaway AND Orlando Magic tied together.

 

[MHSL82]

Part of the reason I want licensed gear, is because for the Clippers specifically, it's about brand recognition and marketing. Right now, they don't have a well-known or well-liked brand.

They finally have a good team, and a few stars, therefore it should be marketed. The State Farm commercial does that.

If this was for a player on a well-known team like the Knicks or 76ers or even Jazz, I wouldn't mind the omission as much.

But for a team that has had little success in NBA history, it's about sending a positive message about your brand, and making sure you relate the player to the organization. It's about brand awareness.

You're one of the first I've heard say that the Jazz are famous, or at least their players. Being a big fan, you appreciate them, but the general public knows the Lakers, Knicks, Celtics, now Miami, Chicago, etc. The educated know San Antonio, Utah, Clippers this year, Golden State every few years sneak in, etc. Not that the first list don't deserve basketball attention or anything.

 

[nuraman00]

You're one of the first I've heard say that the Jazz are famous, or at least their players. Being a big fan, you appreciate them, but the general public knows the Lakers, Knicks, Celtics, now Miami, Chicago, etc. The educated know San Antonio, Utah, Clippers this year, Golden State every few years sneak in, etc. Not that the first list don't deserve basketball attention or anything.

The Jazz are the main opponent in a movie. If they've used in Hollywood like that, then they have a well-known brand.

Celtic Pride - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[nuraman00]

Plus, I've brought this up before, but Portland, Denver, and Utah are well known to have some of the best homecourts, over decades. That helps their brands.

And that bald Jazz fan from the 90s, that would wear the license plate around his neck, "Jazz Fan", was famous.

 

[nuraman00]

Why is it that "Son" is used as a proper noun to affectionately refer to a young male, but not "Daughter"?

And the person referring to the young male doesn't even have to be his father, grandfather, or other male relative. It can be a mall Santa. It can be a teacher. It can be in any situation in which an older male is giving advice to a younger male. I think the speaker is always an older male, but perhaps it can come from an older female to a younger male too.

 

[MHSL82]

Why is it that "Son" is used as a proper noun to affectionately refer to a young male, but not "Daughter"?

And the person referring to the young male doesn't even have to be his father, grandfather, or other male relative. It can be a mall Santa. It can be a teacher. It can be in any situation in which an older male is giving advice to a younger male. I think the speaker is always an older male, but perhaps it can come from an older female to a younger male too.

Daughter is two-syllables, son is one. :P Feminism. Women talk differently than men do, as I do not hear women say, "son" often. I don't hear them say daughter, unless it's theirs. For what it's worth, I don't use that term, son.

 

[nuraman00]

Daughter is two-syllables, son is one. :P Feminism. Women talk differently than men do, as I do not hear women say, "son" often. I don't hear them say daughter, unless it's theirs. For what it's worth, I don't use that term, son.

Interesting, I never thought of laziness / shortness as a reason.

I suppose it's the same reason why some people give others a short nickname of the subject's real name.

On the show "Beverly Hills, 90210", the characters used to refer to each other often by just the first letter of their real name.

For example, Brandon referred to Dylan as "D". Steve referred to Brandon as "B".

Steve was just Steve, and David was just David.