"Artists" who do Commercials and Ads

[Bbucko]

Admit it, Bbucko. You'll buy anything endorsed by the Olsen twins.

Only the bulimic one. She's hawt.

 

[nudeyorker]

Why do you care about how someone is earning a living as long as it's legal and not hurting anyone? Everybody had bills that need to be paid at the end of the month.

 

[Flashy]

Why do you care about how someone is earning a living as long as it's legal and not hurting anyone? Everybody had bills that need to be paid at the end of the month.

well, yes, but did Leonardo Di Caprio, who makes 20-25 million per flick, really need to do this to "pay the bills"?

YouTube - Boards Of Canada - Italy Telecom Commercial

 

[nudeyorker]

well, yes, but did Leonardo Di Caprio, who makes 20-25 million per flick, really need to do this to "pay the bills"?

YouTube - Boards Of Canada - Italy Telecom Commercial

Well my point was that Brad Pitt and George Clooney do a great deal of philanthropic work. I am unaware of what Mr Di Caprio does with his money and frankly it's none of my business. As long as someone is earning money honestly than it's really no ones business but their own on how they earn it and what they spend it on.

 

[invisibleman]

Why do you care about how someone is earning a living as long as it's legal and not hurting anyone? Everybody had bills that need to be paid at the end of the month.

They do have bills to pay. And expensive mortgages. And salaries to support their managers...their production assistants...accountants...and since the real estate properties are taking a dive in the market...endorsement deals may be a means of financial support and other benefits for celebs.

I do have a problem with straight porn actors endorsing EXTENZE and the gay-for-pay actor Mario Yanko telling people that EXTENZE made him "BeeeGRRR" and his dick is average looking in those porn films he does.

 

[MarkLondon]

<snip>
Product endorsement ads (like Joan Crawford and Pepsi to pick an obvious one) trade on the celebrity's name to entice others to follow. <snip>

But didn't Joan own the company? Or inherit the vice-presidency or something like that? I'm thinking of the scene in Mommy Dearest where she tells the Pepsi-Cola board "Don't fuck with me".

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

guess some people too busy living beyond their means to even give a passing thought for the concept of moral turpitude.

 

[Bbucko]

But didn't Joan own the company? Or inherit the vice-presidency or something like that? I'm thinking of the scene in Mommy Dearest where she tells the Pepsi-Cola board "Don't fuck with me".

After Alfred Steele, her last husband, died she inherited his stock. Until then she was a paid endorser.

 

[nudeyorker]

After Alfred Steele, her last husband, died she inherited his stock. Until then she was a paid endorser.

My mother and stepfather were friends with a couple of people from the Pepsi and the Frito-Lay camp in the early 60's... Boy oh boy did they ever have stories about Joan.

 

[Flashy]

Well my point was that Brad Pitt and George Clooney do a great deal of philanthropic work. I am unaware of what Mr Di Caprio does with his money and frankly it's none of my business. As long as someone is earning money honestly than it's really no ones business but their own on how they earn it and what they spend it on.

well, they don't do *THAT* much philanthropic work. :wink:

besides...their "philanthropy", not to poo-poo the goodness of it, seems to have come mainly as the result of the getting something like 12 million bucks for the pictures of their kids combined and starting a foundation wit that money...the foundation has given out around 4 million bucks so far, so i doubt they desperately need the ad money.

i do not recall them donating too much before that, though i have no doubt they did, albeit separately.

my point is, i do not care what they do with their money either, the point is the hypocrisy and tackiness of the advertising, not the question of what they choose to do with the money after the fact.

let's face it...Jennifer Aniston doing ads in germany for Heineken and for Barclays Bank in England is not exactly for philanthropic purposes.

and Robert DeNiro for Subaru and American Express cards?
Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret?
Sting for Jaguar?

 

[Flashy]

My mother and stepfather were friends with a couple of people from the Pepsi and the Frito-Lay camp in the early 60's... Boy oh boy did they ever have stories about Joan.

NO WIRE HANGERS EVERRR!!!!

:biggrin1:

 

[nudeyorker]

OK Flash you are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine and you certainly have the option of not buying any of these products. Write a letter to the companies and say "How dare you use a popular, talented, attractive spokesman to endorse your product during these difficult economic times to help your sales!"
Everyone in the world right now whether it's you me or Coca Cola is trying to raise the bottom line.
So if you are really angry about it; buy the product of the competing company and you will show them.

 

[DiscoBoy]

well, yes, but did Leonardo Di Caprio, who makes 20-25 million per flick, really need to do this to "pay the bills"?

YouTube - Boards Of Canada - Italy Telecom Commercial

But how does that have any effect on the work he does as an artist (I am asserting a difference between film and commercial-work)? If he has a bad performance in a film, that detracts from his value as an artist. His "performance" in a commercial doesn't devalue him [as an artist] or any of his work.

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

This conversation seems to be taking place in some kind of time vacuum. This is what passed for "philosophical" debate 5 decades ago -- the idea of the artist selling out to Hollywood, selling out to consumerism, prostituting his talent.


In the end, beer commercials and Carnival Cruise commercials and Priceline commercial don't matter. The art is what matters. Who cares if the artist is hocking Toyotas or Taco Bell or Alpo on the side. Ultimately, it's the life work that matters.

There are many artists I admire: the playwright Tom Stoppard (I just read "The Coast of Utopia"), the writer Joan Didion, the English band Muse, Meryl Streep, Michael Moore, Christopher Hitchens. What do I care what they sell on the side? What matters is the art, the end product, not the occasional paycheck that helps to subsidize that art.

Michelangelo could hock flaming-hot Cheetos. I don't care as long as he keeps painting like "The Creation of Adam".


Maybe we should all worry a little more about our politicians getting into bed with healthcare insurance companies - and trying their damdest to derail reform - and worry a little less about an artist selling cheeseburgers or shampoo.

 

[Flashy]

But how does that have any effect on the work he does as an artist (I am asserting a difference between film and commercial-work)? If he has a bad performance in a film, that detracts from his value as an artist. His "performance" in a commercial doesn't devalue him [as an artist] or any of his work.

it does not change the quality of the work as such, but it does devalue his dedication to the purity of his artistic work and also to his reputation.

if you put the same talent to work selling a telecom company product, it is far less pure when you do it in a film.

if Picasso had decided to start doing paintings for Spanish Communication Company Ads, Spanish Airline Ads etc, it would in fact devalue his artistic achievements.

allegedly, art is about creating art with your talent for that art...a true actor acts for emotions, not to sell long distance plans.

if someone chooses to "dial it in" (pun intended) with their artistic talent to promote a phone company, which they do not even use (how often is Dicaprio in Italy, using this particular service?) it does devalue them in a way, no matter how small.

if that talent is being used to sell you a phone plan, is it really fully real enough to suspend disbelief in the cinema?

Daniel Day Lewis and Russell Crowe do not do ads...they also bring a very genuine quality to the screen because of that, however small a difference.

i can walk in to a movie and suspend disbelief with Daniel Day Lewis...but not with George Clooney, or Leonardo DiCaprio. that does not mean i might not find a Clooney film enjoyable (Michael Clayton was excellent) but there is always a problem for me in watching an "actor" who takes selling coffee to me, on the same level as selling me on an emotional performance.

JMO

 

[Flashy]

This conversation seems to be taking place in some kind of time vacuum. This is what passed for "philosophical" debate 5 decades ago -- the idea of the artist selling out to Hollywood, selling out to consumerism, prostituting his talent.


In the end, beer commercials and Carnival Cruise commercials and Priceline commercial don't matter. The art is what matters. Who cares if the artist is hocking Toyotas or Taco Bell or Alpo on the side. Ultimately, it's the life work that matters.

There are many artists I admire: the playwright Tom Stoppard (I just read "The Coast of Utopia"), the writer Joan Didion, the English band Muse, Meryl Streep, Michael Moore, Christopher Hitchens. What do I care what they sell on the side? What matters is the art, the end product, not the occasional paycheck that helps to subsidize that art.

Michelangelo could hock flaming-hot Cheetos. I don't care as long as he keeps painting like "The Creation of Adam".


Maybe we should all worry a little more about our politicians getting into bed with healthcare insurance companies - and trying their damdest to derail reform - and worry a little less about an artist selling cheeseburgers or shampoo.

what about those artists that actively promote insurance companies in ads? what about those artists promoting companies who pollute the globe, or exploit poor people in the 3rd world?

maybe you should relax.

this has nothing to do with a philosophical debate, smarty pants. this is simply an opinion. if you are going to get so hysterical about it, and try to turn it into some type of a political debate, maybe you should run along back to the politicas forum, eh?

or why don't you run along into the "80s songs with sex as a theme" and demand that people stop talking about 80s sex songs, and focus on the importance of campaign finance reform?

or how about to the "American actors playing Shakespeare" thread, and demand a full freeze to the discussion of that important topic, in order to focus more on regulatory issues with regards to human trafficking?

this is the *ETC* forum...go back to the politics forum if you wish to whine about that.

 

[Flashy]

OK Flash you are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine and you certainly have the option of not buying any of these products. Write a letter to the companies and say "How dare you use a popular, talented, attractive spokesman to endorse your product during these difficult economic times to help your sales!"
Everyone in the world right now whether it's you me or Coca Cola is trying to raise the bottom line.
So if you are really angry about it; buy the product of the competing company and you will show them.

on the contrary...my problem is not with the companies at all. Nor would i write a letter to them about it.

i am simply speaking about the annoyance i have with these "artists" who *CHOOSE* to do this. they are entitled to say no to an offer made by a company to endorse their product.

in fact, the vast majority of companies do not use celebrities in ads.

and i deliberately do not buy products who produce commercials that annoy me, either because i hate the commercials, don't like the product, or really dislike the person they get to use in their commercials.

as for raising the "bottom line" most of the best ad campaigns do not use celebrities at all.

a funny kid, a cute animal, some actually intelligent commercials are all more likely to get my attention then an actor or musician.

Led Zeppelin is my favorite band of all time...i have dozens of bootlegs etc...but i am not going to buy a cadillac just because GM bought the right to play "Rock n Roll" in their commercial.

instead, i will buy a lexus hybrid truck, and listen to "Rock n Roll" in my new Lexus.

 

[Bbucko]

Maybe we should all worry a little more about our politicians getting into bed with healthcare insurance companies - and trying their damdest to derail reform - and worry a little less about an artist selling cheeseburgers or shampoo.

Actually, WT, you've been missed in the Politics forum lately and there's a bumper crop of crazy just waiting for your steady hand :wink:

 

[B_Nick8]

the idea of the artist selling out to Hollywood, selling out to consumerism, prostituting his talent.
.

I hear what you're saying Will, and I understand Nudey's point as well. I think what I object to most is the whiff of hypocrisy here. It strikes me that these stars would be hawking their beers and shampoos domestically--and, undoubtedly being extremely well compensated for it--if they weren't somehow ashamed of it and/or deliberately trying to preserve, create or distort an image. It explains restricting such efforts to markets we are unlikely to hear about much less see.

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

Bbucko & Nick8, my friends:

I'm on west coast time, so still anxiously waiting for "Dancing with the Stars" to come on...

Does a "political artist" like Tom DeLay qualify as selling out by dancing in a commercial mainstream entertainment? Does Flashy hope that DeLay doesn't make a Pepsi or an El Pollo Loco commercial?


Actually, I just wanted to inject politics again in the "ETC" forum, because it drives Flashy wild.

(p.s. I can't believe Trinity is still pushing her "Obama / not a valid birth certificate" agenda after this idea being completely debunked for months by just about everybody. Oh, well... plus ça change, plus c'est pareil)