Link

The ad features two comically stupid, archetypal straight men in a workshop. As one eats a Snickers bar, the other starts eating the other end, as in the 'spaghetti scene' in Disney's 'Lady and the Tramp'.

They inadvertently wind up kissing, albeit very briefly. Horrified at this seemingly horrific turn of events, the two idiots attempt to erase the incident by 'doing something manly'. They chose to rip hair from their chests to re-establish their masculinity.

I saw that ad, it's funny. The "alternate" endings with violence, however, are not. I hope they don't nuke the funny one as well as the alternate ones. It made fun of homophobes, not gay people, in my opinion.

Dennis

Quote from: Dennis on February 06, 2007, 09:16:55 AM
It made fun of homophobes, not gay people, in my opinion.

I took it that way too, BUT... I bet homophobic people see it differently. They probably see it as validating their fears.

Kate

That's ridiculous.  That was one funny commercial!  I agree, it made fun of homophobes, and that's about it.  It was just a good laugh.  PHTTTTTTT!  Some people! 

Kristi

So they are trying to sell you their product by saying that it really satisfies and will lead to unintentional homoerotic encounters?

Not sure how that will work for them in this overly religious country.

  Just watched and I admit I laughed....it was funny. 

  If anything, in my opinion, the commercial would incense the 'anti-gay' crowd.  My first thought was "I wonder how many conservative religious viewers just picked up thier phone to start another hate campaign?"

  I suppose it depends on your particular state of mind when viewing this as to the lasting result.  I can see, as I mentioned, the religious right having a fit because two men kissed on TV.  I can also see gay activists being upset because it depicts homophobia regardless of the comedy aspect.

  I just saw it as funny...not demeaning or pushing an agenda...just funny.  I've not seen the any of the "violent" endings to the commercial that Dennis mentioned but I will agree already that's the wrong image to portray.

I personally thought it absurd.... but that's what comedy is.  I did not find it offensive.  I am very surprised that they were forced in pulling down the ad.  I really didn't see anything all that wrong about it.  I too thought that it made fun of the homophobic.

Cindi

I think the offense came more from the comments from professional baseball players who saw the ad. The primary issue wasn't the ad seen on tv. The first link below gives a great overview of the issue from the persepective of a gay male. As a part of the GLBT community we have to support the gay rights groups on this.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/snickers-superbowl-web-site-promotes.html
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/mars-family-owner-of-anti-gay-snickers.html
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/largest-gay-rights-group-slams-mars.html
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/snickers-pulls-anti-gay-superbowl-ad.html
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/i-just-got-call-from-snickers-parent.html
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/snickers-statement-on-their-homophobic.html

Quote from: Susan on February 06, 2007, 07:33:22 PM
As a part of the GLBT community we have to support the gay rights groups on this.

We are we not allowed to disagree with them?
Kristi

Quote from: Kristi on February 06, 2007, 07:46:05 PM

Quote from: Susan on February 06, 2007, 07:33:22 PM
As a part of the GLBT community we have to support the gay rights groups on this.

We are we not allowed to disagree with them?

Sure you can disagree, but it weakens the GLBT community, and makes it less likely they would be inclined to reject a deal giving the gay community things they want, simply because the transgender community was left out. There are costs and benefits to most things in life. From the gay communities point of view the ads and especially the reactions were homophobic, that's more than enough for me.

Read the articles I linked to in that post, see if you still disagree with them...

Quote from: Susan on February 06, 2007, 07:51:46 PM
Sure you can disagree, but it weakens the GLBT community, and makes it less likely they would be inclined to reject a deal giving the gay community things they want, simply because the transgender community was left out. There are costs and benefits to most things in life. From the gay communities point of view the ads and especially the reactions were homophobic, that's more than enough for me.

Well I guess that does make sense.  But it seems to me everyone should just take a chill pill here.  If they don't like the ad, then raising a big stink is also going to have the opposite effect of what they intend.  It will be great advertising for Snickers.

There is an ad (I think it's Kit Kat Bars) where the guy is caught holding up women's underwear while visiting his girlfriend.  It is funny.  But of course I see it through different eyes and it means something different to me than it would to most people.  I do not want the trans community to demand that it be pulled.  If we take ourselves so seriously that can't sometimes have a sense of humor about things that are funny, then this is a miserable life indeed.

Peace Please!

Kristi

From http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/snickers-superbowl-web-site-promotes.html...

Quote
Snickers Superbowl Web site promotes violence against gays and lesbians. Bears & Colts players react in disgust, on camera, to gays.
by John in DC - 2/05/2007 12:37:00 PM

If you thought the Snickers ad during last night's Superbowl was somewhat homophobic, you ain't seen nothin' yet. My good friend Andy Towle alerted me this morning to the fact that the Snickers' Web site outright endorses violence against gays.

A bit of background. The ad in question showed a mechanic eating a Snickers bar. Hi co-mechanic is so desirous of the Snickers that he starts eating it from the other end of the same bar that's already in the other guy's mouth. The two butch guys eat their way down the bar, like the dogs eating the same string of pasta in the Disney movie - until they're accidentally kissing. The guys, naturally, recoil in disgust - then, oddly, start ripping out their chest hair with their hands. Yeah it's homophobic, but it's also kind of funny, though a bit weird, so I was going to let it go. Well...



Snickers has set up a Web site where you can view the ad that aired last night, and you can watch recorded-live-on-video reactions of real Bears and Colts players watching and reacting to the ad, and you can even watch the ad with 3 additional endings not shown on TV. You then vote on the three endings and the most popular one will air during the Daytona 500.



Why is this a problem?

1. Because the reactions of the Bears and Colts players to two guys kissing is outright disgust - you can watch the reactions by clicking under the "extras" button at the bottom of the site. "That ain't right," one player says. A second player crinkles his face into absolute disgust as the guy's kiss. The interviews with the players reacting to the gay kiss continue on and on. These are role models for kids, and they're telling America's kids, and rather scary adults, that two guys kissing "ain't right."



2. Then you really need to watch the endings of the OTHER three commercials that Snickers shot, the commercials they're considering airing during the Daytona 500.

Ad 2 (Ad 1 is the original ad that aired): "Love Boat." After the guys kiss, a third guy walks up, effeminately brushes his hair out of his eyes, and says, "Is there room for three on this Love Boat?" as if he's gay.



Ad 3: "Motor Oil." After the guys kiss, they say "I think we just accidentally kissed - quick, do something manly," and proceed to drink motor oil and I think anti-freeze - they guzzle it down, screaming at the top of their lungs, making them sick to their stomachs. The ad is vaguely violent - better to die than be gay.



Ad 4: "Wrench" (these are the actual names Snickers gave the ads). The two guys accidentally kiss, they say to each other again "quick, do something manly," and one guy proceeds to pick up a huge oversized wrench and violently attack the other guy, while the second takes the first and throws him under the hood of the car, slamming it down on his head. Yes, the appropriate reaction to a guy kissing you is to beat the crap out of the guy who kissed you. Maybe Snickers should rename this ad "Matthew Shepard."

Here the guy gets attacked with the wrench:



And here the guy gets his head smashed by the car hood.



The entire thing is absolutely sickening. And while I can appreciate that Snickers didn't overtly think that promoting violence against gays and lesbians is "funny," they knew what they were doing. They were gay-bashing for fun. And they didn't just cross the line - they left the line in the dust.

One final point. Why is the NFL logo on the bottom of the Snickers homophobic Web site? Why - because the NFL gave its permission for its logo to be on this Web site promoting violence against gays. And the Bears and the Colts gave their permission for their players to be filmed reacting in horror to gay people. Something which is rather ironic, but not surprising, consider the Colts are already in hot water for using their brand to fundraise for homophobic hate groups.

I hope John will forgive me from borrowing the full story and reposting it here. I want to be sure you see it and why it's not ok.

Here's a youtube of the video so you don't have to hunt it down:


Melissa

  Hmmmm.....I still agree that the commercial (as it stands alone) with the chest hair pulling was fine.  However, after seeing the descriptions of the "alternate" endings and the video reactions of the Colts/Bears players I have to agree with Susan. 

  I would like to say that, in my opinion, simply agreeing with a group because you are a part of that group is wrong.  While it may weaken the group to a degree by not joining in I think the group is weakened much more when it's members join in a protest or similar action without a real understanding of the issue at hand.

  I'm not saying this is the case here because I certainly agree that this advertisement when viewed in it's entirety with all of it's variations is out of line.  However, if you look throughout history, past and present, you see many examples of groups who reacted and continue to react simply because the issue is related to that group or it's individual members and not because there is any truth behind initial impressions.  This kind of knee jerk protesting does far more to damage the group than anything else.  A group who reacts without a legitimate reason or without taking the time to gather the facts isn't a group...it's a mob.

  I will never support my group if I feel they are wrong.  I am an individual first and a group member second.

Yep, looks like Snickers took what was just a good bit of fun at homophobes and turned it around with the alternate endings and the comments from football players on their website. Shame that. Most normal people without that context took it as poking fun at homophobia.

Dennis

Hey, it's an advertisement first of all, not a major policy position, at an importance level somewhat less than the recent gigantic breech of Homeland Security sparked by the Boston lite brite boxes.  It is these crass people's jobs to push the edge in the extremely important pursuit of promotion and sales of all kinds of human saving items and services as snacks, macho trucks, ointments, creams, insurance, stocks, and politicians.  And of course - soapboxes. 

Further, it's an ad for a not very good candy bar.  Now if it was an ad for Butterfinger, we might have a basis for a dispute.  (I thought I'd start a real fight here ).  Just kidding Ladies!

(If her plan works, Susan Kay is now busy ducking a massive incoming barrage of projectiles from Snickers lovers, hopefully all chocolate, and hopefully containing the cupcakes promised elsewhere.)

Susan Kay

Quote from: SusanKay140 on February 07, 2007, 10:42:32 AM
Further, it's an ad for a not very good candy bar.  Now if it was an ad for Butterfinger, we might have a basis for a dispute.  (I thought I'd start a real fight here ).  Just kidding Ladies!

Hehe, I have to agree.  I personally like milkyway (snickers without the peanuts) and some people like 3 musketeers, which is milkyway without the caramel.  I also like butterfinger, but dislike how it gets stuck in your molars.

This reminds me of when I was in the army.  Me and a couple other guys would sneak over to the store and buy things.  One thing we would do is buy some candy bars (like the fun size ones) and then bring them back and sell them to the other guys at much higher prices since these guys weren't brave enough to break the rules (still in the intake part where you prepare for bootcamp).  I was the one who sold the milkyway bars.  I also bought a gameboy to whittle away the boring time there.  I just played it in the bathroom.  I never got in trouble.

On a different note, they guys had to do something "manly" so they would get "snickered" at.

Melissa

Well it is still hard for me to believe, with all of the market research these companies do, that they had no idea what the reaction would be.  Look at it this way:  If it was just a cute ad, we would not be talking about Sinckers right now.  Those who are making a huge deal of this are doing precisely what they were hoping for IMHO.

Kristi