Dead guy in a little ad

http://tv.yahoo.com/blog/directv-res...nable-ads--729

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yahoo.com

Some viewers are upset with DirecTV's newest commercial, a recreation of a scene in "Tommy Boy" that combines new footage of David Spade interacting with Chris Farley, who died of a drug overdose in 1997. In the classic scene from the 1995 comedy, a present-day Spade dismisses Farley's antics with the sarcastic remark, "Never gets old." Viewers on YouTube called the spot "distasteful" and a "stupid idea."

---

Okay, so David Spade stars in a commercial for DirecTV with his deceased friend Chris Farley.

I know these guys were close friends, and I'm sure that Farley's death had a big impact on Spade. If Spade didn't think it was in bad taste, and the executor of Farley's estate gave approval, what is the problem? And personally, I think the commercial was cute and kind of funny.

I'm not neutral on this; I think that anyone who complains about Farley being in an ad is being a big crybaby. This isn't something truly disgusting, like having footage of Adolf Hitler and editing it such that he was selling Kosher meat*. This is a comedian doing a funny spot with his dead comedian friend, who I'm pretty sure would approve of both the tone of the ad and appreciate being celebrated and remembered post-death. Come on now, Billy Mays keeps selling things and he's dead! We put men dressed as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin in our advertisements. What is the controversy? Unless the executor of the estate has a problem with it, it's free speech to me.

Big thumbs down to the YouTube viewers. If you disagree with me, try to help me understand your position. Tell me why it is offensive, if you would please.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

*Which I would consider both ironic and an insult to Nazis, and thus it would be absolutely hilarious, even if it would be in bad taste.

I didn't like it because it's not cool to use someone to advertise something that they might not necassarily want to advertise. And the way the commercial acts like he's still alive is bizarre.

The opinions of spade and the executor of the estate are irrelevant.

Though I'm not going to campaign against or anything...

When Monthy Python got together for a broadcasted reunion, they brought along the ashes of the deceased Python. Needless to say, later during the show, John Cleese clumsily kicked over the urn, spilling the ashes all over the place. Which they then all tried to put back, making it all worse.

It was quite funny, I thought. A homage to their deceased member, who no doubt would've approved.

If it is anywhere comparable, I don't know.

(I am writing this from a virus infected computer that refuses to let me watch videos, or link to any. I am sure that anybody with basic google-fu can find the Python sketch)

They still air Billy Mays commercials. The lesson here, I guess, is that marketing people have no souls.

So you start a thread by saying that anyone who disagrees is a "big crybaby"?

I'm against it, for mainly the reason Sasaki mentioned - Farley is dead and it doesn't seem right to use his image, from a classic movie, to sell some modern day product Farley had no say in endorsing. I don't buy the celebration and appreciation - it just looks like using a dead guy's funny movie to shill for something.

I guess Spade was a little short on Christmas spending money.

CR

The dead are the dead. Who cares about what they think, because they don't.

Use them in any way you see fit, they have become inanimate objects.

Anyway, if they were comedians and celebrities in life, why wouldn't they want to be comedians in death, too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

The dead are the dead. Who cares about what they think, because they don't.

Use them in any way you see fit, they have become inanimate objects.

Anyway, if they were comedians and celebrities in life, why wouldn't they want to be comedians in death, too?

---

If they were prostitutes in life???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

If they were prostitutes in life???

---

I've never understood why that was a crime other than the health impact. A lifeless body is an inanimate object, who cares what you do with it? Sure it's gross to most people, but so is being a homo. I'm sure it upsets people even more when their loved ones do that stuff, but that isn't a crime anymore.

This thread has officially been hijacked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I've never understood why that was a crime other than the health impact. A body is an inanimate object, who cares what you do with it.

---

It's innate psychology. Respect for the dead is a human universal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

It's innate psychology. Respect for the dead is a human universal.

---

I'm not so sure about that. Warriors used to drink out of the stripped skulls of their enemies and rape the dead bodies. People have historically defaced and destroyed the bodies and images of bodies to make a point. We revere our own dead in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I'm not so sure about that. Warriors used to drink out of the stripped skulls of their enemies and rape the dead bodies. People have historically defaced and destroyed the bodies and images of bodies to make a point. We revere our own dead in general.

---

Yes this is true. But what makes the drinking out of skulls etc meaningful is that bodies aren't just inanimate objects.

I'm with Tuff and ATPG on this one. They're rehashing old material, and reusing it; was that Beatles commercial they recently aired for Rock Band in bad taste? Since John Lennon, and George Harrison were both in it.

How about any spoofs made off of books by Dead Authors? Honestly, I don't think they care, and I hardly find it disrespectful.

Had they ended the Commercial with "Don't you wish that Chris Farley never died of a drug overdose?" that would have been in bad taste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

Had they ended the Commercial with "Don't you wish that Chris Farley never died of a drug overdose?" that would have been in bad taste.

---

And yet I would have bought the service in principle. Chris Farley would have loved that. Degenerate flippancy is a hallmark of the modern age and sells gold records.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

So you start a thread by saying that anyone who disagrees is a "big crybaby"?

I'm against it, for mainly the reason Sasaki mentioned - Farley is dead and it doesn't seem right to use his image, from a classic movie, to sell some modern day product Farley had no say in endorsing. I don't buy the celebration and appreciation - it just looks like using a dead guy's funny movie to shill for something.

I guess Spade was a little short on Christmas spending money.

CR

---

I agree, making money off a dead guy is terrible. All companies should stop selling media involving dead people, including music. When people die all recordings of them should be destroyed so their souls can rest in peace. As much as it pains me, I'm off to destroy all my pre-1980 AC/DC cds.

Perhaps I got this started off on the wrong foot. I was referring to the tone of the story and the YouTuber's reactions as being "crybabies". I meant to say I was open to hearing why I am wrong about this, but perhaps didn't articulate it well.

I think it's possible to have a reasonable counter-viewpoint, but I'm not hearing a lot of the "why", I'm hearing that it "just doesn't seem right". But the point is, I don't know what the reasons are why it doesn't seem right. What forms that opinion? Is it just a reactionary opinion or is there a principle I am missing out on? What is that principle?

I don't believe that the dead need necessarily be stripped from our community's consciousness. We will remember them somehow. Even today comedians do Chris Farley impressions as a demonstration of their mimicking skills and as a way to honor Farley. Whenever comedic material authored or performed by Farley is marketed, Farley's estate gets whatever he was legally entitled to. Recently Michael Jackson's final rehearsals and performances are being released to the public, even though they weren't quite finished. The public is going to be exposed to dead personalities, the question is what is acceptable. Is it acceptable to make jokes about the dead? Perhaps not just right when they died, but afterward it seems to be fair game. Is it acceptable to continue marketing their products that they endorsed? Of course, as Billy Mays and the dead musicians of the world have taught us. Using their likeness in commercials and so forth; well it's been done before, many times. Those who have legal ownership over copyrighted material who act on behalf of the deceased give their approval or disapproval on what would be the best way to honor the dead person and their legacy... allowing previously unreleased material to be marketed, allowing their likeness to appear certain places, etc...

Now when the people who are making these sorts of decisions allow Farley to appear in an advertisement, these are the people have the most personal and direct relationship with Farley giving their judgment on the matter that it is "ok" with them, and doesn't in any way dishonor Farley. Since there are no legal issues here, and I don't see any breach of ethics, and no one is being harmed by this, least of all Farley... what is the crime? What is the disservice? Who has been slighted?

I don't see a victim here. And I also don't think that it was done in bad taste. You have Farley's best and closest friend doing the commercial with him. Spade may be a sarcastic guy but Farley liked him and he liked Farley. I don't see how it is in bad taste, and I can't fathom why anyone would be upset about it.

I'm not seeing the reason, that's all. This is just a matter of opinion and it isn't important that we all end up agreeing; I just want to understand where the emotion or negative opinion comes from. What has been done that is bad? What has been done that is any different from naming a library or building after a dead person, or having a statue erected commemorating the deceased, or having CD's or archival footage marketed by those with legal permission to do so? Who is the victim, and what was the crime?

If it all boils down to a difference in what constitutes humor, :shrug: can't really touch that. I understand that we should respect the dead, but I don't see the disrespect here.

I offer this: If they had dubbed over Farley's voice and made him say "BUY DIRECTV SERVICES, THEY'RE GRRRRRRREAT!" that wouldn't have been funny or clever, and it would have seemed disrespectful to Farley to me. But they didn't even touch Farley. They left his (hilarious) performance intact. The entire thing seemed like an homage to Farley, frankly, in addition to Spade speaking on behalf of DirecTV. More distasteful to me are people portraying Benjamin Franklin (for example) and having them sell things, but we recognize that these are actors, and it doesn't denigrate the memory of Ben Franklin to have some oaf running around dressed as him. To me it is simply a side-effect of being famous. There will always be some local car salesman dressed as Abe Lincoln trying to sell you a Lincoln. If we accept that kind of coarse commercialism as part of our society, what's wrong with what seems to be a very respectful tribute? I watched the ad and saw nothing remotely disrespectful in it.

Ah well... somehow I think I've already botched it and we won't get a meaningful discussion out of this, but I'll give it another shot. Show me where I'm wrong, or at least show me reasons why the opposing view is a correct view as well.

Instead of airing rehashed material of Farley, they should flash pictures of the "crime scene" where he is laying halfway in the bathroom, pants around his ankles, with a solidified puke bubble coming out of his purple mouth and lines and lines and lines and lines of very expensive cocaine on the table just out of focus. The real question of the evening was whether or not the hookers he had with him actually got paid, because I'm nothing if not a supporter of working girls.

In other words, who cares. Anyone who goes out in that manner forfeits all, Lenny Bruce be damned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Instead of airing rehashed material of Farley, they should flash pictures of the "crime scene" where he is laying halfway in the bathroom, pants around his ankles, with a solidified puke bubble coming out of his purple mouth and lines and lines and lines and lines of very expensive cocaine on the table just out of focus. The real question of the evening was whether or not the hookers he had with him actually got paid, because I'm nothing if not a supporter of working girls.

In other words, who cares. Anyone who goes out in that manner forfeits all, Lenny Bruce be damned.

---

Falls out of chair laughing

And on the other hand, we have the other extreme. I may not agree with this, but heck if it doesn't add some spice to the conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Yes this is true. But what makes the drinking out of skulls etc meaningful is that bodies aren't just inanimate objects.

---

So dead people have feelings, too? :inquisitive:
It's only meaningful because people still value them, this thread is about how other people think that is rather illogical. I'm not saying that necrophilia is not really weird but this isn't necrophilia anyway, they're just using old clips for an ad, they use all sorts of things for ads, especially things that draw attention to that ad, like clips of dead people... :laugh4:

Dead guys sell beer, too (from 2007): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0UyzI-Isig

My take-away from this conversation is: Madison Ave guys have no soul, and like Husar says, they'll use any gimmick to get and hold our attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

When Monthy Python got together for a broadcasted reunion, they brought along the ashes of the deceased Python. Needless to say, later during the show, John Cleese clumsily kicked over the urn, spilling the ashes all over the place. Which they then all tried to put back, making it all worse.

It was quite funny, I thought. A homage to their deceased member, who no doubt would've approved.

If it is anywhere comparable, I don't know.

---

I doubt that is the real ashes of their deceased friend. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Perhaps I got this started off on the wrong foot. I was referring to the tone of the story and the YouTuber's reactions as being "crybabies". I meant to say I was open to hearing why I am wrong about this, but perhaps didn't articulate it well.

I think it's possible to have a reasonable counter-viewpoint, but I'm not hearing a lot of the "why", I'm hearing that it "just doesn't seem right". But the point is, I don't know what the reasons are why it doesn't seem right. What forms that opinion? Is it just a reactionary opinion or is there a principle I am missing out on? What is that principle?

---

Let me help you:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CR

I'm against it, for mainly the reason Sasaki mentioned - Farley is dead and it doesn't seem right to use his image, from a classic movie, to sell some modern day product Farley had no say in endorsing. I don't buy the celebration and appreciation - it just looks like using a dead guy's funny movie to shill for something.

---

:rolleyes:

CR

When I die, my family decides over me. If I am useful in the world after my death, my family will decide. If I make any money after death, my family will get it.

I think that's all fine and dandy. And as that's what has happened in this case, I see absolutely no problem with the ad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

When I die, my family decides over me. If I am useful in the world after my death, my family will decide. If I make any money after death, my family will get it.

I think that's all fine and dandy. And as that's what has happened in this case, I see absolutely no problem with the ad.

---

I don't think that's what is happening in this case, from a legal IP standpoint. I seriously doubt that Farley's estate owns the rights to Tommy Boy, so the family cannot make the decision. I'm sure Farley's estate is owed royalties for his appearance, but I don't think they have a say in the matter. Paramount Pictures (or some mega-conglomerate) owns the rights to the movie, they get to decide if the footage can be used. Spade could have refused to do the takes, which would have effectively killed the ad, for whatever reason he decided to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

I don't think that's what is happening in this case, from a legal IP standpoint. I seriously doubt that Farley's estate owns the rights to Tommy Boy, so the family cannot make the decision. I'm sure Farley's estate is owed royalties for his appearance, but I don't think they have a say in the matter. Paramount Pictures (or some mega-conglomerate) owns the rights to the movie, they get to decide if the footage can be used. Spade could have refused to do the takes, which would have effectively killed the ad, for whatever reason he decided to do it.

---

Well, that changes things, now there is even less of a problem.

If Farley's estate doesn't have a say, then neither would a living Farley. And then there's really no discussion, is there? The only discussion left would be a discussion of what rights actors should have to the works they appear in.

The ad-makers have just been found not guilty.

the debate isnt about whether it was legal, but whether it was morally and ethically correct to do so. hore tore.

personally, maybe it was in bad taste but i see it as more of a misplaced homage to the man.

Agreed. It certainly gave me an awkward feeling, but not of outrage. This was a scene from a movie, not some actor dubbing over his lines with stupid praises for the company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

the debate isnt about whether it was legal, but whether it was morally and ethically correct to do so. hore tore.

---

I know.

Thing is; if what Drone says is correct, then the guy wouldn't have a say about it when he was alive. So I really can't see why his percieved opinion(or lack thereof) should suddenly matter now that he's dead. I honestly can't see why his death should alter anything. If he didn't care to protect his name and person properly during his life, we should anyone care now that he's dead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

If Farley's estate doesn't have a say, then neither would a living Farley.

---

I think that's correct. Farley, if he were alive, would have no legal say if his image/portrayal of the character Tommy being sold/rented by Paramount to DirectTV , anymore than if Paramount re-released the movie. Unless he had a highly unusual performance contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I know.

Thing is; if what Drone says is correct, then the guy wouldn't have a say about it when he was alive. So I really can't see why his percieved opinion(or lack thereof) should suddenly matter now that he's dead. I honestly can't see why his death should alter anything. If he didn't care to protect his name and person properly during his life, we should anyone care now that he's dead?

---

But aside from the straw manning in the OP, we're talking about whether it can be awkward to have a dead guy helping advertise a product. That's not a logical issue. When you see something, it doesn't pass through your eyes to the "logic" part of the brain and then onto the part that is disconcerted.

I found the commercial weird because it acts like he's alive even though he's dead. It's like those commercials where they get a celebrity look alike to advertise something.

To answer whether it's moral or not you'd have to decide on a basis for morality of course :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

But aside from the straw manning in the OP, we're talking about whether it can be awkward to have a dead guy helping advertise a product. That's not a logical issue. When you see something, it doesn't pass through your eyes to the "logic" part of the brain and then onto the part that is disconcerted.

I found the commercial weird because it acts like he's alive even though he's dead. It's like those commercials where they get a celebrity look alike to advertise something.

To answer whether it's moral or not you'd have to decide on a basis for morality of course :whip:

---

Does an Elvis-doll make you go emo? If not, then why should this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Does an Elvis-doll make you go emo? If not, then why should this?

---

Elvis ain't dead, man, the King lives on!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Does an Elvis-doll make you go emo? If not, then why should this?

---

:laugh4:

Great answer! :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Does an Elvis-doll make you go emo? If not, then why should this?

---

Do you like spicy food?

BTW the commercial isn't even funny.