Dead guy in a little ad

[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?

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, 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.

[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.

[Askthepizzaguy]

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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:

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.

CR

[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.

[drone]

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[Centurion1]

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.

[A Very Super Market]

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.

[HoreTore]

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?