The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Arts & Entertainment

Arts & Entertainment Give meaning to your life or distract you from it for a while

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-17-2006, 04:47 AM   #1
Hagar
Master of the Domain
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 220
Shock & Gore - TV Ads - Enough is Enough

G'day All,

We in Oz we've had an alarming rise in the rate of "Shock Value", TV ads in the last couple of years.

Back in 1987 we were introduced to the aids Grim Reaper. This was a short run campaign which did little other than increase homophobia and scare the kiddies.


Now, almost 20 years later the shock ad has been revived with a couple of government funded beauties; One for speeding ("every K over is a killer" & "enough is enough") featuring realistic road accidents including a bloodied baby, dead mother and traumatised son screaming "daddy!" and another series of ads for anti-smoking featuring a doctor about to amputate a gangrenous foot, with plenty of graphic footage (boom-boom) of the limb before surgery.

Does anyone think these things work? I don't smoke, and I drive for a living, so speeding is basically out of the question. Therefore I'm not in a position to be convinced, only disgusted.

There's no doubting that these ads are well made for what they are, but I believe that they just DON'T work. The main reason I think this is because the "it won't happen to me" factor (which, lets face it, is the main reason that we don't just stay in bed with the covers pulled up over our heads every morning) is just too strong.

I think that these ads are simply our governments' way of saying "look we ARE doing something about these terrible things - now it's up to YOU".

So my questions are:
Does anyone else get these type of ads? and
Does anyone think they work?
Hagar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 07:30 AM   #2
Cyclefrance
Pump my ride!
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Deep countryside of Surrey , England
Posts: 1,890
Immediately thought of this one which I think actually works - my Pc refuses to download it - hope you have better luck...
__________________
Always sufficient hills - never sufficient gears
Cyclefrance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 09:51 AM   #3
mrnoodle
bent
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: under the weather
Posts: 2,656
That really disturbed me deeply for some reason.
__________________
Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh
mrnoodle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 11:39 AM   #4
Stormieweather
Wearing her bitch boots
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Floriduh
Posts: 1,181
Some print ads too

Here's a very distubing print ad for designer clothes:

http://www.marcjacob.com/

Enter the site, go to ads and view the series of photographs. Apparently there was a spread recently in Voque for this same designer that depicted some sort of assault on the female model. Another debate that I've been involved in on this ad has suggested that it depicts the female getting in touch with her darker side and losing her innocence? But it never shows a reborn woman and I cannot figure out how this is supposed to "sell clothes"!

Oh, and get a magnifying glass...the print is miniscule.

Stormie
Stormieweather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 11:47 AM   #5
rkzenrage
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
The ads are ridiculous.
They have been forcing the cig companies to put these pics on the packs.




First, since there has never been a direct link between smoking and cancer this is liable.
Secondly, this is in no way right unless similar photos appear on all candy, soda, fast food, alcohol, yard tools... hell, just about anything.
The ignorance and stupidity that is at the root of this kind of nanny mentality is so amazingly sad. That others give them and their pathetic games credence is terrifying, a terrifying testament to where we are now and are heading.

Edit~ I say we start handing these out in front of the stores... make them available to anyone who wants them... for the stores who want them, put them on the counters so the customers can put them over the pics ASAP.
http://www.fakefags.co.uk/category_stickers.asp



& make sure they know these are available to have on the counter as well.
http://www.fakefags.co.uk/category_smokejacket.asp

Last edited by rkzenrage; 05-17-2006 at 12:35 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 01:25 PM   #6
wolf
lobber of scimitars
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Phila Burbs
Posts: 20,774
Interesting warnings. They're kind of like trading cards, aren't they?

U.S. warning labelling is different, and confined to the side of the pack. I check these when I buy, and, mostly for the amusement of the cashier, I'll say something like, "All right, I got the pack that gives you low fetal birth weight again!! I like this flavor a lot better than the ones that give you emphysema and cancer!!"
__________________
wolf eht htiw og

"Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island

High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis
wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 02:29 PM   #7
smoothmoniker
to live and die in LA
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkzenrage
First, since there has never been a direct link between smoking and cancer this is liable.
Are you serious?
__________________
to live and die in LA
smoothmoniker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 02:51 PM   #8
mrnoodle
bent
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: under the weather
Posts: 2,656
I don't deny that smoking is bad for you. I just object to the government encroaching more and more into people's personal business. I have a God-given right to be as healthy or unhealthy as I choose, regardless of what the state thinks of it. If I choose to buy cigarettes, the company that provides them is not responsible for my choice. Someone was talking about the "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" line -- my lungs ain't Caesar's. Nor are my cigarettes, although the government gets a healthy cut of that sale, too. All the people who are supposedly against the government codifying morality should be up in arms over this stuff, frankly.Should an ax come with a cautionary warning and pics of Lizzy Borden's crime scene? Should mayonnaise come with a picture of some guy who died because he was too obese for his heart to keep running?

Tobacco is on the shit list because politicians have found a way to use the brouhaha to their advantage, plain and simple (see: drug war, prohibition).
__________________
Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh
mrnoodle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 03:21 PM   #9
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnoodle
If I choose to buy cigarettes, the company that provides them is not responsible for my choice. Someone was talking about the "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" line -- my lungs ain't Caesar's. Nor are my cigarettes, although the government gets a healthy cut of that sale, too.
It's an interesting question... A physically addictive product has different implications than another product. What would the implications be if drug prohibition were ended, and they decided to put the coke back in Coke? (I'm not suggesting that it would be remotely likely, it's just a question.) Coca-cola is one of the (perhaps the largest) adverisers in the world, and the messages they put out reach more people than the most harshly worded press briefing from the FDA or the NIH. Should they have any responsibility to anyone but their shareholders in this hypothetical?
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 03:46 PM   #10
mrnoodle
bent
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: under the weather
Posts: 2,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
Should they have any responsibility to anyone but their shareholders in this hypothetical?
Yes. But unless they are actually hiding the harmful effects from their customers, they're not violating any law, and the government doesn't have any reason to interfere. Their personal ethics are an important consideration, but they aren't under governmental oversight.

Jack Daniels kills too, and in far more sudden, heartbreaking ways (along with the longterm illnesses it causes). Yet, people know what alcohol is, and what the potential outcomes of its use are. And the government has already seen the folly of trying to declare war on people's desire to be inebriated.

On a little more philosophical tack:
When you make a choice, you are actually choosing a set of outcomes, not a single outcome. Choosing to take the first sip of alcohol exposes you to a set of negative outcomes that wouldn't be on the table had you made a different decision. Choosing to smoke a cigarette does the same thing. No one is unaware of the potential dangers of smoking. The companies who make the product are under no further obligation to beat their customers over the head with lawyer-spawned crap.

In regards to the health of their customers, tobacco execs are no more liable than purveyors of other unhealthy things, like sharp sticks and hairspray.
__________________
Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh
mrnoodle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 05:21 PM   #11
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnoodle
Yes. But unless they are actually hiding the harmful effects from their customers, they're not violating any law, and the government doesn't have any reason to interfere.
Of course, Big Tobacco has sorta shot itself in the foot on this issue by funding all sorts of "studies" trying to sow doubt of the ill health effects. After doing that, saying that "everyone knows" despite their best efforts is disingenuous.
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 09:14 PM   #12
rkzenrage
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothmoniker
I am serious, and no study has ever shown a direct link between it and cancer.
No risk of cancer has been shown of higher than 8%. The EPA was called on the carpet and one gentleman was fired and charges were considered for making it a class A carcinogen, which it should not be due to it not meeting any of the criteria of that classification.
I do not deny it is bad for you, I simply state that there has never been a study that shows a direct link between smoking an cancer. An increased risk is not the same thing.
Cooking fumes create a higher risk than cigarette smoke.
People ignore a lot of common sense data because it flies in the face of their propaganda brainwashing and feel-good "look-over-here" legislation. It makes them uncomfortable when they realize that France, Greece and Japan have the lowest lung cancer rates and the densest smoking populations. They don't like to hear that smoking is down by over 75% in the west but lung cancer is up over 65%.
Hmmmm... but we don't think about all the other toxins... all the other things we KNOW cause lung cancer. Things our government did to us, like atmospheric and ground atomic and nuclear testing.
It feels good to blame big tobacco for killing Tha' Duke, not everyone dying on the set of that One Shoot that was rained on by atomic ash downwind from a test... most died of lung cancer... must have been a coincidence, though only about half smoked.
All that asbestos out there... just a coincidence... that we live longer and are now exposed to more care exhaust and asphalt fumes, coincidence, that northern Europeans get lung cancer just as part of the natural aging process and we are liver longer, coincidence?... all these things are proven, unlike tobacco... but we can point the finger at Them... so we do.
Just ask all those 90 year olds out in the smoking section tragically dying from their tobacco habit at the local nursing home, they'll tell ya'.

Last edited by rkzenrage; 05-17-2006 at 09:25 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2006, 09:24 PM   #13
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
From the Ny Times of 28 Jun 2006:
Quote:
A Warning on Hazards of Secondhand Smoke
The evidence is now "indisputable" that secondhand smoke is an "alarming" public health hazard, responsible for tens of thousands of premature deaths among nonsmokers each year, Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona said yesterday.

Dr. Carmona warned that measures like no-smoking sections did not provide adequate protection, adding, "Smoke-free environments are the only approach that protects nonsmokers from the dangers of secondhand smoke." ...

The evidence is now "indisputable" that secondhand smoke is an "alarming" public health hazard, responsible for tens of thousands of premature deaths among nonsmokers each year, Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona said yesterday.

Dr. Carmona warned that measures like no-smoking sections did not provide adequate protection, adding, "Smoke-free environments are the only approach that protects nonsmokers from the dangers of secondhand smoke." ...

"I am here to say the debate is over: the science is clear," Dr. Carmona said at a televised news conference, where he released a report updating the original surgeon general's study of secondhand smoke in 1986. Since then, hundreds of studies have indicated that the harm caused by secondhand smoke is far greater than earlier believed, he said. The report includes these findings:

¶There is no safe level of secondhand smoke, and even brief exposure can cause harm, especially for people suffering from heart or respiratory diseases.

¶For nonsmoking adults, exposure raises the risk of heart disease by 25 percent to 30 percent and of cancer by 20 percent to 30 percent. It accounted for 46,000 premature deaths from heart disease and 3,000 premature deaths from cancer last year.

¶Secondhand smoke is a cause of sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS, accounting for 430 deaths last year. The risk is elevated for children whose mothers were exposed during pregnancy and for children exposed in their homes after birth.

¶The impact on the health and development of children is more severe than previously thought. "Children are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke," Dr. Carmona said.

¶Efforts to minimize the effect of secondhand smoke by separating smokers and nonsmokers are ineffective, as are ventilation systems in a shared space.

¶While exposure has declined, as many as 60 percent of nonsmokers show biological evidence of encountering secondhand smoke, and 22 percent of children are exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes.

Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control show that great progress has been made in reducing exposure, Dr. Carmona said. The amount of cotinine — the form nicotine takes after being metabolized — in blood samples fell by 75 percent among adults, according to specimens taken from 1999 to 2002 that were compared with samples taken a decade earlier.
Not only does smoking kill. Second hand smoke is also deadly. It is a 'slam dunk' fact.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2006, 02:49 PM   #14
rkzenrage
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
That post has become .

Regardless of that fact... the photos are overtly intrusive. Unless they will do the same with ALL items that have some/any risk involved.
A fatty heart on all candy and fatty foods.
Compound fractures on pogo sticks and bikes.
Cars will be fun... you name it, must be equal.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2006, 08:04 PM   #15
PizzaMonkey
Will my Title ever stop changing? Oh, I guess it has now...
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 70
Using disturbing images to get your point across is - well - pointless...

There is a story in Stephen King's Four Past Midnight in which the protagonist walks into the children's section of the library and finds a poster of a small boy being pulled into a car by a shady looking guy, and he is screaming for help. Then there's some tagline at the bottom of the poster about not accepting candy from strangers. The man in the library wonders if that was really a good way to get your point across. I'd have to say effective, yes, good, no.

We should do something about "the ills plaguing society," I agree, but using this "shock technique", we are doing little more than subjecting people to things they don't want to see.

Over here in the US, we don't see a lot of shock ads, but we get some. There is one in particular that shows a baby sleeping in a crib, and Brahm's Lullaby is playing. Then all of a sudden, we hear sounds of slapping, abusive language, et cetera as the lullaby slowly "falls apart". It made me think less of how horrible domestic violence is, and more of how disturbingly creepy the ad was.

Last edited by PizzaMonkey; 06-28-2006 at 08:11 PM.
PizzaMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:15 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.