Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Media Media Television The Internet

Web Rescues Un-Aired Super Bowl Ads 286

Posted by kdawson
from the violence-6-sex-0 dept.
destinyland writes "A pirated version of Budweiser's un-aired Super Bowl ad appeared on YouTube — proving the Web is more democratic than NBC. The sexy PETA ad they refused to air also turned up on PETA's site; YouTube also had Saturday's skit from SNL, mocking the actual Pepsi ad that would air Sunday. But ironically, the Web site for Jack in the Box crashed right after they'd aired their cliffhanger about Jack's bus accident, prompting one critic to joke, 'Should we assume he's dead?'
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Web Rescues Un-Aired Super Bowl Ads

Comments Filter:
  • by SpanishInquisition0 (1297663) on Tuesday February 03, 2009 @08:18AM (#26708069)
    Watching PETA ads doesn't make me wanna become vegan. In fact, seeing those naked women just make me want to eat some meat, if you catch my drift.
    • by cbiltcliffe (186293) on Tuesday February 03, 2009 @08:59AM (#26708479) Homepage Journal

      It doesn't make me want to become vegetarian or vegan, either.
      It pisses me off at PETA, due to all the lies and misleading studies that they tout in their ads, as well as the implication that one sorry-assed psycho beating a duck to death is how they're all killed for meat.

      Having grown up and lived on a mixed farm for 20+ years, I think I can safely say that beating an animal to death would pretty much ruin any meat in it. Especially something as small as a duck.

      So, in conclusion:

      1. PETA is a shady political group with an agenda.
      2. We (or at least I) hate politics.
      3. I hate PETA.
      4. Eat meat.
      5. ???
      6. Profit!!

      • by CastrTroy (595695) on Tuesday February 03, 2009 @09:16AM (#26708689) Homepage
        I think PETA has it's tactics all wrong. Instead of trying to get everybody to stop eating meat, cold turkey (bad pun), they really should be trying to get people to eat less meat. I've switched over to eating less meat in the past year or so, and I have to say, I enjoy eating a lot more than I used to. Now that I'm buying less meat, I can get better cuts, from more humane sources, and I've also lost quite a bit of extra weight. I don't think I'd ever go off meat completely, but cutting down on meat so that you only eat it 3-4 times a week is probably a viable alternative that a lot of people could live with. Instead of getting people to go completely vegan, try to get everybody to eat vegetarian at least a couple times a week. It's a much more obtainable goal.
        • by dkleinsc (563838) on Tuesday February 03, 2009 @09:37AM (#26709037) Homepage

          PETA has so many problems with its tactics that you'd think they were sponsored by the American Beef Council.

          The thing that surprises people the most about vegetarian (although not vegan) diets is that the food they can eat is relatively normal: cheese pizza instead of pepperoni, bagels rather than bacon, bean burritos rather than beef, etc. And you're absolutely right that reducing meat has significant benefits.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by CastrTroy (595695)
            Lentil tacos are also quite good. I almost prefer them to the beef ones. It's really nice being able to eat a whole bunch of really good tacos without having worry about the fat content.
            • by pavon (30274)

              Mmmm lentils. Although I have to say that shredded beef or pork tacos are much tastier than both, without the fat of pan-frying ground beef. Just cook an inexpensive cut of meat in a crockpot with your favorite chiles and spices until it easily separates with a fork.

              • by MBGMorden (803437)

                Shredded pork tacos are my absolute favorite. Particularly actual Mexican style ones (what Taco Bell calls tacos are disgusting). Soft grilled corn tortilla, some shredded pork, hot sauce, cilantro, some pickled chili peppers, and onions. No hard shell, no tomatoes, no cheese, and no lettuce. After trying some done the "proper" way taco's went from a rather bland, uninteresting food that I'd typically avoid to one of my favorite foods.

          • by aesiamun (862627)

            bagles rather than bacon?

            Mmmm savory, crispy...bagels.

            Nope won't work for me.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by operagost (62405)
            Vegetarian diets aren't acceptable to PETA because you're still "oppressing" cows and chickens. Vegetarians will be up against the wall right after the meat-eaters when the revolution comes.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Rutefoot (1338385)
          Vegans will point to 'statistics' that vegetarians and vegans are healthier than the average person.

          You are the example of why their 'statistics' are misleading and biased. Most people don't give a shit about what they eat. So how is comparing that group of people to vegetarians/vegans (who put at least a little thought into their diet) fair? They're not unhealthy because they eat meat, they are unhealthy because they don't give a shit.

          CastrTroy is the example of the right thing to do. Studies that
          • Studies that are more in depth than the ones trying to promote their agenda have all shown that eating some meat (as part of a balanced diet) is healthier than eating no meat.

            That was an excellent point: only compare vegetarians/vegans who put some thought into their food with carnivores who put some thought into their food. Not to mention, a vegetarian would immediately have to turn down, e.g., meat lover's pizza (mmm...heart stopping).

            Do you have any links / sources for those more in-depth, non-PETA stud

      • You grew up on a mix farm, there is a world of difference between that and a feedlot or a battery farming operation.

        Now I'm fond of good meat myself, but good meat is getting harder to find :(

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sitarah (955787)
        "PETA is a shady political group with an agenda."

        They're shady alright. I am pretty bothered by how they react to people wearing fur. Throwing flour and paint and other things is simply unacceptable. It's a stretch to call it assault, but it is still invading your personal space in an effort to force you to comply with their ideas of good behavior.

        I have a right to choose to wear fur. It's not illegal. You also have the right to disagree with my choice. You do not have the right to terrorize me into ag
    • Who cares? They fucking pay gazillions of dollars to force us to watch the things because they're a craptastic waste of attention. How about the web rescues people from the ads that did get aired?

      • by CastrTroy (595695)
        For the first time in a long time, the superbowl was worth watching. In most years, the game completely sucks, and the only interesting thing about it is the commercials.
        • by aesiamun (862627)

          I actually thought the game was more interesting than the commercials this year. But I did find some of them funny...

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by DrLang21 (900992)
      The commercial was disappointing as a whole. With those descriptions, I was expecting something bordering softcore. Instead I got some mediocre crap that left me convinced that these studies they refer to are completely bunk. Nerds have hotter sex than that.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by trevdak (797540)
      I think that someone coulda made a hell of a great comeback ad with lingerie-clad women rubbing steaks and bacon all over their bodies.
  • Pirated (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jurily (900488) <jurily@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday February 03, 2009 @08:20AM (#26708087)

    Do we really have to use this word? It's not like they're going to be upset about getting poeole to view their ad.

    • Re:Pirated (Score:5, Interesting)

      by sakdoctor (1087155) on Tuesday February 03, 2009 @08:24AM (#26708143) Homepage

      Did the industries scheme to demonize copyright infringement backfire?
      If they scream piracy at everything, then the word piracy will dilute until it doesn't really mean anything.

      This might already have happened.

      • Re:Pirated (Score:5, Funny)

        by Jurily (900488) <jurily@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday February 03, 2009 @08:36AM (#26708229)

        Did the industries scheme to demonize copyright infringement backfire?
        If they scream piracy at everything, then the word piracy will dilute until it doesn't really mean anything.

        This might already have happened.

        Good. Then I'm going to the fridge to pirate myself something to eat.

        • Good. Then I'm going to the fridge to pirate myself something to eat.

          What the pirate does that mean? Man, that pirating pirate is pirated up!

          • Ogg is that Ogg... oggity ogg to ogg Ogg. Pirate? Ogg.

          • by genner (694963)

            Good. Then I'm going to the fridge to pirate myself something to eat.

            What the pirate does that mean? Man, that pirating pirate is pirated up!

            Verbing pirates language.

      • by Lumpy (12016)

        The general public sees "piracy" as a joke anyways. 90% of the kids out there from ages 8-18 are downloading songs and video off the net like maniacs. Even the rich as hell kids, Their parents are building a 10,000 sq foot summer home here, use bittorrent and limewire and brag about how much free music they can get.

        The ONLY people upset about piracy is the middlemen that only make money by not actually doing anything of value. They see they are obsolete and are panicking.

        • Re:Pirated (Score:4, Informative)

          by TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) on Tuesday February 03, 2009 @10:15AM (#26709709) Journal

          The ONLY people upset about piracy is the middlemen that only make money by not actually doing anything of value. They see they are obsolete and are panicking.

          That's not true! I'm a uni student who's reasonably poor, and has nothing to do with any artistic industry, thanks to my lack of talent. As someone who enjoys copyrighted music, movies, games, and other software (including GPL'd software) and who researches using copyrighted scientific papers, I care about piracy. I don't want to have to bear the costs of pirates who sap money from the respective industries, who will then pass the costs on to me. I don't want to have to fight for my rights, including my right to privacy, against the RIAA and MPAA every year, as they push for greater and greater restrictions. I don't want to trash copyright and hope that something better exists, and that it'll come along and save our culture.

    • Regardless of the fact that they WANT people to look at ads, it is still copyright infringement. The copyright holder must give permission to copy before that goes away. There may be reasons (contractual agreements with other companies, varying regulations in different parts of the world, trademark dilution) that they do not want to give permission.
    • Likely? No. Technically possible? Yes. Technically, it is piracy, but I think we're pretty safe sharing it around. ;)

  • by Goaway (82658) on Tuesday February 03, 2009 @08:21AM (#26708093) Homepage

    Thanks for these very important updates on how we should be manipulated! I was kind of feeling like I was thinking a bit too much on own, but finally I get some more ads to dull the senses and reinforce that conformity!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03, 2009 @08:21AM (#26708095)

    Not too many Americans know this, but even though we get the Superbowl in Canada, the CRTC (our version of the FCC) allows broadcasters and cable companies to substitute their own commercials during the broadcast. (Yes, we get the Spokane NBC feed on our cable, but we get substituted Canadian ads!) This has been going on for years. So when the USA sees the most AMAZING KEWL Superbowl ad, most Canadians see an add for "Joe's plumbing and lighting"

    The Web is the only way for most of us to see the Superbowl ads.

    • by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Tuesday February 03, 2009 @09:03AM (#26708529)

      The USA does that too, sort of. I think it's around half time they let the 'locals' air what ever ads they want. Which is a good thing, because it lead to the best superbowl ad I've ever seen. [youtube.com]

      That tops anything the big companies put on, if not just for the "WTF did I just see" factor.

  • See, this is what those of us in the civilised world find so bizarre about the United States. You're perfectly happy to show ads (and programmes) containing violence, but some women in perfectly decent underwear? Banned.

    What is that about?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      See Right, Religious. Also see Party, Republican.

      The rest of us a perfectly fine with women in "perfectly decent underwear". Except the nudists.

    • by FirstNoel (113932) on Tuesday February 03, 2009 @08:34AM (#26708217) Journal
      It was those damn Puritans that the English sent over. They screwed the country up for everyone. I for one would rather see naked women on TV than another "terrorist" getting whacked or car exploding.
      • by je ne sais quoi (987177) on Tuesday February 03, 2009 @09:17AM (#26708707)
        It probably has more to do with the evangelicals and mormons in this day and age. As far as I can tell, the descendants of the puritans are fairly open-minded, e.g., Massachussetts and Connecticut do support same sex marriage [wikipedia.org]. So if you want to see scantily-clad women being sexually suggestive with vegetables and can't, blame the southern baptists, the LDS, some of the episcopalians, and the others like pentecostal (?), etc.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          As far as I can tell, the descendants of the puritans are fairly open-minded, e.g., Massachussetts and Connecticut do support same sex marriage.

          No, they don't, they've just never been allowed to vote on the issue.

          If California won't allow same sex marriage when put to a popular vote, why would you think Massachusetts and Connecticut would?!

          Neither state has ever allowed the people to vote on the matter. But opinion polls are clear: if the people were allowed to vote on the matter, gay marriage would be outlawed in a heartbeat.

          And on the idea that Puritan descendants are "open minded" keep in mind that the church Obama went to for twenty years can t

      • by IBBoard (1128019)

        And we were damned glad to get rid of them! How are you expected to have decent entertainment with some group of people constantly demonising you for the barest flash of a "soul corrupting nipple"?

    • by Dekortage (697532)

      I've wondered if it is because they don't want to see real violence or skin shown on TV, but the violence can be more easily faked. If an American TV show actually showed real people truly killing each other, or shooting each other, or whatever, it would be shut down immediately. (Boxing and football are violent but don't count.) But scripted, special-effect violence is fine. You can't (or don't) fake the sex stuff, so it offends people.

      • by Zerth (26112)

        Meh, even the fake sex stuff gets way censored. There was a guy several years ago that got breast implants on a dare and when the local news showed a clip of him, they stuck a black bar over his top when he took off his shirt. I doubt many found that of prurient interest.

        Or maybe it is just nipples, as they didn't censor manikins when shooting at the mall in outrage over a open-cup bra on display.

    • by somenickname (1270442) on Tuesday February 03, 2009 @08:51AM (#26708369)

      It's simple. The human body is evil. Unless it's been shot or otherwise maimed.

    • The ads that did make it on that were "risque" were atrocious though. Danica Patrick, an indy racecar driver who has garnered some respect over the last few years, washing it away in a shower for GoDaddy.

    • by bartok (111886)

      Also bizarre is this fascination for ads.

    • by barzok (26681) on Tuesday February 03, 2009 @09:03AM (#26708527)

      It's a nation founded by Puritans and presently populated with 200+ million prudes which has a multi-billion-dollar pr0n industry.

      What's so hard to understand?

      • Are you saying that the US censorship laws are really a way to shore up the porn industry? (yes I said porn). As in, without all that repression on public media, porn would become less interesting because we'd all be desensitized to human nudity and sexual situations? Desensitized meaning it would become normal, rather than taboo.

        • by MBGMorden (803437)

          There will always be a risky side of the moral compass that the porn companies are willing to visit. Don't matter how lax we get, they're (thankfully) ready to come out with a shocking video of something even kinkier. And really, that's nature. People love doing or looking at things that they feel like they're "not supposed to". It gives a nice rush.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by gfxguy (98788)

            Like many other industries, the porn industry is so successful because of all the legal complications, very much (although not exactly) like the illegal drug industry and prostitution.

            Trying to criminalize it only makes it stronger. We learned this with alcohol, I don't understand why people don't learn it with other things.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Lumpy (12016)

      We also ban public nudity, prosecute and berate those that choose to love more than one person, we sling hate at any chance we get.

      But, video of someone beating the hell out of someone or even killing them? That's considered required viewing for children.

      OMG They showed a nipple.... a NIPPLE!!!! OMG! OMG! OMG!

      There is nothing in puritanical ideals that is healthy for society or humanity.

      Disclaimer: I'm a Lutheran, I believe in God and My savior Christ, not all Christians are simpletons and wa

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by operagost (62405)

        prosecute and berate those that choose to love more than one person

        No we don't.

        we sling hate at any chance we get.

        Speak for yourself.

        But, video of someone beating the hell out of someone or even killing them? That's considered required viewing for children.

        No it's not, Captain Straw Man.

    • Don't get me wrong. I think our attitude towards violence is just dandy. I have no problem with enforcing the castle doctrine, i.e. the notion that if someone breaks into my house and I have an even remotely reasonable fear for my safety, I get a free pass to kill him. That's just logical and those euro-locales that would prohibit people from defending themselves and their property with guns and violence are insane to me.

      But the sex thing? We're just nuts. We're so squeamish on the subject that usefu

  • Pepsi (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Daetrin (576516) on Tuesday February 03, 2009 @08:22AM (#26708117)
    Was it just me or were all the Pepsi commercials atrocious? Telling everyone that regular diet drinks are too "wussy" for a guy to drink isn't exactly going to endear yourself with guys who are already drinking diet drinks, and how many guys really want to drink diet drinks but are so wrapped up in their identity as a macho guy that they're afraid to? (And how many of those are going to be convinced that it's okay to make an exception for Pepsi because of the commercial?)

    I haven't actually seen the SNL skit for comparison, but the Pepsi MacGyver spoof just seemed stupid. It wasn't even the kind of "poking fun at oneself" parody that will endear itself to fans of the show.
    • by Lumpy (12016)

      I cant stand that sticky film feeling on my teeth from that crap. If I cant get Coke/Diet Coke I'll drink water. Pepsi products are too sweet to me.

      Macho guys that don't want to rot out their teeth, or understand how screwed up your diet get's from drinking a lot of sweet soda will drink Diet. I wont touch the regular crap from here in the states. Coke from Mexico that is made with sugar and not corn syrup? that's a different story.

      Pop made with corn syrup is nasty. Ask anyone from outside the USA.

      • How much diet coke do you drink? I recently started having one 16 oz sweet soda ( I like Pepsi actually) a day which is a lot for me historically. I never understood how people could drink so much of the stuff...

        I usually just have A coffee in the morning, water throughout the day, now a soda in the afternoon, and juice or water at night. I used to just drink coffee, water, juice and beer... cut back on the coffee and beer - added a soda.

        Hear what you're saying about the corn syrup though... sugar based so

    • by elrous0 (869638) *
      The original SNL skits those were based on were actually funny. The commercials were most definitely not. It was taking a funny skit, stripping it of everything that made it funny, and just having the character say "Pepsi, Pepsi, Pepsi" over and over again. And having an almost unrecognizable Richard Dean Anderson who looks nothing like McGyver anymore didn't even add a novelty factor.
    • that women will swallow might just excuse the taste of some diet drinks, let alone the taste of some diet food.

      I know, crude, but the Pepsi commercial was just going at it from the guy point of view, I guess for things women put up with everyday... glass ceiling, mammograms, and childbirth....

    • Except the guys who do drink diet drinks won't wuss out and complain that commercials about manly diet drinks offend them.

      Why are you complaining about a pepsi max commercial? ARE YOU A WUSS?????

    • I did like the one Pepsi ad with Bob Dylan and Will.I.Am singing "Forever Young" but overall they sucked. $3 million a spot and that's the best they could come up with?
    • by Duradin (1261418)

      Pepsi Max is a manly diet pop.

      Just drinking it could lead to a "I'm good" moment.

      Prolonged exposure to Siberian Ginseng (which isn't a true ginseng but is much cheaper while having most of the same compounds as true ginseng) can cause nerve inflammation which will lead to muscle spasms. Unfortunately, this is not something they mention on the can, so if you think you've finally found a diet pop with a decent taste and a sizable caffeine payload and make the switch to it on a four can a day habit it may come

  • by characterZer0 (138196) on Tuesday February 03, 2009 @08:28AM (#26708177)

    Let me know when there is a spoof of the PETA ad featuring bacon instead of vegetables.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by sckeener (137243)

      Let me know when there is a spoof of the PETA ad featuring bacon instead of vegetables.

      If you aren't stuck on bacon, a few searches on the internet will probably find you some hotdog spoofs.

  • by LinuxWhore (90833) * on Tuesday February 03, 2009 @08:38AM (#26708255) Homepage Journal
    Certainly less risque than the Peta ad, yet rejected for political content: "Imagine the Potential" [youtube.com]
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Enry (630)

      Well, I'm pro-choice (and ex-Catholic), and I didn't find a problem with that ad. At least it wasn't the usual "You'll burn in hell if you have an abortion!11!!".

      • At least it wasn't the usual "You'll burn in hell if you have an abortion!"

        That may have been "the usual" about 30 years ago, but these days I have noticed the pro-life forces favor using science in their arguments, demonstrating clearly how very early life begins in the womb.

        It hasn't seemed to be very effective, but you know how the zealots react when you start arguing with science...

  • by petes_PoV (912422) on Tuesday February 03, 2009 @08:57AM (#26708459)
    Businesses aren't democracies. Anyone who has ever worked for / in one will know that within the first 5 minutes of walking into the office. They're there to make money - that's all. If you don't do what you're told to, you're out. Which is actually how it is for a visitor to any democratic country, so there are similarities after all.
  • More to the point, Denny's is giving away free Grand Slam breakfasts [businessweek.com] from 6:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. (local time) today.

    Time to see if the /. effect works IRL and DoS Denny's.

    • It did. I swung by on my way to work, and the line was out the door and halfway around the building.

      For a $4 breakfast? Really? I went for my usual Dunkin Donuts coffee + bagel after all...

  • Yeah, right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Flavio (12072) on Tuesday February 03, 2009 @09:02AM (#26708521)

    After watching PETA's ad it's no surprise that it didn't air. I doubt they even have the budget to air commercials during the Superbowl.

    PETA probably commissioned a sexy ad knowing fully well it wouldn't be approved by NBC. The fact that it's "banned" gives PETA the Superbowl publicity it can't afford. (And as others have said, Superbowl watchers aren't exactly PETA's target audience.)

  • SNL (Score:3, Insightful)

    by whisper_jeff (680366) on Tuesday February 03, 2009 @09:03AM (#26708525)
    Why did I waste 30 seconds of my life watching that SNL skit? With the exception of Tina Fey's recent Sarah Palin skits, SNL hasn't been funny for well over a decade and that skit was a prime example of it...
  • as far as i can tell the (last macgruber of the night) snl skit was just re-aired during the superbowl. how is this a parody?

    what am i missing?

  • by professorguy (1108737) on Tuesday February 03, 2009 @09:15AM (#26708671)
    The story makes reference to Will Forte's very funny SNL skits as MacGruber. There were no MacGruber skits during SNL on Saturday night. However, there were 3 different and unrepeated pepsi ads aired during SNL where Forte reprises his MacGruber role. THESE WERE ADS.

    .

    The ads (or at least one of them) were repeated during the superbowl.

    • The MacGruber bits during SNL were in fact Pepsi ads, not skits. And they certainly weren't parodies of the upcoming Super Bowl ads, since they were identical.
    • Tell me, when did it first dawn on you that this was a Pepsi ad?

      • When you see pepsi cans all over the title secuence?
      • When Macgruber says, in fact, that he is sponsored by Pepsi?
      • The "Pepsuber!" logo after the explosion?

      Sorry, but it seems pretty obvious to me that this was an ad, so I don't understand why you are acting as though this is some big conspiracy.

  • by brucmack (572780) on Tuesday February 03, 2009 @09:46AM (#26709181)

    If you're going to watch ads on the internet, may as well make it worth your while...

    http://www.fleggaard.dk/movie.aspx [fleggaard.dk]

    (click that you're Over 18, then hit the first video thumbnail)

  • I don't understand, why was Budweiser's commercial loaded on a ship off the Somali coast? And how much ransom did the pirates want for it?

    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy [gnu.org]

Per buck you get more computing action with the small computer. -- R.W. Hamming

Working...