The Beatles Bible - Topic: advertisements

McLerristarr on advertisements

Sun, 21 Mar 2010 04:52:21 +0000

Lewis346 said:

skye said:

There's also the concept behind the ad to consider. It's supposed to be anti nostalgia, anti retro… and they have dead celebrities selling their car? Hmm.

Good Point. Why are they using famous faces from the 50's, 60's etc. Anti-Retro! I don't think so!

I think it's meant to be ironic.

Lewis346 on advertisements

Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:35:02 +0000

skye said:

There's also the concept behind the ad to consider. It's supposed to be anti nostalgia, anti retro... and they have dead celebrities selling their car? Hmm.

Good Point. Why are they using famous faces from the 50's, 60's etc. Anti-Retro! I don't think so!

McLerristarr on advertisements

Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:45:15 +0000

Hmm, it's not that good an impersonation, I'm sure they could have found much better if they'd tried. At least what he said was tasteful, it wasn't as if he was saying, "I love driving Citroens!". They probably could have found footage of a famous musician saying something like what the fake John was saying rather than putting a voice over onto an unrelated piece of footage.

Joe on advertisements

Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:23:40 +0000

I think this should tell you all you need:

McLerristarr on advertisements

Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:39:47 +0000

I think it's wrong using John in an ad he probably wouldn't have done if he were alive. I agree with Joe, using celebrities to sell something that's appropriate (e.g. The Beatles and their musical equipment or Colonel Sanders and KFC) is fine, as long as it's done respectfully and has permission from their estate or if the celebrity gave their permission before they died, which may start happening now.

I think using historical people (e.g. Jesus, Shakespeare, etc) or using people that deserve to be ridiculed (e.g. Hitler, Mao) is fine. Using an impersonator to allude to a celebrity (e.g. an ...

skye on advertisements

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:13:54 +0000

There's also the concept behind the ad to consider. It's supposed to be anti nostalgia, anti retro... and they have dead celebrities selling their car? Hmm.

Joe on advertisements

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:44:21 +0000

Having thought about this a bit longer, I think one of my main objections is to them dubbing new words over his image. In the light of what Sean Lennon says, it's possible that a young generation may think of John as a man who sang songs and liked Citroen cars. If they'd kept his original words it might have been slightly easier to justify.

Lewis346 on advertisements

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:29:05 +0000

Saw it on the TV's at school. I got so exited, I literally jumped out of my seat. Why?

I thought it was a DVD.

As soon as I see the car I started ranting. My next lessons were full of, Thats a let down. etc.

But to answer you question...

I really dont think they should have used John Lennon to sell this car, I also noticed another advert for this car with Maralyn Monroe.

I really dont think its right to sell something using dead celebs. Especially not John.

mjb on advertisements

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:33:37 +0000

It's the voice that makes me cringe......

Joe on advertisements

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:30:44 +0000

I saw this ad a while back. I thought it was a pretty grubby use of Lennon footage to shift a car.

I have no problem with advertising if it's done in a sensible, logical way. So, if Rickenbacker, Vox or Epiphone wanted to licence Beatles footage to shift instruments, or if Transcendental Meditation used footage of them talking about Maharishi I could understand it. Those were things they had a real connection with and felt passion for. As far as I know he had a Mini and a Rolls-Royce, but not a Citroen (I may be wrong).

Cars, shoes or fizzy ...

skye on advertisements

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:38:21 +0000

Look, there's a trope for this : The Dead Rise to Advertise.

Alissa on advertisements

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:34:49 +0000

Hm- I don't really know where I stand with this.
It's not a particularly disrespecting commercial; we all know how good merchandising works. Put a Beatle at the head of a campaign and you've got money, money, money!

I think Sean went a little overboard though. Calling them 'peasant' and what not, especially, if I'm right, in the context of quoting his father. Yes, I suppose he has the ultimate 'right' to John, other than Yoko, but still. The fans are genuinely concerned and seemingly disgusted. Me, I'm sort of indifferent. I can't say that this is what he would want, ...

skye on advertisements

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:46:27 +0000

See, I didn't understand that part. They want to protect him but have no problem attacking his family?

iCaramba on advertisements

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:17:11 +0000

skye said:

My questions for everyone:

Does this cross the line?

What, if anything, is owed to the fans?

I'm of the opinion that it's not very cool to use John to push merchandise, BUT... it's not my call to make. He gave up all the decision-making to Yoko a long time ago, and we never know what he would have done. The Lennons always had money issues.

Crossing a line? I don't think so. I've seen the ad, and even though I'm not happy about it and the actor "imitating" John's voice is kind of weird, it's not offensive or anything. What ...

skye on advertisements

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:18:43 +0000

I read this article, Sean Lennon hits back in row over murdered Beatles' TV ad images, and it left me with mixed feelings. Mostly, it leaves me worried for things to come. I can't say whether or not John would have been happy being a spokesperson for Citroen, but that seems to be the main sticking point - we can't ask him.

And what happens when we have faux Beatles selling products? They can fake their images, their voices - why stick to old footage and sound bites?

My questions for everyone:

Does this cross the line?
What, if anything, is ...