jump to navigation

Super Bowl Certainties February 1, 2009

Posted by John Taylor in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , ,
2 comments

Today I’m going to gear up for the Super Bowl the way I gear up for Thanksgiving. I think of it as giving yourself a knowing hall pass to eat anything you want the rest of the day. Before many a Thanksgiving, I run the Austin 5 mile Turkey Trot early in the morning. Then I abuse myself with rolls, asparagus in cheese sauce, pickles, olives, apple pie and the like the rest of the day.

 

Today, the day of Super Bowl XLIII, I will go for a run then help my wife’s friend move for about 5 hours, right up to game time. (or pre-game time. Does anyone ever really know when the Super Bowl will kick-off?). Then, with what I will consider hard-earned self-satisfaction, I’ll unleash the hounds of hell on my stomach in the form of Super Bowl snacking. Third bowl of chili? Why yes, yes I will. More seven layer Tex-Mex dip? Yes, I think there’s room on my plate next to the little smoked sausages.

 

On my run and while lifting (from a bent-leg position) someone else’s armoire and dining set, I’ll have plenty of opportunity to ponder these two Super Bowl certainties:

 

  1. I will remark to no one in particular at least five times during the game: “I can make a better commercial than that. I can’t believe they paid some agency to make that commercial then paid NBC a million dollars to air it.” I will mostly say this about beer commercials. Remember the flatulent horse? The clown drinking through its crotch? Less thirsty after those two images? Intriguing Super Bowl XLIII subtext: Will we see a different Budweiser this year now that they are owned by Belgium conglomerate InBev? Will base-humor Budweiser show a more sophisticated and worldly Eurostyle? If you call Clydesdales & Conan sophisticated, the answer is yes.
  2. Despite much encouragement and prodding from me, no one in tomorrow’s Monday 10 a.m. staff meeting will remark on the striking similarities between Kurt Warner’s success story, and my own. I too bagged groceries, only at age 16 for Winn Dixie in Brandon, Florida. Like Kurt, I too went on to something much better than grocery bagging. Kurt is QB for a surprisingly competitive NFL team. I’m PR for a surprisingly competitive member of the SIA. I too have a four letter monosyllabic first name. Come on, isn’t this eerie? Like that Kennedy/Lincoln thing? No?

If only I worked for Fox News (and was assigned a 3D story) January 27, 2009

Posted by John Taylor in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
4 comments

Jon Stewart has often mockingly celebrated the Fox News invention of making outrageous, charged statements in the form of leading questions. I don’t have to look back any further than President Obama’s inauguration, with Chris Wallace one hour later still asking “Is Obama even president?”

 

In Fox News style, here are a few questions I’d ask the powers behind the push to bring “active” stereoscopic 3D to TV and movies:

  1. Apparently, during this year’s “Not Exactly Patriots vs. Giants” Super Bowl, we will be treated to a Sobe beverage commercial in 3D. It seems the awkwardly-shy-about-putting-its-logo-on-anything and painfully-self-conscious-about-not-overshadowing-its-customers Intel decided this is the right moment in history to print up 125 million paper stereoscopic 3D glasses (That is not at all wasteful. Suck on THAT Mother Earth!) with an Intel logo right between the eyes. And give them away free so we can watch a beverage commercial in 3D? Oh, and an episode of “Chuck” in 3D too? My Fox news question: Were Intel marketers inspired by the movie “Idiocracy” in convincing themselves that America wants to sit around looking at one another at Super Bowl parties with an Intel logo blazed between our eyes, watching ads?
  2. DreamWorks, you are going to considerable expense to make your future animated projects stereoscopic 3D. You in fact said this is why you selected Intel as your processor supplier (After all, Intel is famous infamous for its 3D and graphics capabilities). But with theater adoption of digital 3D not only off the pace but likely to even decelerate in 2009 due to economic considerations, is this the 80/20 rule in reverse? According to the Dallas Morning News: “Only about 1,300 of North America’s 40,000 or so movie screens support digital 3-D. (IMAX adds 250, which combined is still less than 1/20th). Overseas, where films now generate up to 70 percent of their theatrical revenue, only a few hundred theaters can support the technology.” So Fox News asks: We love your movies, DreamWorks, but do you think it is a good idea to exert 80% extra effort and expense even though much less than 20% of your audience can even experience it?
  3. I’ll just jump to the Fox News question here. Do any of us really want to have to look like these guys to watch something in 3D?

I rest my case for a passive (no 3D glasses) 3D viewing experience.