So recently, we have seen a spate of tv commercials by a local mobile phone service provider, with 3 funky men bobbing their heads to music. Here are the commercials, which some may say are "funny" and "hilarious":
Video #1:
Video #2:
Video #3:
Video #4:
Video #5:
Funny? Hilarious? Really?
Here's the Real McCoy, posted in 2005:
 |  |  |
 |
So now you know where the idea came from. So much for originality and creativity.
PS: Don't bother trying to post a message on the YouTube videos. The user who uploaded it is scared stiff of negative comments, and all posted comments will go through his approval first before he will ever allow it up for the whole world to see. So, no chance of bashing the videos there.
*Edit*: It seems that the original SNL skit by Jim Carrey, Will Ferrell, and Chris Kattan came out in 1975, and the movie "A Night at the Roxbury" that was based on the skit, was released in 1998.
28 comments:
you're an idiot, it's from the show one night at the roxbury, the jim carrey segment came way later.
Damn right you're an idiot
maybe the whole idea is to make a parody of the whole thing. from comedy central.
way to go captain fuckface.
There is no plagiarism here.
Three guys bobbing their head to music in a comedic manner is hardly something unique that needs credit to be given to.
I'm not surprised if some of us even do it ourselves to entertain our friends when we go clubbing sometimes.
Oh my... good detective work. FYI one of the other guy is the voiceover actor of spongebob friend patrick :)
M1 is not that original after all.
But most advertisements are like that they recycle ideas.
What to do?It Happen. Let's move on.
Anonymous #1: Did I say that I didn't know it was from the show "A Night at the Roxbury"?
Max: Perhaps you are right about the idea to make a parody. But given the track record of local advertising having little success in making parodies, it makes it more like a pathetic attempt. Also, name-calling doesn't help to strengthen your arguments, remember that. You have already lost the fight with words the minute your arguments consists of name-calling.
Of course, you folks out there are entitled to your own opinions. I am not here to play God and dictate your thoughts. By the same reasoning, I am entitled to my own viewpoints and opinions. This post was made simply because I see a strong resemblence of the commercials from the original Roxbury clips. If you violently object my opinions, go ahead and leave me a comment if you wish, but there is really no need to resort to name-calling.
Alternatively, you can always simply close the browser window.
Anonymous #1: By the way, the show "A Night at the Roxbury" was made in 1998.
The idea for the movie came from the skit on SNL (that is in this post) from 1975.
So tell me, is 1975 earlier than 1998 on the calendar, or is it the other way round?
you call that plagiarism?? are you wearing your pants too tightly?
huh? wats the big deal?
....
the blogger is obviously a tight fellow.
"huh? whats the big deal"?
anon is clearly an asswipe. dude, if you can't even see the point of this post, then prolly you should go read more books or smth.
Wah, liddat hor, might as well say 3 Little Pigs, 3 Blind Mice, 3 Musketeers, 3 Wise Men all plagiarize each other.
Shu Yen: Thanks for the comment, but I don't remember the 3 insert-your-favourite-fairy-tale-folks bobbing their heads in this similar fashion. :)
Yeah but neither do I remember 3 people bobbing their heads in this similar fashion in the particular context of a stupid brand x mobile phone company executives making stupid presentations about stupid ideas which don't work.
And let's face it, the plagiarised part wasn't a central idea. The ads would have worked even if the 3 guys did something else to indicate they were stupid. It's plagiarism only if the idea is not used in a different context and no new material is added. It fails the test for plagiarism.
numbernime: Some people see similarities in two objects, however abstract they are. Others, do not no matter how long they stare at them.
If you don't think there are any similarities, so be it. You are entitled to your own views like what I mentioned above to the other folks. I am not forcing you to adopt my viewpoint.
OMG I just think that what Jim Carrey, Will Ferrell, and Chris Kattan do to those girls in that video was obscene. LOL.
And I think the M1 commercials suck, regardless if they plagiarised at all. It's just a waste of time and money making commercials like that. They only get people discussing about it on the blogosphere. Then nothing else happens.
a parody of the parody (it's good stuff):
http://www.kontraband.com/videos/5274/What-Is-Love/
This is plagiarism?
You need to look up the word more.
woonie: Yeah thanks for the link. I saw that a while ago, that was pretty funny. :)
De Cruz: Sorry to burst your bubble, but I made no mention of "plagiarism" anywhere in the original post. Plagiarism is too strong a word. I said "...so much for originality and creativity...".
Jonathan Wong was the one up there who first put the word "plagiarism" into my mouth.
I stand innocent of using that specific term in front of the jury. Thank you
I didn't say I didn't see the similarities. I don't see this as being plagiarism.
And please don't try to miscast your position that the ads are merely similar. That is not what users of the English language understand by "now you know where the idea came from". If it's copying not amounting to plagiarism there's no need for the perjorative tone.
Try saying "now you know where one of the ideas comes from". I know, it sounds dumb.
I won't try to hide my biases here: I hate people who kick locals for being locals.
Oh, and this statement "You have already lost the fight with words the minute your arguments consists of name-calling."
Name calling doesn't strengthen arguments, to be sure, but it doesn't weaken them either. They're just irrelevant. To announce to people that there are issues more important than the substance of the argument, however, is to admit that you have limited respect for the truth.
numbernine: Could you please let me know, under what situation does name-calling "not weaken an argument"? I should really like to hear your opinion on this issue.
As for what you mean by "limited respect for the truth", I am sorry but I do not understand what you mean by that. What is the truth in this case? That this is not plagiarism at all? If that's what you mean, surely you are right.
Lastly, the "pejorative tone" is just a perception of yours. It belongs to you. I can daresay that you are the first one who feedbacked to me using that word. Others have feedbacked to me with words that are very different from yours. Again, this is very debatable, just like this issue of plagiarism. But that, is another issue altogether.
What I can say is just that this blog is simply what is described on the front page, from my own perspective.
--------------------
Just for the record for everyone out there who bothers, "plagiarism" is defined as such (definition taken from dictionary.com): "the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."
The term "close imitation" already makes this a very debatable issue, because there is no definition for what is meant by "close".
I say it's similar, another guy comes along and says it's not. A third person says perhaps. Nobody's right or wrong.
There is no hard and fast rule to define what constitutes plagiarism or not.
I respect all you folks out there who disagree with me. It's your own opinion. Just like some of you dislike those who "kick locals for being locals", I dislike those who resort to name-calling in order to bring others down. People who belong to this category are not respectable at all.
Sorry to everyone for kicking up the sh!t storm over the use of the word "plagiarism".
Just for the heck of it, here is another definition of the word based on Oxford University Press (via Answers.com):
...Plagiarism is not always easily separable from imitation, adaptation, or pastiche, but is usually distinguished by its dishonest intention.
Regardless whether one feels "plagiarism" is the correct word to use or not in this situation in terms of intent or harshness, the personal vibe I felt from the author's original post certainly was one of negativity over M1's use of the head-bobbing idea to portray the 3 men in a comedic light.
Perhaps what I really meant to say was that I don't see what the big deal is. To me, there is already enough originality in the spots that if you replace the head-bobbing with some other action, it wouldn't add or take away much.
Besides, is the 1975 SNL skit the first time ever when someone bobs their head comically to dance music? Do you really believe that "idea" deserves the credit of being conceived from a vacuum without anecdotal observations in real life first? :)
Hi Jonathan Wong, I really do agree with you. What is the big deal about this at all?
My blog, as the title says, already explains the nature of its posts (or contents).
Hi, I'll say this again since you didn't understand it the first time around (and don't ask me to repeat it again.) Name calling does not add anything to an argument or detract from it. It is completely irrelevant. But if you are assessing an argument based on name calling then it is wrong because you would be assessing an argument on something other than the intrinsic merits of that argument. That is to me limited respect for the truth.
As for pejorative I may have been the first to explicitly use that term. (Others have suggested that you wear your pants too tightly, and this is a comment does not make any sense unless he thought you felt negatively about the ad.) Later on Jonathan mentioned the "negative vibe" so I really believe that I am not alone in saying that the original post is pejorative.
I may have assumed that if it is only similar and not plagiarism there's no need to criticise it because all art is just borrowing things that have been done before and putting it together differently. But you probably put the bar for "originality and creativity" pretty damn high.
numbernine: Frankly speaking, usually when one uses profanities or vulgarities in the arguments, it already implies that they are blinded by anger and are not thinking logically or rationally.
Hence, when I see such arguments, there is really no point in continuing the argument simply because no amount of words can make the one blinded by anger, to see things the "right" way.
Just like people who get themselves into fist-fights upon realising they have lost the argument, the same goes for usage of profanities because the person has run out of words to use in the argument. That is what I mean by "losing the fight the minute you call others names".
Sure, your viewpoint that the original post is pejorative is shared by others. There may be others who share your exact same sentiments, but did not make it known by putting a comment up here. The same goes for the other side of the camp.
Those in the "disagree" camp can really go on bashing me for eternity; I already mentioned that I respect people from both sides of the camp, and I am not trying to dictate your thoughts.
However, with that being said, I just wish to ask this single question: What is it you hope to achieve at the end of the day? Is it for me to surrender by taking down the post? Is it for me to have my viewpoint altered, in the sense that there is absolutely no relation between the two? Or is it simply just to vent your frustrations on me for nitpicking at something on a blog that implicitly announces it to be a blog that nitpicks at things/issues?
Or is it something else?
It's a very good question. Heh heh. Why don't you tell me first what you put up this post for, since I'd also like to know? Then I'll give you my answer.
numbernine: You gotta be kidding! I now have to justify why I am putting up the slightest of nitpicks on *my own blog*?
I rest my case.
Well I don't object to you saying what you want on your blog. But it's a bad habit of mine, when I see logical inconsistencies, I nitpick too.
"when one uses profanities or vulgarities in the arguments, it already implies that they are blinded by anger and are not thinking logically or rationally."
When somebody says something back to you, you either agree, or you disagree, or you don't know. When you have to imply from whether they use profanities or vulgarities, it simply means you don't know.
Post a Comment