Home Forums Ganymede & Titan Forum Hooray for Dwarf people in old ads!

Viewing 31 posts - 1 through 31 (of 31 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2257
    John Hoare
    Participant
    #121784
    Ben Paddon
    Participant

    “You’ll go monster mad for the honey, innit.”

    #121798
    si
    Participant

    I always thought the Mcleans ad that was a rip off of RD was best, with Rob Llewellyn’s VO as Kryten at the end – “New Mcleans whitening – for a brighter, whiter future!”

    #121802
    John Hoare
    Participant

    I always thought the Mcleans ad that was a rip off of RD was best, with Rob Llewellyn?s VO as Kryten at the end – ?New Mcleans whitening – for a brighter, whiter future!?

    Now you say that, it sort of rings a bell! I’d completely forgotten about it, though…

    The best RD-related ad was the Polo one done by Aardman. The series of ads featured a load of Polos on conveyer belts in a factory, and one of them was for the new spearmint flavour – and featured Danny doing a voiceover for a Polo who went into his wardrobe to find a new outfit. It then came out with his new blue speckled look, and ended with him saying “Cooler than a snowman’s cold bits”.

    I wish I could track down a copy.

    #121804
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    >The best RD-related ad was the Polo one done by Aardman. The series of ads featured a load of Polos on conveyer belts in a factory, and one of them was for the new spearmint flavour – and featured Danny doing a voiceover for a Polo who went into his wardrobe to find a new outfit. It then came out with his new blue speckled look, and ended with him saying ?Cooler than a snowman?s cold bits?.

    Lazy Advertising Slags.

    Preferred Chris in Jif Micro Liquid or Vauxhall Corsa.

    #121805
    Ian Symes
    Keymaster

    I may be small, but I’ve got MICRO POWER!

    #121807
    John Hoare
    Participant

    Lazy Advertising Slags.

    I must admit, it was the animation I liked, rather than anything else…

    #121818
    Danny Stephenson
    Keymaster

    one of them was for the new spearmint flavour – and featured Danny doing a voiceover for a Polo who went into his wardrobe to find a new outfit. It then came out with his new blue speckled look, and ended with him saying ?Cooler than a snowman?s cold bits?.

    I remember! I remember!!!

    #121827
    Pheonix11
    Participant

    That should be the Next release.

    GNP have pretty much said they’re out of Extra’s fodder, but a collation of all the guys ad’s, I’d buy it.

    Hell Chris’s ads should be a disc on their own.

    And Before anyone mentions the various copy write issue’s, Think about all the Companies getting their product seen. That should swing it.

    /Mad thoughts

    #121838
    Dave
    Participant

    Anyone else remember Craig’s Mushy Pea ad?

    Hello Pea

    #121845
    Ian Symes
    Keymaster

    Hey pea, remember the good old days? Back on the farm?

    #121850
    Tanya Jones
    Participant

    >And Before anyone mentions the various copy write issue?s, Think about all the Companies getting their product seen. That should swing it.

    Yeah. That’s how it works.

    #121851
    Phil
    Participant

    >Think about all the Companies getting their product seen. That should swing it.

    It certainly doesn’t seem to work that way for including music on DVD releases. Which frustrates me to no end. It literally can *only* help album sales, and removing it from the film/television show is not infrequently artistically crippling.

    #121853
    Andrew
    Participant

    > It literally can *only* help album sales,

    I don’t think that’s necessarily true – if your track is playing low behind a violent rape scene, started on the jukebox by the attacker, it’s sure as hell not helping album sales.

    An artist has a totally reasonable right to share in the profit if a TV show or film is making money from the use of that track. And it’s equally reasonable to have a say over the use of your art by someone else for financial gain.

    #121854
    Phil
    Participant

    >if your track is playing low behind a violent rape scene, started on the jukebox by the attacker, it?s sure as hell not helping album sales.

    Ha. Fair enough. Now name me one example of a song being withheld for that very reason.

    Besides, “Stuck in the Middle With You” found popular resurgence for being featured behind the most violent scene in Reservoir Dogs. That sold albums.

    Actually, your imaginary violent rape scene kinda sorta did happen in Pulp Fiction, didn’t it? (It’s been years since I’ve seen it though.) And that film helped repopularize (for a time) surf music; one prime example of which was being played over a scene of unwilling sodomy. And yes, the attacker chose the track.

    The fact is that the artist (or record company) already licenses the song for it to even appear in the first place. My frustration comes that it’s not entirely uncommon for the licensing not to carry over to home release.

    Would it really have killed Phil Collins to allow 30 seconds of “Invisible Touch” to play during the last episode of Saxondale series one? He allowed it on the air…so why did the DVD version have to resort to some awful MIDI (which we’re supposed to believe is coming out of a record player…)?

    It was licensed for air, but not for release.

    Anyone who was going to buy the show or film on DVD is still going to buy the show or film on DVD. You very rarely can say that the inclusion of a certain song makes the sale in itself. In fact, I’d argue that it never does. The removal of the song is what hurts, because it will always cause the scene to have a different impact than it had originally.

    #121855
    Andrew
    Participant

    > Now name me one example of a song being withheld for that very reason.

    I’d imagine The Accused had some clearance issues before the bar music was able to be sorted out.

    > Besides, ?Stuck in the Middle With You? found popular resurgence for being featured behind the most violent scene in Reservoir Dogs.

    True. But a) the gimp/rape scene in Pulp Fiction WAS refused its original music choice precisely due to content, and b) Tarantino’s violence ain’t Coppola’s violence. Playing for dark laughs isn’t the same as playing for truth – not all music use comes with a ‘Hey, this is cool, huh?’ suggestion. Regardless, I’d still defend the artist in their choice as to what they found ‘funny’ or ‘reasonable’ when it comes to using their music.

    > He allowed it on the air?so why did the DVD version have to resort to some awful MIDI

    The BBC has a PRS (or is it MCPS?) deal that makes music clearance a bazillion times easier, as a Public Service Broadcaster, than on a for-profit DVD release, or even a commercial channel broadcast. Half the time the artists aren’t even approached, much like radio. It’s the sale on to other stations, and to home release, that causes the problems. “He allowed it on TV” is likely inaccurate, or at least an over-simplification.

    I don’t deny that it hurts a show or film to lose the track originally shot-for or edited to. But a place in popular culture doesn’t make something publicly owned. Just as you have a right to refuse your face appearing in something without consent, you have a right to not have your work placed out of context for a per-unit profit that the makers get, but that you’ll mostly never see. (Also, not all these clearances are based on refusal, just an inability to reach a financial agreement. Mostly, in fact.)

    If Uwe Boll wants to use a G&T Dwarfcast in the background of his movie as an example of nerds who deserve to be killed, and who are then insulted at length by his characters, should he be able to assume it’s okay because, hey, it’s in the culture, right? To hell with whether the makers want to be a part of the work of a hack, or re-contextualised the way he wants?

    #121856
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    Do you like Phil Collins? I’ve been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn’t understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where Phil Collins’ presence became more apparent. I think Invisible Touch was the group’s undisputed masterpiece. It’s an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums. Christy, take off your robe. Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. Sabrina, remove your dress. In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Sabrina, why don’t you, uh, dance a little. Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. In Too Deep is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as anything I’ve heard in rock. Christy, get down on your knees so Sabrina can see your asshole. Phil Collins’ solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like In the Air Tonight and Against All Odds. Sabrina, don’t just stare at it, eat it. But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist. This is Sussudio, a great, great song, a personal favorite.

    #121857
    Andrew
    Participant

    Our American Psycho, there.

    …And Collins signing off on his music being used for group sex and (later) violence.

    #121858
    Ridley
    Participant

    The BBC has a PRS (or is it MCPS?) deal that makes music clearance a bazillion times easier, as a Public Service Broadcaster, than on a for-profit DVD release, or even a commercial channel broadcast.

    Just easier? I was led to believe that the BBC has free access to any music in broadcast as long as it’s not a theme tune.

    At least that’s how the Monkey Dust DVD commentary explained the awful cover version of POD’s Alive on there (because they couldn’t afford the actual song for the DVD).

    #121859
    Andrew
    Participant

    > Just easier? I was led to believe that the BBC has free access to any music in broadcast as long as it?s not a theme tune.

    It depends on the use. When you make the show, you assign certain rights (two TX used to be usual, but the shape of telly’s so different now).

    When Dwarf is made, we do the clearances for worldwide, usually for a minimum of ten years, including home use. Because we know it’s going to last that long and go out that way.

    When TV shows talk about clearing a track – something we heard a lot about with Life on Mars – often it’s for the eventual video rather than the broadcast version; but sometimes, and more so these days, it’s also because the show won’t just be going out on UK BBC television. As soon as BBC America, say, or UK Gold, is factored in, it’s commercial and the rules change. And oftentimes part of the show’s funding will come from those places. (I believe Worldwide, for example, invested in the Dwarf series later on, covering what the BBC couldn’t stretch to.)

    So yes, you’re right, it’s just not the whole story.

    #121862
    Phil
    Participant

    >But a place in popular culture doesn?t make something publicly owned.

    No, it doesn’t, but it does make it frustrating and disappointing when it’s there during the initial airing and removed in subsequent release.

    >If Uwe Boll wants to use a G&T Dwarfcast in the background of his movie as an example of nerds who deserve to be killed, and who are then insulted at length by his characters, should he be able to assume it?s okay because, hey, it?s in the culture, right?

    If G+T signs off on the initial usage but then refuses it to be used again for the home release, then yes, it’s frustrating and disappointing.

    Spy a pattern here? It’s what I’ve been saying from the start…

    If the artist doesn’t want something used, don’t approve it in the first place. I see no benefit to allowing broadcast usage and not home release usage.

    >?He allowed it on TV? is likely inaccurate, or at least an over-simplification.

    Fair enough, and probably the most important point raised yet. But with post-broadcast-availability in the process of being completely revolutionized, I hope this is something that will be addressed soon.

    I’m familiar with the fact that a good deal of clearance issues are really just inabilities to reach a financial agreement. (It’s one of those unanticipated things I learned from being a Muppet fan, oddly enough, and following the tribulations of releasing those old episodes on DVD.) But I’d hope to God that in this age of digital streaming/downloading and very quick (and comprehensive) DVD turnaround, this will be taken into account in the initial stage and become less of a nightmare down the line.

    #121866
    Jonathan Capps
    Keymaster

    Back to the original topic:

    That’s GOT to be David Ross in full on Mr. P mode as the husband, hasn’t it? It’s a fantastic PIF, anyway.

    #121873
    Andrew
    Participant

    > but it does make it frustrating and disappointing when it?s there during the initial airing and removed in subsequent release.

    And I totally agree.

    > I see no benefit to allowing broadcast usage and not home release usage.

    Then maybe you’re missing the whole ‘financial’ point. Songwriters should allow themselves to be ripped off by an overspent production to keep a few dozen fans – of something they may not even like – happy?

    Plus, yeah, we’re talking about uses that were not likely cleared directly in the first place. If you’ve got examples where the track was fully cleared and then withdrawn – as opposed to the PBS/BBC deal – that gets more interesting. But I imagine they’re rare.

    > But I?d hope to God that in this age of digital streaming/downloading and very quick (and comprehensive) DVD turnaround, this will be taken into account in the initial stage and become less of a nightmare down the line.

    Indeed, I still agree. And, as I say, it sometimes is. Shows that are certain of such releases go the extra mile. The rest..try to save money. Which is their call, and not the artists’ fault.

    Certainly, the argument that “It always helps album sales” doesn’t hold water. Nor should it automatically be enough to justify full and ‘whatever you like’ use of any track. The makers should, what, allow anything at all to be done with their work for the sake of financial gain, no matter the context? In other circumstances, wouldn’t that be derided by critical groups such as these as crass profiteering?

    Hey, look, I keep saying it – I agree with the disappointment. The DVD of Brimstone and Treacle is marred by a song change that kills a major sequence – poorly chosen, poorly mixed, the lot. But suggesting that the fault lies with the musician rather than the production seems unfair. As does suggesting that, as the use is partly promotional, a musician should allow anything whatsoever to be done with their track.

    #121874
    John Hoare
    Participant

    In general, I agree that the artist absolutely has the right to refuse use of a track. But – depending on the situation – I also reserve the right to think less of an artist for doing so. There’s a big difference between a major production with a huge budget that doesn’t want to pay fairly, and/or wants to use the music over controversial content – and, say, an archive release of something that isn’t going to sell much (Hi-De-Hi, I’m looking at you). The former is totally understandable. The latter just makes me think less of the artist, however much they have the right to do it.

    Mind you, I suspect that in a lot of cases, the request doesn’t even get to the artists themselves – it’s all dealt with by their agents, and the record companies. Which is a shame, because I suspect the artists themselves would often take a kindlier view with music permissions.

    #121875
    Andrew
    Participant

    > and, say, an archive release of something that isn?t going to sell much

    Doesn’t make the request for a reasonable fee unfair, though. If they don’t get it, and sign-off anyway, it sets a ghastly president, and arguably cheapens the value of the track.

    If refusal DOES come from the artist, and isn’t simply about fair value to all concerned, well, they may just hate the show you love – and if that’s enough to lower your opinion then…well, okay then! :-)

    Thing is – it’s impossibly rare that we’ll know the ins and outs of each piece of clearance. There are too many variables. And, that being the case, isn’t chucking hate towards an artist redundant? To be disappointed is fair enough, but to decry one side as unreasonable simply because you don’t get what you want, without knowing any of the details….that’s just daft.

    #121876
    John Hoare
    Participant

    Doesn?t make the request for a reasonable fee unfair, though. If they don?t get it, and sign-off anyway, it sets a ghastly president, and arguably cheapens the value of the track.

    Depends what a “reasonable” fee is, though. I’d argue that a reasonable fee for, say, an archive DVD release would be a negligible amount, as the margins are so tight anyway. But presumably some artists don’t see it that way, and see the price of clearance as absolute, rather than relative. (To be fair, I’m sure some DVD producers don’t even TRY to clear tracks, and just replace it without even asking, to save time/money/hassle. Which is equally as bad, if not worse.)

    If refusal DOES come from the artist, and isn?t simply about fair value to all concerned, well, they may just hate the show you love – and if that?s enough to lower your opinion then?well, okay then! :-)

    Well, I’d personally say that any artist who refuses permission simply because they don’t like the show, rather than due to controversial content or money issues, is being slightly petty. Whether it’s something I like or not is irrelevant…

    Thing is – it?s impossibly rare that we?ll know the ins and outs of each piece of clearance. There are too many variables. And, that being the case, isn?t chucking hate towards an artist redundant? To be disappointed is fair enough, but to decry one side as unreasonable simply because you don?t get what you want, without knowing any of the details?.that?s just daft.

    Yeah, fair enough – it’s true that in a lot of cases we’ll never know what the exact situation is, so blame or otherwise is difficult to apportion. But for the aforementioned archive DVD releases, I think there’s some blame attached with either the DVD producers *or* the artists, however much either of them has the right to do what they do.

    From what I heard on the Doctor Who Restoration Team Forum, there’s been a new industry-wide agreement with a whole load of artists that should make some music easier to clear for DVD release. Which is great. And I suspect things can only get better in the future.

    #121881
    Andrew
    Participant

    Hmm – that linky no work!

    > Well, I?d personally say that any artist who refuses permission simply because they don?t like the show, rather than due to controversial content or money issues, is being slightly petty.

    I disagree that it’s petty – if you think a show represents the cheapest, crappiest, dumbest TV you can imagine, why shouldn’t you refuse the money and stand by your principals? Doesn’t that have some measure of integrity?

    When these boards have previously seen Queen given a hiding for allowing their songs such wide use for advertising, I’d’ve thought that was reasonable. Why shouldn’t…I dunno, the Presley estate refuse use of Love Me Tender on a Big Brother best of DVD?

    > I think there?s some blame attached with either the DVD producers *or* the artists

    Oh absolutely – it’s just that we generally don’t know which, yet the first response generally seems to be to blame the artist for refusing permission. Which may not even be the case, or at least the whole story.

    Certainly I know of examples where a track was replaced to save money based on the LIKELY cost of clearing for home use. A disc that may not sell many has to have minimal overheads, and even a standard minimum may be too much for the producer to justify.

    So it becomes ‘adjusted release’ or ‘no release’. Bob and Rose had a decent job done on its track replacement, so it didn’t hurt too much. The Second Coming, sadly, had a poor replacement choice and a duff mix. But I’d still rather have the things in some form than not at all.

    #121882
    John Hoare
    Participant

    Hmm – that linky no work!

    Fixed – although it’s just a general link to the forum, as the actual discussion about the new agreement has now gone. But from the sounds of it, it should allow a lot more music to be cleared on DVD in the future – it’s a blanket agreement involving several companies.

    I disagree that it?s petty – if you think a show represents the cheapest, crappiest, dumbest TV you can imagine, why shouldn?t you refuse the money and stand by your principals? Doesn?t that have some measure of integrity?

    Point taken. Although with most of the DVD clearance issues I would complain about, it’s a huge stretch for ANYONE to call it cheap, crappy, dumb TV. So I suppose yes – if an artist refuses permission based on that, when I think the show is great, my opinion would go down of them! (But not my opinion of their music – a crucial difference.)

    I suspect that most music clearance issues are to do with cost, rather than objection to the content, though.

    So it becomes ?adjusted release? or ?no release?. Bob and Rose had a decent job done on its track replacement, so it didn?t hurt too much. The Second Coming, sadly, had a poor replacement choice and a duff mix. But I?d still rather have the things in some form than not at all.

    This is true. And as I’ve said with Life On Mars, I’m glad the programme went out in its preferred form, rather than be forever compromised by music clearance issues even on broadcast, just because of the DVD release. (I wonder if it’s the same for Ashes To Ashes – as you said at the time, it’s very unusual for shows to do this these days.)

    Mind you, I REALLY wish DVD companies would put notes on their website giving details of the cuts/edits on their DVDs. Part of the reason that it bugs me so much is that often, I don’t know what exactly has been replaced – it’s often obvious there’s been an edit, but not what the original version was. It’s fair enough to say that most people won’t care – but on the other hand, it wouldn’t be expensive to do, and there are enough anal fans buying DVDs around to make it worth their while. Personally speaking, if I knew *exactly* what what missing, I’d be *more* inclined to buy the release – because the odd music substitution you know about sounds a lot better and less detrimental to the programme than a generic “For contractual reasons, certain edits have been made” – which makes it sound a lot worse than it often is.

    Hell, you wouldn’t have to put the list on the front of their site. Hide it away somewhere – regular buyers don’t have to see it…

    #121883
    Andrew
    Participant

    > I suspect that most music clearance issues are to do with cost, rather than objection to the content, though.

    Oh, indeed. Though some have a blanket ‘we never allow permission’ thing, which is set up from the start to protect the integrity of their work, for the most part it’s some version of ‘the deal’. I’m sure a big part of it is that the companies have a flat set of rates based on a track’s success, etc., which is how you end up with DVD makers not even bothering to get in touch – they know how the conversation’s gonna go already.

    On the Dwarf DVDs, the Chumbawumba track didn’t make the US release due to cost. The song was apparently so popular in the States that they were able to ask a good whack for it. (Which, to be fair, is back to a ‘maintaining worth’ thing – it ensures only those who REALLY want it, and can afford it, can use it; lesser tracks come cheaper. There’s a reasonable business balance there.)

    The joke of the song not being on the American DVD is that the calculations were based on what we were expected to sell – around 20,000 copies in the UK, much less overseas. Had Worldwide known we were going to sweep past 250,000 in the UK alone, they’d have stumped up, I suspect. Certainly, from that point on, the American branch covered the cost of U.S. music clearances when appropriate to ensure that the content stayed on there.

    > Mind you, I REALLY wish DVD companies would put notes on their website giving details of the cuts/edits on their DVDs

    Absolutely.

    “Some cuts” – as written on the back of BBC and ITV shows – tells you nothing. Worse, they often don’t mean ‘cuts’ so much as ‘changes’, which is really off-putting and needn’t be.

    Also, yeah, there’s no harm in NAMING the replaced song. Cracker replaced Ray Charles’ I’m Gonna Love You with some generic tosh, but I still get some vague sense of what I saw originally by knowing what’s been changed. I love on the Almost Famous DVD, a deleted scene was meant to heavily feature Stairway to Heaven and couldn’t for clearance reasons. So they put the scene on the DVD…and asked you to start your CD at the right moment.

    (I wanted to do this for Dwarf’s Comic Relief Bohemian Rhapsody, but sadly the clearance of performers still got in the way!)

    #121884
    John Hoare
    Participant

    Also, yeah, there?s no harm in NAMING the replaced song. Cracker replaced Ray Charles? I?m Gonna Love You with some generic tosh, but I still get some vague sense of what I saw originally by knowing what?s been changed.

    Yes!

    I have a dream for an Edit Wiki, detailing all these cuts. But… well, I have no time. At all. In the slightest. Not even just to maintain it, let alone provide the content to get the site started. I wish someone would do it!

    (I wanted to do this for Dwarf?s Comic Relief Bohemian Rhapsody, but sadly the clearance of performers still got in the way!)

    Could you have just put the whole one-take performance of the Dwarf cast and done that? Or is that footage now missing?

    #121885
    Andrew
    Participant

    > Could you have just put the whole one-take performance of the Dwarf cast and done that? Or is that footage now missing?

    Missing, sadly. Tape was taken away by Comic Relief when they shot it, and now seems to be gone forever.

Viewing 31 posts - 1 through 31 (of 31 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.