Friday, September 24, 2004
i've spent way too much time on this...
Much of my distaste for Shrek and Pepsi ads stems from the fact that, as Hillary notes in the comments below, they are, in a sense, each pretenders to a crown. That wasn’t the thrust of my argument, though. What bugs me about both is the way in which they choose to engage their superior and more entrenched counterparts. It’s reminiscent of the attitude Fox News has towards the networks and CNN, that petty and amateurish braggadocio that I presume is supposed to be “edgy” and “attitudinous” but instead comes off as desperate or assholish.
The mocking of the Magic Kingdom and Disney-style fairy tales in Shrek isn’t as bad as Pepsi’s utter inability to not mention Coke in any of their commercials, but both are little more than overblown cases of sour grapes. Pepsi is demonstrably worse about this, of course. They reach new heights of disingenuousness with that recent ad for Pepsi Edge, where the obsessive Coca-Cola memorabilia collector trades in all his junk for Pepsi merchandise after tasting their knock-off of C2. The voice-over mentions that Edge has half the sugar and calories of Coke as if it’s the most amazing development since the Gold Dust Trio started fixing wrestling back in the 1910’s. Of course they never mention that Coke had the exact same product on the market months earlier. Almost every commercial Pepsi has ever made explicitly references Coca-Cola, and every time in supposedly humorous manners that are always objectively not funny. Pepsi’s ads make them look desperate and pathetic. Shrek’s Disney jokes aren’t nearly as annoying or self-damaging as Pepsi’s commercials, but in attempting to make fun of it’s competitor Shrek succeeds more in reminding the viewer how superior Disney / Pixar movies are to itself.
But what pisses me off the most is that both are entirely too smug and self-satisfied with their own fallaciously assumed hipness. There’s nothing hip about a god-damned soda, ever, and Pepsi’s eternal attempts to saddle itself up on top of that youth market stallion reveal how desperately square they really are. And just because Shrek’s soundtrack eschews Peabo Bryson and Elton John for the Smashmouths of the world does not in any way make them any cooler or more relevant than Pixar or even traditional Disney movies. Ditto with Shrek’s facile, annoying irony and post-modernist flourishes. It boils down to the fact that, unless you’re the Fonz, saying you’re cool does not make you cool. Furthermore, adopting the easy hallmarks of shallow, meaningless psuedo-post-Generation X culture in order to pander to college kids and dumb-ass twentysomethings has very little place in family films.
There’s no denying that Coke kicks Pepsi’s ass in every possible way, and likewise with Disney/Pixar and Dreamworks/Shrek. Every notable and successful upgrade to the basic soda format has come from Coke; diet soda, prepackaged flavored sodas with cherry, vanilla, and lemon, and the new lower-sugar, lower-carb, non-diet soda all were first brewed up down in Atlanta. Pepsi’s only attempt at a new soda paradigm was the inimitable Crystal Pepsi, which was about as successful as clear gravy. Pepsi is constantly playing catch-up with the original, and their pathetic advertisements only put an emphasis upon their vainglorious quest.
Finally, Shrek’s shortfalls become blatantly obvious when compared with Finding Nemo, A Bug’s Life, or either Toy Story. I feel like I’ve been a bit too harsh on Shrek, as I didn’t really hate it. Much of it is funny. The humor, however, can’t mask the movie’s emotional deficiencies. The Pixar films have more resonance, more sweetness, more heart; they are family films that can be enjoyed by all and that don’t pander or condescend to any age group. They also don’t let the celebrity voice overwhelm the character. The worst aspect of Shrek is Mike Myers. Myers, the laziest man in Hollywood, hasn’t made a consistently humorous film since maybe Wayne’s World. Wayne’s World 2, So I Married an Axe Murderer, and the first Austin Powers were all okay, but every Mike Myers movie since then has been god-awful (except Shrek). And although Shrek isn’t terrible, Myers performance is. When I watched Shrek I wasn’t hearing a character, I was hearing Myers recycle his old Scotsman accent. Eddie Murphy was good, but he was basically playing his dragon character from Disney’s great Mulan. And although there have been a few shit-fart-piss jokes in Pixar movies (I think – the only one I can remember is clever enough to not count – when the spider in A Bug’s Life is frightened and lets loose a sudden swift stream of webbing), Shrek can’t wait to start rolling around in the unfunny scatalogical muck.
Anyway, I lost my train of thought about three paragraphs ago, so this probably doesn’t make any damned sense. I’m probably completely wrong here, anyway.
Much of my distaste for Shrek and Pepsi ads stems from the fact that, as Hillary notes in the comments below, they are, in a sense, each pretenders to a crown. That wasn’t the thrust of my argument, though. What bugs me about both is the way in which they choose to engage their superior and more entrenched counterparts. It’s reminiscent of the attitude Fox News has towards the networks and CNN, that petty and amateurish braggadocio that I presume is supposed to be “edgy” and “attitudinous” but instead comes off as desperate or assholish.
The mocking of the Magic Kingdom and Disney-style fairy tales in Shrek isn’t as bad as Pepsi’s utter inability to not mention Coke in any of their commercials, but both are little more than overblown cases of sour grapes. Pepsi is demonstrably worse about this, of course. They reach new heights of disingenuousness with that recent ad for Pepsi Edge, where the obsessive Coca-Cola memorabilia collector trades in all his junk for Pepsi merchandise after tasting their knock-off of C2. The voice-over mentions that Edge has half the sugar and calories of Coke as if it’s the most amazing development since the Gold Dust Trio started fixing wrestling back in the 1910’s. Of course they never mention that Coke had the exact same product on the market months earlier. Almost every commercial Pepsi has ever made explicitly references Coca-Cola, and every time in supposedly humorous manners that are always objectively not funny. Pepsi’s ads make them look desperate and pathetic. Shrek’s Disney jokes aren’t nearly as annoying or self-damaging as Pepsi’s commercials, but in attempting to make fun of it’s competitor Shrek succeeds more in reminding the viewer how superior Disney / Pixar movies are to itself.
But what pisses me off the most is that both are entirely too smug and self-satisfied with their own fallaciously assumed hipness. There’s nothing hip about a god-damned soda, ever, and Pepsi’s eternal attempts to saddle itself up on top of that youth market stallion reveal how desperately square they really are. And just because Shrek’s soundtrack eschews Peabo Bryson and Elton John for the Smashmouths of the world does not in any way make them any cooler or more relevant than Pixar or even traditional Disney movies. Ditto with Shrek’s facile, annoying irony and post-modernist flourishes. It boils down to the fact that, unless you’re the Fonz, saying you’re cool does not make you cool. Furthermore, adopting the easy hallmarks of shallow, meaningless psuedo-post-Generation X culture in order to pander to college kids and dumb-ass twentysomethings has very little place in family films.
There’s no denying that Coke kicks Pepsi’s ass in every possible way, and likewise with Disney/Pixar and Dreamworks/Shrek. Every notable and successful upgrade to the basic soda format has come from Coke; diet soda, prepackaged flavored sodas with cherry, vanilla, and lemon, and the new lower-sugar, lower-carb, non-diet soda all were first brewed up down in Atlanta. Pepsi’s only attempt at a new soda paradigm was the inimitable Crystal Pepsi, which was about as successful as clear gravy. Pepsi is constantly playing catch-up with the original, and their pathetic advertisements only put an emphasis upon their vainglorious quest.
Finally, Shrek’s shortfalls become blatantly obvious when compared with Finding Nemo, A Bug’s Life, or either Toy Story. I feel like I’ve been a bit too harsh on Shrek, as I didn’t really hate it. Much of it is funny. The humor, however, can’t mask the movie’s emotional deficiencies. The Pixar films have more resonance, more sweetness, more heart; they are family films that can be enjoyed by all and that don’t pander or condescend to any age group. They also don’t let the celebrity voice overwhelm the character. The worst aspect of Shrek is Mike Myers. Myers, the laziest man in Hollywood, hasn’t made a consistently humorous film since maybe Wayne’s World. Wayne’s World 2, So I Married an Axe Murderer, and the first Austin Powers were all okay, but every Mike Myers movie since then has been god-awful (except Shrek). And although Shrek isn’t terrible, Myers performance is. When I watched Shrek I wasn’t hearing a character, I was hearing Myers recycle his old Scotsman accent. Eddie Murphy was good, but he was basically playing his dragon character from Disney’s great Mulan. And although there have been a few shit-fart-piss jokes in Pixar movies (I think – the only one I can remember is clever enough to not count – when the spider in A Bug’s Life is frightened and lets loose a sudden swift stream of webbing), Shrek can’t wait to start rolling around in the unfunny scatalogical muck.
Anyway, I lost my train of thought about three paragraphs ago, so this probably doesn’t make any damned sense. I’m probably completely wrong here, anyway.
