PShizzy
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off
|
My only wish is that I'd caught that ellipsis error before having it published. Oh wait, on second thought, they truncated my comments, so it's not an error. whew.
Under Armour apparently didn't get much love for their ads. Makes sense though, if anyones seen it. For the sake of thoroughness, here's my take on Under Armour's ad, with a simple comparison to Nike, as seen on:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=27485757
First: Notice the fast paced overview shot with an orange colored world. Kind of post apocalyptic. Not a bad choice, but in this current culture of war and going environmental, I can't say it would be my first choice. Nike went green, which is a recurring theme given our fossil fuel dependency. Are they trying to make a statement? No, but they sure are latching onto a current topic. Advantage: Nike
Next up we see extreme examples of training. Someone chained up pulling a tire, someone with a cinder block in their hands, people sliding on large blocks of ice, in locales that feature large turbine jet engines, or back alleys, also in that orange tone. I don't know about you, but I don't train in abandoned military installations, nor do I aspire to. Contrast this with the star power Nike put in their ads, smartly interspersed with younger athletes, and it touches on our own childhood dreams of wanting to be a professional athlete, while softening the blow that is the separation created by the athletic prowess of those athletes in comparison to us. Advantage: Nike.
In their next part, Under Armour decides to almost completely steal from the Matrix by featuring a gathering of people as someone on a rooftop(?) speaks to them of being the future. Where's Lawrence Fishburn for this? I was half expecting the athletes to break out into pseudo-tribal dance.
Musically, Under Armour went with a quick beat, very digital and produced to push the pace of the training. The horns add a feeling of triumph as well as competition (think NFL films music). They did a fine job of cutting the music to the flow of the video, removing the horns to allow for spoken word, and using a fast paced sound cut to go from scene to scene (although I gotta admit, hearing it, I swore they borrowed it from the Matrix), but the music was a little generic, and didn't motivate me too much. The production value for it was there, but it only served as an element supporting the theme of the commercial. This is not necessarily bad, but the theme of the commercial didn't move me either.
Nike picked a Saul Williams track that not only supported the theme, but emphasized it and became a major part of it. I think Nike did a fine job of not picking someone mainstream, but also not going too far out there to find something original and inspired. Where Nike latched onto the green push that our culture is seeing in life, it decided to bring something to the table that we might not see everyday, but should now have an interest in. Saul Williams is probably seeing a lot of downloads on iTunes because of this spot. The words are very fitting, and the frenetic pace of the song along with the soundscape are almost made for this commercial. I can't believe it wasn't commissioned by Nike (like the Juelz Santana's "Second Coming" track for the Air Force 25 ad) Advantage: Nike
On paper, not seeing either commercial, I could see both being interesting. Under Armour spent some serious money to produce the ad, as well as to air it during the Super Bowl. They sure didn't try to fail. So why are they getting a bad rap.
In a word: Art vs technology. It's obvious that the creative force behind the Nike ad had a lot of artistic talent. If we look at the ad, it's very slick, but it's not overly produced. The entire commercial could have been done on film (I woudln't be surprised if it was). Overcranking (shooting fast fps to create a smooth slow motion effect), and some cross processing (or tinting) are about as glitzy as it gets. Nike made it's ad edgy by feel, not by show.
Under Armour's creative force probably consisted of 3D animators, and compositing artists. Not to say they aren't creative, but the art just isn't there in the same dosage as the Nike ad. I'd say every frame featured some compositing, and a large portion contained 3D. Under Armour wanted to show us gritty by overwhelming us with special effects. The feel just wasn't there, but they did put on a show.
It's that fundamental difference, art vs technology, that drives me to love the Nike ad whilst being apathetic towards the Under Armour ad. One plays to our emotions, the other to our visual senses.
Max
Edited on Mar 19, 2008 at 07:20 PM
|
