First it was the Frank Thomas Blue Jays ad (http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=61734) that horrified the TVB and now its this Chanel ad

UFBhQnQT5p0

I loved the Frank ad and thought it was stupid that it was pulled but I am a little more reserved in my judgement on this one.

Kinda reminds me of the Paris burger ad. Although the girl in the Chanel ad is WAY better looking and the ad is generally a lot classier.

At its core, it is still a pretty "provacative" ad and this is Canada, not Europe/Amsterdam.

I don't see anything "provocative" about this ad. Why anybody would ban this ad yet the same people are okay with movie ads that shows a lot of violence?

Naked blonde hottie in bed. The horror, the horror!!!!

I'm sure this ad would raise concern in the puritan city of Toronto - where Madonna will never play again, but I certainly doubt this ad would raise much concern in Quebec or B.C.

And, I would like to think we are a little more European than we are American.

I think its a very classy, tasteful admiration of a woman's body.

I don't see anything "provocative" about this ad.

Note that I did put quotes around the word. I guess I should have put a :rolleyes: beside it.

And, I would like to think we are a little more European than we are American.

We are but only in 1/3 the country.

I'm not directing my comment towards you, actually, but towards the Canadian public in general.

I'm sure this ad would raise concern in the puritan city of Toronto

yvr72, we welcome all new members to our community and want you're feedback but we also don't like it when members put down any Canadian city.

Honestly, I thought the damn ad was kind of stupid and boring.

As far as shocking, how does this compare with pretty much every beer commercial I've ever seen?

Ok I give up .. what was in the ad that I should be protected from?

Apparently 8 seconds of too much skin that the TVB wanted "pixelated". I think the youtube video may be a bit too grainy to appreciate!

I agree that ad was stupid, but boring? I could have watched some more of that!

On a serious note I don't feel that Canadian eyes need to be protected from such images...

Obviously I'm missing something...because I didn't see anything in the Chanel ad that could warrant the TVB decision to ban it. I suppose, some could find it objectionable. That doesn't mean it should be banned though. Once again, an obvious overreaction by the TVB. What are they protecting us from? Skin tones?

Considering Chanel's reaction is to not advertise in Canada, I'm sure broadcasters are thrilled with TVB's interference.

As far as shocking, how does this compare with pretty much every beer commercial I've ever seen?
They're probably next...

On a related note, there's a beer ad running currently that just may demonstrate how silly some of this has become. Some riders on tandem bikes are chasing Bigfoot. One tandem bike stops in time. The other rides over a cliff. At the bottom of the screen, a disclaimer reads something like: "Do not ride tandem bikes over a cliff". :rolleyes:

Phew, thanks for the warning. I was about to try that...

Either that disclaimer was included: at the behest of the TVB
by the advertiser as a piece of humour (reading that the first time was funny)
liability lawyers became involved...
So, I can't necessarily blame the TVB for this one. That said, what happened to the disclaimer about Bigfoot? Surely the TVB needs to protect us from panicking about Sasquatch running loose... ;)

Are their different standards for a commercial versus a network program?
Because recent episodes of Desperate Housewives...

I think they SHOULD run the ad, but only if it's done in Hi Def!

I'm 100% OK with SEX, it's violence that bothers me, although the Frank Thomas ad was kinda cute in a disturbing sort of way.

And what about the Dove commercial with the naked mature woman, OK in Canada, but banned in the U.S.

Nudity is just fine IF it's done in a beautiful or tasteful manner as I think this one does. No doubt they use it to exploit. But I didn't see anything degrading about it.

Your so correct ARR, the Dove ad has the same level of nudity in it as this one, so they have a double standard, hot naked people not, old naked people are fine.

Methinks they have the standard reversed. :)

Which would suggest its the sexuality not the skin

The dove ad for those not familar.

vilUhBhNnQc

Aren't there ANY cinematographers, movie buffs, or psychologists here who know what "symbolism" is about? The Chanel commercial is not about the showing of skin in itself, its about the context of a supine male handling a phallic object and giving it to her as the woman's face approaches his lower torso, followed by her applying a substance to her lips... c'mon people, think Fellini, Bergman, Freud... C'mon people, we're talking sumliminal seduction here, like Jesus in the glass of whiskey kind of stuff! :D

I think its okay for late night TV but not for prime time or daytime. I wouldn't have banned it if that condition was met.

Actually it was the nudity. That is the exact words of the President of TVB which wanted parts of her body pixelized for eight seconds then it would have been perfectly acceptable.