Remember that the iPod isn't just for music. Who can tell what revolutionary information she may be safely storing in her iPod.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
20th Anniversary Mac: 1984 Ad Reposted
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oops. You are right. You were just commenting on the comments. I got your post mixed up with the "you ungrateful louts" one. Sorry about that.
Now we can both be happy in this discussion
I will offer my point: I think the criticism of the people who are criticizing the commercial are pretty ridiculous too
My big wish for the iPod is that it will have the functionality of the Palm. I'm sure that it will work much more seemlessly with the Mac than the Palm. The need that my wife has is for it to store and download updated medical data. Like drugs and diseases.
How did they animate the iPod?
I like the ad you guys take this commercial too serious.
It is clear that it is the same female and that a digital iPod was added.
I want to know how it was done
I like the ad you guys take this commercial too serious.
It is clear that it is the same female and that a digital iPod was added.
I want to know how it was done
think about it
January 24th is the anniversary, not today January 6th. That is when they'll hit us with something impressive, think about it, the commercial still says "January 24th". They can ad an iPod and amke it look pretty close to legit but they can't take out a title? No no no... I think it was left that way on purpose, but we'll see on the 24th...
January 24th is the anniversary, not today January 6th. That is when they'll hit us with something impressive, think about it, the commercial still says "January 24th". They can ad an iPod and amke it look pretty close to legit but they can't take out a title? No no no... I think it was left that way on purpose, but we'll see on the 24th...
The original definitely says 1/26/84. The new definitely says 1/26/04. Also, the woman pauses for longer after releasing the hammer in the "new" version.
I have to laugh at the bitter irony.
"Big Brother" in that commercial was supposed to represent IBM. Now who is the primary manufacturer and supplier of the chips that run current macintosh systems? IBM.
Also, I find it humorous that someone mentioned that they should have replaced the head with Bill Gates. I dread to think where Apple would be without the financial support they got from such a terrible man....
"Big Brother" in that commercial was supposed to represent IBM. Now who is the primary manufacturer and supplier of the chips that run current macintosh systems? IBM.
Also, I find it humorous that someone mentioned that they should have replaced the head with Bill Gates. I dread to think where Apple would be without the financial support they got from such a terrible man....
If it ain't broke...
The original ad was classic, and as we all know, regarded as one of the best ads ever. So if you're going to mess with it, do a good job of it. Unfortunately, I don't think Apple did a good job with this remake - the iPod inclusion is pretty cheesy, and cheapens the video in my mind. Ah well, not a big deal in the grand scheme of things I guess!
The original ad was classic, and as we all know, regarded as one of the best ads ever. So if you're going to mess with it, do a good job of it. Unfortunately, I don't think Apple did a good job with this remake - the iPod inclusion is pretty cheesy, and cheapens the video in my mind. Ah well, not a big deal in the grand scheme of things I guess!
You totally misunderstood me.
Where in my post did I state that you can't discuss it? I just stated my OPINION that this is just an ad with corporate messages, and there is nothing sacred about it, artistically, no matter how masterful the production was.
Maybe you really are hotheaded.
Keep in mind tho, the 1984 commercial was not just important for the Mac devotees, it's important in that it kicked off the Great Superbowl Ad Fest, something we enjoy to this day... So it seems a lot like Apple is tampering with an important piece of history (it's important to us, OK?) just to show off their flashy new toy.
Now, there's no need for namecalling on either side. You can object, or disagree with the objection, without resorting to verbal punches.
paul
autrefois
macrumors 65816
Do you have QuickTime Pro (the paid version)? If not, you can't download things from the web unfortunately. If you do have it, click on the triangle on the far right of the controls under the video.
Sad
Me too, very sad they even touched it. But the worst is they did it with an iPod. Anything but that. Yes, it's the hype of the moment, but that's the whole point: it could very well turn out to be just the flavor of the year. Apple is very good at letting others become flavor of the century instead. The internet bubble exploded in everyone's face in 99. The online music crazyness is the next bubble around, ready to pop dead. An ad such as 1984 should stay a classic and regarded as such with consideration. Not make it funny with the flavor of the month that might go away. They're making fun of their own classics. Sad.
Me too, very sad they even touched it. But the worst is they did it with an iPod. Anything but that. Yes, it's the hype of the moment, but that's the whole point: it could very well turn out to be just the flavor of the year. Apple is very good at letting others become flavor of the century instead. The internet bubble exploded in everyone's face in 99. The online music crazyness is the next bubble around, ready to pop dead. An ad such as 1984 should stay a classic and regarded as such with consideration. Not make it funny with the flavor of the month that might go away. They're making fun of their own classics. Sad.
I agree some folks here are viewing this spot with too much reverence, though it was an ad classic (for what that's worth) in its original form.
That said, I view the iPod addition two ways: one, it's a good joke. Two, it's entirely consistent with the idea of the ad for her to sport a revolutionary device, not yet released in 1984, which is the harbinger of a New Paradigm. Even the fact that our guerrilla insurrectionist is a woman at all (albeit a blonde in tight shorts with her breasts heaving to and fro -- hey, this is still America) was a fairly progressive statement in its own right twenty years ago.
I wonder what Ridley thinks of the iPod. Scratch that -- actually, I don't care.
That said, I view the iPod addition two ways: one, it's a good joke. Two, it's entirely consistent with the idea of the ad for her to sport a revolutionary device, not yet released in 1984, which is the harbinger of a New Paradigm. Even the fact that our guerrilla insurrectionist is a woman at all (albeit a blonde in tight shorts with her breasts heaving to and fro -- hey, this is still America) was a fairly progressive statement in its own right twenty years ago.
I wonder what Ridley thinks of the iPod. Scratch that -- actually, I don't care.
No way. The new version, quite clearly by my eyes, still says 1/26/84. Look again. If you're still not convinced - compare the '8' (that is, what you think is a '0') with the '0' on the next line.
Having never seen the superbowl version (being born 1 year and 11 months later), I came into this ad after viewing only the first page of comments. I think that the iPod is not cheesy at all. The ad could have done without it, but it doesn't look like some bad cg effect. I wasn't even sure it was cg until after electric606's comment. It's a fine ad, and I don't think Apple perminately 'killed it' by distributing it with a new logo and a cg iPod. I'm sure apple didn't "tape over" the first print, and that lady's unobstructed hooters shorts will live on somewhere. Be glad that you can relive the thrill of seeing that ad. That must have been something.
Yeah, it's still an eight. But it does pause for longer on Anya Major after she throws the hammer!
EDIT: That is definitely slow-motion work. There's less time spent on the hammer and more time on the woman. Also, you see a lot of evidence of slow motion--the stormtroopers behind her slow down in this version, but not the original, you can see her hair (and admittedly her breasts) act as if they are in slow motion, bouncing up with the throw but not falling back down into place--clear indications of slow motion.
Re: I'm horrified
"Is the iPod going up against the conformist domination of the market by some "Big Brother"?"
well, itunes and the ipod are kinda hand in hand in apple's eyes. the itunes music store is going up against big brother: the RIAA. the riaa have fought legal online downloading sicne its conception. itunes is the first one to change the way we obtain our music. it is changing the music industry.
i think apple did a good job of adding the ipod.
"Is the iPod going up against the conformist domination of the market by some "Big Brother"?"
well, itunes and the ipod are kinda hand in hand in apple's eyes. the itunes music store is going up against big brother: the RIAA. the riaa have fought legal online downloading sicne its conception. itunes is the first one to change the way we obtain our music. it is changing the music industry.
i think apple did a good job of adding the ipod.
Holy ****!
I was advancing through it frame by frame and I swear the numbers are dissolving back and forth between an 8 and a zero. I bet my left nut that the numbers were slightly altered, considering they did such a great CG job with the iPod.