there's nothing amazing about 1080i, mr. kennedy.

I've been saying he's still alive for a year now. I think one of the Olson twins knows the truth.

You think it's ok for a company such as DirecTV to use actors likenesses without there permission? If you put in the amount of effort Heath did into and you died soon after, would you be happy somehow knowing that some shitty tv company used your likeness to pimp there service? How do you think the families feel as well?

The Jesus one just throws it way over the top, someone needs to intervene.

There are plenty of other smart marketing techniques they could use, and really, they were doing a good job with using actors and actresses from other films, but I think this goes a bit over the edge, and I can't say I like it much either.

These are not real. You do understand that, right? I highly doubt DirecTV has any intention of a Heath Ledger or Jesus commercial.

It's a Joke. They made a Joke satirizing the Chris Farley DirecTV commercial using the Joker. Get it? They made a Joke using the Joker. Quite ingenious, don't you think? This wasn't even made by DirecTV.

Get over it.

LOL

you're retarded, lol.

really? also why did they play the dark knight music after jesus?

I don't really see why this is "disgusting," and I highly doubt that DirecTV has any ill intentions. Spade even came out and said that Farley would've been proud of the commercial and that it shocked him that people were accusing him of trying to profit on his friend's death. Whether the performers are dead or alive, "Fat Man in a Little Coat" and "They're here." are parts of our cinematic and popular culture. There's nothing wrong with revisiting these moments. DirecTV has also done commercials based on Aliens, Back to the Future, Baywatch and Star Trek. It's fairly obvious the aim is to recall our memories of these properties. Nothing malevolent here. Quit reaching, internet.

Well said.
The blogs ignore the commercials featuring still living actors, instead focusing on the ones where the actors happen to have died. And considering they are films from several decades ago, it's not like it's a huge god damn shocker. Sure, Heath only a few years later might be touchy had they actually done it, actors who are long gone but are still fondly remembered is fine. Gotta love the internet though.

Actually, I find their commercials using other properties just as stupid and reaching, and mostly tasteless commercialism as well. Most people I know hate them.

Now, here's the thing. I see nothing wrong with companies using dead public figures (or celebrities) in their commercials, as long as they got their families' consent.

But what's entirely in poor taste is using public figures who have died so young & tragically. There's a huge difference between showing Gene Kelly in a TV commercial (I believe it was him, anyway? For a commercial selling vacuum cleaners) and then there's showing Heath Ledger in a commercial.

So its not in poor taste if their families, who are probably now in need of cash, agree to cash the check? :)

Why so serious?

Well that's the families fault. Not DirecTV.

so its not tasteless to try to sell a product by using a dead actor's likeness in a digitally altered scene, but it is tasteless for the family, who might need the money, to agree to it? Interesting...

Maybe YOU find it tasteless, but maybe the actor's family doesnt.

But I still think it depends on the circumstances of the actor's life. Someone who had a long, good life and died peacefully (such as Audrey Hepburn, Katharine Hepburn, etc..), is a very different case from someone who died young, so soon, sudden (like Heath Ledger, Anna Nicole Smith, Chris Farley etc).

I dont know if that makes sense, but yeah.

So then these commercials are GOOD. Because they are helping out a family in need of cash. Again, not a problem and not "disgusting" at all.

I don't know Peter. I mean Farley was a pretty laid back guy and I'm sure he would much rather his family actually make some money off the work he had done than live a cost strapped life. I could understand being upset about it if the commercial was mocking him or something but it wasn't, it was just changing the next context off a funny scene based on a gag Farley come up with himself.

Again, even if Farley's family, or Farley himself agreed to this, it doesn't mean that it still isn't in bad taste.

I guess bad taste is just in the eye of the beholder. I mean a lot of people would find mocking the MURDER of 46 year old father of two and President of the United States to be in much poorer taste than having David Spade redub his dialogue in scene with a dead co star even if the former is meant as a satire.

I agree. Actors are immortalized in movies, just like music artists are in songs. As long as DirectTV is only using the character, not actor in your favorite movie to sell you a product its ok. Its not about the actor its about the your favorite character in a scene you love telling you to get DirectTV. People are son damn sensitive. Unless Heath Ledger's family says something is wrong, chill out.

You're right expect for the fact that this commercial is a joke. It's really Peter's fault for leaving the post title and banner image to be so misleading. But also yours for not actually watching the video.

I really don't understand the problem people have with these commercials. They get the consent from their family/estate for these and in the case of the Chris Farely commercial can even serve as a reminder of how funny he was for those who don't revisit his work. Not to mention the fact that it might get younger people who didn't grow up with him to check out some of his movies. As long as the families are happy with it I could care less.

I guess Landline didn't realize that the stand-ins for the dead actors don't actually do the plug for DirecTV (it's their still living co-stars). But why go for parody accuracy, when you can have a stupid bit with a poor JFK impression?

Exactly.

Hilarious!

8)
can someone please tell me how i can get in touch with these directv people?
i have a idea pitch for them.

There only been two dead people in ads unless maybe 3 with the major league im not to sure. The two are poltergeist with the little girl in the family is dead. Also the Tommy Boy One with chris Farley. I think chris Farley would be ok with his ad since the joke is very up his ally. Plus its one of his best friends doing it. Plus its not really meant to be David Spade its meant to be richard from the movie saying this.

Why'd they put the TDK music at the end of Jesus's commercial? :P

The JFK one was terrible, btw... worst impersonation ever, didn't even sound like him.

The Jesus impersonation was bad too... didn't even sound like him.


I don't care who thinks what, using Farley to promote Direct TV is stupid. He's dead, he died tragically, and if David Spade wanted to make some money, he could have used another scene that didn't have Farley in it. I honestly can't put my finger on it, but I agree with the slashflim guys that it is tasteless.

If they had done a Mohammed skit instead of Jesus, there'd be rioting in the streets. And in France, there'd be more rioting than there already is.

people are dumb, get over it. they're dead. End.

Again, I see no difference between DirecTV using Chris Farley in a commercial than Diet Coke using Gene Kelly or Ford using Steve McQueen. Only one of those companies got crap. I am sure Farley's family got paid for the commercial and the commercial wasn't disrespectful. I don't get the controversy.

As for the video, funny idea. Not so wild about the execution.

I don't really see anything wrong with these ads at all. Should we never show clips of The Godfather or Citizen Kane because the stars are dead?! ONLY LIVING STARS MAY PROMOTE THINGS!!!

It's not like they are taking Kurt Cobain and making him sing Coldplay.

What if an ad directly references an artist's death to sell a product? http://www.thedailyswarm.com/swarm/tasteless/

How is it offensive if the people who actually have grounds to be offended are ok w/ it? Who cares what some random guy/girl says or some internet blogger. You have no grounds to be offended if you didn't know the person and second of all, they are representing characters in movies......not the actual people.

I had to laugh at the Kennedy commercial, I was even fine with the Tommy boy version, but the Dark knight commercial is taking the piss. BOOOOO!

Oh, my bad. Parody. That's what I get not reading the article thoroughly. Sorry Pete.

I don't find any of this tasteless one bit. I loved the DirectTV commercial with Chris Farley, I thought it was a neat little tribute, and even if they are trying to sell me something at least they made my time entertaining and endearing because I was a devout fan of Farley's and Spade's, and I'm positive Chris would've laughed along with it.

Are we also to say the Gene Kelly Volkswagen commercial is tasteless too? I hope not because that is by far my all-time favorite commercial, so I'd hate to see what your opinion about me would be.

All of this complaining is just another stab at self-righteousness if you ask me, I think people are just "choosing" to be offended by this.

Oh geeze,

give it a rest. This is a total non-issue. They can't make these ads without consent from the family or estate, so this is not "disgusting". This is no different then Fred Astaire dancing with a vacum cleaner.

Like I wrote before, maybe at the end they should have had Spade pull out Farley's skull from behind the sofa and then do one of his Hollywood Minute jokes. Either it's funny or it isn't. Is it funny only if we pretend that Farley didn't die 12 years ago at the age of 33 from cardiac arrest?

The videos are "dead on." Something about the Heath Ledger parody seems grotesque but yet some people think the Farley commercial is okay. Obviously there is a fine line. Actually there are a few lines:

- Commercialism. A movie about Chris Farley's life with David Spade starring as himself? Well, nobody would object to that. A commercial with Spade and real footage of Farley promoting the Chris Farley Foundation? Nobody would object to that. A commercial flogging a satellite television service with Spade and real footage of Farley? Yes, some people are going to object to that.

- Time. It heals all wounds, they say. What is the amount of time it takes before such material is appropriate. Hard to say. Apparently 12 years may not be enough.

- Context. This is the big one and I suspect part of the reason why people are offended by the DirecTV commercial. Chris Farley did not live a long and healthy life. He died at 33. He didn't die of natural causes. He died of cardiac arrest from a drug overdose. This is why the parody with JFK will always be inappropriate no matter how long time goes by. Context is everything.

How about a commercial with Phil Hartman who was tragrically murdered by his wife who then took her own life? That was only about six months after Farley's death. And yet I assume we would all find such a venture appalling. Is Farley's case different? If so, how and why?

I don't know all the answers, but like I said, it's a fine line. A comedian or artist can put out work that tests those boundaries and their work will live or die on how well it is received. It may be brilliant. It may be offensive. It may be both. But for a corporation to test those lines is a very risky and very questionable proposition.

holy sh*tballs batman. anyone who doesn't realize that these are fake needs to die so direcTV can use you in some sort of montage of dead unfamous morons.

To quote Amelie Gillette at The AV Club:
"'How dare Chris Farley's family choose how to use their son's image?' the people cried, 'Only we, the people who saw his movies and laughed at his fat guy dance and who therefore own him, should get to decide these things. Probably by some kind of general ballot or Internet poll or something.'"

The continuous outrage over this is far more irritating than the commercials that begat them.

Actually, that's kind of not the question. Nobody is saying Farley's family doesn't own the rights to his persona and likeness. They do.

And Farley's fans own the right to give their opinion of how they use it. If they feel comfortable using his image after his death, why shouldn't people feel comfortable giving an opinion about the commercial?

And neither is that quote saying the public literally owns him. It's extrapolating the extremes of their reasoning from their outrage. If you agree that the commercial shouldn't have been done, then on a logical level, you are actually saying that the family made the wrong decision, and your belief is actually right, in regards to how to use their dead son's image.

Giving an opinion is not what my comment was condemning whatsoever. It was instead expressing irritation at the same insinuation of ownership that the AV Club quote parodied, and the black-and-white statements about subjective issues (such as bad taste, and I think we can agree based on these comments alone that people have different concepts and standards of), that disturbs me most. Saying "Poor taste is not decided by the family of the dead actor, that’s just a ridiculous statement" is itself presenting bad taste as some sort of factual, objective and universal standard that the family (as well as DirecTV and Spade) is unable to recognize, and the implication is that as they are unfit to judge bad taste, they are unfit to decide how to use Chris's image, whereas random bloggers and Internet commenters who are angry over this are in the right, and by extension, would therefore be more capable of handling his image "tastefully." Of course no one on the Internet is literally stating or demanding that they own Chris Farley more than the family. But it's the logic being put under the microscope and revealing flaws. Like Peter said below (and here he and I will agree) in a below reply: "It's parody. The whole point is to . . . take it to the extreme." In this case, it's the logic and arguments for why the commercial is in bad taste taken to an extreme--the Internet should own Farley's image.

Overall, I myself have no opinions on the commercial besides what I've just stated in relation to the backlash; I can see the "tasteless!" argument more clearly for the Poltergeist ad, but even then I didn't understand all the hoopla. The DirecTV ads are an issue where some people feel uncomforable with them, and some people do not, and in these cases it's probably better to recognize there will be differing opinions than to get yourselves riled up over and over.

I wrote you a long reply but Disqus ate it somehow.

In short, I'm not sure I understand your point. I think Ms. Gillette's argument is fallacious. Farley's estate could use his image and likeness to make a cartoon called "I Still Love Drugs" and portray Farley as a zombie who eats pills and says "It's not like it's going to kill me or anything!"

And..?

Their ownership of his image isn't tied to their judgment in using it. Ms. Gillette's argument is essentially an authoritarian dodge: Hey, it's not your call. But their ownership of his likeness doesn't somehow make them better equipped to exercise that right than anyone else.

Lighten up Peter. This story is getting old anyway

DirecTV = classy. Hey Dish, jealous? Sure there are plenty of dead celebs and people willing to sell them out for you too. Check this related video out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEMg90MgNbg

"Poor taste is not decided by the family of the dead actor, that’s just a ridiculous statement."

Isn't it ironic that you would show this for laughs but yet cry about the Chris Farley spot? To be honest, I don't have a problem with either one -- just your opinion on the matter. The word hypocrisy is thrown around a lot but I can't find a more appropriate place to use it then here.