Outrageous film created independently by Sentimental Filme / Saatchi & Saatchi agency

Beneficiaries of the video are obviously the makers.. for all we know the intention may be very well to stir up a bunch of leica owners.

Let it pass, it's just a video..
 
Hey, who cares? You guys are getting way too far into this. It's a pretty sappy, poor excuse for art film - but that's it. I don't find it offensive or morally reprehensible. The worst I can say about it is it's not very good/made me groan at the end.
 
Many more things are wrong/misrepresented that are more objectionable e.g., Banting didn't really discover insulin (he copied a Hungarian paper), Watson and Crick didn't really come-up with the structure of DNA (someone else did all the work), Newton copied huge amounts of his work from Robert Hook, Apple ripped-off the mouse from Xerox, etc. Capa didn't really use a Leica (but at least he did some of the time). And since Leica didn't commission this, meh? I give it an "groaaaan" and a "meh".
 
Xerox Parc licensed it to Apple -- Apple then totally redesigned it for consumer use, designing an OS which was mouse-dependent.

Xerox Parc never had to sue Apple, since there was no rip-off, Xerox Parc freely allowed Apple to license the idea, after taking Apple stock in exchange for allowing Apple to visit the Xerox Parc facility. Xerox was allowed to buy 100,000 shares of Apple stock for $10 per share.

http://www.cultofmac.com/126863/in-defense-of-steve-jobs/
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/10/steve-jobs-xerox-parc.html
Click to expand...

I wonder if the brainiacs in Rochester held onto it? ~50x increase
 
don't you guys realize that people romanticize war photographers, such as robert capa, and leica's historical role in war photography in the exact same way as this fake commercial?
 
Sparrow said:
... that's the problem I have with it, they are misrepresenting reality for commercial purposes ... presenting a fictional link between Robert Capa and Leica that never existed in fact.
Click to expand...

Except they're not really doing that are they? While the life of their fictional photographer in some obvious ways resembles that of Capa - it's not Capa, nor could it have been, after all everybody knows and has pointed out that Capa didn't use a Leica later in his career.

How many people went to see Inglorious Basterds, then at the end of the movie stood up and shouted "THAT'S NOT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED!" - that story was also made for commercial gain. But it is still a complete work of fiction even if some of the characters rather stongly resembled actual historical figures.
 
tunalegs said:
Except they're not really doing that are they? While the life of their fictional photographer in some obvious ways resembles that of Capa - it's not Capa, nor could it have been, after all everybody knows and has pointed out that Capa didn't use a Leica later in his career.

How many people went to see Inglorious Basterds, then at the end of the movie stood up and shouted "THAT'S NOT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED!" - that story was also made for commercial gain. But it is still a complete work of fiction even if some of the characters rather stongly resembled actual historical figures.
Click to expand...

... fine, no it isn't, but it's close enough to offend me anyway

I didn't shout 'that's not what really happened' at the end of Inglorious *******s ... but I thought it quite loudly from about 10 minutes in, and would have posted such here had I been able
 
Ok so I was a little off on the mouse. My point is Apple gets the credit, and most people have no clue that is was originally Xerox's idea. Yeah Apple developed the interface, major point, true. This is just like the Capa thing though: he used a Leica, a little bit, but mostly not. Some truth, lots of "artistic license". Newton did some physics, copied some, spent most of his time in the basement trying to turn random metals into gold. Only one third of that is very flattering.
 
CCCPcamera said:
Ok so I was a little off on the mouse. My point is Apple gets the credit, and most people have no clue that is was originally Xerox's idea. ...
Click to expand...

Um, no. Doug Englebart invented the computer mouse at Stanford Research Institute in the early 1960s. Such was the pace of development at that time, it wasn't patented until 1970 (by Mr. Englebart, STILL at SRI). Xerox was just another company that used it in their research and developed an early system that included it.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bl_computer_mouse_patent.htm

Apple got the credit for delivering a mouse-based OS first, as Xerox Alto was pretty much an experimental lab system and a commercial failure.

http://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch001083.htm

G
 
this reminds me of a thai pantene commercial i saw once which made me feel gutted and cheap at the end as well. but all advertising does this. watch t.v., it all plays on our emotions and tries to make us buy something. this is just for something we hold in higher regard so it seems more outrageous. all advertising is dirty, even if it's really well designed.

(edit: there sure have been a lot of threads like this popping up lately)
 
Ah! So my ignorance proves the rule! Haha, nobody gets credit for anything. Dunlop did invent tyres for bikes, and now they make my squash ball. The Michelin man used to be made of bicycle tyres!
 
zuiko85 said:
A silly piece of over the top marketing.

Implying that a Leica MM will turn you into (insert name of famous photographer who used Leica M).
Click to expand...

It absolutely convinced me to get the MM and the fame that will follow.

HFL

Edit: But I'd like to skip the dying part, for a while anyway.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom