│訂閱全嘉莉 RSS 2.0 Feed
文章 - 83, 迴響 - 2560, 引用 - 4, 本格總瀏覽人次 - 986073
部落格首頁 › 來賓部落格總覽 › 全嘉莉

文章分類

最新文章

最新迴響

被「四眼天雞」騙了!

2005-11-23 02:33迴響:32點閱:26839

期待了許久,終於盼到「四眼天雞」(Chicken little)的卡通影片上演了,這兩、三個月以來,每次進入戲院看電影時,總是被臉部表情夠可愛,也夠賤的四眼天雞的舞蹈,惹得哄堂大笑,一直想看「四眼天雞」那個可愛的「雞丁」跳完整個舞蹈,因為只看四、五個舞蹈動作實在意猶未盡。

 

  在電影上演第一天,趕緊跑去排隊買票,坐在椅子上等著電影開演的心情,好像小時候看著媽媽買棉花糖,糖花在大桶子裡神奇的化成一絲絲的棉絮,小販把棉花糖送到我的手中時,我張大口準備咬下第一口,那種喜孜孜的感覺。

 

  但是,從頭看到尾,就連所有字幕都走完了,「四眼天雞」的舞蹈呢?我聽到了戲院裡其他的人也跟我一樣詫異,舞蹈呢?那支搭配dragostea bin tei熱門歌曲的舞蹈呢?

 

  當我聽到朋友想要帶孩子去看「四眼天雞」的電影,因為他的小孩在家中每天都在跳四眼天雞舞蹈,我忍不住告訴他,「雞丁」在電影中沒有跳這支舞蹈,他顯露出不可思議的表情,下巴差點掉下來,直說「不可能吧?」,他甚至懷疑我可能沒有從頭看到尾,或是中途打瞌睡。因為他完全不相信雞丁的舞蹈居然沒有出現在電影中。

 

  「怎麼可能!廣告片每天都在播?」我的朋友繼續質疑,當我用嚴肅的神情告訴他,「這是事實,我們都被廣告片騙了!」

 

  由於他的孩子跟我一樣很期待這部卡通片,還是依照計畫帶著孩子去看電影。我的朋友告訴我,他的孩子看了半個多小時,都睡著了,我聽了覺得有趣。他接著問我,妳知道孩子們為何能夠撐這麼久嗎?我搖搖頭,他說因為聽了我事先的告知,於是準備了爆米花與可樂,讓小朋友吃吃喝喝,等到零食吃完了,就昏昏睡去。

 

  對於這樣電影的廣告手法,只能驚嘆啦!(又不能因此要求退票),不過卻也驗證了一件事,廣告打得愈兇的電影,通常都不太好看,不信?!下次你注意看看!

 

  

上一篇:病歷公佈之後
下一篇:禽流感vs.克流感
加入書籤:         
引用:http://blog.chinatimes.com/lilynice/archive/2005/11/23/26819.html
2005-11-23 02:33作者:全嘉莉分類:電影與疾病迴響:32點閱:26839

迴響與引用列表

re: 被「四眼天雞」騙了!

There's nothing wrong with this kind of advertisement? Imagine you walk into a fast-food restaurant, saw a picture of a double cheese hamburger. You go ahead and order it, because of the double cheese. When you are only given one slice of cheese, would you call that false advertising? The restaurant never "promised" you'll get double cheese, they put the extra cheese in to make the picture "look" better.

I've never seen Chicken Little, but I do see a problem with this method.

2006-03-27 11:02 Celeste

re: 被「四眼天雞」騙了!

wow...i saw the real chicken little came here for message...
well..i am a person who really love films and cartoon...but in
the past..''disney'' ..wel...really do have many cartoon...make popular...but however...they also didnt make me crazy love them..my favourite cartoon is doraemon.^^ astro boysomething like that..but cause chicken little...></// i just ..started being crazy la~~~however..the main thing i want to say is...whatever the dance...cute and the story goes up by the popular way...enough already ..isn't it?

2005-12-21 03:46 abo

re: 被「四眼天雞」騙了!

DEAR ALL,
感謝Jonathan Chang、Eddie Chu、老雞、 Jon、Dennis、albert
、stupids、 zing、 peterpan、gio、 lizchang、July、illusion
等人的回應。
我個人不但是電影迷,也是卡通迷,有些電影或許會被我歸類為「可以租DVD」的片子,但我從來沒有錯過任何卡通上映的時機,因為卡通的創意令人嘆驚嘆,不過這次的「四眼天雞」,其廣告手法卻讓我有些不滿,周遭朋友反應出這種感覺的人幾乎達到百分之百。
迪士尼成功的塑造出可愛的「雞丁舞」讓大朋友、小朋友為之瘋狂,深為媒體工作者,我非常贊成老雞所說,『電影中不存在的內容,呈現手法上應該明確傳達「本段實屬廣告」的訊息』,peterpan舉例的汽車和飯店廣告也很傳神,現在就連置入性行銷、報導式的廣告都被嚴格檢視,為的就是保護消費者的權益不要受到損害,我們應該不斷的被教育(教育是永無止盡的),但同時我們也應該不斷的提出我們的權利與要求。

2005-11-30 02:10 全嘉莉

re: 被「四眼天雞」騙了!

我覺得大家都扯遠了,雖然說大家都喜歡宣稱電影是文化藝術, 但說穿了它其實也就是要吸引消費者花錢走入電影院欣賞作品的消費性商品罷了,美國, 台灣, 香港, 日本...到哪都一樣啊~~~既然是為了要吸引消費者上門, 當然是要拿出最好的一面來吸引觀眾啊~~
說實在的我雖也曾因為被宣傳影片而吸引去看電影結果大失所望外, 但我還是覺得其實那是個人選擇ㄟ
一般消費者絕少是因為廣告宣傳裡短短的一分鐘不到的舞而走進去看整整一個多鐘頭的電影的, 多數人應該是綜合考量了故事大綱, 人物很可愛討喜等等吸引人的因素才走進去的啊...至於那個舞蹈嘛~~~真的喜歡可以去買DVD慢慢在家一遍又一遍的欣賞啊
因為一個一分鐘的舞蹈就否定一部電影且認為片商不夠誠實, 是不是有點那個了

況且這一直都是迪士尼的傳統啊~~一部卡通的製作是很辛苦的, 他們其實就是因為用心才特地製作另一個搞笑可愛版的短片來作為宣傳用途, 不然他們大可輕鬆一點只要剪接電影的內容, 也不至於像現在這樣落人口舌了

2005-11-29 14:11 illusion

re: 被「四眼天雞」騙了!

如果這類文宣在美國已經習以為常,相信不久的將來,在台灣也會像開水一樣普通.被騙多了,自然產生免疫力;就像現在接到中獎通知電話,已經再也不會興奮.某種層面來說,確實是文化差異.希望台灣消費者早日迎頭趕上.

平心而論,這支廣告(而非電影本身)說是詐騙也許太過,而且確實說不上犯了那條法令,但也絕非欺騙感情這麼簡單.我之所以提出電影是必須先付錢再享受的商品,意在凸顯片商與消費者的資訊不對稱.消費者看了後悔,卻無法要求退費.雖然看電影的滿足與否關乎個人體驗,無法訂出公平合理的標準,退費對戲院和片商顯然不公平;但對於吸引消費者上門的工具,也就是廣告,難道不應該對其手法加以規範,並要求誠實?

這支廣告的問題,在我看來,就是不夠誠實.電影中不存在的內容,呈現手法上應該明確傳達「本段實屬廣告」的訊息.例如平面媒體過去常見的新聞式廣告,外觀就像新聞報導的版面,其目的當然是利用媒體公信力來誤導消費者,現在也被要求註明「廣告」字樣.如果像「天雞」這類文宣手法即將成為趨勢,消費者是不是該起而要求比照辦理?

至於是不是要對出錢的片商表示感激,這就有點扯得遠了.我對提供娛樂的片商毫無反感,甚至常常用口袋裡的孫中山表達擁戴的赤誠.只有當我覺得被騙的時候,才會出聲讉責.

2005-11-28 19:01 老雞

re: 被「四眼天雞」騙了!

It's very interesting to see discussions like this. I live in the US, and I have seen many movie commercials that were never part of the movie. Examples include "Chicken Little", "Kangaroo Jack", "The Incredible", etc. The list goes on.
The fact is that such a promotional approach is widely practiced and accepted in the US. It has never caused any controversy like here on this page. Could it be a cultural difference? Maybe. I agree with Eddie Chu. There is nothing wrong with such a practice - but only in societies where people are adopt to it. I must respect the fact that some people are not yet ready for such a promotional practice yet.
On more thing for Mr. Chu. True, the law does not say that trailers have to be part of the movie. I also agree that there is nothing illegal or unethical about this trailer. Aside from the legal, ethical, and logical perspectives, I think people's emotions must also be considered. This whole issue is an emotional response right from the beginning. Such an emotional viewpoint should still be acknowledged and respected.
Mr. Peter Pan used very interesting analogies, such as selling cars and promoting hotel services. Both are valid points to think about - although neither of them represents the same kind of controversy as this Chicken Little trailer. Why? Because in both of your cases, the law has been broken. But in this Chicken Little case, no law has been broken. As for your comment that movies are something that you can't enjoy unless you pay first. I completely agree with you. It is unfail. But on the other hand, movie producers also have spent millions of dollars to make these movies even before anyone pays to see them. Who is taking more risk here? The producers who risk millions, or we who risk $10? Perhaps, just perhaps, we movie goers/consumers have forgotten how lucky we are...?

2005-11-28 15:30 Chicken Little

re: 被「四眼天雞」騙了!

剛把回文po上,就看到Eddie兄又有回應.其實很高興經由反覆說理,大家的意見都能充分表達,也似乎漸趨一致.在此再補充一點看法.

Eddie兄關於人要有能力區別creative promotion and missleading commercials的見解,我完全贊同.稍微遺漏的一點小地方,是這篇廣告的訴求對象,並非全屬博學鴻儒或老於江湖之輩;恐怕大部份,是如犬子般不經世事的黃口小兒.冷血如我者,當然不會為了少一段雞舞而動心,只會為了損一疊鈔票而著惱.不過我家孩子,感謝版主提供消息,做了行前教育,否則幼小心靈難免受傷.孩子才是不實廣告的受害者.

2005-11-28 15:05 老雞

re: 被「四眼天雞」騙了!

終於還是拗不過孩子,帶他看了這部片.不過事前約法三章,DVD是絕對不買的,無論其中有沒有雞丁舞.

公平地說,即使缺了廣告裡的那段舞蹈,電影本身仍然值得一看.不過如果談的是廣告手法,我還是無法苟同.先前的留言裡,我提到電影是「一種必須先付錢才能驗貨的商品」.這話出自另一部電影.媽媽建議兒子開戲院,因為「那有這麼好的生意!大家拿現金排隊,而付錢進門以前,甚至沒看過貨色!」

付錢之前,我們有機會看到「貨色」嗎?沒有,我們只看到「包裝」,也就是廣告.從而產生所謂expectation,以為一旦拆開包裝紙,會看到心中所想的「貨色」.現實和想像的差距經常發生.有些片子把全片精華都剪到30秒鐘的預告裡,其餘乏善可陳.對此消費者無可奈何,因為商品標示樣樣符合,祇是沒達到expectation中的療效罷了.你只能狠狠把演職員表上的人名全部記住,發誓以後別再上當.

像「天雞」這種手法,卻十分可議.它把「商品標示與內容相符」的要求,巧妙地嫁接到未來的產品--DVD上,但眼前的商品--電影,內容卻明顯和標示不符!以片商或廣告業者的眼光看,或許是creative promotion,但以消費者的角度,卻是不折不扣的missleading commercials.身為消費者,我有權知道那怕是電影票的幾百塊錢,買到的貨色有或沒有什麼.如果是DVD才有的東西,廣告就應該明確標示,否則難脫詐騙之嫌.

長久以來預告片和閱聽人之間,有些約定俗成的默契,譬如大家不會把廣告的旁白誤認為影片的一部份.但類似「天雞」的廣告手法,正在侵蝕這種默契.我不認為這是可以接受的,如果片商把電影廣告的內容,放進DVD或更有甚者,所謂加長版、特別版或什麼導演剪接版,一條牛剝幾層皮,而不以為是誤導消費者,那實在欺人太甚.

引用幾個Eddie老兄的詞語,並非心存不敬,只是表達不同見解.唯有一點我極表贊同的,就是我們消費者應該從這些上當經驗裡學乖受教,在欣賞創意文宣之餘,也要有能力鑑別不實廣告.我就以這個例子教訓孩子:詐騙集團所在多有,看廣告和接手機都要格外留神.庶幾有一天,孩子也能躋身educated people之列,老爸的荷包得以不再淌血.幸甚!

2005-11-28 14:24 老雞

re: 被「四眼天雞」騙了!

Why do we have to be educated to distinguish between creative promotion and missleading commercials? The same reason people need to be educated to tell right from wrong. I'm not talking about college education here. I'm talking about a process of making judgements based on logic and reason. That way when there are real missleading commercials that come around (such as those selling drugs or over-the-counter medications), we as cosumers can identify them and avoid being hurt.

Again, the commercial never claims or promises that the danceing clip is going to be part of the movie. It's just like human movie stars promoting their movies by performing a dance, we don't call them lying just because the dance is not part of the movie. Be as disappointed as you like, but be reasonable. Upon seeing the commercial, some of you made an assumption that it was going to be in the movie. But you're disappointed because it is not. Just because you're disappointed doesn't mean you have been deceived. The commercial did not lie. Stop blaming the commercial or the movie. July made a comment that when you blame others, "千萬要記得,你的四根手指頭是對著自己的." Good point. When you're blaming the commercial and the movie for missleading, has anyone sat back and blamed themselves for making a false assemption? That's what I'm talking about.

By the way, I never said that "別人的見解不公平." I said that there are people making personal and sarcastic comments towards me. These are 2 different things.

Enough said. Whether or not you understand or agree with me, I've expressed my point fully. Take care.

2005-11-28 11:38 Eddie Chu

re: 被「四眼天雞」騙了!

謝謝july,我很高興有那麼多的朋友會關心這個議題,不論贊成或反對版主論點的朋友。但消費者的權益是要靠自己去爭取的,喜歡天雞的朋友們,讓我們都當成那個以救世界為己任的那隻可愛的天雞,爭取我們消費者的權益!大家加油!

2005-11-27 17:53 peterpan

re: 被「四眼天雞」騙了!

11月23日看到這篇文章時,和朋友確認電影中是否有廣告的四眼天雞舞蹈?朋友和我確認她在翻譯電影文案時,此段四眼天雞舞蹈是擺在影片的最後,而且是動物們一隻邀約一隻地出跳四眼天雞舞蹈.
不知是否是在後製時或是在戲院時被剪了?還是因為是在電影的很後端,所以錯過?

2005-11-25 13:25 lizchang

re: 被「四眼天雞」騙了!

To peterpan:
Bravo!你說得太好了,在這個消費者意識抬頭的年代,我們要求付費後所獲得的品質,是不是誠如廠商所說(廣告)那麼優,這是最基本的條件,否則怎麼會有公平交易委員會來監督廠商是否廣告誇大不實,我實在不懂為何有人會建議消費者走回頭路?該教育的是不實的廣告商吧!

我個人很愛看卡通,版主所描繪的心情,我感同身受,因為我也是期待看到廣告片中那個雞丁舞蹈的人,也覺得有受騙的感覺,當宣傳廣告誤導消費者時,怎麼能說 這個電影在ethically and legally 都nothing wrong?這當然有問題,我們熟知的而且認知的電影宣傳影片,應該是part of movie,不是我們有錯誤的期待,而是廠商給予錯誤的資訊,我看到樓下的發言都很有見解,我想告訴 Eddie ,如果你認為樓下的人對你有情緒性的反應,那可能是你太過堅持己見,容不下不同聲音的心態,當你指著別人說他的見解不公平的時候,千萬要記得,你的四根手指頭是對著自己的。

2005-11-25 00:28 July

re: 被「四眼天雞」騙了!

為什麼消費者要被<教育>去區分 creative promotion and missleading commercials?我很不解!
老實說,我覺得在這裡討論每個人的觀點都很有意思,我都很激賞,我也不認為有誰在嘲諷誰,Eddie你多慮了。只是,我是個消費者,為什麼要被迫去學習區分以上兩者。我付錢消費。不是嗎? 我付錢去住飯店,所以當飯店的服務水準和他的宣傳有差別時,該檢討的是他,而不是我耶!
當然也許我們書讀得少,不明白這是迪士尼的<傳統>,可是那是消費者的不對嗎?我們也會有小孩加入觀賞迪士尼影片的行列,是不是要先上一課:了解迪士尼的creative promotion and missleading commercials?我想說的是也許我們學的不是MBA或是廣告行銷,但
我是消費者!請依笨笨的消費者經驗法則而行!(我付錢買牛肉麵,請不要給我關東煮)我不想去強迫教育自己,下次看到<金剛>的預告片時,我要在腦海中先打轉...
當放映正片時,電影中會不會有一隻大大的金剛在跑來跑去! 或是這個預告片是creative promotion 還是 missleading commercials!

2005-11-24 16:44 peterpan

re: 被「四眼天雞」騙了!

Thank you, Zing. That is exactly the case. The fact is, I never expected to see the same dancing clip in the movie. That dancing clip featured in the commercial just doesn't look like it's going to be part of the movie at all, just like many other Disney movies in the past. Even "Spiderman" released a commercial that features criminals inside a helicopter being captured between the WTC in NY, which was not part of the movie. The bottomline is, "Chicken Little" is fine. It's a fun and entertaining movie that people of all ages can enjoy.

Audiance needs to be more educated to distinguish between creative promotion and missleading commercials. This "Chicken Little" commercial may be inviting different opinions because it presents an argument surrounding personal perceptions, but it is not missleading. To those to attack me personally, be as sarcastic as you like. I am not going to respond to those emotional and personally offensive statements that some people made below. At the end, we should all keep the emotions out of our judgement and look at this from a logical perspective. And that is what we, all of us educated people, should do.

2005-11-24 08:42 Eddie Chu
共2頁: 1 2 ,目前在第 1

回應這篇文章

*者為必填欄位

*回應標題:
*姓名 / 暱稱:
*E-Mail:
您的網站:
*回應內容:  
*驗證:
請輸入上圖六位數字驗證碼:

 
2005年11月
303112345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930123
45678910

編輯部落格最新文章

作家部落格最新文章

來賓部落格最新文章

旅遊部落格最新文章

財經部落格最新文章

電影部落格最新文章

體育部落格最新文章

音樂部落格最新文章

美食部落格最新文章

公益部落格最新文章

數位部落格最新文章