@Kevin: Don’t worry. You and your buddies will have ample opportunities to laugh-it-up. Whoever is responsible for affording you this pleasure should be closely scrutinized… or at least stoned to death.

Mummy 3. Are you kidding me? Who gave this project the green light? Good for Brendan Frasier for milking this franchise for all it’s worth. I hope NBC plays this ad for the duration of the Olympics so I can get endless laughs with my buddies.

Yes, we have corporations on people where Google can put up photos of your house, car, you, and even your license plate number on Google Maps for all to see since it is in the “public domain” and there have been no repercussions since they currently get away with “if you want it down, just tell us” rather than the fact that once it’s on the net, it’s everywhere.

Yet, we also have the government on people where the majority of the American population really do not care about our Fourth Amendment anymore. Warrantless wiretapping? People shrug.

Interestingly, we also get people/corporations on other corporations as well–Youtube is a great example of this by placing up works of art they do not own for all to see.

As for Olympic athletes–I wouldn’t be surprised to hear a claim that since they were in a public domain (everyone sees the Olympics), then they can use images of these athletes. Has a line been crossed? Yes. Will anyone care? I’m afraid few will.

It’s down a slippery slope that is progressing along for awhile now, that said, I would keep an eye on the Viacom vs. Google battle to see if this begins to swing some things around on respecting the privacy of people, corporations, etc.

I am debating the “taste” of this ad and citing a specific example of how corporate America views its public, as idiots, though I’m not saying they’re wrong. These athletes didn’t ask to be trivialized as poster children to recoup loss on a terrible movie with which they have nothing to do. The ad strips Olympic athletes of their dignity on some level. As an amateur athlete and a professional advertiser, I can assure you that a line has been crossed.

I’ve reread your comment several times. The tone seems to be from a contrary perspective while the content seem to support my arguments in bullet point fashion. It is possible that your and my opinions are in line with one another but we may be coming at it from different angles. Would you consider clarifying?

From the movie perspective, the movie will very likely need all the help it can get to do well.

From an intelligence perspective, people are dumb; brand products work. People see a celebrity endorse various clothing products and they go out to buy it solely on that reason. It’s insulting, sure, but when the majority of people (not just Americans) choose brand products over cheaper, but just as good quality generic products, why should they change the tactics that work?