I like your objective response, in that ads are supposed to create thoughts and feelings within viewers. Those thoughts and feelings do not necessarily need to be positive. They simply need to be. Politics and insurance are good examples of "scare campaigns". There is a school of thought in advertising that it's easier to scare people than to inspire them. Barack Obama ran a great "Yes we can" message that got him elected. I wish we saw more of the same.
The imagery in this piece is an excellent example of how the Hyper-Real aspect of media can be used to exemplify a point using semiotics enhanced via digital imagery to elicit strong emotional/moral responses thus formenting a comprehensive exchange of ideas and diverse opinions. It's an good piece that approaches, if not exceeds, the definition of art in that regardless of the positive/negative reactions it may elicit in /from viewers, that it ELICITS ANY REACTION AT ALL makes it ART. :))
I am not sure that evolution believes in user0707 either. It is a very effective advert with a connection between imagery and emotion. One cannot help but see the beauty as the bullet penetrates and destroys each object. There is an abrupt change with a strong feeling of shame when the image of the boy appears. Voting kills guns, not advertising or random acts of posting.
@Lochfynne I agree with your comment on voting. But who do we vote for and why? We're only as good as the information we receive and all information is propoganda. What information do we need, in order to vote wisely, and where do we get it from?
I think you guys are all taking this a bit too literally, no? The technique used here is certainly striking, and the viewer can't help but feel and understand the impact a bullet would have on the child's head at the end of the ad. Personally I found myself cringing in anticipation of the bullet hitting the child, and found the tagline "Kill the gun" to be less about "stop using guns," (as technology) and more about "understand the destructive power of the gun, and think before you act."
trying to "kill the gun" would never solve the problem...contact me if u want to know why...these post only allow 500 words and its probably going to take more than that
advertising is not what i was talkn about...im talkin about what this advertisement is saying...its promting to "kill the gun"...and from statistics...banning guns has not helped in gun related crimes...in London, England for example...they have a ban on guns and they have one the worst crime rates...like i said tho...if u want to kno more about what our best bet is in lowering crime, let me kno
I appreciate your perspectives on guns and crime but this site is actually dedicated to the analysis of the communication, which in this instance is a Film/TV commerecial. Hence I'm interested to know if you feel any form of advertising, promotion, propaganda... can influence the ownership and use of weapons. In the current example there is some beautiful photography that almost romantacises the destructive power of a bullet. Do you think this helps or hinders the advertisers message?
frankly, the advertisers message just made me mad b/c it made guns seem like they are the problem with killings, etc...to answer ur question...i think both the advertisers message and method used to convey it was crappy b/c they are both flawed
I'm a believer in evolution so I tend to think if we didn't have guns we'd just throw sticks and stones at each other. In other words, our technology has changed but our primitive emotions haven't. So I'd prefer to see communications that address our emotional issues not our technological ones. What do you think the flaws of this ad are?
well i cant say im a believer in evolution but i so with u about that its the person's decisions (thus emotions) that the focus should be put on...not the technological inventions we make to assert these emotions
I like your objective response, in that ads are supposed to create thoughts and feelings within viewers. Those thoughts and feelings do not necessarily need to be positive. They simply need to be. Politics and insurance are good examples of "scare campaigns". There is a school of thought in advertising that it's easier to scare people than to inspire them. Barack Obama ran a great "Yes we can" message that got him elected. I wish we saw more of the same.
SemioticsInc 1 year ago
The imagery in this piece is an excellent example of how the Hyper-Real aspect of media can be used to exemplify a point using semiotics enhanced via digital imagery to elicit strong emotional/moral responses thus formenting a comprehensive exchange of ideas and diverse opinions. It's an good piece that approaches, if not exceeds, the definition of art in that regardless of the positive/negative reactions it may elicit in /from viewers, that it ELICITS ANY REACTION AT ALL makes it ART. :))
ShadeMachine 1 year ago
I am not sure that evolution believes in user0707 either. It is a very effective advert with a connection between imagery and emotion. One cannot help but see the beauty as the bullet penetrates and destroys each object. There is an abrupt change with a strong feeling of shame when the image of the boy appears. Voting kills guns, not advertising or random acts of posting.
Lochfynne 2 years ago
@Lochfynne I agree with your comment on voting. But who do we vote for and why? We're only as good as the information we receive and all information is propoganda. What information do we need, in order to vote wisely, and where do we get it from?
SemioticsInc 1 year ago
I think it's a pretty decent advert, the technique used definitely surpasses the idea, but all in all it's a good ad.
abdeez 3 years ago
I think you guys are all taking this a bit too literally, no? The technique used here is certainly striking, and the viewer can't help but feel and understand the impact a bullet would have on the child's head at the end of the ad. Personally I found myself cringing in anticipation of the bullet hitting the child, and found the tagline "Kill the gun" to be less about "stop using guns," (as technology) and more about "understand the destructive power of the gun, and think before you act."
alexgm112 3 years ago
trying to "kill the gun" would never solve the problem...contact me if u want to know why...these post only allow 500 words and its probably going to take more than that
user0707 4 years ago
How do you think advertising can "kill the gun" or, if it can't, what communication would achieve this outcome?
SemioticsInc 4 years ago
advertising is not what i was talkn about...im talkin about what this advertisement is saying...its promting to "kill the gun"...and from statistics...banning guns has not helped in gun related crimes...in London, England for example...they have a ban on guns and they have one the worst crime rates...like i said tho...if u want to kno more about what our best bet is in lowering crime, let me kno
user0707 4 years ago
I appreciate your perspectives on guns and crime but this site is actually dedicated to the analysis of the communication, which in this instance is a Film/TV commerecial. Hence I'm interested to know if you feel any form of advertising, promotion, propaganda... can influence the ownership and use of weapons. In the current example there is some beautiful photography that almost romantacises the destructive power of a bullet. Do you think this helps or hinders the advertisers message?
SemioticsInc 4 years ago
frankly, the advertisers message just made me mad b/c it made guns seem like they are the problem with killings, etc...to answer ur question...i think both the advertisers message and method used to convey it was crappy b/c they are both flawed
user0707 4 years ago
I'm a believer in evolution so I tend to think if we didn't have guns we'd just throw sticks and stones at each other. In other words, our technology has changed but our primitive emotions haven't. So I'd prefer to see communications that address our emotional issues not our technological ones. What do you think the flaws of this ad are?
SemioticsInc 4 years ago
well i cant say im a believer in evolution but i so with u about that its the person's decisions (thus emotions) that the focus should be put on...not the technological inventions we make to assert these emotions
user0707 4 years ago
wow
DJDiscJokey 4 years ago
Is your "wow" because of the beautiful photography or because the ad actually changed your perspective on firearms?
SemioticsInc 4 years ago