Took until 3:05 left in the half for anyone to score? Game was exciting after that, though. Though i have never seen so many flags. (And there was this thing where the announcers said they couldn’t contest some certain thing because the refs would say “that would be taking advantage of the rules... that would be taking advantage of a loophole in the rule book”... i mean, aren’t the rules there to be used?) Clearly the refs were just sexually frustrated -- thanks, Emma ;) Was fun sitting next to her as we watched ‘cause she gayifies everything.
On SuperBowl Sunday at 12:48pm, TBQ posted:
In hindsight I feel like we should have put together some kind of betting pool meets ficathon thing where we all place bets on who would win and possibly by how much and then the losers have to write the winners a fic of their choice. Or something. But too late now I guess.I wasn’t really that into the game (largely because i haven’t been watching football almost at all this season) but i was glad the Pats won, and i was excited for the Panthers and their fans after that last touchdown they made ‘cause that was an exciting touchdown, even though it made me worry that my team would lose the game. (P.S. What is this shit that winning a Super Bowl with a field goal instead of a touchdown is poor form or something?)
Halftime show was teh lame. Was that Jessica Simpson doing the yelling introduction? U of Houston marching band was kinda cool, but they didn’t do much before the pros came out. The first professional performer was Janet Jackson, who was cool, though the feather tail thing was weird. Then P. Diddy and Nelly -- each one got maybe 60 seconds before the next performer came out, which seemed uber-lame to me -- and then Kid Rock, who seemed to be the main part of the show. Ooh, Janet Jackson came back.
"I don't think the Super Bowl has ever seen a performance like this," [Jackson's choreographer Gil] Duldulao added. "The dancing is great. She's more stylized, she's more feminine, she's more a woman as she dances this time around. There are some shocking moments in there too. It's a lot of pressure, there's so many creative people and creative artists, you want to make sure everything is different, and I think she's going to do that. She's doing her job well."No, i was not impressed by her choreography. And her makeup made her resemble her brother so much it was creepy. And then Justin Timberlake came out, looking so preppy and therefore out of place in that show, and with grungy beard fuzz to boot. The whole sexy dancing with JJ was disturbing, ‘cause the idea of them together is disturbing. (I hear rumors they’re dating and ew, *shivers*)
And then there was the Boob. They had to have planned that, but she looked surprised, so i wasn’t sure.
Drudge, CNN, and Yahoo have stories.
CBS is apologetic and upset with MTV. Everyone involved seems to be claiming it was an accident. Justin’s song includes the line "I'll get you naked by the end of this song," but Yahoo reports: "I am sorry that anyone was offended by the wardrobe malfunction during the halftime performance of the Super Bowl," Timberlake said in a statement. "It was not intentional and is regrettable."
I did like these two posts.
Okay, i have ceased caring now. Moving right along.
The commercials were nearly as underwhelming as the halftime show. My favorite one was the one with players from various teams that didn’t make it to the Super Bowl ending with “As of tomorrow, we’re all undefeated again.” There were other ones which were cute and/or funny, and i even remember some of them, but nothing i found particularly noteworthy.
Of the game, InstaPundit quips: "WELL, THAT WAS EXCITING! Now a game for you -- spot the first pundit to try to tie the Patriots' victory to the election."
I pulled up /friendsfriends in order to find info on the Janet Jackson thing and possibly some football slash, and as always happens when i pull up /friendsfriends, i read things that piss me off. The people i have on my regular reading list piss me off sometimes, but it’s exponential when one adds in all their friends. *sighs*
My father e-mailed me a while back:
Yet another reason why I don't take TV people seriouslyI have seen the MoveOn.org ad. Some people said they worried that it would be too radical and wouldn’t appeal to the average voter and that they were pleased that it was palatable. Others said it was so polished it was like a DNC ad and really, couldn’t the DNC make their own ads, wasn’t the point of the MoveOn contest to do something more radical?
when they pretend to be righteous.
BTW: Black Rock is the informal name of CBS' New York headquarters.http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_01.html#005878Of course, they're refusing the ad for the same reason that ESPN fired Rush Limbaugh as a football commentator (he had said--this is not an exact quote--, "Why do the media make such a fuss over Donovan McNabb? He's not that good a quarterback. But media people have a soft spot for black quarterbacks and want them to succeed."). CBS fears that a significant number of people will be pissed off by the ad and come away feeling bad about the network and the game; the other ads will be overshadowed.
: Incredibly -- unbelievably, disturbingly, appallingly -- CBS has barred MoveOn from airing its commercial on the SuperBowl. AdAge reports:Viacom's CBS today rejected a request from liberal group MoveOn to air a 30-second anti-President Bush ad during the Super Bowl, saying the spot violated the network's policy against running issue advocacy advertising.That's a pile of Black Rock bile.
A CBS spokesman said the decision against broadcasting the spot had nothing to do with either the Super Bowl or the ad's specific issue but was because the network has had a long-term policy not to air issue ads anywhere on the network.
What, they can accept an ad about, oh, literacy and that's not an issue?
They accept ads against smoking and that's not an issue?
But an ad about the presidential election and the deficit is somehow corrupting?
Listen, I'm no fan of the MoveOn ads, as I've said. And I'm no fan of interference with the airwaves and media. But I have to say that this offends my senses of democracy, free speech, responsible media behavior, and just good business. It's dumb on CBS' part: insulting to the audience and irresponsible to democracy. It is, on the other hand, great news for MoveOn: They'll get tons of publicity and I would be surprised if, oh, Fox calls and volunteers to run the ad.
: Sheila Lennon has lots more. She points out:CBS will however run anti-smoking ads during the game and, for the third year, an entry from The White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy (remember the "drug use aids terrorists" ads?).Right. The issue rubicon has been crossed already.
LINK | Comments (26)
It's the same reason CBS refused a Super Bowl ad for PETA
and why, 16 years ago, the networks refused to run an anti-deficit ad put out by a friend of then-president Reagan.
I don’t follow MoveOn.org, so i don’t know what the contest was presented as being about. I don’t actually care that much. The ad didn’t particularly strike me. I didn’t really know where it was going until it ended, and then i thought, “The kids won’t be kids when they’re working to pay off the debt!”
As far as i’m concerned, CBS can air or not air whatever ads it feels like. It aired an anti-drug commercial during the Super Bowl, so clearly its stated rationale is bunk. I’d much rather they just say they don’t want to run the ad because they don’t agree with its message or they think it will alienate viewers or whatever. But then again, i always think people should be honest and upfront about their biases even though it seems to be so very unpopular what with our obsession with so called “neutrality” and “impartiality,” even though the idea of someone being fully either of those things is bunk.
I think i have a topic for my Sophian piece next week. Hott.
A real update, plus commenting on friends’ entries, will have to wait, as sleep is of the good.