Where the Nordstrom guy doesn't get it is that absurdity in humor is valid,
but usually not funny when it is depicted as being at someone else's
expense. There are certainly other pretexts that could have been used to
portray someone's obsession with shoes *without* that obsession becoming
destructive to someone else (much less a spouse). Like, say, adding a room
to your house (for the shoes), or having your RV pull a trailer (for the
shoes). They didn't think very hard.
The ad with the motorcycle dropped onto a freeway took some serious
choreography, good stunt drivers, and *lots* of money to shoot.
Was the crushed Cadillac done with computer graphics or a realistic mockup,
or did they just throw money at that one, too, and waste a real car?
|
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network