43 replies to this topic

[fastlegs]

Check out this new Pepsi Max wild ride video that was just release with Jeff Gordon disguised as a taxi driver.

 

Jeff is out to prove that the wild ride video he did last year was no FAKE.

 

Enjoy the video!

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=dRIgmKGDqFM

[alfa1]

Its good, but suffers from The Wadsworth Constant.

 

http://knowyourmeme....sworth-constant

[SR388]

Jeff Gordon is one of the greatest racing car drivers of all time, and we are fortunate that he chooses to entertain us lowly mortals with such demonstrations of skill.  

[Ross Stonefeld]

Last year's was totally fake, all ad. This year's passenger was not in on the game.

[Otaku]

Last year's was totally fake, all ad. This year's passenger was not in on the game.

 

Let me doubt that...

[Tsarwash]

Passenger is an actor. No enough swearing and genuine panic.

[SR388]

This video is legit. 

[HoldenRT]

[Peat]

Yep, this does nothing to prove that the first one wasn't a fake. However, this one is at least plausible as a proper prank because the setup is much better.

Anyway, it's all entertainment.

[Nemo1965]

If the guys in this second video is acting, he is pretty good...

[xflow7]

That one's great.  Better than the first, IMO.  And I don't particularly care if it's real or not.  Imma buy a Pepsi. 

[917k]

4 million views in one day!?

[Andrew Hope]

4 million views in one day!?

 

Jeff Gordon is more popular than God. And should be.

[Magoo]

Last year's was totally fake, all ad. This year's passenger was not in on the game.

 

Oh, Ross. 

[Ross Stonefeld]

I may be acting intentionally naive, but I want to believe the Jalopnik disclosure that while it was a set up and ultimately an ad, the guy in the backseat wasn't taking part in it as such. Which raises ethical quandaries on it's own, beyond 'native advertising' but like Fox Mulder I want to believe. 

[Magoo]

How many takes do you reckon it took for the passenger to catch on? 

[johnmhinds]

Where was he getting a cab from/to? He just got in without a bag or anything and didn't discuss where they were going?

 

Feels just as fake as the first video.

 

If you want Jeff Gordon to drive around like a mediocre Ken Block so you can sell Pepsi you don't need some stupid fake story to tack onto it.

Edited by johnmhinds, 28 February 2014 - 18:04.

[Ross Stonefeld]

How many takes do you reckon it took for the passenger to catch on? 

 

I'd love to bust them, but we're gonna need evidence. 

[MaxScelerate]

Where was he getting a cab from/to? He just got in without a bag or anything and didn't discuss where they were going?

Feels just as fake as the first video.

If you want Jeff Gordon to drive around like a mediocre Ken Block so you can sell Pepsi you don't need some stupid fake story to tack onto it.

Dude thought he was going to test a new corvette or something, the PR officer was supposed to send him a taxi...

Edited by MaxScelerate, 28 February 2014 - 18:08.

[johnmhinds]

Dude thought he was going to test a new corvette or something, the PR officer was supposed to send him a taxi...

 

And he was going without a camera guy?

 

Edit, just read the dumb Jalopnik article on it, says he didn't tell anyone where he was going because it was a "secret test drive trip", yet at the end of the article there is a big disclaimer saying Jalopnik paid for all his travel costs for the trip and that Pepsi didn't pay them anything for the advert..

 

http://jalopnik.com/...f-me-1531016226

 

What a load of bullshit.

 

Imgur gallery linked from the comments on Jalopnik that show all the exterior shots were filmed with a different car at a different time:

http://imgur.com/a/CzU8q

Edited by johnmhinds, 28 February 2014 - 18:26.

[Magoo]

If the second video was done to prove the first video wasn't fake, we have an absurdity. We know the first video was fake. 

 

 

 

Ray Wert's new company, Tiny Toy Car, was founded to create new forms of web content that combine elements of features and advertising in one package. Infomercials in other words. 

[Nemo1965]

And he was going without a camera guy?

 

Edit, just read the dumb Jalopnik article on it, says he didn't tell anyone where he was going because it was a "secret test drive trip", yet at the end of the article there is a big disclaimer saying Jalopnik paid for all his travel costs for the trip and that Pepsi didn't pay them anything for the advert..

 

http://jalopnik.com/...f-me-1531016226

 

What a load of bullshit.

 

Imgur gallery linked from the comments on Jalopnik that show all the exterior shots were filmed with a different car at a different time:

http://imgur.com/a/CzU8q

 

I don't know if the film is legit, but what you point at here, is not proof enough it is fake. The first thing, about the disclaimer: with all the recent scandals with companies, the measure they take against corruption are sometimes... well, straight paranoid. That Pepsi and Jalopnik takes this effort to show their independance: overcooked but I get it.

 

The second thing: the shots with the different cars and different antenna's. Not strange that they took practice runs (I would really feel assured afterwards as the passenger that they had) and that there were shots mixed in the film shot at other moments, every with different cars, that is tv-production for you. Even reality is scripted reality. Every newsreport with an interview, for example, has shots of the reporter nodding at an answer while the interviewee is already home with his or her kids...

[Ross Stonefeld]

If the second video was done to prove the first video wasn't fake, we have an absurdity. We know the first video was fake. 

 

 

 

I thought #2 was to makeup for the first being completely fake, which everyone knew?

[johnmhinds]

I don't know if the film is legit, but what you point at here, is not proof enough it is fake. The first thing, about the disclaimer: with all the recent scandals with companies, the measure they take against corruption are sometimes... well, straight paranoid. That Pepsi and Jalopnik takes this effort to show their independance: overcooked but I get it.

 

The second thing: the shots with the different cars and different antenna's. Not strange that they took practice runs (I would really feel assured afterwards as the passenger that they had) and that there were shots mixed in the film shot at other moments, every with different cars, that is tv-production for you. Even reality is scripted reality. Every newsreport with an interview, for example, has shots of the reporter nodding at an answer while the interviewee is already home with his or her kids...

 

 

 

I don't think you understand, none of the exterior shots are of the car he was picked up in.

 

Sure he may have been picked up and driven around little bit to shake him up, but we can't see if he took the same route or if it was anywhere near the same speed, and somehow I doubt they would have driven it like that with someone in the car who didn't know what was going on.

Edited by johnmhinds, 28 February 2014 - 18:43.

[Ross Stonefeld]

That's not to say that they didn't drive in some manner that scared the guy in the back seat. It wouldn't have to be a full Dukes of Hazzard remake, just being in the backseat of a car evading the cops would be pretty scary.

 

Of *course* it's going to be a composite of footage. You'd practice the external shots endlessly to get the right look, then mix it with the one-take backseat stuff.

 

Zapruder lives!

http://imgur.com/a/CzU8q

[Brother Fox]

I think 'pick up shots' is the term, or something similar.

A pretty standard filmmaking technique where shots from different takes are edited together to give the best result. Ands sometimes they're done later, without the stars, or in different locations .

That they practiced before hand is expected, necessary probably. Gordon would want to be confident of the route, and the cameramen/directors would be looking at what shots 'work'.

It feels a bit like when people call the Ken Block vids fake because there's already black lines on the road.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Those I'm a bit grouchy about. I'm not impressed if Block's stuff isn't done in a single take. Doesn't have to be the first one, but I want an unbroken one.

[Lee Nicolle]

with a hundred takes and a choreographer Ken blocks stuff too looks good. And I am sure so is Gordons.

[as65p]

The hilarious thing is, you don't need Jeff Gordon to compose that kind of footage. I don't see a single sentence in the vid that would make me go "wow" over the drivers skill.

[Nemo1965]

The hilarious thing is, you don't need Jeff Gordon to compose that kind of footage. I don't see a single sentence in the vid that would make me go "wow" over the drivers skill.

 

Yeah, that is weak part of the series, fake or not. What would be fun if, say, you stage an advanced driving course and you hire an instructor to give lesson to this 'old man'. Who tells the instructor in a weak voice: 'Yes, these modern cars have so much more hp than my old Sedan. I just want to be able to controll them.' Ofcourse the senior is in fact Jeff Gordon. First the instructor drives around the track, giving some pointers, to which the pensioner reacts with remarks like: 'Wow, wow, you are very good. Why are you not in Indycar or Nascar? Oh wow, wow.'

 

Then the driving-instructor says to the pensioner 'You want to give it a try, mr. Jones?' First the old guy drives a lap very slowly and clumsy. Then the instructor says: 'Mr. Jones, lets see if we can give full throttle on the straight.' And then:

 

VROAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARVRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA _IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII_VROOAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHR_IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIH_VROOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Edited by Nemo1965, 01 March 2014 - 10:26.

[just me again]

Yes Nemo

 

That would be a good one.

[Ross Stonefeld]

A long time ago there was a feature about a NASCAR team guy, I think he was part time and was a police driving instructor during the week. So they're filming his day job and one of the cars is driving completely ****, literally out of control. Comes to a stop, the instructor runs up to it scolding because the driver was genuinely dangerous. Window rolls down and it's his weekend driver, Bobby Labonte.

[pRy]

What I found myself wondering is let's say Jeff crashed it and the guy in the back was seriously injured or worse.. they'd be in some pretty serious legal trouble right?

Edited by pRy, 01 March 2014 - 13:23.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Now that's an excellent point. Nothing would put a bigger question mark on this than the US legal system.

[senna da silva]

What I found myself wondering is let's say Jeff crashed it and the guy in the back was seriously injured or worse.. they'd be in some pretty serious legal trouble right?

 

I didn't see Austin Dillon in the video though.

[Briz]

I think he could sue them even without a crash, that's why I have a hard time believing it. They kidnap him, endanger his life and use all this for financial gains.

[Andrew Hope]

If using a taxi is being kidnapped someone owes me a lot of money.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I think he could sue them even without a crash, that's why I have a hard time believing it. They kidnap him, endanger his life and use all this for financial gains.

 

He'll have signed a release, otherwise they couldn't show it.

[johnmhinds]

What I found myself wondering is let's say Jeff crashed it and the guy in the back was seriously injured or worse.. they'd be in some pretty serious legal trouble right?

 

This is main reason why the whole story makes no sense. Pepsi's lawyers aren't going to let them faux "kidnap" people for adverts, that's the whole reason why the first one was faked.

 

I don't even know what kind of message Pepsi are trying to get across in the advert anyway. "Buy our drinks so we can pretend to kidnap people and scare the **** out of them!" What???

Edited by johnmhinds, 01 March 2014 - 19:30.

[Andrew Hope]

This is main reason why the whole story makes no sense. Pepsi's lawyers aren't going to let them faux "kidnap" people for adverts, that's the whole reason why the first one was faked.

 

I don't even know what kind of message Pepsi are trying to get across in the advert anyway. "Buy our drinks so we can pretend to kidnap people and scare the **** out of them!" What???

 

Pepsi doesn't advertise to get people to buy their pop, they advertise to make the millions of people who already buy it think they made the right choice and that they're supporting a fun, good-natured company. It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to make the average Joe laugh and associate that hearty chuckle with Pepsi instead of Coke.

[SR388]

Pepsi doesn't advertise to get people to buy their pop, they advertise to make the millions of people who already buy it think they made the right choice and that they're supporting a fun, good-natured company. It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to make the average Joe laugh and associate that hearty chuckle with Pepsi instead of Coke.

This is a man who understands marketing.

[johnmhinds]

Pepsi doesn't advertise to get people to buy their pop, they advertise to make the millions of people who already buy it think they made the right choice and that they're supporting a fun, good-natured company. It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to make the average Joe laugh and associate that hearty chuckle with Pepsi instead of Coke.

 

Well openly lying to us about their adverts (and having long sections of the adverts with the director saying "oh no guys we're not lying to you this is all completely genuine") will be sure fire way to make us think they're good natured....

 

It's like someone saw the RedBull stunts and thought "me too" without them actually having a budget for it.

[SR388]

I think john is an devoted coke drinker.

[Nemo1965]

That's why I think my idea (about the high performance course with Gordon disguised as pensioner) would be better. The victim (the unknowing passanger) would sign the standard even-if_I-get-killed-I-can't-sue-you-form, waiving all his rights, and even if Gordon in disguise kills the passanger AND himself the justice-system stands with empty hands...

 

(However: remember Mark Donohue...)