« ABC looks into Muppets reality show | Main | Sorrell paying the big bucks in divorce »

Is the Lugz spot even worth stealing? If a roomful of monkeys could eventually type the complete Shakespeare by chance, could a roomful of creative directors come up with the color orange? That’s one way of looking at the current fuss about two quite similar-looking commercials. Another way is to pose the question: If one commercial is going to imitate another, couldn’t it at least imitate a good one? That worthy principle has gotten little attention in the wrangling over whether Apple’s orange-tinted iPod commercial imitates Lugz orange-tinted spot or is just coincidentally a look-alike. The mere possibility that Apple swiped something from Lugz has created the presumption that the Lugz spot was something worth stealing. (See the Lugz spot here—click on Archive, Lugz, 01.) But the jails are full of people who’ve stolen things the rest of us wouldn’t want if offered the stuff for free. In this case, plenty of viewers will find each commercial a noisy bore. Whatever the legal ramifications of the matter, the phrase “intellectual property” sounds mildly absurd when applied to video of some guy thrashing around and blustering on an orange-tinted screen. By the way, there seems to be some doubt as to whether that roomful of monkeys really could type Shakespeare at random, but nothing can shake our faith in the powers of a roomful of creative directors. —Posted by Mark Dolliver

October 25, 2005 | Permalink

Comments

Gawd....both "ads" are no-concept fluff pieces created without any thought, except for how much After Effects crap they can stuff in 30 or 60 seconds

Posted by: muntz | Oct 25, 2005 3:32:23 PM

Wait a second, is this really Mark Dollivere, whom I've been reading for over ten years in AdWeek?

I've disagreed with your opinions in the past, but on this you're just off the reservation.

The Lugz spot, when it was produced, was nothing less than a revolution in motion graphics. The technique in it was a leap beyond anything done before, everything from the 3D to the tracking to the compositing to the little particle effects when the main character's boots hit the ground. The aesthetic congealed everything that was floating around in the realm of 'urban culture' and added to it that insane semi-transparent city, the planes with dirt on them that the camera flies through (did you even notice them?), psyop's earlier work with 3d arrows/graffiti, toon-shading and colors that blew everyone away.

A noisy bore? Right. You'd be the one in a million who thought so. The rest would be, rightly, mocking you for a dinosaur.

Since its debut, Lugz has been influential in a couple hundred motion pieces from everyone from Freestyle Collective to Brand New School to my own work. It's never been so closely reproduced as with iPod because, to be frank, nobody as yet has had the skill. Even now complex the 3D character animation (that's not a real person) is completely beyond the skill level of most motion shops, while the design will always be beyond the design ability of most dedicated 3D shops.

This is the thing about psyop. They're the only people who can do both. They can do insane 3D, and they're among the better designers going. It's why they're the best in the world at motion design, and I'm speaking as someone who'se seen about every motion piece in the last four years and moderates the biggest forum for motion graphics on the web (mograph.net).

iPod substituted a real person for the 3D person and substituted a 2d city for the 3D. Logan did it. They're among the best there is. They're paying the price, but they're more than good enough in their other work to be above total condemnation.

As for 'muntz' above, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Posted by: govinda | Oct 25, 2005 7:45:18 PM

BOOYA! You just got govindaed....morons.

Posted by: dippitydooda | Oct 25, 2005 8:43:09 PM

Lol, who was that? Haha!

Posted by: govinda | Oct 25, 2005 9:02:16 PM

The creative team at Chiat Day ripped off the original ipod ads from TAXI ADVERTISING and DESIGN. The Canadian Ad powerhouse. The ads were for a Toronto Hip Hop radio station called Flow, they won tones of awards. The fact is is that ad creatives make derivative work all the time and just modify execution or insights slightly to fit each product.

Posted by: CHIAT DAY RIPPED OFF THE FIRST CAMPAIGN AS WELL | Oct 26, 2005 10:27:56 AM

Muntz is obviously an Agency "creative"

*chuckle*

You got Owned.

Mark Dolliver there's no excuse for this kind of blatant plagurism. You desparage the Lugz spot by suggesting that there is nothing worth stealing yet it's plain to anyone that the similarities are striking. therefore, the Apple ad sucks? Is that what you are saying, because you cannot have it both ways.

It's this sort of attitude that has agency "creatives" (ha ha... that's sarcasm) showing up to design/post houses all over the world saying, "We want this (shows you an ad, a student animation, indie/major motion picture scene), but with THIS logo/product"

Personally, I am sick to death of it.

Posted by: Farkistanian | Oct 26, 2005 12:02:19 PM

dolliver views the lugz spot as not good? maybe because it isn't intended for old white men. and whassup with all the references to monkeys?

then again, put enough chimps in front of a keyboard, and you'll inevitably have a new issue of adweek. or an adfreak post.

Posted by: HighJive | Oct 26, 2005 9:20:19 PM

oh please, like lugz was the first company to use graffiti, urban cityscapes and dancing in their campaign. look at the several music videos, print ads, and commercials that existed before 2003. why so much press going towards this issue, except that maybe lugz is trying to garner press for itself and sell a couple more shoes?

Posted by: dissrant | Oct 27, 2005 1:01:08 AM

When I first saw the Lugz spot on the air, I stood up and shouted -- it is a phenomenal piece of work IMHO, and I think Govinda does a perfect job of substantiating why the work -- and Psyop, the company behind it -- is great. Nods also to Govinda for the perspective on Logan. No doubt, the lawyers will sort out the plagiarism issues, and the volume of future work coming out of Logan will speak for itself. To me, as a viewer, the bottom line is that, unlike Mr. Dolliver, I strongly prefer both spots over most other commercials on TV.

Posted by: Roger Darnell | Oct 27, 2005 9:49:24 AM

Post a comment

Name:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments:

The opinions expressed in comments are those of the individual poster. They do not necessarily reflect the views of Adweek or Nielsen Business Media. Comments of a promotional nature or comments that are otherwise inappropriate may be removed.