Actors, acting & bad scripts

in

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFBaWbhYrdU] Is this ad an acting problem? A script problem? Or both?

I think I've said it here before, but if you're going to use actors, you need a script that sounds real (in addition to actors who can act).

"Strickland must have thought we'd forget he voted for favored trade status for China..." Yeah, that's how real people talk.

Later, "Strickland, same guy who's Ohio state problem..."

It's like they took a narrator's lines and through them into the mouths of "real people."

The problem with an ad like this one is if you don't believe or relate to the people (the actors), then I think you'll miss the point of the ad. I know I did, didn't believe it for one second.

A tale of two ads

in

Two ads from the conservative American Crossroads: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy3xKL4vlc8]

The positive ad in Ohio is pretty good stuff. Nicely designed, I especially like the talking politician graphics they use both at the front and the end.  Not as fond of the middle section with the moving images of Portman, I much prefer the stills in the plan section, that seem to be a better fit for the overall scheme. Still, this is surprisingly good.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f85DHhYcqU4&wpisrc=nl_fix]

This ad in Colorado on the other hand.... I've talked before about trusting your concept.  This ad has a pretty good concept Bennet has spent X billions every day.  Whether it's a compelling message or not, is another argument, but graphically, the idea of a calendar and $2.5 billion in spending could be really nicely pushed home.

But instead of trusting the concept they muck it up with too many CG's, pictures of Bennet (why do we have to see the guy, you say his name 5 times, will the picture of him really drive the point home).  Then they mix the monthly calendar with the daily calendar, which is not a grave offense, but just adds to the visual clutter.

It's ironic because in their attempt to make this ad more clear, they made it less so.