Now, that pisses me off...That piss me right off...
Oh well, I suppose it's better to be pissed off than to be pissed on...
Love and I gotta' pee,
Mrs. G
That is the strangest thing I have heard yet about the commercial!!
I've seen it and I am not that impressed by it...the person who wrote the song and the two remaining active members of Queen playing on it -- but that's ALL I like, really!!
Not surprised if Pepsi decided to pull it.
Where did you find this? Is it a reliable source?
Pepsi has invested so much money on the whole promotion of this campaign to decide to pull the ad off the air.
They have 5 ads lined up for the Superbowl anyway, so I don't think they planned to show it.
"Pepsi-Cola Co. bought three minutes worth of ad time to be split among its Pepsi, Pepsi ITunes and Sierra Mist brands."
When I first starting reading about the ad in September, there wasn't any indication that it was going to be shown in the US.
As Sully mentioned, when the ad was announced months ago, it was supposed to be for the international campaign. I never saw any indication it would be shown in the US. Besides, at 3 minutes, it's a bit long even for the Super Bowl.
<< Face it folks, Queen are done in the USA, and it's been that way since 1982. >>
And what does that have to be with Queen?
It wasn't Queen who brought the idea to Pepsi about producting the ad to regain their popularity.
Whatever advertisement agency did the ad, they know that 'We Will Rock You' is a classic, and they thought it'd be a great idea to have the greatest pop-stars of today making a new version of the song. Of course, they had to contact Queen first to allow their song to be featured in the ad. So my guess is that Brian and Roger liked the idea so much that they decided not only to sell the rights to use song but also produce the new version.
If Pepsi pulled-off the ad, that has nothing to be with Queen nor the fact that they haven't been as popular in the States as in the rest of the world.
In most countries including the US, people won't probably see the 3 minute version because it's too long to be sold as a TV commercial spot. The only reasons why it was probably made was because of the possibility of releasing the song as a single in case it reaches great popular demand. Meanwhile, there will be just 1 minute and 30 second spots for the ad.
I still believe THIS IS NOT TRUE AT ALL, since there was no link to a reliable source to come with the news. A couple of days ago I saw the news on Netscape.com about the new Pepsi ad to be aired during the Superbowl.
This is why I think that Richard Orchard should pay more attention about what kind of news people post on the Queenzone news.
Someone could post that Brian and Roger are dead without a reliable link to a news source, and it would still be posted in the front page of Queenzone anyways.
"Besides, at 3 minutes, it's a bit long even for the Super Bowl."
Actually, if you check Brian's site, you'll find that he was helping to create multiple shorter versions as well as the full 3 minute one.
Peace,
Adam.
EDIT: B = "As in most of these cases (we're old hands at ads now) there are many different versions, all edited and cut differently, for a 3 minute, a 2 minute, a 1 minute, and a 30 second slot."
...I heard it off of one of those extra/access hollywood shows... i dont know if THATS reliable..but I think I can deal with the "pain" of looking like a confused ditz if they arent reliable
Hmm..just watched the commercial online. This has nothing to do with my dislike of Britney singing a Queen song when I say, that commercial sucks. I don't get the hoopla or why it cost so much to make. I suppose the guys would like the excessive T&A, though..:-p
I didn't really see them either (but then again I saw a low-res version), but the rest of the site has photos of them in Roman garb, so my guess is they're extras that you have to play "Where's Waldo?" with.