Talk:Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy
|
|
Interestingly, the Super Bowl featured numerous commercials for erection pills and beer advertisements with flatulating horses.
While comical, I don't know that this belongs in the article.
I think it's appopriate... that's some clever fact-finding. --Madchester 01:11, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
"...and numerous viewers contacted CBS to complain, saying it was inappropriate in the context of a football game."
Obviously, it is inappropriate in more than just the context of a football game.
is it inappropriate to upload a hi-res image of the incident? or is permission from the photographer required first? i have the highest res version i know exists here: 
but i haven't the foggiest idea who credit goes to. it was on the original site with the janet pix that was doing the insane amounts of transfer those first days/weeks
- I'm not going to be the judge of inappropriateness, but as for the legality, the photo would need be either released under a compatible license see: Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, public domain, or usable under the rules of fair use. I doubt you could claim fair use on this one, so I would say you would need permission of the photographer. --Plicease 02:41, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Going mostly unnoticed by the media was Kid Rock's wearing of an American flag as a poncho, with a hole cut in it for his head; in his performance, he unceremoniously dumped the flag onto the stage. Many people considered this an act of flag desecration.
Can we say that it went mostly unnoticed and, in the same breath, state that many people considered it flag desecration? I know that there is a distinction made between the media and the people, but was there enough of a popular offense, of a buzz amongst the people to say that many saw it that way? I'm wondering if the people didn't do a little like the media and forget about the flag because of the wardrobe controversy. --Liberlogos 01:00, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I think it makese sense actaully. This incident went mostly unnoticed, but in a general sense, many people find dropping a flag on the ground to be desecration. --Plicease 02:32, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Movie Connections
Did you ever watch the 15th James Bond movie, The Living Daylights? I remember that there was a scene where Bond pulled off one the women's shirt. One of General Pushkin's allies...
International bemusement
Was the footage re-broadcast in America? Here in the UK Channel 4 news (as well as others) showed the incident (in slow motion afaik). Just wondered if it was worth mentioning the international reaction? -- Joolz 00:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. I would say that the international reaction could be characterised as bemusement as to what the fuss was all about. This certainly belongs in the article. Jooler
- In Australia is was also shown during news broadcasts. Most of the focus concerned the fuss and not the event.--Tancred 21:47, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
- Same thing in Germany, and everyone laughed about the "moralist outrage" that took place in the U.S. after that incident that would have been called a minor one in Europe. Just for comparison, in a Tour de France broadcast some years ago an entirely naked man ran for about 100 meters along the track aside the cyclists. No one complained about that and on German TV the scene was re-broadcast in slow motion. So far as to the ridiculously exaggerated reaction to the Jackson incident in the U. S. -- anon
- Similarly during the recent British heat for the Eurovision Song Contest 2005 the winner Javine Hylton had a wardrobe malfunction moment. This was of course splashed all over the tabloids the next day but did not register on anyone's outrage-ometer. In fact no-one has as yet bothered to even mention it in Wikipedia's article about her. Jooler 09:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actual picture of the event
I believe we should have one. Wikipedia does not have a rule against nudity in images, and it would add to the article. Andre (talk) 20:58, May 31, 2005 (UTC)