Well at least it is bipartisan!

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 10, 2004, 9:56 am

Controversy Brews Over Hillary, Condoleezza 'Stepford Wives' Ad

UPDATED: 10:14 PM EDT June 9, 2004

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Some people are saying the way Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice are portrayed in an ad for the new "Stepford Wives" film is distasteful, even outrageous.
Video

The spot shows an image of Rice made to look nude from the waist up, and a picture of Clinton that morphs into what looks like a cookie-baking Stepford wife.

The pictures move across the screen very quickly, but they caught the eye of a Kansas City woman, who recorded the spot to make sure of what she was seeing.

Becky Reynolds said when she taped and watched the ad again, she "realized it was even worse" than what she'd suspected.

"It's just inappropriate, and it needs to be stopped," Reynolds said.

For those who haven't seen the 1975 thriller by director Bryan Forbes, the 2004 version is pretty much the same, but with a dash of technical wizardry. Both films are based on a book by Ira Levin about a small Connecticut town where the women act too perfectly -- because their husbands have replaced them with robots.

But Reynolds says the less-than-perfect images in the advertisement for the new film will keep her out of the theater.

Pat Gray, who works with Northstar Marketing Group, said the ad shows bad taste toward Rice and Clinton.

"In today's media environment, I don't know whether it's unacceptable morally or not -- distasteful, for sure," Gray said. "If I were them, I'd probably sue."

Gray also said the ad wouldn't drive him to the theater.

"That certainly wouldn't stimulate me to go see the movie," he said.

Nancy Kirkpatrick, a spokeswoman for Paramount Pictures, said the film studio hasn't received any complaints about the spot. Paramount hasn't heard from Rice or Clinton, either.
http://www.local10.com/entertainment/33 ... etail.html

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 10, 2004, 10:00 am

Well at least you can say it is not politically motived, but it seems a little misognyst

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 10, 2004, 1:06 pm

Uh why is this distasteful, unacceptable or morally distasteful?

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 10, 2004, 1:09 pm

shows an image of Rice made to look nude from the waist up

Christ, what *ISN'T* distasteful about that?

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » June 10, 2004, 1:38 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:
shows an image of Rice made to look nude from the waist up
Christ, what *ISN'T* distasteful about that?

That really depends on how flattering she is portrayed from the waist up

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » June 10, 2004, 4:32 pm

"its so distasteful yet i recorded it and looked at it 60 times to make sure i knew what i was seeing!"

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » June 10, 2004, 4:52 pm

They just chose very independant strong women that are figures known around the country/world. Makes perfect sense for the movie, which is about stripping women of their strong/independant ideas and turns em into the perfect trophy wife.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 10, 2004, 10:32 pm

Kelshara wrote:Uh why is this distasteful, unacceptable or morally distasteful?

I'm with you on this one. It's just funny.