Here's a link to the much-talked-about Foo Fighters video that has been banned by MTV: Foo Fighters - Low. I guess they were shooting for funny, but they went way past funny and detoured over into creepy. In the end it's just cheap publicity. I don't think the Foos lost much money in production costs by having the video banned since their only expenses seem to be a camcorder, a hotel room, lingerie, and a lot of alcohol.
As for the ban, it seems rather arbitrary. The video is really no worse than the behavior MTV shows on The Real World. I guess they just prefer their drunken sluts to be 19 year old girls instead of Jack Black.
Posted by Xkot at July 02, 2003 06:25 PM | Speak It | TrackbackDan, after viewing about thirty seconds of the video: "They've gone from Fighting Foo to being Foo."
Posted by: Sekimori on July 2, 2003 09:48 PM - linkLOL... yeah, I'd say that video is pure foo. And not in a good way, like Foo House the chinese restaurant on Baymeadows. It's just *bad* foo.
Posted by: Xkot on July 3, 2003 12:42 AM - linkFrankly, the video is very mildly funny, but that goes for much of what the foo fighters have done. I'm not a big fan, and have not ever been a big fan, and so I'm not really gonna pass/fail the foo fighters on their new reportoire. But damn. Banning that video? This smells of sponsor and/or parent company involvement. It's not that much of a reach considering how commercial MTv is...
Posted by: dre on July 3, 2003 05:43 AM - linkJack Black can be my drunken slut.
Wait, no. No, he can't. shudder...
Posted by: srah on July 3, 2003 08:05 AM - linkOK, I really liked the song, but that was just disturbing. I don't see why they would ban it though, as I have seen much worse on MTV.
Posted by: dabloone on July 3, 2003 10:28 AM - linki appreciate what they were trying to do
i am generally a fan of jack black and the foo fighters are alright
its charm is that it goes right to creepy's doorstep and rings the doorbell, but creepy isn't in, perhaps creepy is afraid of jack black in a mini skirt - i am.
Posted by: dpjax on July 4, 2003 02:04 AM - linkIt's would be hard to believe, but perhaps, MTV sometiems bans a video just because it .... for lack of a better word .... sucks.
Wasn't funny. Wasn't creative. Wasn't provocative -- QAF, now they've broken some ground.
So what if two red necks dress in women's clothes???
Posted by: Mannaz on July 6, 2003 03:00 PM - linkI giggled the whole way through, but I am also one to appreciate when music and comedy collide -not in a Weird Al Yankovick sort of way, but more like Tenacious D & The Dan Band.
I agree that the [complete] ban of the video from MTV is idiotic considering the other programming that they allow... and, due to the one sexually suggestive visual, it could easily have been shuffled to a late night slot akin to Erotica and the like.
Lord knows that MTV only airs 'creative' videos. When I think of artsy, thought-provoking entertainment the first thing that comes to mind is Nelly's video for "Ride wit Me". The video was a delight, but shouldn't have been banned. I don't see how this video is in any way different from the wave after wave of Nelly and 50 Cent videos promoting the same (if not worse) behavior. In this day and age of pop ultracrap, I think this video is a breathe of fresh (but perturbing) air.
Posted by: ChucktotheLee on July 11, 2003 02:40 PM - linkThey show it on mtv 2 (europe) is this ban just in the US>?
Posted by: Will on July 23, 2003 05:32 PM - link