PDA

View Full Version : Hair commercials now vs. the 90's.



shutterpillar
July 3rd, 2013, 11:58 AM
Have any of you seen this article? Let's all keep in mind that our hair will probably never look like the model's hair in most current shampoo commercials because it's full of CGI "enhancements."

http://aseachange.com/blog-illusionists/2009/03/shampoo/

leslissocool
July 3rd, 2013, 12:08 PM
Monica Bellucci's commercial! She actually has genetically great hair, her very first modeling pictures I believe it was at hip length. My stepmother worked in this fancy thing and got to meet many celebrities and met her.

Yup, everything now is enhanced. Hair doesn't even look like hair anymore :(.

ravenreed
July 3rd, 2013, 12:14 PM
My hair is really shiny in real life, and yet it doesn't look anything like the hair in modern hair care commercials.

meteor
July 3rd, 2013, 12:23 PM
Yep, I remember as a kid I thought hair commercials showed very ordinary hair, and me and all the girls in school had better hair than that. But now when I see those commercials, it looks so unbelievable, like alien hair from another planet - it's so cartoonishly glossy and unreal.
Those commercials are pushing women to buy more and more products in search of "that" look, which is unachievable.

teal
July 3rd, 2013, 12:27 PM
My hair has never moved like a hair commercial, now or then. I came to peace with it long ago - haha! :p

leoninnu
July 3rd, 2013, 12:27 PM
Hair in the commercials doesn't even look real anymore. The models could just as well be bald and have the hair added later. Next time you see a hair product commercial, take a good look on how the hair moves. Looks totally unnatural.

PraiseCheeses
July 3rd, 2013, 12:30 PM
The way the hair moves in the Pantene commercial doesn't even look real - it leaves an impression of being synthetic wig hair or something.

shutterpillar
July 3rd, 2013, 12:38 PM
The way the hair moves in the Pantene commercial doesn't even look real - it leaves an impression of being synthetic wig hair or something.

That's what I always think as well. It looks wiggy... but even then, it looks less natural than a wig looks. I think meteor put it nicely with "cartoonishly glossy and unreal."

And it's not just hair... nails, skin, eyes, lips, necks, waists, legs... the entire body is one big mess of CGI and photoshop nowadays. Nothing seems to be real anymore.

jacqueline101
July 3rd, 2013, 12:51 PM
The hair commercials nowadays don't seem real.

Nedertane
July 3rd, 2013, 02:27 PM
While I do see a difference in the commercials, I'm not sure if it's *entirely* fair to compare them. Hairstyles in 1990 had barely begun to escape the big and frizzy days of the 80s, and that's sort of the style that's shown in the older commercial. Nowadays, people don't want that, so they probably don't want to show a style that's similar to a 90s hairstyle in newer commercials.

Of course, I'm also part of a generation that grew up on CGI cartoons and such, and I'm just generally jaded when it comes to commercials anyway, Lol.

chen bao jun
July 3rd, 2013, 02:49 PM
I have really, really good skin naturally, dermatologists and people who know skin admire it a lot, small pores, never had any pimples to speak of as a teenagers, barely have a wrinkle now. (It's genetic, my mother at 82 has even better skin, we're just born that way). My point is, my natural good skin looks like garbage not only compared to people's skin in t.v. ads and commercials but like garbage compared to anyone who has been to a makeup counter and has what is considered a normal amount of foundation, etc. on their face. I am allergic to makeup so am usually the only woman in the room without makeup on and I don't exactly look bland but I look very, very imperfect compared to everyone else, always. I would actually wear makeup to level the playing field a bit, if I could. So you see, as the standards get raised to the unrealistic, everyone gets sucked in. Even the people who naturally had a good deal aren't good enough--as you can kind of tell on this forum by looking at all natural blondes who feel they aren't considered blond now that 'platinum' has become the standard, all the curlies who feel their hair looks bad compared to heat styled curls, etc. etc. I feel that, they get you two ways. First you aren't good enough naturally and have to do something to reach this unachievable standard, and then , you've destroyed whatever you had and can spend years buying more products in order to 'fix' what became wrong through using the first products. I hope that's clear.

10000days
July 3rd, 2013, 03:51 PM
Hmm... That makes me feel better about my hair! :)

WilfredAllen
July 3rd, 2013, 04:05 PM
I have really, really good skin naturally, dermatologists and people who know skin admire it a lot, small pores, never had any pimples to speak of as a teenagers, barely have a wrinkle now. (It's genetic, my mother at 82 has even better skin, we're just born that way). My point is, my natural good skin looks like garbage not only compared to people's skin in t.v. ads and commercials but like garbage compared to anyone who has been to a makeup counter and has what is considered a normal amount of foundation, etc. on their face. I am allergic to makeup so am usually the only woman in the room without makeup on and I don't exactly look bland but I look very, very imperfect compared to everyone else, always. I would actually wear makeup to level the playing field a bit, if I could. So you see, as the standards get raised to the unrealistic, everyone gets sucked in. Even the people who naturally had a good deal aren't good enough--as you can kind of tell on this forum by looking at all natural blondes who feel they aren't considered blond now that 'platinum' has become the standard, all the curlies who feel their hair looks bad compared to heat styled curls, etc. etc. I feel that, they get you two ways. First you aren't good enough naturally and have to do something to reach this unachievable standard, and then , you've destroyed whatever you had and can spend years buying more products in order to 'fix' what became wrong through using the first products. I hope that's clear.


//agree




The comparison was neat! I thought it was cool to see how structurally similar the ads were too - even though the specific images were very different. thanks for sharing (:

HintOfMint
July 3rd, 2013, 09:19 PM
I feel like EVERYTHING has gotten so artificial, not just hair and makeup advertisements. I've noticed this in particular with movies. I know sci-fi/action is supposed to be unrealistic and, well, fantasy-like, but I could not enjoy Star Trek: Into Darkness. It was just too... glossy. I compare this to The Fifth Element which is a hugely outlandish sci-fi/futuristic movie made in 1997, but it somehow lacked the fakeness or robot-feel of the new Star Trek movie.

It's not just dispiriting constantly surrounded by unnatural images of perfection--it's freaking creepy.

leoninnu
July 4th, 2013, 02:53 AM
That's what I always think as well. It looks wiggy... but even then, it looks less natural than a wig looks. I think meteor put it nicely with "cartoonishly glossy and unreal."

Yeah, not even wigs behave that way. It's more like the hair is alive and has a will of it's own, regardless of the models movement or possible wind :D Snake-like.

AnqeIicDemise
July 4th, 2013, 03:11 AM
I'll admit that my hair looked pretty much super glossy and fake when I had it trimmed up last month. Then again it was blown dry, flat ironed and treated with special shampoo, condish and leave in treatment/heat protectant. That's helluva amount of product I normally don't have on top of the silicone shine. It didn't move as freely and it had this impossible shine. I kind of felt bad that it wasn't as glossy after I washed it but I was quickly reminded of the silicones in the heat protectant. Its like when I put on shine spray or gloss serum. It makes everything look 'vavoom!' At one point, J said I reminded her of -- what I think was-- a Vidal Sassoon print of the model with the super blunt bangs covering her eyes and super blunt ends over her shoulder. (Anyone recognize the print? I may be wrong. I've seen it and know which one she's talking about but I can't recall if it is VS or some other major brand.)

My natural hair is super shiny too, but the sheer amount of shine was unbelievable. It didn't have the same mobility either. It just kind of hung there.

So, I have to disagree. To some point, that super cgi look can be achieved in real life but it takes a LOT of effort and a LOT of product. I mean, there was so much product that my hair would not curl. I slept in braids and all I had to do was TT out the braids the next day and it'd be back to pin straight. -shrug- I only get my hair cut about three to four times a year anyway so I don't mind J playing around with it. If I were to tell her I didn't want heat styling or product she'd oblige me.

However, I wonder how much more product and how much more damage I'd have if I went for that CGI look *every day*.

No thanks. I like my wild movement and tameless nature of my hair.

melusine963
July 4th, 2013, 08:56 AM
Using CGI in a shampoo ad should be considered flase advertising. It was fascinating comparing the two adverts. :)

TroyaAbundant
July 4th, 2013, 09:56 PM
A few years ago, I read a magazine interview with a hair stylist who has worked on several major hair advertising campaigns in the US and Europe. He reported the two most important factors to achieve the greatest volume and shiniest hair were to 1.) have the model shampoo infrequently the weeks prior, and not at all the night before the photo shoot, and 2.) for him to use as little hair product as possible when styling. Major irony!

Syaoransbear
July 5th, 2013, 12:05 AM
CGI makes sense, I'm not sure why I didn't think of it since they use it for pretty much everything. Even girls casually filming themselves doing hair tutorials on youtube edit their videos to thin out their faces/nose/whatever. I assumed to get the hair looking that healthy they used models who kept their hair completely oiled and in a silk hair sock for the entire duration of the hair's life, and then only the day of filming the advertisement did they wash it and fry the crap out of it for the very first time. CGI seems a lot more realistic than that, heh.

virgo75
July 5th, 2013, 07:42 AM
It's really crazy to see the amount of retouching and artifice that goes into cosmetics and beauty aid advertisements.

Between the CGI retouching and hair weaves/extensions, I thought my hair was sadly thin. It wasn't until I took the time to look at people who have "normal" medium thickness hair(sans clip ins) that I realized my hair is average and may even look thick under the right circumstances. I feel bad for young girls growing up seeing these artificial images and thinking that's how they're supposed to look.

Ocelan
July 5th, 2013, 11:56 AM
I haven't believed what I see in hair and skin care ads in a while after I've read and seen enough articles on the matter. That plus the fact that everything just looks so unreal nowadays that only fools would actually believe them. I had to search for the articles and videos of of photoshopping and the likes to get my confidense up even a bit. I had had bad confidense in myself since I was a kid and really needed to see that the airbrushed things really aren't real. All the people in the ads are just people. Maybe they actually do eat very healthily and work out, but still they will not look that much different than all of us without makeup and their hair done, the way most people live most of their lives.

The link (Dove evolution) someone posted in the comments of that blog post is a good one too. It's one of those ones that always gets my confidense up. It shows that completely ordinary looking people can become supermodels if they are made up and photoshopped enough. I used to envy people in the ads when I was younger, but nowadays I know it could just aswell be me in the ads. They would just put some slap on my face and do my hair all fancy and photoshop the rest. The thing that makes a difference to me is that I don't need that. Surely sometimes it's fun to play the role of someone or something else, just for laughs, but I think it would be just wrong for me to show myself to people as something I am not claiming that that's how I always look like. I wonder if the models in the ads think "wow I looked great while filming that" or "my hair really is awesome" or if they think "oh wow, the things that photoshop can do". It would be interesting to find out.

MandyBeth
July 5th, 2013, 02:20 PM
What I got from the blog -

Shampoo commercials are fake.

What I think I was supposed to get -

Shampoo ads are evil, here's why, how dare we change, etc....

What I REALLY got -

Monica Bellucci is freaking HOT! Was there anything else to the blog post?

majesticmoon
July 5th, 2013, 03:32 PM
you have to remember if they make the hair perfect looking you'll want to buy it to make yours like it. no one has the hair but yet they make everyone want it. Typical advertising.

Vrindi
July 5th, 2013, 03:44 PM
None of the ads you see are real. I know, because I make my living re-touching photos and video. The world of advertising is not reality, but people are lulled into believing that it will be real if you buy X product. It will never be real. You just have to understand, and see the people in these ads not as true representations, but as a canvass for a character to be projected on. Look at every ad the same way you'd look at a painting - might be pretty, but not the real thing. Just a picture of what someone wants the real thing to look like.

Also, some of those fake-looking heads of hair might actually be wigs. Just so you know. Or, on occasion, they find someone who has naturally gorgeous hair and who has never, ever touched their product, and cast them to represent their product. Then comes the editing and movie magic.

cathair
July 5th, 2013, 04:08 PM
This Pantene one makes me slightly angry every time it comes on tv:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxEpPbPKU7E

Cat Deeley has shoulder length hair and layers at the beginning, then when they do the part with the made up shine line, her/someone else's hair is there and it is blunt cut and looks like it is just going to get longer and longer and longer as it unfurls.

I can't help wondering if the idea of the perspex stick they seem to love wrapping hair around in ads at the moment, came from looking at hair sticks.

I kind of love-hate the adverts, they start off exciting then end up being depressing. I don't really know how I feel about it exactly. I have done my fair share of product photoshopping work in my time, so it was always fairly obvious to me that these adverts were really fake. Unless all companies stop, then why would any stop? The other companies would have an advantage over them. It is very refreshing to see the older advert with more natural texture, I think I would like to see more of it.

I don't like the idea of women having to one up each other, but then again I am also not the kind of person who is very competitive in that way, so it probably affects me less.

I suppose I find it more sad that perhaps products can make your hair look unrealistically glossy for a very short while, then they start failing. So it sets the expectation that you can keep you hair that way, when in reality I don't think you can. You would just end up buying more and more products to try to make it work, when in fact they could really be very damaging and preventing you hair from looking better. That is the real evil to me; they break your hair, then try to sell you loads more products to fix it. They really have that one sussed out.