還記得約30多年前，曾經有某香煙品牌的經典電視廣告(可能各位都會同意，當年很多出色的、可觀性高的廣告，都是香煙廣告。從觀眾欣賞角度看，禁播香煙廣告實在是有點兒可惜)，出現「想做就去做」的宣傳口號。廣告片段中，型男主角參與一些近乎玩命的刺激玩意
(由於在下當年著實年幼，對於那些實際是甚麼玩意，現在印象已相當模糊)，最後型男當然死唔去，還要擺出一副殺死人的cool爆pose結尾。廣告原本頗受觀眾歡迎。但後來漸漸有「衛道之士」批評「想做就去做」的口號「教壞人」，恐其破壞社會風氣。結果廣告在一片輿論壓力下，臨時將「想做就去做」的口號，改為「應做就去做」。一眾「衛道之士」滿意了；惟廣告所表達的意念已因一字之差而面目全非，欣賞指數勁插水。「想做就去做」就是錯嗎？錯了甚麼？相比之下，「應做就去做」就會是對嗎？對在哪裡？
約10年8載之後，又出現了另一經典廣告，那是某手錶品牌的廣告，其宣傳口號是：「不在乎天長地久，只在乎曾經擁有」。這回坊間普遍對這宣傳口號非常受落，並高度欣賞廣告表達的浪漫意境，卻再沒有「衛道之士」站出來指責廣告貶抑「追求細水長流、矢志不渝之愛情」的高尚情操，甚或鼓吹「但求一夕雲雨」之歪風而「教壞人」。
難道時代變遷足以解釋並支持任何隨之而來的道德標準的改變？為甚麼？難道不可以是這些道德標準的改變本身已經就是不道德嗎？
對於第一個廣告，我的USB flash dirve 失了，無法尋回，但知道第二個是有三個版本。先讓大看看才討論。
回覆刪除周潤發版
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DbsjRuFbv8
梅艷芳版
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5JB1bw-fwo
王傑版
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQQKPo5Dgk4
謝謝 Tony，只可惜未能再次欣賞那型男香煙廣告。
回覆刪除就提及的手錶廣告，梅艷芳版是三個版本之中最先出現的版本，似乎也是最出色的版本 – 出色在於故事沒有太完整的具體內容：有(女)主角，但身份背境不詳；神情哀怨，為乜卻不太清楚；雖曾出現其一巴星咗一個男人的場面，其哀怨神情多少與此有關，但為乜星人一巴卻詳情欠奉，就連兩人到底是甚麼關係也沒有交代過。觀眾僅靠這些零碎的片段重組整個故事，卻換來了更大的想像空間。心境逾投入廣告之浪漫意境者，重組出來的故事也可以逾浪漫。
及後的王傑版，故事情節表達較為具體，效果卻因為缺少了上述優點而明顯遜色。至最後的周潤發版，劇情細緻表達得過度實在，觀眾已無甚可以想像的空間，他們注意到的恐怕只會是主角周潤發與吳倩蓮的「星味」，再不是廣告的浪漫意境。
似乎浪漫與現實兩者確實相沖，難以兩全。
所說的香煙廣告應該是萬寶路的萬馬奔馳，但找不到。
回覆刪除似乎手錶廣告是希望帶出"追求細水長流、矢志不渝之愛情"，只是加上了悕憈感覺，所以不會是「但求一夕雲雨」之歪風而「教壞人」。
也許下學期的電影哲學可以帶出新感覺。
是的,各位都是”有深度的哲人”, 當然明白手錶廣告真正的用意是希望帶出"追求細水長流、矢志不渝之愛情".其實那香煙廣告又何曾叫人想歪心事,何曾教人只要想起壞事也就即便來個無惡不作呢?
回覆刪除當然問題是在口號背後的產品，吸煙問題仍是一個重大的社會問題，道德界線上是不希望廣告的吸引力太大。
回覆刪除也許討論多一個廣告
求學不是求分數是不個清晰的口號，而且，這也是求學應有及正確的態度，廣告本身拍得不錯，清楚表示出父母只重視分數，而對兒子得到其他讚賞的莫視。可是由於口號不是父母的一杯茶，而且怕子女可以利用這口號不依他們的方法求學，結果慘淡收場。
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpBjXrfENaA
Let me provide more accurate details as follows:-
回覆刪除[A] The most extreme version should be Nike's AD at first:
"Just do it!" which may be translated to 「想做就去做」.
This slogan may be misinterpreted by naughty kids- "Need no second thought. Need no consideration of anything. Need no consideration of the consequence. I feel like to do, I just do it!
Such worry or such concern, on the other, may contradict against application of Kant's belief of autonomy and universal law.
When you have to act instantly to save someone, either do it without hesitation or else the other second nobody can be saved. Then can you ask the question- "Ought I do it or not?".
No time is allowed, then "just do it"!
Wrong? Nothing wrong? Or very wrong?
According to Jean Paul Sartre, it is ALWAYS right, as long as there is an autonomous choice to act, even if the result of such brave act is that you have sacrificed your own life without successfully saving anyone- a tragedy.
[B]「應做就去做」was the "voice" only on TV when the Nike's AD with "Just do it!" appeared again after some complaints had been received in the first round.
[C] The above have nothing to do with any commercial related to smoking cigarettes.
[D]「應做就去做」seems to be reasonable but actually evil!
(a) "Ought to" or "ought not to", who to decide?
And why?
And how to justify the legitimacy if there is such a source of authority from a person or from an institution?
(b) What about if there are several conflicting sources?
(c) If it is already generally accepted that 一人做事一人當 in society, then why should a mature person have to ask for consultation?
To avoid responsibility in the end?
[E] Why 「不在乎天長地久，只在乎曾經擁有」is morally no good?
What's wrong with this attitude? If it should be wrong, 那還怎可以 glorify 瀟灑走一回!
If we want to criticize such attitude, perhaps we should be 更加開放:-
「不在乎天長地久，只在乎可以不在乎」, 連「曾經擁有」也是burdensome!
[F]「追求細水長流、矢志不渝之愛情」absolutely is idiotic! Love is already difficult, tiring and exhaustive, 還要這, 還要那, then love is no longer love, it becomes demand, it becomes chains.
Love is love. Do not add any requirement. Do not add any adjective.
If one wants love. It's fine.
If one wants sweet love, one is already making demand! It becomes unfair to either side.
If one wants immortal love, one is also making demand. It becomes a pressure valve in tons weight to shoulder of either side.
In love should be felt a relief common to both, no more demand but release. A bond thus forms as a bound-to-be; NOT a relationship to-be-bounded!
Inspiring. It seems you are trying to draw a distinction between「愛」and「慾」(in its generalised sense, not just sex) in a way that is very similar to what 孟子 did between「義」and「利」.
回覆刪除孟子曰：「正其誼不謀其利，明其道不計其功」-- (義利之辨)
Doggie曰：「正其美不謀所慾，明其善不計所望」-- (愛慾之辨)
對於這命題，由於在過程中作出一段時間的搜索，相信原文所指的是香煙廣告，而不是 Nike。當然同一口號在其他品牌上應用，不同時間，觀眾所得的感覺當然有所不同，這是整體效果的結合。特別在電影結構上，很多時，畫面是無須任何口號，效果也可以呼之欲出。當然，對於名人語錄來說，這是可以表現決斷英明，是警世名言的效果。
回覆刪除Doggiedog 討論「不在乎天長地久，只在乎曾經擁有」的一段，內容似乎是出電影表面的結構，相信是超能力想像力的成果，是補充了很多不為人知的資料。以一個凡夫俗子來看這廣告，我只能感到電影希望表達一種無奈感，對失出的一段情是珍惜，但對於能擁有這短短時刻也能一生無悔的感覺，我是未達水平去補上Demand 或Chain的聯想，可能我仍要多看"高級"愛情小說，才可以引發出這種感覺。
唔知近日某些新聞標題如"696對情侶「12．12．12」註冊"會唔會畀到各位一啲Demand或Chain的聯想呢?
回覆刪除談天(形而上)說地(形而下)可以,
回覆刪除談情(形而上)說愛(形而下)無謂.
只管做, 不要懷疑!
For reference, please watch the movie: Casa Blanca
To the end, 情義兩心知, 一切盡在不言中.
好一句盡在不言中，這也是文學或藝術的成就。反過來看，如果沒有回響(包括盡在不言中，或付於言論，即無聲無式)，這可對於創作者而言，是最可怕。
回覆刪除" 情義兩心知, 一切盡在不言中" refer to the sentiments of the two lovers only in the movie, nothing to do with the author, readers, or audience.
回覆刪除"Between two lovers" means "between two lovers".
Outsiders- no say! No way to understand, and all comments are groundless and meaningless! That's why never 教人分妻!
"如果說我看得比別人更遠些，那是因為我站在巨人的肩膀上" -- 牛頓
回覆刪除人類之所以比其他動物優勝 (我是自大的，所以我相信這答案是)，是因為我們懂得分享，而且為了豐富這分享，所以用了多不同的媒體，及工具來配合分享。文學的詞語，音樂的旋律及歌詞，畫上的油彩及構圖，電影的影像及配樂，與及你用之"情義兩心知，一切盡在不言中"的名句，也是希望與人分享，或是將以往得到的分享成果再與他人分享。這分享不一定是佔有，也未必一定要知道誰人正有分享。正如我們在這平台發表文章，我的目的便是希望能發出我心的說語，可能沒有人同意，或是看了之後沒有意見，但是我是絶不是希望我的文章是完全沒有人看，或是看到我的名字後便立即刪除。我不希望每一會員也有這感覺，但只要方向相同，這也是應該感恩。
當然"Between two lovers" means "between two lovers". 我們是應該默默祝福我們不會知道他們是誰的愛侶，更不會以 outsiders 身份出現在他們之間，只是如果這是電影，這是代表了，作者、導演，演員，幕後人員，推廣人員及觀眾的心血，我們可以不同意其中的內容，但是有建設性的意見更是這群人希望得到的，但是如果討論是完全與主題無關的意見，我相信他們是會很失望，也會將討論的能量用在無意義的耗費。
對不起，我未看推介的 Casa Blanca，可能以上內容是沒有回應你希望討論的重要內容，但無論如何，站在巨人的肩膀上是會有危險，是要互相扶持的。共勉。
Please watch the movie. It should be one of the best movies. Your concern appears unrelated to what I have said.
刪除現在或許是時候考慮回歸原初的問題了：有關的香煙廣告及手錶廣告，其宣傳口號均有教壞人之嫌。然而，不知是否時代變遷使然，兩廣告推出於不同年代，觀眾給予的評價是截然不同。是道德觀念的「開放、進步」？是道德標準的「倒退」？還是時代變遷本身可以並已經解釋及支持任何隨之而來的道德觀念及標準的改變？
回覆刪除I am wondering why "其宣傳口號均有教壞人之嫌"??
回覆刪除I do not presume ""其宣傳口號均有教壞人".
Therefore to me, "之嫌" cannot be a valid say.
The questions also appears funny:-
"是道德觀念的「開放、進步」？是道德標準的「倒退」？"
can also be rewritten as:
"是道德觀念的「倒退」？是道德標準的「開放、進步」？"
Then why ask such questions?
As I have said: "Between two lovers" means "between two lovers".
It also applies to two persons engaged in "one night stand" encounter.
Outsiders- no say! Outsiders- no judgment!
"One night stand" may be the beginning of a wonderful relationship, even though in quite many or most cases, there are just flings without any meaning perhaps. But why morals?
Why must happenings or events be graded morally good or bad, or very bad by outsiders?
When two dogs make love on the street, good or bad?
I may say, it is very good. Why? Because I knew about "sexual intercourse and copulation" when the two dogs were making love. I was just a boy, 6 years old at that time! Excellent! Morals? What morals?
If it so happens there were two adults, rather than two dogs, I would still say, it's not bad. I still learnt a lot as a boy. What's wrong? Morals? What morals?
Must knowledge be classified as moral or not moral?
Must personal experience be graded morally good or morally bad?
Must private relationships be graded morally acceptable or not?
Particularly by outsiders?
No. No way.
I do not know what exactly you mean “I am wondering why "其宣傳口號均有教壞人之嫌"??”. If that means you do not agree that "其宣傳口號均有教壞人之嫌", that is fine. If that means you cannot see why one may hold the view "其宣傳口號均有教壞人之嫌", perhaps you should read the initial question more carefully. Bear in mind that for "之嫌" as it appears in the question to establish, it already suffices if there is someone holding such a view.
刪除Besides, "其宣傳口號均有教壞人(之嫌)" is not a presumption as you assert. For the cigarette ad, it is a matter of fact that there had been「衛道之士」who actually criticised the slogan. For the watch ad, I confess it is my own argument (yet not a presumption) based on the fact that if the cigarette ad is worth being criticised by 「衛道之士」(so it was), then the watch ad should have been subject to similar criticism by 「衛道之士」, too following similar moral principles of theirs.
Finally, I cannot follow what the point is to rewrite "是道德觀念的「開放、進步」？是道德標準的「倒退」？" as "是道德觀念的「倒退」？是道德標準的「開放、進步」？". Even if it makes perfect sense to rewrite the question as such, then there should be even more questions to ask. Why not ask such questions?
REPLY (Part One)
刪除One may be the only one who can query THIS. "Suffice" as H Wan says.
The other one may be the only one who can query THAT. Also "suffice", by same reasoning, according to H Wan.
So...
Maybe H Wan is the one and only one who asserts that "其宣傳口號均有教壞人之嫌". "Suffice"
Maybe Doggiedog is the one and only one who asserts that "其宣傳口號均有教好人之實". Also "suffice"
These two personal beliefs are mutually exclusive.
To H Wan, if it is "均有教壞人之嫌", then it cannot be at the same time and place "均有教好人之實".
To H Wan, Doggiedog's assertion is not a valid say.
To Doggiedog, it it is "均有教好人之實", then it cannot be at the same time and place "均有教壞人之嫌".
To Doggiedog, H Wan's assertion is not a valid say.
REPLY (Part Two)
刪除There are「衛道之士」criticizing both the cigarette AD AND also the watch AD.
Doggiedog's old secondary school teacher (died already) criticized a lot 「想做就去做」的口號 AND also criticized a lot「不在乎天長地久，只在乎曾經擁有」的口號.
Therefore definitely H Wan is NOT alone as the one and only one who criticizes BOTH slogans.
"時代變遷" is a vague term. What does it mean?
We should clarify what are encompassed under "時代變遷" before we may be on firm ground to ask whether "難道時代變遷足以解釋並支持任何隨之而來的道德標準的改變？為甚麼？"
It appears to me that SOME or ALL "morals" (concept and/or standard) should be eternal to H Wan while on the other hand under H Wan's observation, at least some "morals" (concept and/or standard) appears temporal.
It appears that H Wan's observed "temporality" of SOME "morals" (moral standard) itself as a phenomenon is sufficient for him to ask and query that "難道不可以是這些道德標準的改變本身已經就是不道德嗎?" To H Wan, there are observed changes in SOME moral standards and such changes (i.e some moral standards being temporal as a matter of his observed facts) are immoral. "Aren't they?", asked by H Wan.
Doggiedog has no idea what other moral standards which appear to be undergoing changes to H Wan make him ask the question "難道不可以是這些道德標準的改變本身已經就是不道德嗎?"
Doggiedog only knows H Wan has been surprised by his observation that there is no or few 「衛道之士」who should come out to uphold「追求細水長流、矢志不渝之愛情」(as 高尚情操) AND to condemn 「不在乎天長地久，只在乎曾經擁有」(as it 鼓吹「但求一夕雲雨」之歪風而「教壞人」)。
May Doggiedog say once again:-
(1)Doggiedog's old secondary school teacher (died already) criticized a lot 「想做就去做」的口號 AND also criticized a lot「不在乎天長地久，只在乎曾經擁有」. Therefore definitely H Wan is NOT alone as the one and only one who criticizes BOTH slogans.
Doggiedog's old secondary school teacher was a 「衛道之士」. As H wan has said: One is "suffice" BUT so what?
(2)Doggiedog has the right to remain in his position holding the same view:
"「不在乎天長地久，只在乎曾經擁有」均有教好人之實".
All the above are NOT presumptions if they are NOT presumptions to H Wan, alright?
They are facts if H Wan likes to put it that way. Doggiedog knows his believed facts may not be facts to H Wan. Therefore Doggiedog puts them down as presumptions.
Likewise Doggiedog hopes that H Wan may also understand his believed facts may not necessarily be facts to Doggiedog. They may be only H Wan's own presumptions.
REPLY (Part Three)
刪除H Wan writes and asks: Should it be:
[A] "是道德觀念的「開放、進步」？"
OR
[B] "是道德標準的「倒退」？"
[A] or [B]
TT
TF
FT
FF
are the only 4 possible outcomes for answers.
If his questions were to be rewritten in an opposite way:
[A']"是道德觀念的「倒退」？"
OR
[B']"是道德標準的「開放、進步」？".
[A'] or [B']
TT
TF
FT
FF
are also the only 4 possible outcomes for answers.
These 2 pairs of questions are the same when they are open to answers of ALL possibilities known or unbeknown to us. Possibilities remain possibilities which mean potential outcomes. The two combinations of 4 potential outcomes are actually the same.
When there is no particular answer at one time does not mean it cannot come out at any other time.
Therefore questions being asked in such a way as [A] or [B] above make no difference as in such a way as [A'] or [B'] (just the opposite way).
Both pairs of questions cannot bring in conclusive answers (always open) or as H Wan says: actually bring in more questions.
Therefore why add more adjectives to 道德標準 if H Wan prefers to see it eternal rather than temporal, particularly when such adjectives (倒退,開放,進步)are interchangeable without effect to the outcome for potential answers?!
The meaningful question (if there is such):
Does 道德標準 ever exist?
Or perhaps a more meaningful question (if there is such): Does 道德 ever exist?
Whose 道德, if it requires a right or wrong, moral or immoral?
If so, 道德 should be evil. Why?
Because it is subject to someone's discretion.
Why NOT just my own discretion? My own 道德 then it becomes. Is it still called 道德?
(Part One)
刪除"其宣傳口號均有教壞人之嫌" : This is because, as I have already mentioned more than once, that there had been some people, i.e. the so called 「衛道之士」who actually opined that the slogan of the cigarette ad “教壞人” while there could be people other than those「衛道之士」who might not agree that the slogan “教壞人”. And it is just because “I DON’T KNOW” whether or not the cigarette ad “教壞人”, I could only say at this point that the slogan of the cigarette ad “有教壞人之嫌” and then invited you guys to give your comments on whether or not the cigarette ad did “教壞人”. As for the watch ad, my argument is that GIVEN these「衛道之士」criticised the slogan of the cigarette ad that way, it seems to me that under similar moral principles of these「衛道之士」, these 「衛道之士」should have criticised the slogan of the watch ad also (though in fact, to my surprise, they did not). I thus consider the slogan of the watch ad ”有教壞人之嫌" also. This “嫌” comes from logical deduction as explained, rather than “H Wan is the one and only one who asserts that "其宣傳口號均有教壞人之嫌”. H Wan asserts virtually nothing.
(Part Two)
My response in (Part One) should already serve a clarification. The problem (and trouble) as it seems to me is that your comments were often on H Wan rather than the question H Wan put forward.
(Part Three)
"是道德觀念的「倒退」" and "是道德標準的「開放、進步」" were just two “explanations” I could think of at the time I wrote down the question. They are by no means exhaustive, nor do they restrict your thinking of any other better explanations.
“H Wan prefers to see it eternal rather than temporal”: This is a mistaken accusation. H Wan prefers nothing until a convincing argument for either side is (or can be) established.
The meaningfulness of the alternative questions suggested in the final bit is well acknowledged.
我是一個實務而濫用幻想的人，所以一直是圍繞主題討論，因此，首先是提供原廣告作為參考，看了廣告才討論。
回覆刪除從手錶廣告來說，我是不同意內容意識有問題，那無奈感是可以引出觀眾的感情，加上其中以"天表地久"的手錶作為引子，廣告是成功的。我們是不應單純對口號感覺，而判定為意識有問題。
香煙廣告以萬馬奔馳作引子，是可以引出男性的感覺 (請女士們原諒，我只是討論當時的社會見解)，這是他們成功重新建立品牌的手法 (由於該品牌在廣告前的定位是不成功，所以改變是必須)，本來口號是不錯，錯的是與產品在社會上的形象有關，看今天已完全禁止香煙廣告，我們應該該相信道德觀代是順應潮流，這只是以往潛在問題的成果。
如果要進一步討論，我其實頗欣賞珠寶廣告 "因為愛很美"，它是突破地將腦退化與珠寶結合，是很勇敢的行為。也代表了社會是正視腦退化這沉重的問題。
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=JLbO56V6RyI&feature=endscreen
對於其中所說相似的另一套廣告，亦列出來給大家比較。
http://www.youtube.com/user/SonyHongKong?v=k3kSUg_uxgE
如在下沒有記錯，那香煙廣告應該不是萬寶(嘟......)，而是總(嘟......)。
刪除不肯定。在前一次搜尋是有很多資料是與萬馬奔騰有關，但由於以下資料比較完整，所以有可能相信前述是有錯誤，多謝更正。但可惜是無法找到影像檔引正。
回覆刪除http://cwfolknet.com/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=thread&topic_id=1848&forum=7&post_id=15711#15711