Comments on: The New Sun Maid

By: W

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:55:25 +0000

It looks like it was just cheap CGI, cloth is hard to replicate, so they probably went with a more “form-fitting” look just to save money.

Think “Veggie Tales” a seamless object is easier to render and animate than a flowing one.

By: The Evolution of the Dungeons and Dragons Playbook » Sociological Images

The Evolution of the Dungeons and Dragons Playbook » Sociological Images — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:47:20 +0000

[...] Consider the new cover alongside our posts on Gossip Girl promotions, the New Beverly Hills 90210, the Burger King shower girl, this crazy post on hot horses and puppies, and the makeovers of Dora the Explorer, Holly Hobbie, Strawberry Shortcake, and the Sun Maid. [...]

By: Quijotesca

Quijotesca — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:17:12 +0000

I was gonna point it out on the last raisin lady post, but that meant watching the commercial again, I just couldn’t make myself do it.

By: karinova

karinova — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:26:58 +0000

Re: “not worth the additional cost”
This is almost certainly true, but it doesn’t actually make any sense. After all, this is their eponymous logo. And the Sun Maid is a Superlogo (like the Quaker Oats Man, or the Gerber Baby)– she is the brand. I can’t imagine say, Michelin going cheapstyle on redesigning or representing the Michelin Man. At least not in the debut stage! (It’s not like every image of ever after will be animated CGI; they’ll mostly be static, and therefore cheap.)

Not to mention that it’s ridiculous to let the medium control the image that way. What’s more important: using CGI (even if it has to be cheap, crappy CGI), or depicting the product/brand attractively?

*shakes head*
I will never understand advertisers.

By: shale

shale — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:27:06 +0000

Thank you for this. I was thinking the same thing as J.

By: Ariel

Ariel — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:23:50 +0000

This is actually pretty old. At least three years. I’m surprised this is just now appearing on the blog-o-sphere. I remember watching the commercial and being scared by the total fakeness and cheapness of it.

By: Jeff Kaufman

Jeff Kaufman — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:32:59 +0000

I’m sure they could have had a better 3D job done, they just didn’t think it was worth the (very large) additional cost.

By: Jeff Kaufman

Jeff Kaufman — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:26:18 +0000

That’s actually the way it happens. Thompson Seedless (the most common green variety) makes both dark and light raisins.

“California raisins, both the sun-dried dark naturals and the goldens, are made by drying Thompson Seedless Grapes. Goldens are flame dried”
— http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Raisin.htm

“virtually all California raisins are produced from the Thompson Seedless grape, even those which, because of different drying processes, are not golden”
— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultana_(grape)

By: J

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:16:21 +0000

Speaking of not accurate – did anyone notice that white grapes just turned into black raisins?

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:21:09 +0000

Eh, I think you’re making mountains out of molehills. And don’t accuse me of making a bad boob-job joke! :)

Seriously, I’m going to agree with several of the latter comments. I’m seeing a (poor) attempt at modernizing an advertising icon, but I think the “increasing sexualization and objectification” is a bit of a stretch. Or else we’d have to defend the apparent notion that full/firm breasts, slender build, form-fit clothes, etc *automatically* imply sexualization. She’s young, thin, has unblemished skin…and therefore sexualized? Do we really want to open that can of worms?

And the tan? I’m quite surprised her tan is cause for concern. This can go so many ways.

*She obviously works outside in the sun. A suntan is hardly unusual.
*The “classic” icon has rosey cheeks and milky skin. Definitely Caucasian. The newer, supposedly “sexualized” version is slightly darker and could conceivably be several races or ethnicities. SocIm has commented numerous times on the use of women of color as objects of hypersexualization while Caucasian skin is connected to cleanliness and purity and innocence and virginity. But by making note of her darker skin as “evidence” of sexualization, you’re falling into your own criticism.
*The CG image is horribly rendered to begin with. Just imagine how horrible and freakish and unnatural it would look if they’d retained her original complexion.

Should we also (attempt to) point out the sexism in the brand being called “Sun-Maid” and how the mascot is a woman in the garden? Is the idea of a “Sun-Man” gathering grapes so outlandish that we can only picture a woman doing this “woman’s work”? (hopefully you can see I’m being facetious here, and hopefully you can see my point)

By: Maggie

Maggie — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:08:58 +0000

I know! All I could think was, “Where everyone is thin, thanks largely in part to eating disorders and drugs! Now, eat raisins.”

By: Nique

Nique — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:33:07 +0000

I can see how a brassiere would help with the gravity defying breasts, but I don’t see your point about her broken back.

By: Christine

Christine — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:34:40 +0000

don’t forget Rainbow Brite:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/16/rainbow-brites-makeover-s_n_323830.html

By: Jamie

Jamie — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:53:01 +0000

I’m chalking this up to crappy rendering.

By: Djiril

Djiril — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:43:08 +0000

I agree. My initial response was just, “AAAAAAaaa! What have they done to the pretty lady on the raisin box??!!
She doesn’t look more sexy to me, just bad. I also hate that they took a nice rural image of a farm worker who has been hard at work in the fields and linked it with Hollywood. (Probably not an accurate image, but one I liked.)
I think the strength of my reaction here has something to do with the fact that I used to stare at the raisin box as a kid and make up stories.