Bad taste in the Superbowl?

Did anyone else notice the use of U2's Sunday Bloody Sunday in the Superbowl telecast? I'm not exactly offended, but I am surprised that Bono and company would allow this. Any thoughts?

Don't know how many U2/history buffs are out there, so forgive me if this is common knowledge: the song is about the Bloody Sunday of January 30, 1972, when British troops opened fire on a civil rights protest and killed 13 people in Derry, Northern Ireland.

[Edited on Feb 06, 2005 by marcello]

I'd be surprised if they weren't total sell out has-beens, yes.

Why is that in bad tatse?

the song is about a sunday battle
appropriate

not offensive to me

what was offensive were those commercials
the P Diddy Diet Pepsi one was the only one worth a damn

who cares?

How would Cleveland react if the Browns celebrated QB sacks by playing CSNY's 'Ohio' ?

Maybe not a perfect analogy, but I just hate the way athletes and commentators compare their games to 'war.' So this struck a nerve for me.

I'm pretty sure this song has been played at every Superbowl since it came out... As well as most major sporting events that happen to fall on a Sunday.

They do iPod commercials. Of COURSE they allowed it.

Not that artists really have much/any control over where and when their music gets played. It's pretty much out of their hands anyway.

I understand WHY some people may be offended. I'm not. And I'm not shocked at all to hear the u2 song. I'm pretty sure they'd sell to anyone.

War is IMHO the best U2 album, but then again, I'm an old school U2 fan who thought that Unforgettable Fire was interesting but not the U2 I liked... it was all downhill from there.

Anyway, I found the song oddly appropriate on a superficial level. If I were pretentious (which I am) then I might be insulted if I thought U2 had any semblamce of idealism left in their commercial, sell-out bones. But they don't, so it's no big deal.

And after all, we're all hypocrites to some degree or another, but I think U2 does some good charity-wise fairly regularly. No harm, no foul--or penalty flag, I guess.

Well, American football has very close ties to war. During the sport's formative years at the end of the 19th century, it was viewed by many as an excellent training ground for values such as leadership and discipline. The military academies felt it was valuable for teaching their cadets how to be officers. In fact football forefather, Walter Camp was responsible for the physical conditioning of most of America's troops during WWI.

I just want to know what the hell was with MC Hammer starring in TWO different commercials!

Bono and the Edge performed it at the opening of Prez Clinton's presidential library, which was a bit strange. Not really appropriate for the occasion...

If it's not worth having a thread about it, in your opinion, isn't it also pointless to come in and point out that it's pointless?

If you don't care then change the channel, dude. But don't pee in everyone elses' Cheerios.

And Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass is neither leaves nor grass, but it is a fitting metaphor which evokes certain images/feelings, just as the metaphor of war does when applied to football.

You're reaching. Football may well be good for teaching small-group strategy and team cohesiveness, but it has remarkably little to do with war as we know it.

When they have live fire from the stands at the superbowl, i'll grant you the analogy.

agreed

*ahem*

I noticed that and also wondered aloud to my girlfriend if U2 still owned the rights to the song. I thought it was silly and a little inappropriate. Kind of feel the same way about that as all these assholes driving around playing army in their Hummers with "freedom is free" magnets on the back. It trivializes the real sacrifices made by people and their families.

Considering U2 performed at the SuperBowl in 2002, I dont think they really care.

Yahoo News

[Edited on Feb 07, 2005 by killingjoker]

So THAT'S why they tasted funny...

Really seems to fall right in line attack and defend
one team invades a nother teams territory and is
rewarded for it and at the end of the game the side with the
most victories win the most valuable prize. There are also
many injureys many that are very serious and the rich decision
makers pimp and ride there work horses right into fame that they
earned for having deaper pocket books than there opponit .
It may be a tiny bit reaching, but not that far

I have never tried to say that football was the same as war. My first statement was intended to bring up some examples of where the origin of this common analogy came from. It still works as a metaphor being that it is a physical conflict of two sides with certain rules of engagement and a set goal that requires discipline, perseverence, the ability to stay cool under pressure, effective leadership and communication in order to succeed. If they recieved live fire at a football game, it would actually be war. It would no longer be a metaphor. Now war as it is understood today in The War on Terror is more analogous to Calvinball perhaps.

[Edited on Feb 07, 2005 by Baka_Amerikanjin]

agreed