Yeah, it's very well-conceived.

... why don't i get it...?

I wanted to make a comment about this blowing, but it is actually pretty well made. The whole concept is cool.

(dsjunkid: He is the wind...)

Very cool.

i watched this yesterday and only just got it.

pretty well concieved, but i'll bet most people just think "wtf?" and go get anouther beer.

Now thats a commercial that may have some impact.

Very, very good. Love it.

Every now and then I see an advert which really makes me wish all the rest of them could be this good. Life is always going to be full of adverts. If they were all this good I wouldn't mind at all.

I think the wind is kinda cute, in a monsterish sort of way. Nice subtle pun in the title without giving it away too.

Glad y'all like this.

also notice the windmills (are they called windmills?) in the background

i noticed them, I guessed this had to do with energy, but I really couldn't guess what he was

@looris: wind turbines, I think.

Definitely one of the best ads I have ever seen

thanks calvados

mlx, gg, you won a featuring

I would watch more commercials if they were all this well done.

Toupee's getting blown off is *comedy. (And throwing sand at kids.)

Video added to comedy channel (comedy called by gold star member karaidl)

I want to throw sand at kids too

Cool commercial. This actor has a very distinctive looking face...like Jaws from the James Bond films.

Great ad . . . too bad wind power is woefully inefficient and actually uses more oil per unit of energy than an oil refinery.

really fun commerical.

@ nibiyabi; if you're going to make a statement as completely unintuitive as that you MUST cite sources, or else you may as well have made it up

@bamdrew: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png

point number one is obviously false and point 2 makes no sense. wind power has serious drawbacks but these aren't them.

i knew he was the wind when he was blowin the womans hair, after that it was still good though.

That was a flippin' trip. Good find!

HA! How did I not get that! bahahaha! awesome!

after the sand hit the kid's face I started to clue in... ah, I get it...

BTW, I'm assuming the jab against wind power was a troll comment - I've learned to just ignore those. Or demand a citation, as done above. Love the comic too.

dude, why is lurch being such a dick? . . . oh wait.

interesting air about it, but I thought the ad really blows

The one question that was going through my head for most of that was "Why is that mime talking?"

waaaay too long

I thought it was excellent! Thanks for the sift.

Great concept. The actor's unique face and movements were visually interesting and added to the coolness of the production.

Awesome!

to be fair to nibiyabi about the efficiency thing, if he meant that you need to cover great blocks of land to get a usable amount of energy out, then i think he's actually right. In the uk they have many plans to build these farms all over the damn place, but people that live out in the countryside shoot the plans down saying it'll ruin the landscape (which it does).

problem is all the best places to put them are usually the nice looking, open area places. -- except out at sea, and that location has real potential in my opinion.

Kind of a slow ad, but neat. Could have used some speed metal or something...

"In the uk they have many plans to build these farms all over the damn place, but people that live out in the countryside shoot the plans down saying it'll ruin the landscape (which it does)."

No it doesn't. It improves it by putting it to use - that's progress. You either support progress or you're an enemy of mankind.
These fucking people whining about eyesores; there are no words to express my hatred. There's no excuse for holding ridiculous opinions like that; they should all be burned alive.

Great commercial, but the sift title ruined any and all surprise for me.

total bllluueeaggghhhh. i cannot stand ads that attempt to add gravitas by being slow and having a flippin piano playing. it is cliche number 1. And this is about 3 minutes too long.

nuclear is the only way, btw. My grandad would know, trusss me.

... speaking of the piano, is that erik satie or a knockoff?

... and i didn't think i was feeding the trolls, as nibiyabi has posted a few things over time; thought maybe he knew something I didn't, possible about the Earth's wind being generated by oil.

No it doesn't. It improves it by putting it to use - that's progress. You either support progress or you're an enemy of mankind.
These fucking people whining about eyesores; there are no words to express my hatred. There's no excuse for holding ridiculous opinions like that; they should all be burned alive.

utter nonsense.

what good is a world that is ugly?

progress is VITAL, but NOT to be done at the expense of the beauty.

exactly. i mean, the last bunch of progress did this to our skyline.

http://www.glenwoodnyc.com/images/slideshow/mystockphotos%20010%20City%20Skyline.jpg

let's not ruin whats left with this

http://www.gasdetection.com/news2/wind_farm_4_hnd.jpg

cos hell, i dont want what's left of the beauty to end up like that.

out at sea might be an option. it has drawbacks of it's own though.

Progress should be made especially at the expense of beauty. What a bargain. If there's any lesser sacrifice for greater gain I'd like to hear about it.

Anyway, those pictures sirex posted are perfectly lovely. I don't know what's the matter with you that you look at a skyscraper or a wind turbine and see something ugly.

Personally I think wind farms are beautiful. Green hills, dotted with massive wind turbines is just an awesome site. Which would you rather have?

wind farms?
http://www.ararat.vic.gov.au/Page/images/windfarm13.jpg
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/06/22/wind_farm,0.jpg

or nuke plants?
http://www.alstec.com/Portals/0/NUCLEAR/CX%20Ext%20Bush.jpg
http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/4em/ch02/figs/nuclear-power-plant.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Nuclear.power.plant.Dukovany.jpg/800px-Nuclear.power.plant.Dukovany.jpg

If you decide you don't like wind turbines, they can be moved. If you decide you don't like that new nuke plant, tough you're stuck with it for at least 100 years. Nuclear energy may be relatively safe, but it is not clean. The nuclear waste has to be stored somewhere, and even when a nuclear plant is decommissioned, it can be up to 60 years before the land can be safe to use. That's even if the plant is torn down, the owner can decide to turn it into a spent fuel storage facility and make more money out of it.

All it takes is one nuclear disaster (Chernobyl), and the environmental impact lasts for generations. If there's ever an accident at a wind farm, at least you don't have to evacuate entire cities and contaminate hundreds of square kilometers of land for decades. Yes I know all the experts say that the chance of a Chernobyl happening with US designed reactors is low, but with each new nuclear plant built, that chance goes up.

I don't know what's the matter with you that you look at a skyscraper or a wind turbine and see something ugly.

Well, I *DO* like metropolitan landscapes, I LOVE THEM.

Still, no reason to ruin other beautiful natural areas.

This is similar to the "Solon" ad that was done a while back.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Cool-commercial-for-solar-power

Same agency maybe?

Edit: The wind clip was done by "Nordpol" from Hamburg/Germany (http://www.nordpol.com) and the solar power one was done by Jung von Matt (also Hamburg)

The wind clip also was a runner up for the 2007 Lion at Cannes, but was beaten in the end by Ogilvy & Mathers Dove "Evolution"

good Solon's one too, but definitly different.

it's just advertising executives having a collective wank all over their "art" when really they wish they could direct movies instead of selling shit.

btw i would rather have one nuclear power station than seven gajillion acres of inefficient turbines. They are not made of recycled paper, you know?

And you should read about Chernobyl. Stupid sleepy soviet corrupt safety practices, big big stupid human error. The world learnt a lesson, nuclear power became ridiculously safe (like air travel compared to road travel) and you have nothing to worry about.
I live near Ignalina which was built to the same design as Chernobyl, and after chernobyl they put so many safety features on the place you couldn't blow it up if you tried. But anyway they are decommissioning it because it is the same design as Chernobyl and maybe politically Lithuania isn't supposed to be allowed so much power generating capacity.

If you like progress, and you think a fucking windmill is progress, then you're mental.

If you think nuclear waste is a problem, go check out how much plastic packaging you throw out in comparison, and get your moaning priorities straight.

"You either support progress or you're an enemy of mankind." -gorillaman

Well, I'm all for new energy sources, but you did make a false dilemma there. It's possible to be an enemy of mankind *and* support progress. It is also possible to be neither.

Also, it is true that wind and nuclear power are less efficient than fossil fuels. This is simply because you can harness so much energy from a small amount of oil.

However, I would agree that we must progress even at the cost of beauty. This is because beauty is completely subjective. If we do not have enough energy to sustain our population, we'll die, and that is objectively true. Thus, that makes it more important than something as subjective as landscape beauty.

"Could have used some speed metal or something..."
WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!!! lol. sorry, had to. 10 points to whoever gets the reference.

"btw i would rather have one nuclear power station than seven gajillion acres of inefficient turbines. They are not made of recycled paper, you know?"...

"If you like progress, and you think a fucking windmill is progress, then you're mental."

You're comparing plastics with nuclear waste and you're calling me mental? At least plastic can be recycled. Nuclear power plants aren't made of recycled paper either, and they must continually be re-fueled every 18 months. Do you think they that fuel grows on trees? Wind turbines require no fuel, and need very little maintenance.

Progress is building more safe, renewable resources for power such as wind, hydro and solar power plants, not building more nuke plants.

I know all about Chernobyl and nuclear reactors, I used to work at one. I know the designs are different, my point is that it only takes one accident and the effects on the environment and life lasts for generations. Do you realize how many nuclear accidents there have been, besides the two major ones (TMI and Chernobyl)? There's more than just accidents at nuclear plants, accidents occur during the manufacturing, transport, storage, and disposal of the nuclear fuel. They may not be as big as Chernobyl, but the damage to the environment has been done, and the "pollution" will be around longer than you or I.

Here's a list of just some of the nuclear accidents in just the US alone:

July 1959 - Boeing-Rocketdyne Nuclear Facility in Ventura County, California, A clogged coolant channel resulted in a 30% reactor core meltdown, which led to the release of the third greatest amount of radioactive iodine-131 in nuclear history.

July 1956 - Sylvania Electric Products' Metallurgy Atomic Research Center, Bayside, Queens, New York, nine people were injured when two explosions destroyed a portion of the facility.

December 1958 - Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in New Mexico. A nuclear criticality accident killed 1 operator.

1959 - Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Simi Valley Hills, California. A partial sodium reactor meltdown occurred.

January 1961 - National Reactor Testing Station in Arco, Idaho. A reactor explosion, killed 3 technicians, and released radiation. The men were so heavily exposed to radiation that their hands had to be buried separately with other radioactive waste, and their bodies were buried in lead coffins.

October 1966 - Detroit Edison's Enrico Fermi I demonstration breeder reactor near Detroit, Michigan. A sodium cooling system malfunction caused a partial core meltdown.

November 1971 - Northern States Power Company's reactor in Monticello, Minnesota. The water storage space filled to capacity and spilled over, dumping about 50,000 gallons of radioactive waste water into the Mississippi River.

1972 - The West Valley, NY fuel reprocessing plant was closed after 6 years in operation, leaving 600,000 gallons of high-level wastes buried in leaking tanks. The site caused measurable contamination of Lakes Ontario and Erie.

March 1972 - A routine check in a nuclear power plant in Alaska indicated abnormal radioactivity in the building's water system. Radioactivity was confirmed in the plant drinking fountain. Apparently there was an inappropriate cross-connection between a 3,000 gallon radioactive tank and the water system.

December 1972 - A plutonium fabrication plant in Pauling, New York. An undetermined amount of radioactive plutonium was scattered inside and outside the plant, after a major fire and two explosions occurred resulting in its permanent shutdown.

May 1974 - The Atomic Energy Commission reported that 861 "abnormal events" had occurred in 1973 in the nation's 42 operative nuclear power plants. Twelve involved the release of radioactivity "above permissible levels."

March 1975 - Browns Ferry reactor, Decatur, Alabama. A fire burned out electrical controls, lowering the cooling water to dangerous levels, before the plant could be shut down.

1979 - The Critical Mass Energy Project tabulated 122 accidents involving the transport of nuclear material in 1979, 17 involving radioactive contamination.

March 1979 - Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania. After cooling water was lost, the top portion of the reactor's 150-ton core collapsed and melted. Contaminated coolant water escaped into a nearby building, releasing radioactive gasses. A study by Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, professor of radiation physics at the University of Pittsburgh, showed that the accident led to a minimum of 430 infant deaths.

July 1979 - Church Rock, New Mexico. A dam holding radioactive uranium mill tailings broke, sending an estimated 100 million gallons of radioactive liquids and 1,100 tons of solid wastes downstream.

August 1979 - A nuclear fuel plant near Erwin, Tennessee. Highly enriched uranium was released. About 1,000 people were contaminated with up to 5 times as much radiation as would normally be received in a year. Between 1968 and 1983 the plant "lost" 234 pounds of highly enriched uranium, forcing the plant to be closed six times during that period.

January 1980 - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (where large amounts of nuclear material are kept). An earthquake caused caused a tritium leak.

September 1980 - Two canisters containing radioactive materials fell off a truck on New Jersey's Route 17. The driver, en route from Pennsylvania to Toronto, did not notice the missing cargo until he reached Albany, New York.

1981 - The Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc. reported that there were 4,060 mishaps and 140 serious events at nuclear power plants in 1981.

February 11, 1981 - Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah I plant in Tennessee, 110,000 gallons of radioactive coolant sprayed into the containment building, which led to the contamination of eight men.

July 1981 - Nine Mile Point's Unit 1 in New York state. A flood of radioactive wastewater in the sub-basement caused approximately 150 55-gallon drums of high-level waste to overturn, some of which released their highly radioactive contents. Some 50,000 gallons of radioactive water were subsequently dumped into Lake Ontario to make room for the cleanup.

January 25, 1982 - Rochester Gas & Electric Company's Ginna plant near Rochester, New York. Fifteen thousand gallons of radioactive coolant spilled onto the plant floor, and radioactive steam escaped into the air after a steam generator pipe broke.

January 1983 - Browns Ferry power plant, Athens, Alabama. About 208,000 gallons of water with radioactive contamination was accidentally dumped into the Tennesee River.

February 1983 - Salem 1 reactor in New Jersey. A catastrophe was averted by just 90 seconds when the plant was shut down manually, following the failure of automatic shutdown systems. The same automatic systems had failed to respond in an incident three days before. Other problems plagued this plant as well, such as a 3,000 gallon leak of radioactive water in June 1981 at the Salem 2 reactor, a 23,000 gallon leak of radioactive water (which splashed onto 16 workers) in February 1982, and radioactive gas leaks in March 1981 and September 1982 from Salem 1.

December 1984 - The Fernald Uranium Plant, a 1,050-acre uranium fuel production complex 20 miles northwest of Cincinnati, Ohio. The Department of Energy disclosed that excessive amounts of radioactive materials had been released through ventilating systems. Subsequent reports revealed that 230 tons of radioactive material had leaked into the Greater Miami River valley during the previous thirty years, 39 tons of uranium dust had been released into the atmosphere, 83 tons had been discharged into surface water, and 5,500 tons of radioactive and other hazardous substances had been released into pits and swamps where they seeped into the groundwater. In addition, 337 tons of uranium hexafluoride was found to be missing, its whereabouts completely unknown. The plant was not permanently shut down until 1989.

1986 - A truck carrying radioactive material went off a bridge on Route 84 in Idaho, and dumped part of its cargo in the Snake River. Officials reported the release of radioactivity.

6 January 1986 - The Sequoyah Fuels Corp. uranium processing factory in Gore, Oklahoma. A container of highly toxic gas exploded, causing one worker to die (when his lungs were destroyed) and 130 others to seek medical treatment.

December 1986 - Surry Unit 2 facility in Virginia. A feedwater pipe ruptured, causing 8 workers to be scalded by a release of hot water and steam. Four of the workers later died from their injuries. In addition, water from the sprinkler systems caused a malfunction of the security system, preventing personnel from entering the facility.

1988 - It was reported that there were 2,810 accidents in U.S. commercial nuclear power plants in 1987.

November 1992 - The Sequoyah Fuels Corp. uranium processing factory in Gore, Oklahoma closed after repeated citations by the Government for violations of nuclear safety and environmental rules. It's record during 22 years of operation included an accident in 1986 that killed one worker and injured dozens of others and the contamination of the Arkansas River and groundwater. The Sequoyah Fuels plant, one of two privately-owned American factories that fabricated fuel rods, had been shut down a week before by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission when an accident resulted in the release of toxic gas. Thirty-four people sought medical attention as a result of the accident. The plant had also been shut down the year before when unusually high concentrations of uranium were detected in water in a nearby construction pit. A Government investigation revealed that the company had known for years that uranium was leaking into the ground at levels 35,000 times higher than Federal law allows.

March 1994 - A nuclear research facility on Long Island, New York. A fire resulted in the nuclear contamination of three fire fighters, three reactor operators, and one technician. Measurable amounts of radioactive substances were released into the immediate environment.

February 2000 - Indian Point II power plant in New York vented radioactive steam when a an aging steam generator ruptured.

March 2002 - Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio. Workers discovered a foot-long cavity eaten into the reactor vessel head. Borated water had corroded the metal to a 3/16 inch stainless steel liner which held back over 80,000 gallons of highly pressurized radioactive water.

Do you honestly think that more of this is worth not having to look at a field of wind turbines (they're not windmills btw, yes I get the refrence )? As far as I know, wind turbines have not killed anyone or released toxic and radioactive materials into the environment.

""Also, it is true that wind and nuclear power are less efficient than fossil fuels. This is simply because you can harness so much energy from a small amount of oil."

That depends on how you look at it. Nuclear and fossil fueled power plants have to keep being refueled. It takes energy to make that fuel. Once a wind turbine has been built, the energy it produces is practically free.

My statement was unclear; sorry for that. What I meant was that oil, as a fuel, produces more usable energy per unit of volume and money than wind or uranium.

@Ed.Man - For one thing, your statement depends on where you live in the world; refined fules based from petroleum are not cheap in all corners of the world due to many factors (transportation costs, public and private 'taxation', etc.). On the other side some places have more continual winds than others, greatly affecting how economical local windpower is. And reiterating jimnms point, you have to take into account energy used in continual mining, processing, transporting, etc., with oil power generation, and also the one-time fabrication, transport, and installation with wind powered generators (and, one would hope, infrequent replacement and maintenance costs). As it stands now I'm tempted to counter your claim by noting that wind, as a fuel, costs ZERO dollars per 'unit' of usable energy, which is a pretty good deal.

In other words, your blanket statement need qualifiers and sources. Yes, I'm the self-imposed citation nazi of these boards. Nice to meet you.

"This is because beauty is completely subjective. If we do not have enough energy to sustain our population, we'll die,"

the problem was never having enough power for sustaining our population, The problem was that the population wasnt sustained at all. We're doubling our population at a sky rocketing pace, and energy is only the first of a string of problems we're going to run into.

"Well, I'm all for new energy sources, but you did make a false dilemma there. It's possible to be an enemy of mankind *and* support progress."

You're quite right of course, I should have said 'if you oppose progress, you're an enemy of mankind'.

"It is also possible to be neither."

Not for an adult.

#12 of all vids//// wtf////

jimnms... by your reasoning, we should ban planes, because sometimes (very infrequently, but sometimes) they crash.

interesting how most of those disasters were in the seventies and eighties. Seems to be less disasters around now. Could it be that things are safer now?

Coal mines also collapsed but that didn't stop us building the industrial world. Now who's the enemy of progress?

WTF, I didn't say anything about planes or coal. You still don't get it do you? When a plane crashes, it doesn't leave the land uninhabitable, and those killed/injured are only the ones on the plane and the ground where it crashed. People don't get sick and die later from plane crash sickness.

The risks are not worth it to build new nuclear power plants when safer, cleaner alternatives are available.

what about building some nuclear plants in the desert?

would moving energy waste too much of it?

i know you didn't mention planes or coal mines, i introduced them as examples to compare.

But help! A plane might crash into a football stadium! full of kids!
A terrorist might use a plane to fly into the World Trade Center (oh wait....)

BAN PLANES THEY ARE THE DEVIL'S TRANSPORTATION.

it's much better if we build a bridge across the atlantic and everybody cycles across it.

wow 182 votes for this while analysis of 911 dies in the queue.

these propaganda guys are GOOD!!

what are you talking about?

Wind power is beautiful... it's metropolitan cities that are ugly.

Up with solar panels and wind turbines! I'll put a big one in my backyard if it's subsidized.

lol!!!!!!!!!! "if it's subsidized" haahhhahaaa

i rest my case!!!

The point was, it would be wiser to look at alternatives which have less risk of harm, even if nuclear power plants' accidents don't happen very often they do happen, which is not as good as if they did not happen at all.
If there was an alternative to using planes allowing you to get to another location nearly just as well, which also lowered the risks of accidents, then I would consider that option!
No one is saying ban nuclear power plants like you are shouting to ban planes, just that wind and solar alternatives should not be dismissed.

At the moment, wind and solar generators are too costly and inefficient for people to build one in their back gardens, but it doesn't mean that it will continue to be that way after more R&R.
It has probably not progressed very quickly because of government intervention, but what can you do about that...

I GET IT!!!! I FINALLY GET THIS VIDEO!!!!!!!! IT TOOK ME EIGHT MONTHS AND 2 WEEKS OF WONDERING AND FEELING STUPID AND NO ONE WILL PROBABLY READ THIS POST FOR ANOTHER EIGHT MONTHS BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I FINALLY UNDERSTAND AND IT FEEL GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

Whoa.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Saturday, July 7th, 2007 12:38am PDT - promote requested by doogle.

If it causes Keanu Reeves to show emotion them frankly it must be amazing by default.

>> ^Keanu_Reeves:
Whoa.

WHAT the FUCK. how does that work ? a video thats been out of the loop for a year all of a sudden gets right bumped up to the highest honour of the front page becuase one single person says *promote ? what the fuck is up with that. is that how this place works ? no dissin here but if you get a couple stars you can run the front page like its your own website ? NEATO ! ima get my stars so i can fuck shit up.

Invocations (promote) cannot be called by nerbula because nerbula is not privileged - sorry.

*promote muahahahaha

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, June 28th, 2009 12:25am PDT - promote requested by doogle.

*length=2:04

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 2:04 - length declared by radx.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, July 1st, 2009 5:39pm PDT - promote requested by thegrimsleeper.

*eco

Adding video to channels (Eco) - requested by Stingray.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Started wondering why nobody really reacted. Figured he had to be invisible or something.

However, upvote for the silly hat.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.