Talk:The Bike Ride

Reception
"Hovis and the BFI restored the advert for use in 2019 in an attempt to unite a divided nation. It was criticised for reminding those who voted to remain in the Brexit referendum of how little they had in common with those who voted to leave."

WTF is this unjournalistic tripe?

I watched the relaunch video. No mention of any sort of motive behind Hovis' restoration, just Ridley and the rest of his team remarking on how it was to shoot the original film and the feeling of being re-united with it many years later.

I watched the longer 7 minute video from the BFI, wondering if maybe Cakelot1 was referring to a quote made here. Nothing. Again, just a video talking about the BFI launching its archive and a slightly more in-depth look into how the advert was restored, frame by frame, from three separate master reels.

One of the two sources cited was a paper written 2 and a half years after the relaunch had come and gone. The other was a charged article where the author loaded his preconceived biases into the title and does not derive from any comments made within Hovis, nor from any personality connected with the company, past or present. If a car advert talked about its power and looks and some random journalist decided to frame their agenda around the advert's refusal to acknowledge the car's environmental impact, that does not make the voiceover artist nor the car company responsible for the advert climate change deniers. That is the same level of mental gymnastics required.

I'm pretty sure a company deciding to remaster a 45 year old advert would have been on Hovis' agenda for a long time given its status in British televisual culture as well as the overall history of advertising and had precisely zero to do with Brexit. Whether or not it happened after the article author's first major political loss on a personal level is utterly irrelevant. 194.207.183.182 (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I was referring to those two sources and presenting there views (per WP:NPOV). Sources don't become unreliable from being written too long after the fact, nor because they are paywalled, nor because individual editors disagree that they didn't do enough interviews with Hovis. I personally think it is a bit Remoaner-y myself, but articles are based on sources not our own opinions so they you go.
 * Looking back at the campaignlive article, however, I'm now not 100% if its not an opinion piece, in which case, to be on the safe side I think it would be best to attribute the opinion to Michael Beverland. If you have any recommendations for rewriting the section based on those reliable sources in a way that better reflects there content or other reliable sources that present other views on the remaster (as I could find precious little about it when writing this article) please feel free to present here. Many Thanks. Cakelot1  ☞&#xFE0F;  talk  10:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)