Danny MacAskill copped a bit of flak back in August when he released a short film shot at the Playboy Mansion in Los Angeles, in which he pulled off several tricks on his bike to an audience comprising several ‘Playmates.’
This week, an appropriate response has appeared on Vimeo – a video in which a woman on a Raleigh Chopper, to the admiring glances of a trio of Glaswegian gentlemen, attempts what may generously be termed “sub-MacAskillesque” tricks on her bike.
Much of the film, which is the work of Glasgow-based Bike Gob, was shot around the People’s Palace at Glasgow Green, renamed here the ‘Playgirl Palace.’
The stunts on the bike may not be top-drawer – which is point , with a caption at the end saying, “Playboy Bunnies are about as cool as Bike Gob’s tricks” – but the camera work makes up for that.
Bike Gob at the Playgirl Palace from Bike Gob Glasgow on Vimeo.
20 thoughts on “Video: Bike Gob issues a very Glasgwegian response to Danny MacAskill Playboy Mansion film”
“appropriate response”
It is
“appropriate response”
It is not like anyone forces the Playmates or whatever they want to be called to be there and act the way they do…..
They is like saying those women have no power to think for themselves. I think that is the wrong message, yes some of their antics are not always the best way to behave and no-one should ever judge women by their actions. That doesn’t make them any less of a person….
Nobody’s judging the women,
Nobody’s judging the women, Gkam84, they didn’t create the culture in which they find themselves. This is more about the fact that somebody thought Danny’s video was a good idea, to the point that it actually got made. They should’ve known better.
At least it got the criticism that it deserved in the various places I saw it getting posted. Not sure who they were aiming this video at, or if they were surprised by the reception, but it’s a good sign that it got some stick. Maybe we’re heading in the right direction after all…
adrianoconnor wrote: Not sure
The original video was a commercial aimed at young guys and most young guys like girls. So its hardly rocket science.
But perhaps you like the Diet Coke commercials with the half naked men?
I think this is
I think this is brilliant.
@adrianoconnor: I thought that the stick that Danny’s video got was good. Then I went back and read the comments on the road.cc story – and realised we have a *long*, *long* way to go.
Just had to watch the
Just had to watch the original to make sense of this. Was it a hardtail?
Joelsim wrote:Was it a
No, I think it was the fluffy ones that did it.
Quote:The original video was
The 1970s just called, they’d like their attitude towards women back, please.
If you are struggling with the whole ‘women as objects’ thing, take a couple of minutes to imagine your daughter having sex with creepy old Viagra-enhanced 88 year old Hugh.
It’s 2014, we live in the western world, leave the medieval sexism to the peasants elsewhere…and if you really don’t get the difference between the odd Diet Coke ad and the avalanche of female objectification, you need a slap from your mother.
crikey wrote:Quote:The
Your obviously sick in the head if that’s what you see.
Well said crikey
Well said crikey
Quote:Your obviously sick in
Stop and think for a minute, stop and think about the whole big, difficult question of how women are viewed by society at large. Then think about what kind of a society is happy with 88 year old Hugh having sex with 20 odd year old girls.
Happy about it?
Happy to have it happen to your wife? Girlfriend? Daughter?
Danny can ride a bike really well, but that particular video was a great big mistake.
crikey wrote:Quote:Your
If HH had sex with 20 odd year old girls he should be locked up for life and have his assets removed with a rusty tyre lever. :S
Danny’s video and Iona’s
Danny’s video and Iona’s video proved one thing.
You can spend a lot or very little money on making a film and it will still be crap.
Only thing that annoys me
Only thing that annoys me more than a puncture or that elusive click are narrow minded people telling other people how to live their lives. Let people do what they want, if you do not want to be a part of it, go and do/watch something else.
Hugh’s playmates are a tired and dated fashion, but so are The Chippendales and still every week hundreds, if not thousands of women go along to watch male dance troupes strut their stuff, many of whom choose to have various parts of their bodies stamped on the way in as they deem their hands too boring!
How people use their assets to get what they want is up to them.
If a couple a wealthy women such as Nigella or Carol V chose to lead a more debauched and colourful old age, I am sure there would be quite a queue of young men only to pleased to don a posing pouch instead of a McDonalds (or similar) uniform.
As this is after all a cycling website it would be naive to think there has not been a young wanabe pro cyclist whilst trying to survive on piss poor wages trying to make their way through the Europeon club system that has not been used in one way or another by a richer older person.
By the way, I still think Dannys video crap and the best cycling related video of the year should go to the Maid of Ace girls.
Nice chopper by the way!!!
Nice chopper by the way!!! 😀
Good on you Crikey – you’re
Good on you Crikey – you’re bang on there.
@twowheeltoys: so basically,
@twowheeltoys: so basically, you’re telling people that they can’t be critical of sexist attitudes? Isn’t that telling people how to live their lives?
Here’s the thing: misogyny is still rampant in our society and we should all be standing up and speaking out against it. Danny’s was supposed to be a video about cycling: there was no need for a setting that essentially includes women as decoration. Had they chosen the Chippendales as background, it would still have been wrong, but here’s the thing: men do not face the near-constant need to justify everything they do because they are objectified for the way they look, the shape of their butts, the way they do their hair, the shape of their chests, how pretty they are… The world needs less of this.
My criticisms, by the way, apply equally to podium girls: it is an anachronism that we should all speak out against.
I should note that there is a troubling trend in Western society toward men being objectified and judged on their looks and figures – but it is a tiny, tiny drop in the ocean compared to that which women face every day and have faced for all time. We, as a modern society hoping to move towards proper equality, should be able to get beyond this.
Adam, these women freely
Adam, these women freely choose to take up these jobs. Who are you to second-guess their choices? You may not want your daughter to make a living that way, but I’m sure you would rather she didn’t have to make a living scrubbing toilets either. Just because you have a subjective aversion to women taking up these career paths doesn’t mean that they should be forbidden from doing so.
Men and women are already equal before the law in the UK, so I’m confused as to how modern society could ‘move towards proper equality’.
@Ham-planet: sorry, but I
@Ham-planet: sorry, but I think you’ve missed my point. I’m not criticising their choices, and I don’t have (nor did I state) an aversion to women taking up these career paths. What I object to is that there are still too many men in society at large that look at women as objects and not people, and videos like Danny’s only perpetuate that.
Men and women *are* equal before the law, and yet women are paid significantly less than men, occupy a fraction of the positions of power (current front bench, for example) and, as you so eloquently put it yourself, occupy the majority of the really lowly-paid menial cleaning positions.
Want to know what I regard as a ‘move towards proper equality’? Well, how about we stop regarding videos like Danny’s as OK, stop displaying women as we do with podium girls and regarding that as OK, have a parliament and a government that represents our population… The list goes on for longer than I have time to type, but it can be summarised as not treating people as objects of gratification.
It would be nice to avoid legislating these things – it would be nice if attitudes changed so this became the norm. That’s what I would regard as a ‘move towards proper equality’.
There’s nothing wrong with an
There’s nothing wrong with an 80 year old having intercourse with a 20 year old if they are both consenting. (The law rarely troubles itself about the reasons why consent might have been given – mostly because this line of inquiry is fraught with difficulty.) The fact that some of us find Hugh physically repulsive is irrelevant. No, I wouldn’t want my kids to find themselves in Hugh’s employ, but equally there are a range of jobs outside the adult entertainment industry that I would hope they don’t end up with either.
Playboy is antediluvian – on any number of levels – and the brand itself has (rightly or wrongly) taken on a meaning that implies far more than the mere objectification of women (kind of ironic post-Mad Men 1970’s louche), although that is clearly the bedrock upon which it is established. There’s an ad for an Italian lingerie brand (Calzone? or os that a pizza?) that’s plastered all over buses in London which is far more “in your average person’s face” than the top shelf of WHSmith. I am all for right on indignation but I can’t help feel that we could all relax a little bit from time to time. Which is why I think Bike Gob’s response is just about perfect.
Going to the new culture of male objectification – many of the PAs at my place of work have pictures of celebs like David Beckham in various states of undress pinned to the partition walls of their “bays”. I have never really noticed before but now that I have I can’t help feel I must have been objectified (at least a little bit). Must get myself one of those Pirelli calendars ….
@adamthekiwi: what I said
@adamthekiwi: what I said was what annoys me “are narrow minded people telling other people how to live their lives.” I do not wish to tell anyone what they can do, you and others can have your views of what you like but the person/people under question may disagree with them.