The company has an affinity for the grotesque.
This is the story of "Bob," according to Quiznos:
http://www.quiznos.com/baby_bob.asp
But if you ask me, "Bob" is just an extension of Quiznos' need to bend
things into repellent forms. It began simply with clashing multi-tonal
flavor notes in its overrated sandwiches (I sent in a suggestion for
prosciutto and limburger on mint chocolate chip, but they didn't bite). Soon
enough, it morphed into a post-nuclear representation of some kind of
guitar-toting South American monkey that many interpreted as
postmortemly-animated rats. And now, Quiznos has had a baby.
It's a human baby with gigantic cheeks and a haze where the mouth and chin
should be, and lips that move like a Sardonic rictus.
I don't care what Quiznos says about this baby. I don't care that the
company says he's a grown man in an infant's body. I don't care how
frustrated he is that he doesn't have molars.
I do care that looking at this baby is like having a bad dream.
Perhaps my objection is rooted in the fact that I don't like bad computer
animation. "Bob" is bad animation. "Bob" is like the shining highlights on
the Coca Cola polar bears, and the determinedly uniform appearance of the
smokestacks on the sinking oceanliner in the film _Titanic_. Watching "Bob"
is watching poorly executed special effects. In fact, I don't just dislike
bad computer animation... I HATE bad computer animation.
I saw _The Road to Morocco_ the other day. Near the end of the film, there
is actual, hand-drawn animation superimposed over the faces of two camels.
The animation provides moving lips and teeth to represent speech, and voices
were dubbed in. In terms of technological and artistic skill, the talking
camels are for more interesting and more amusing to watch than is young
"Bob." And very likely, because it was hard and expensive to do film
animation in those days, they were done with more care. The parts of the
images that had to be distorted to add the animation were distorted
minimally and the appearance of the absence of integral parts of their
anatomy was avoided. Not so with "Bob." His jaws seem to have been erased
and a set of tight wriggling lips suspended in the void, strung between
otherwordly cheekpads. The lower part of his face is a smear, and I can't
get passed that.
And perhaps I'm also bothered by the fact that others don't mind this. The
people that created "Bob" don't mind, and TV audiences don't mind that his
image is eerie; that there is definitely something about it that's
undeniably wrong. Maybe they can see that there is *something* but can't put
their finger on just what it is. Maybe.
Or maybe they're overwhelmed by other factors. _Titanic_ was an awful movie,
but no one cared about that. It cost millions of millions of dollars to
crank out, so it must okay, right?
Maybe I'm too sensitive. Maybe I'm too opinionated.
Maybe. I wonder how much Quiznos spent.