Who likes Twix bars? That’s a silly question. We all do. I mean, what are we, savages? They’re a pair of little perforated logs of shortbread covered in caramel and chocolate – what’s not to like? Well, if you’re Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) – and you may be, I’m embarrassed to say I’ve never asked – then what you don’t seem to like about Twix is the candy bar’s recent commercial, which the ASA states does “condone or encourage irresponsible driving or a breach of the legal requirements of the Highway Code.” They claim there have been five complaints, even!
So, what is going on in this commercial, exactly? Honestly, I’m a little confused, because there seems to be a sort of supernatural element about it. Sure, there’s plenty of reckless driving, and the cars featured in it have a lot of Malaise-era charm, like the hero car, which looks to be a ’71 or perhaps ’72 Ford Mustang, and it seems to be being pursued by what looks like an early ’90s Buick. But the Mustang has some inaccurate elements, like a very peculiar gated shifter and a handbrake that simply didn’t exist on these cars.
But, whatever, the whole thing is pretty over-the-top and silly, and I can’t really see how something this absurd is going to entice anyone into driving stupidly, no matter what the ASA says. Here, watch for yourself, even the full minute version:
Okay, what the hell just happened? Dirtbag there is driving his ’71 Mustang, which has, notably, the horse blacked out and some strange white sections on those turn signal lenses. He’s driving through what looks like the American Southwest, upwards-nodding to farmers wielding twin shovels.
For reference, here’s a ’71 Mustang, which seems to match the car in the ad:
He keeps driving, then notices ’90s Buick chasing him:
It’s not clear why the Buick is chasing him. Based on what I know of the drivers of this era of Buick, someone’s devoutly Methodist grandma is pissed at him.
That leads him to shift into what looks like third gear with a strange gated shifter that never actually appeared in a Mustang of this (or any?) vintage. I looked at brochure pictures of Mustang shifters of the era, and neither the automatic or manual matches:
Also, he was in second gear that whole time? Damn.
Anyway, the chase continues, until Dirtbag sees a curving stretch of road that borders a large drop-off, protected by a guardrail. Dirtbag grabs and pulls the handbrake, which did not exist on these cars:
These Mustangs had a foot-pedal-operated emergency brake. The ASA should realize this and understand that this is pure fantasy, as no ’71 Mustang was like this in reality! It’s all fantastical!
Anyway, the fictional handbrake is pulled, the car drifts and then flips over, crashing through the guardrail:
The Mustang careens down, we see Dirtbag inside, inverted, as the car falls, the Buick stops, seemingly believing the Mustang and its driver have plummeted to their deaths, and then we see this:
The Mustang is now perched, roof-to-roof, atop another identical Mustang, the original car upside down.
Where did this other doppelganger car appear from? No idea. It was just conjured via Twixian magic, I guess.
There’s a duplicate Dirtbag in the lower car, the Upper Dirtbag drops a Twix to Lower Dirtbag, and for a moment, their hands caress in an act of self-love as they shift into gear:
…and then they drive off into the dusty distance, full of Twix and um, hope? I guess? Something.
Okay, so, it’s a goofy ad, it’s well-shot and very cinematic, and while I’m not really clear about the point they’re making (there’s two Twix bars in a pack, and that helps keep Buicks off your ass?) it’s fun enough.
Here’s what the ASA said regarding the ad, and why they banned it:
“The man driving the first car was shown smiling as his car fell down a hill, only for it to be seen again with an identical car on top of it. A second man was in that car and reached through the sunroof to place his hand on the first man’s hand. Both cars were shown driving off, one on top of the other. The ASA therefore acknowledged that the ad contained some clearly fantastical elements in the latter part of the ad and had a cinematic feel overall.
However, at the start of the ad the driver was shown on an ordinary road, when a car approached behind him. We considered the road was clearly realistic, albeit in an isolated and exotic location, with lane dividers visible and both cars ensuring they stayed on one side of the road, replicating real life. The second car then appeared to be approaching the initial car rapidly and the engine sound was audible. On noticing the car, the first man was shown immediately putting his car in gear, with a determined expression on his face, and appeared to be speeding up to evade the car. The feeling of speed was emphasised by the fast paced beat and music. Therefore, the scenes were depicted as a chase with the emphasis on speed. In addition, the first man was then shown putting the handbrake on and the car swerved off the road leaving visible skid marks.
We considered the emphasis on a chase, and the speed inherent to that, and the driving manoeuvres featured would be dangerous and irresponsible if emulated in real life on a public highway. Because we considered the driving depicted in the ads condoned unsafe driving, that appeared likely to breach the legal requirements of the Highway Code, we concluded the ads were irresponsible.”
I mean, yeah, okay, that stuff happened, but what about this is likely to make anyone emulate this in real life, as the decision warns? There have been a billion car chase scenes in movies; what’s special about this one? I don’t see how this is any more likely to make anyone choose to drive off a cliff than anything else? It’s all ridiculous and handled in a surreal way.
Besides, the real crime here is the inaccurate portrayals of that Mustang’s shifter and emergency brake! That’s the real crime here, but I would just have Mars Wrigley Confectionery UK Ltd issue an apology to all ’70s Mustang owners and send them a box of Twix, or something.
I’m just surprised that this is only the fifth Autopian article with the tag “silly”.
I was there for the early Vanishing Point-style desert chase.
And then…but why?
“Dirtbag grabs and pulls the handbrake, which did not exist on these cars”
Well, this is a UK commercial – right?
Sure the Mustang didn’t have a hand-brake – It didn’t even have a console as pictured unless it was ticked as an option
(4th photo down)
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1971-ford-mustang-grande-2/
But you know what vaguely Mustang-shaped car did have a center mounted handbrake which every UK citizen over the age of 25 knows about?
The Ford Capri.
One could excuse the writers their flight of fantasy based on their collective memories of Capris with handbrakes, and assuming Mustangs had them too.
Typical stuffed shirts, looking for a way to justify their jobs, even if they have to make shit up. (They apparently missed that the drivers were both on the WRONG side of the road for the UK; wouldn’t want UK drivers to get any bad ideas from doing that!)
When I saw the headline, I assumed the complaint would be that they were eating while they were driving.
Filthy English scum here. We aren’t allowed anything fun in car adverts, just in the shows that engulf the adverts.
Presumably because seeing someone eating branded chocolate while doing a skid makes it more likely to drive beyond the strict confines of the Highway Code than anything in a movie possibly could.
We are such an embarrassing nation.
I just watched the Fred and Rose West documentary on Netflix, and I swear I was seeing-someone-eat-a-Milky-Way away from doing a load of murders and hiding the bodies in my basement.
US Milky Way = UK Mars Bar
UK Milky Way = disappointment
US Milky Way Dark = best chocolate bar ever, and also we don’t get those.
Top tip for maximum Twix enjoyment: bite just the tip off from each end, then use it as a straw to drink tea through. You have maybe 30 seconds to eat it before the heat of the tea melts the chocolate. Starting with a chilled Twix gives you a few more seconds. This behaviour is weird even in the ridiculous relic of a country I’m in, so expect comment from anyone who sees you do this.
How did they find my mom’s 71 s**t brown Mustang Grande’? Last time I saw it the teenager who bought it disappeared in a cloud of one tire burnout smoke.
You thought that was tire smoke?
It was actually oil leaks from the valve covers and rear main seal….
Geez. Seems like a lot of that commercial was made with AI, all the more reason to kick such a crappy ad to the curb. Also, in that fleeting shot of the driver’s foot pressing on the accelerator pedal it looks like there are only two pedals, with the brake pedal looking typical of automatics, though I can’t be arsed to go back and try to freeze the frames to parse (ha) what pedal arrangement this uncanny valley Mustang has.
The ASA might be vastly overreaching and overstepping in banning this ad but is it really such a loss not having such a singularly crappy ad airing on television?? We should probably be thanking the ASA, lol.
It’s Britain. They ban anything remotely dangerous or fun. They once had this show called Monty Python and that got waaaaay out line. That created a lot of sticky wickets for them. The government almost had a full scale breakout of unsporting behavior, old bean. Since then, they’ve put the darbies on saying mean things and anything you can do stabby, stabby with.
The ASA is just heading off any ideas that some limey might have about driving above the speed limit on some British desert highway, resulting in damaged guardrails.
I require an explanation of the filling between the two Mustang roofs. What exactly is going on there And where did it come from.
Where’s my damn box of apologetic Twix!?!
I shift you not, I had a 71 Mustang Grande with 351C in that exact color combo! Why you gotta call me a dirtbag over and over?
Calm down dirtbag
Two for me, none for you
Why would they use a shitty Mustang when they had the Capri?
I like to think b/c America; Capri was reserved for an Aerobar ad maybe?
Can you imagine being in the same country as Adrian after showing two Capris crashing?
The UK branch of the Mars Corporation were rightly too scared of the wrath.
meanwhile my twix don’t leap, bite-length, from the wrapper, neither. lame
Someday they’ll come out with that feature for real. Everyone will love it, but then some kid will lose an eye, and there’ll be a famous lawsuit about it.
So THAT’S what they mean when they say “Death by chocolate!”
We do not all like Twix, oh dear reflectionist savage. Some of us have standards and avoid unnatural combinations, like peanut butter and chocolate or maple and bacon.
what enemies of flavor are you lumping into “we.” I hope you’re not implying the British have anything resembling culinary standards.
Ahoy there from the SS Sarcasm! Welcome aboard!
Hey! I drink tea though my Twix, so…
…as you were, I’ve just proved your point.
And yet you may happily narf down “vanilla’ that’s squeezed out of a rodent gland.
You really need it in a to-go package.
You KitKat people are creepy. Even worse than the Cads.
They should ban it for the head-up nod. Head-down is the only acceptable version in polite society. Head-up is more like slang for “Hey, come over here”
Yeah, I know I’m old. But that doesn’t make me wrong. I got that W sigma rizz dad energy, gyatt!
Peanut butter Twix were superior to the caramel. That is all.
Just here to explain that the origin of the name “Twix” is a portmanteau of “Twin Stix,” the original name for this particular method of mainlining high fructose corn syrup.
So the king size with four bars should be called a “Quix” . I demand this correction Mars!
Man, the Quik bunny gonna come and kick your ass to defend its trademark.
If it were five bars arranged as four with one in the middle, it would be a Quincunx and wouldn’t even need silly spelling tricks.
Sold!
Is it still a portmanteau if one of the words uses wildly unacceptable spelling?
No corn syrup in UK Twix, we do have some bloody standards you know.
Yeah – your chocolate is better, too
You just know there’s some YouTuber or TicTok channel that will try to replicate this, without all of the safety protocols MythBusters used.
I’m inclined to let Darwinism take its course, as long as they don’t do it on public roads.
Is this the same Mythbusters that fired a cannon ball through someone’s house?
Fair point. 🙂
As an easily influenced individual, I’m going to keep an emergency Twix in the car from now on in case I go rolling down a cliff. I’ll have to replace it frequently because I also lack the self-discipline to avoid eating it in most other circumstances.
I’ll never financially recover from this commercial.
But it’s the crashing through the guard rail dirtbag who ends up upside down and share his overrated candy bar with right way up dirtbag, who wasn’t being pursued by angry Grandma.
It should have been banned for just being a galactically shitty advert.
A: “Where’s ‘e from, then?”
B: “Wotja mean?”
A: “Zeefrom Upper or Lower Dirtbag?”
B: “Upper”
A: “Oh, ‘at’s quite posh, innit?”
“Well posh” not “quite posh”.
Source: am English enough to know which knife and fork to use, but not posh enough to ever dine in a situation that requires this knowledge.
‘Ows your Bangers and Mash?
Delicious. The secret is to not look too closely at the sausages.
I’d go with a whole angle of “BE TWIXED!” and use a bunch of Shakespearean actors and Ren Faire LARPers to just set up scenes where they yell “BE TWIXED!” for no apparent reason except to share a Twix with another dork. Because nothing matters, apparently.
In the US, all we need is “Professional Driver on Closed Course. Do Not Attempt” in 10-pt font at the bottom of the screen, and somehow that’s fine for the most litigious society in human history.
“A candy bar to share betwixt friends? BE TWIXED!”
Cast of Bewitched making candy bars appear using AI?
BE TWIXED