November 28, 2014

Sprint's Epic Movie Contest Winners are All Types of Epic [10 VIDEOS]

The ten finalists are in for Sprint’s Epic Movie Contest and they are a mixed bag of epic epic-ness.    Each of these winners have received a finalist prize and are now in the running for a $25,000 Grand Prize and as determined by Michael Bay. Looking through the clips, some are very polished and even look as if Mr. Bay himself had done some work on them.  If I had to pick one overall winner, it would probably be Epic Hot Dog.  Why?  Because it’s total Hollywood cliche with slow-mo doves, sweat, explosions, helicopters, an overwhelmed beauty, and more.  Oh, and then there’s that burp.

Watch the clips below and then leave a comment as to which is your favorite.  Who deserves the $25,000 most?

Epic Hot Dog

Epic Guitar Girl

Epic Evil Laugh

Epic Escape

Epic Bomb Scene

Epic Poem

Epic Robot

Epic “Action”

Epic Face-Off

Epic Dropped Call



  • http://androidguys cliff

    there is no question it should be the epic evil laugh. watch it over and over. its just as funny as he first time.

  • Dan

    Epic Guitar Girl for sure.

  • Kenji

    Ha, these are awesome. Love the concept for this contest… I like the hot dog one the most.

  • Aura

    Epic Robot. The graphics are great and the clip looks unique.
    Almost like scene for a commercial.

    • devin ross

      Dude, Epic robot is terrible. It looks like a kid just starting out on adobe after effects. Evil Laugh is my favorite for sure.

  • melissa

    duh, don’t be a weiner! the epic hot dog was by far the best!

  • Jonathan Wolfpack

    epic hotdog was great…..as long as that was a 100% beef nathan’s

  • Bill

    I have to go with Epic Evil Laugh .. In the begining I felt like I was looking at an actual movie. The film was that good of quality!!

  • Randy

    Well, a few things.

    1.) Epic Action includes someone smoking. Regardless of how you feel about smoking, I don’t see Bay or Sprint allowing it to be the winner due to FCC regulations for network broadcasting.

    2.) Epic Evil Laugh is not original in any sense of the word. It’s a reheated use of a character that was from the directors failed feature film (a large part of contest rules is dedicated to originality). Not only did he re-heat the character, he did so by directly stealing from “Dr. Horrible’s Sing-a-long Blog.” Neither Michael Bay nor Sprint will risk being sued over this contest (Michael Bay was supposedly sued by David Fincher over a commercial a few years ago).

    3.) Epic Hot Dog. This one is difficult because it’s really funny. However, parody is, in and of itself, un-original. Also, I have a hard time with the idea of Sprint being able to use this entry as an actual spot. There’s not a whole lot of marketing value to it. It does nothing to advance the idea that the “Epic” phone is the best phone for watching films.

    4.) Epic Guitar Girl has a few issues. There should have been next to no exchange. The placement of the phone in the ad actually made it look fairly cheap. Decent edits, aside from the delivery of the lines, good use of some after effects. However, from a marketing perspective the ad appeals more to the 20 and under crowd which is the second least likely to by a phone like the “Epic,” ahead of only those 55 and older.

    5.) Epic Escape is really blown out in the final shot. However, with that flaw, it seems to be the best fit for a spot that Sprint could actually use. It his the main demographic for the phone (25-35 year olds) it fits in with the concept of something being “epic” to the point where it take a consumer outside of reality (which is what Sprint seems to be pushing with the current marketing) and the shift from a serious action sequence to the joke at the end is strong, as opposed to some of the other jokes that just peter out.

    6.) I just don’t see any of the others fitting at all, period.

    • S.Q.

      Wow. Why do you hate all things awesome? Also, did I miss something? I didn’t see anywhere that the winner receives anything besides $25,000. Not a commercial spot like you keep referring to.

      The winner gets $25,000, not a commercial spot, so I don’t know how accurate your non-smoking thing is, but who knows.

      I’ve seen Dr. Horrible’s Sing-a-long Blog. While it is hilarious and clever, Evil Laugh is completely separate from it. I would be curious to know specifically what you mean. Is having a villain or an evil laugh copyrighted by Dr. Horrible? And, correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t EVERY movie have that? And has for like, ever? And please specify this “re-heating” of a failed previous film.

      Is “parody” really un-original? I mean, if “parody” is un-original then “comedy” and “drama” would have to be as well… also, it takes talent and creativity to do a well done parody, so, I don’t see your point.

      Guitar Girl isn’t my favorite, but 20 and under? I don’t think that’s who a company who sells phones to people who have actual income is targeting. And you mentioned in the next sentence that the demographic is 25-35 (not sure where you got that, but that sounds more accurate than under 20). So is it 20 and under? Or 25-35?

      Anyway, Epic Evil Laugh is awesome, and looks like you’re watching a real movie. Very talented, interesting, and well done. They have my vote!

      • Randy

        Where to begin?

        If you look at the official rules, it makes specific comments about using any of the spots on broadcast television or internet and how much all actors must agree to be paid (scale). While it is not officially part of the prize, the intention of the contest was actually to find user generated content to promote the phone. They didn’t promise a spot on television presumably because they were afraid that nothing would fit their marketing scheme. Air time costs far more than the 25k that they are offering up to the winner. Because they had a much smaller sample size and fewer controls than the doritos “Crash the Superbowl” contest they weren’t about to offer up commercial time to the winner unless it fit their marketing scheme. The legal documentation found in the official rules makes it fairly obvious that the intent was to find user generated content for a spot.

        Evil Laugh is incredibly well made. I wouldn’t argue that point for a moment.
        Now, is having a villain an issue? No. Is having that villain laugh an issue? No.
        The issue is when you create a villain who dresses and acts in an extremely similar manner of a copyrighted character. In addition, when the joke is literally taken (or at the very least mimics) the first 20 odd seconds of the same work the issue becomes more evident. I’m not sure if you have a legal background, but these are dangerous waters for copyright infringement. Even if someone creates what the believe is a completely original character, but it is exceedingly similar to an existing copyrighted character, it can still break copyright laws.

        The fact is, the legal departments of Sprint, Samsung, Michael Bay, et al will have to determine if they are willing to risk a lawsuit (as stated above, Mr. Bay has already been sued by an Academy Award nominee and I doubt he would like to add an Emmy winner).

        The next point is a bit frustrating because what you have said makes no sense what-so-ever. If you understand the English language, you will see that parody is taking an existing work and imitating it for comic effect. Personally, I find Hot Dog to be hilarious, but due to the nature of the piece (that it is parody and by definition imitating an existing work), I do not see it as being original.

        I would advise you to get a dictionary if you would like to understand why parody is by definition a work of imitation as opposed to comedy or drama (though if you take Evil Laugh, I can see how you can say in some cases that comedy can be unoriginal).

        In a weird way, you actually supported my argument against Guitar Girl. I was specifically saying that it would make no sense for them to pick Guitar Girl if they are going to potentially use the spot for commercial use. What you said above reflects what I said. However, your error becomes evident when you try to argue that I was saying that both the 20 and under demo and the 25-35 demo the main buyers of smartphones.

        Simply put, you misread what I had written. Perhaps you should read it again.

        As for the demo information, there are several studies out there which are widely available. While mobile trends are constantly shifting, the demographic breakdowns for smartphones typically go in the following order.

        25-35
        36-45
        46-55
        24 and under
        55+

        Sprint, no doubt, has much more up to date and comprehensive statistics than those that I was able to glean.

        As to your final comment, there is no argument that Evil Laugh is very well made. The question I raise isn’t about the craft of the film making, it’s about the craft of story and how it’s a no-no to use material that comes from another source. They might have been able to pull it off if they hadn’t gone and put those goggles on the guy and used a very slight variation on a joke from the first 20 seconds of a copyrighted work. Yet, it all goes up to Sprint, Michael Bay and their legal departments to figure that out.

        Ultimately, I feel the most sorry for Epic Fall. I felt that it was a good commercial that was simply hosed out of a spot in the top ten because several entries cheated.

  • Kelly

    epic hot dog