Tim Goodman is the longtime TV critic for the San Francisco Chronicle and a well-regarded writer on the failings and foibles of the television industry. Like so many of us, Goodman watched last Sunday's Super Bowl as much to see this year's parade of TV commercials as to watch the matchup between the Carolina Panthers and the New England Patriots. Goodman talks to Media Life about those ads.

How did anticipation for this year’s ads compared to previous years? Do you think it met expectations?

   I think there's always anticipation, but after this year there's going to be a whole lot less of it next year. The commercials bombed and the people knew it.

   Two things: the level of raunch and the lameness. 
   I'm no prude, but people were offended. But I was offended by how stupid they were. If you're going to go crude, there ought to be a payoff, and there just wasn't. 
   Anybody who thought a farting horse was funny has been in a closed room with other unfunny ad writers for too long.

  Maybe the Lays ad with the elderly folks brawling for the bag. Even that really failed to ignite much laughter, though.

   There was definitely no breakthrough ad. That gave the whole day this feeling of cumulative failure. I'd vote the NFL Network ad the best, but in a good year it probably would have been in the middle of the pack -- appropriate, clever, funny, but not genius.

Who should have used the $2.3 million it cost to buy time during the game to create a better spot? 

   Almost all of them.
   Bud Light needs to rethink its account. Then again, maybe it hit the target audience and moved product. That's the bottom line. 
  Critics mean nothing if there's a profit involved. But still, terribly unfunny and sophomoric.

   Animals are a cheap laugh or a sentimental rouse. They always end up the butt of the joke, though their place was taken by women this year.

    No question, Coke. Those Pepsi bears are tired. Pepsi needs to find a new animal.

Most of the ad discussion has been about the funny – or rather, not so funny – commercials. Do ads that don’t use humor get lost in the shuffle, like the Monster montages? Why do people expect Super Bowl ads to be funny?

   I think the Monster.com ads were pretty cool, atmospheric -- they evoked a mood.
   But that just falls flat at the Super Bowl. People want funny. Sentimental works well, though. It's like it cuts the comedy, leavens the day. I'm thinking about the Bud ad with the donkey who wanted to be a Clydesdale. People remembered it.

What was harder to watch, the first quarter of the game or Mike Ditka in ads for Levitra? 

    At least with Cialis you knew that a four-hour hard-on was a possibility. With Ditka, you were just going to "get in the game."
   Levitra needs to spell it out a little bit. And throwing a football through a tire is stupid. So, what, you get an erection and an improved passing arm? Dumb.

What will shake out from the whole Janet Jackson spectacle? 

   Album sales. And maybe one head rolling at MTV. Let's just hope there's not an overreaction and we get "Up with People" again.