Dodge Complies With PETA By Replacing Ape With Invisible Ape

PETA was mad at Dodge for running an ad that had a chimpanzee in it, considering the history of abuse monkeys have suffered in the entertainment industry. Not that any happened to this monkey, just to monkeys before it. In any event, in the revised version Dodge complied and digitally erased the monkey in the track suit…. but now there’s just a disembodied suit walking over and pressing the dynamite lever. Dexter’s Michael C. Hall monotones in the voiceover, “Oh wait, there’s an invisible monkey.” Hilarity!



The first one was just meh, monkey joke. The revision is an act of surreal genius, and a giant finger to PETA pantywringers.

Monkeys Won’t Fly in W+K’s Latest Dodge Ad [Agency Spy] (Thanks to Ernie!)


Edit Your Comment

  1. the Persistent Sound of Sensationalism says:

    “The first one was just meh, monkey joke. The revision is an act of surreal genius, and a giant finger to PETA pantywringers.”

    Yeah. I’m a member of PeTA but I have to ask, don’t you guys have some horrific pet stores or university animals experiments to shut down? Can’t you leave Hollywood alone, since laws have been made and complied with for many years now?

    • Sian says:

      Why are you a member of such a batshit crazy organization when you could be donating to SPCA or something else not totally fucko bazoo?

      • DariusC says:

        Agreed, SPCA is far better than PETA. SPCA puts down far less animals too. PETA is a hippocritical organization.

      • pop top says:

        I agree. PETA kills what, 97-98% of all the animals it “adopts”? If you really care about animals, you wouldn’t join PETA.

        • Oranges w/ Cheese says:

          Well, considering that there are thousands upon thousands of unwanted animals, at least I hope they give them a humane end. It’s sad, but kill shelters do this too. There’s just too many puppies and kitties in the world.

          Personally, breeders should be shut down. Breeding MORE animals because you can sell them for some assumed worth is worse, when there are hundreds of animals in shelters with no pedigree looking for a loving home.

          • spanky says:

            While pet overpopulation might not be entirely myth, it is definitely exaggerated, mostly by animal rights groups such as PETA and marginally the HSUS; and to a lesser extent by well-meaning but defensive animal welfare advocates. Read Nathan Winograd’s book Redemption* for his accounts of communities that have achieved no kill by adopting progressive policies for animal sheltering and welfare.

            Demand for puppy mills is in no small part a result of regressive and hostile consumer practices within the animal welfare/rights community. When communities come together to make systemic changes in the way they treat both animals and people, they can make huge strides toward reducing or even eliminating the killing of healthy, adoptable animals.

            * Read the book, not just the hysterical, name-calling animal rightist arguments against no kill philosophy. Remember that their ultimate goal is the complete extinction of domestic animals, and most of their policies and claims are geared toward achieving that goal.

          • jesirose says:

            The difference is PETA will actively seek out animals, lie to the people they take them from and tell them they’ll give them a home (sometimes even faking photos of the animals in new homes), and then kill them without ever advertising them for adoption.

            A real shelter? Does not do that. A shelter takes in only animals surrendered to it, admits that they will try their best but may not find a home, and advertises the animal in it’s shelter (and usually in adoption events and on websites like

        • Englishee Teacher says:
      • p. observer says:

        i gotta disagree with you there of all the animal rights organizations peta is the most tame.
        in order of batshit crazy it goes peta then greenpeace then alf

        • pop top says:

          And I have to disagree with you. PETA is not the most tame; did you miss everyone’s comments about them killing most of the animals placed into their care?. Look into animal welfare organizations, like the Humane Society or the SPCA. Those are the groups that actually help the animals.

          Greenpeace isn’t an animal rights organization, but they do more to save animals than PETA does.

        • chefboyardee says:
        • aloria says:

          Peta is the most tame? Then what’s the ASPCA?

          • kellkell says:

            Personally I would have nothing to do with PETA, the ASPCA or the HSUS. All 3 have become so large and corrupt that it’s a joke. You’re better off sticking close to home with local rescues.

          • pop top says:

            The ASPCA is not an animal rights organization, they’re for animal welfare. There’s a big difference. Namely ASPCA is fine with people having pets.

            • Conformist138 says:

              Which, interestingly, a TON of PETA members don’t even realize that PETA doesn’t want you to have pets. I prefer the ASPCA because it stands for doing the right thing and caring properly for animals in your care. As for not having them at all, I think that idea would really upset my dog. I’ve served him meals, picked up his messes, and showered him with toys and treats for as long as he can remember. I think it would be quite a shock if someone informed him that he was my unwilling slave. As far as he is concerned, I was created for the sole purpose of catering to his every whim.

              • raydee wandered off on a tangent and got lost says:

                My cat feels the same way. When he wants attention, he demands it, and he often gets it, because when I ignore him, he does this meow that makes me go, “omg I am going to DIE of the CUTE.”

                I am definitely the slave in this relationship. XD

                • electrogruve says:

                  My cat sings to me. Lulling me into petting her. Like a siren of the sea, she is. I am so in her thrall it’s pathetic. And the falling-on-the-floor-rolling-over-turning-upside-down maneuver is used quite frequently to get my attention. Just remember that cats don’t have owners, they have assistants.

            • anyanka323 says:

              I have to agree with that. Most domestic animals have been bred to be pets. Most cats or dogs wouldn’t survive on their own because they don’t have the instincts anymore.

              I would have more respect for PETA if they moderated their policy in regards to keeping pets. The ASPCA and local humane societies IMO do much better work, especially in educating people about their responsibilities to their pets.

              I also am a fan of their neutering/spaying campaign because there are too many unwanted cats and dogs in shelters because their people chose not to get them fixed. I understand keeping show and breeding animals intact, but if you have no intent to show or breed them and they’re going to be pets, get them fixed.

              I have three cats and a dog, all fixed. The two indoor cats have us trained to feed them when they want to be fed. The dog also has it pretty good. He gets first choice of any spot on the couch and most toys he wants. We usually sit around him, even when family is visiting. My aunt who doesn’t like big dogs thinks we indulge him too much, but he’s worth it. He’s a good companion, especially for exercising.

        • jbandsma says:

          Peta supports ALF. With both money and personnel.

    • smo0 says:

      I agree…. I don’t like the activist groups only fighting battles they can easily win.

      It’s like punching a 6 year old because you know… well that’s that…

      but go after a 36 year old and you might get your ass handed to you….

      It’s weak, it’s spineless, and it defeats the real purpose of these groups…. (or maybe it was their intention all along?)

      • jbandsma says:

        Just like they shut down the monks’ egg production that had supported the monastery for over 60 years. It was easier to harass people who would greet them with a prayer rather than go after the 3 hunt clubs (one practically across the street from Mepkin Abbey, the other 2 within 10 miles) that hold canned hunts…where they’d have been greeted with guys with shotguns.

    • GuidedByLemons says:

      No, PETA should definitely spend their time complaining about advertisements instead of harming humans by sabotaging medical experiments.

    • Link_Shinigami says:

      They’d rather load the chimp in a truck and euthanasia it as they drove away like they (proven by numerous studies and reports) every other animal they get from donations.

    • Pax says:

      I have two words for you, which PETA came up with:

      “Sea kittens”.

      No, I’m not shitting you. That was the farce they came up with, to try and convince people to stop eating FISH. Don’t believe me?

      … I mean, come on. I’m supposed to take that SERIOUSLY?!? I’m supposed to take the people who came UP with it seriously?!?!?

    • gman863 says:

      The original ad wasn’t all that abusive.

      At least the folks at Chrysler didn’t spank their monkey. ;-)

  2. dpeters11 says:

    Hilarious. For some reason, the only thing that really bothered me about the commercial is calling the chimp a monkey. For some reason, that’s always been a peeve of mine.

  3. cmdr.sass says:

    Good for Dodge for thumbing their nose at PETA.

    • FooSchnickens - Full of SCAR says:

      If they really wanted to thumb their nose at PETA they’d have left the commercial intact and not changed anything.

      PETA is more than welcome to blow whistles at whalers and pitbull fighters, but until someone actually commits a crime/attrocity towards animals, they need to shut the hell up.

  4. Oranges w/ Cheese says:

    LOL. The first one was hilarious because it was so deadpan.
    The second was just so random it was even more hilarious.

    Yay Dexter! :)

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      I LOVE how deadpan it was. I think because it was all “oooh circusy!” the deadpan delivery was a nice contrast. Also, Michael C. Hall could read a phonebook and I’d still wonder whether he was just reading the phonebook or looking up Dexter’s next victim.

  5. proscriptus says:

    That would, I believe, correctly be “Dodge Complies With PETA By Replacing Ape With Invisible Ape.”

    I don’t believe PETA needs to be complied with. Caved in to, perhaps.

    • FooSchnickens - Full of SCAR says:

      Exactly, they aren’t some governing entity or police force, just a bunch people with nothing better to do than get riled up by anything with animals out of their normal habitat.

  6. Sparkstalker says:

    Gotta give to the ad company and Dodge…that’s just brilliant.

  7. cynical_reincarnation says:

    I say put in more monkeys!

  8. jsl4980 says:

    Way to help PETA, now that monkey is out of a job and back on unemployment. Really great…

  9. pantheonoutcast says:

    If Sears sold Dodge trucks, I could do all my “Fuck you, advocacy groups” shopping in one place…

  10. sirwired says:

    What, exactly, is PETA trying to accomplish with their crazy stunts? I’m a little confused as to how being regularly featured in “news of the weird” type media improves the well-being of animals.

    • pop top says:

      By keeping their name in the spotlight, they can seem legitimate and look like they’re actually doing something and helping animals so they can get money to funnel to the ALF.

    • spanky says:

      PETA pulls media stunts like this in order to get media coverage and name recognition. And it works. Look at how many people here see the name, recognize them from previous media blitzes like the ‘sea kittens’ thing, or their naked lady campaigns, and spread the word around.

      It’s working right here, right now. Sure, people will talk trash about them, but it gets their name out there, where gullible and ignorant people remember it and form vague associations between PETA and fighting animal abuse and such, and some subset of those people end up giving them enough money to continue their campaigns, both the media coverage ones, and the even more horrific ones, where they kill healthy, adoptable animals to save them from happy lives with loving, responsible families.

  11. backinpgh says:

    That’s like saying we should have commercials with black people in them, or Jews, because of the suffering they have experienced in the past.

    • Oranges w/ Cheese says:

      That’s actually a really good analogy O_o

    • Pax says:


      And the guy below me is right – that’s a startlingly good analogy.

      • RvLeshrac says:

        That’s actually a horrible analogy, for this specific claim. The claim is that the entertainment industry has harmed chimps, so chimps shouldn’t be used in the entertainment industry.

        I don’t think anyone is arguing against not using Jews in the Holocaust industry, or Blacks in the Slavery industry.

        That said, PETA is batshit, and contributes to known terrorist organizations.

        • Conformist138 says:

          That’s… the point. No one is kicking out blacks or jews, so why kick out the chimp? the analogy is a great one.

    • NarcolepticGirl says:

      Good point

  12. c!tizen says:

    HAHA, well played Dodge. Now that’s how you Dodge flying feces!

    –did I just make a dodge and monkey reference… yes I did.

  13. Daverson says:

    Doesn’t PETA have better things to do…like slaughtering shelter animals?

  14. javert says:

    So do the hypocrites that make up peta still have employees who have to take insulin? Or is peta too busy killing the animals put into its care?

    If someone really cared about animals they would assist their local animal shelter/rescue and do not join or give money to an organization which is only for show and politics.

  15. Tightlines says:

    They should make a whole series of invisible monkey ads, like the Old Spice ads.

  16. Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ゜-゜ノ) says:

    Oh, sure, when *I* make reference to an invisible monkey, people call me crazy.

    He’s out there, you know.

  17. lehrdude says:


  18. Dopaz says:

    I just bought a Dodge. I hope part of what I paid went to making this happen so I can feel like I’m a part of it.

  19. PBallRaven says:

    Almost as good as the Trunk Monkey!

    I mean, having a chimp in the car trunk reading a book titled “How to win at Casino Gambling” is just great! And the one with the cop! “Dis yo monkey?”

  20. Dallas_shopper says:

    They show that ad pretty regularly on morning TV in DFW. I was wondering what happened to the monkey. Damn PETA.

  21. SonarTech52 says:

    But.. we have to look out for the invisible monekys too! I see PETA doesn’t care about them.. Is there a different organization for this? PETIA?

  22. ChemicalFyre says:

    Erm, wasn’t that a CGI monkey anyway?

    Are they angy at the message of the monkey used to fire a cannon? or do they believe the monkey was real?

    • cash_da_pibble says:

      I think it may be along the line of Circus Animals.
      Whether it’s a real monkey or not, it portrays an animal forced to perform for a living, despite its protests.

      but PETA’S still crazy as shit.

  23. HappyFunTimes says:

    For God’s sake. With more than 10% of the nation unemployed, PETA wants to make this poor monkey unemployed as well!! The consequences will never be the same :(

  24. Guppy06 says:

    There’s a first time for everything, and that probably includes PETA being sensible and in the right.

    Chimpanzees are wild animals, they don’t get domesticated like dogs and cats (remember this?). When they reach puberty and adolescence, they become willful, sometimes violent, and essentially uncontrollable. So they’re only useful when they’re juveniles, at an age where the mothers won’t voluntarily let them be taken off by humans to be dressed up in outfits and trained to push down plungers. That’s why the mothers have historically been killed, or at least drugged.

    If nothing else, think about this: Chrysler could have gotten PR brownie points by demonstrating that this particular chimpanzee has been well-treated. Throwing up a fine-print disclaimer of “No animals were harmed in the making of this advertisement” is cheaper and easier than digitally erasing the chimp. But their lawyers won’t let them make statements they can’t back up.

    PETA probably has no proof that this particular chimpanzee has been harmed, but why isn’t Chrysler trying to claim it hasn’t?

    • aloria says:

      “PETA probably has no proof that this particular chimpanzee has been harmed, but why isn’t Chrysler trying to claim it hasn’t?”

      Nobody has any proof that Glenn Beck raped and killed a girl in 1990, but why isn’t he trying to claim he hasn’t?

      See what I did there?

      • Guppy06 says:

        Yeah, and there’s no proof that that particular Liberian diamond is a blood diamond.

        That’s why, when you’re dealing with something that has a history of abuse, you have someone like these guys come in and certify the heck out of everything. Y’know, like everybody else.

        • aloria says:

          There has been a history of abusing animals for entertainment, sure. But not by Dodge nor the advertising agency it hired. So why should Dodge have to refuse every accusation some crackpot organization throws its way? That’s like saying I have to prove to anyone who asks that I’m not an alcoholic because people of Irish descent have a history of abusing alcohol.

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      Because you can’t reason with crazy. PETA will hear what it wants to hear and saying you aren’t mistreating the animal isn’t going to get PETA off your back because PETA doesn’t want you featuring an animal at all. It thinks you’re being cruel. No reasoning with crazy here. Dodge did the smart thing. PETA wanted it to pull the commercial entirely; how much
      money would that have wasted? Instead, the company capitalized on an ad it had already made and showed that it wouldn’t cave to PETA’s silly demands.

    • coren says:

      Because Dodge made the commercial

    • kjherron says:

      You know, I’m pretty sure the monkey in the original commercial is CGI.

    • bikerider008 says:

      Ok, so just how stupid a question makes it past the “there are no stupid questions” myth? You are the winnah! Come on people, not every idea or cause has merit. PETA deserves nothing but scorn and ridicule.

      They are good for a laugh once in a while, though, As are most village idiots.

  25. 4Real says:

    I noticed that.. HAHA got to love PETA.. gees are they going to complain about the hamsters in the KIA commercials too.

  26. aja175 says:

    Why do people continue to give peta what they want?

  27. coren says:

    These commercials were both great. I think the first one is better – not cuz of the animal but the muted fanfare. The contrast is just so great.

  28. sumocat says:

    Adding to the absurdity: I don’t think there was ever a monkey in the first place. I think the whole thing was CGI.

  29. NumberSix says:

    AHAHA! Suck it PETA!

  30. cybrczch says:

    Now I’m sure Dodge will hear from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Invisible Animals (PETIA)

  31. Draw2much says:

    I really liked both commercials! Stupid PETA! They didn’t do anything but make Dodge look awesome. (Even if their cars are “meh”.)

  32. macoan says:

    That commercial is on every morning as I get ready for work. For the past week, it’s been the “invisible monkey” – and as I set there and watch… I was trying to think if it was always that, or was I just losing my mind… since I did not remember it being “invisible” last week….

    … of course like I said, on every morning as I get ready for work… so I’m not fully awake anyway.


  33. Memtex784 says:

    Seriously? WTF…why not ban dog and pony shows too. Its an amusing ad

  34. Emily says:

    They mock you with their lack-of-monkey pants.

  35. Ben says:

    Great, another WAH-fest about PETA. Go ahead, you sheep. Talk about how much you hate PETA. Give them more and more attention. This kind of story HELPS PETA. You complaining about them HELPS them. They do things like this and the Sea Kittens thing specifically to get sheep like you to complain and spread it around. This helps them get donations because, whether you think it’s ridiculous or not, their message reaches more people.

  36. ommpa_loompa says:

    Look out Gecko!

  37. Willem says:


    /attempt at sarcasm
    //it’s Friday, folks!

  38. brinks says:

    I have shelter pets and I do occasional animal-related volunteer work, and I get all up-in-arms about animal mistreatment (don’t get me going on the circus, OK). However, I have no reason to believe that the animal in this commercial has ever been mistreated.

    +1 for Dodge for coming up with such a hilarious solution to PETA’s ridiculous demands. “Yeah…we’ll stop using the monkey, but not the way you expect. HA!”

    I say bring on more invisible moneys. I’d like to see (not see?) this guy as Dodge’s new invisible spokesperson.

  39. JonBoy470 says:

    Considering the whole ad campaign seems to be targeting “manly men” and that demographic typically isn’t very sympathetic to PETA, I think this was a genius way to placate both PETA and their target demographic. The fact that the invisible monkey is called out as such takes the cake in my book.

  40. FilthyHarry says:

    “….a giant finger to PETA pantywringers.”

    Not really. They took the monkey out. They CAVED to Peta and their genius is that they’ve made people think they gave PETA the finger.

    If they wanted to give PETA the finger they’d have released another commercial with 2 monkeys.

  41. teamworthless says:

    They should’ve made a commercial where a guy drives his dodge pickup truck to a zoo and jumps out with a 12 gage shotgun and starts blowing monkeys heads off. That would be sweet!

  42. gman863 says:

    Can the staff at Consumer Reports pull a similar stunt to replace Dodge’s existing car lineup with invisible models?