Watching Ben Affleck work out equations on a chalkboard has a certain reassuring quality. Although the reference to Good Will Hunting was immediately identifiable, this year’s Dunkin’ Super Bowl commercial felt a bit too staged. Even though his face was familiar, it appeared wonderfully smoothed down, almost like an animated wax figure.
“Good Will Dunkin'” immersed viewers in a stylized sitcom environment, complete with a carousel of familiar faces and synthetic laughter, by fusing nostalgia for the 1990s with digital tricks. Matt LeBlanc and Jennifer Aniston appeared with modified versions of their Friends catchphrases. The wild energy of Jason Alexander and the sneer of Alfonso Ribeiro reappeared. Even Tom Brady, who has a lengthy Super Bowl record but having a weak comedy resume, stepped in.
| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| Brand | Dunkin’ |
| Campaign Title | “Good Will Dunkin’” (Super Bowl 2026) |
| Creative Theme | Nostalgic parody blending Good Will Hunting and 1990s sitcoms |
| Featured Cast | Ben Affleck, Jennifer Aniston, Matt LeBlanc, Jason Alexander, Alfonso Ribeiro |
| Alleged Technology Use | Digital de-aging; viewers speculated AI involvement |
| Viewer Reaction | Mixed—admiration for nostalgia, criticism over uncanny visuals |
| Air Date | February 8, 2026 |
| External Source | Creative Bloq: Dunkin’ Donuts De-Aged ’90s Actors |
The strangely artificial texture of the entire advertisement caught viewers off guard. People’s faces glistened in an unfamiliar way. The grins lasted a bit too long. Although Dunkin’ has been noticeably quiet regarding the production methods, many believed AI had been employed to de-age the actors. In a time when deepfakes are both accepted and condemned, the visual ambiguity was sufficient to spark discussion.
Social media platforms have been inundated with comments in recent days. Some people thought the commercial was funny and endearing. Others said it was a very unnerving combination of machine and memory. One viewer said, “It’s like a nostalgia puppet show.” “Although not fully alive, the actors appeared to be themselves.”
The advertisement serves as a very similar case study for marketers to see how other firms have tried to combine nostalgia with innovative benefits. However, the timing of Dunkin’s attempt was what really made it impactful. Viewers were already on edge during an ad cycle full of AI-generated images, closely examining each pixel for indications of artificiality.
There is no denying the draw of employing AI in ad production because it can save money. Up to $10 million can be spent on a 30-second Super Bowl commercial, thus techniques that drastically cut down on production costs and time are becoming especially useful. However, shortcuts frequently have unforeseen effects, particularly when the emotional tone isn’t quite right.
In the opening scene, Affleck solves a challenging math problem involving Dunkin’ Munchkins arranged in a Fibonacci sequence. “How do you like these nuts?” is Aniston’s sly one-liner that combines product placement and allusion. However, when filtered through glossy, motion-smoothed faces devoid of tiny blemishes, these moments—which were meant to be playful—took on a different feel.
I stopped the film at one point to examine Aniston’s face. I was struck by how challenging it is to replicate human memory’s flaws with instruments meant to refine and improve it. That one instance made me realize how quickly technology may either magnify or diminish sentiment.
Even though AI wasn’t technically engaged, viewers’ uneasiness was reflected onto the advertisement, which makes it all the more fascinating. This response, which is based on perception rather than evidence, shows an increasing concern about the way simulation is combining with entertainment and advertising. Nostalgia might lose the very warmth it is intended to arouse if it is depicted too neatly.
In order to make its viewers feel visible, particularly those who grew up in the mid-1990s, the advertisement used fast-paced visual signals and well-chosen celebrity pairings. However, the emotional reward wasn’t consistent. While some blinked and said, “That was weird,” others laughed.
Nevertheless, Dunkin’s gamble was very creative. Its goal was not to sell coffee alone. Social validation in the form of “Remember this?” was being sold as recognition. And that was a really effective tactic for many. Almost immediately after, there was viral attention. Frames were halted, tech was examined, and clips were broken down. Even the people who were condemning the advertisement were still discussing it.
The brand was able to access a common visual language by utilizing sitcom iconography. But soon, the topic of discussion shifted from the brand to the advertising’s mechanics. How did it get made? Who gave the faces their approval? Was this really aggressive CGI or AI?
This blurring of method and message will probably happen more quickly in the years to come. Customers are becoming more adept at identifying artificial indications, such as distorted smiles, unusual eye movements, and overly precise jawlines. Additionally, it will get harder to tell the difference between modified and synthetic as technology advances.
That poses a problem as well as an opportunity for advertising. If done correctly, the advertisement turns into a joyful time for everyone. If you make a mistake, the uncanny will take center stage.
This distinction is more important than ever during the Super Bowl, when attention is limited and narrative clarity is crucial. Dunkin‘ may have produced the most talked-about advertisement, but it wasn’t the most well-made.
Since the premiere of “Good Will Dunkin,” viewers have exchanged frame-by-frame analysis, purchased the merchandise with a 90s theme, and downloaded the free coffee promo. The ad’s provocativeness, not its perfection, is what caused engagement to soar.
And that’s a noteworthy victory in a field where recall and resonance are key factors.
Whether the advertisement used generative AI or conventional visual effects is still up for debate, but perhaps that ambiguity contributed to its effectiveness. It encapsulated something both familiar and unfamiliar. People had to squirm, chuckle, rewind, and revisit it.
Accordingly, the advertisement wasn’t merely a skit full with references. It served as a mirror, reflecting our current perceptions of our favorite celebrities, our interactions with digital media, and our growing sense of nostalgia.
