There are things I hate worse. I accept that the ad is enabling me to see
a production for free. What I hate is paying for something and then
*still* having ads forced on me. I don't know how the Movie theaters
these days are getting away with it. And the forced commercials on DVD's
are just as bad.

Randy S.

I know. I hated paying for Starz and having them show upcoming Saturday
premieres during a movie's credits so I couldn't listen to the soundtrack. I
paid extra on my provider to see these movies uncut and commercial free and
not butchered like they are on basic cable. They may have cut back on their
logos and credit squeezes now, but doing it just once has left a bad taste
in my mouth that can never ever be washed away.

Once upon a time, Howard said:
Jeff is entirely correct. In a sense, yes, it IS a coincidence that that
'particular' candy was ET's favorite. The intent (and, as you noted, this
is very clearly explained at snopes.com) was for product placement, and for
that product to be M&Ms. They said no. Again, as that page points out, is
IS that way in the book.

If you go to a restaurant and order Coke but they bring you Pepsi, do
you consider it a "coincidence" that you are drinking Pepsi?

coincidence: A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have
been planned or arranged.

The movie producers wanted to have a product placement for the candy (no
accident). One choice rejected the placement but a second choice agreed
(no accident).
--
Chris Adams
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

In article , Michael
Walker wrote:

There are things I hate worse. I accept that the ad is enabling me to see
a production for free. What I hate is paying for something and then
*still* having ads forced on me. I don't know how the Movie theaters
these days are getting away with it. And the forced commercials on DVD's
are just as bad.

Randy S.

I know. I hated paying for Starz and having them show upcoming Saturday
premieres during a movie's credits so I couldn't listen to the soundtrack. I
paid extra on my provider to see these movies uncut and commercial free and
not butchered like they are on basic cable. They may have cut back on their
logos and credit squeezes now, but doing it just once has left a bad taste
in my mouth that can never ever be washed away.


I absolutely agree with this. When I'm paying for a premium channel, I
want the movies intact, and that includes the end credits and the
soundtrack under them. I enjoy soundtracks, and some of the best work
in them is in the end credits.

I understand Starz! is hanging on by its fingernails. ****ing off
loyal subscribers isn't going to help any. I don't quite trust them
anymore.

You even quote the definition of the word coincidence,
then explain that Reese's Pieces being the candy was accidental, but seems
to have been planned...while admitting that it was NOT the candy planned.

We can only give you the water, we can't drink it for you.


To be honest, I'm not sure it qualifies. Putting Reeses Pieces in the
movie *was* planned, it was not an accident. It was just their second
choice rather than their first. Now if Hershey had *asked* (without any
prior knowledge) to be placed in the movie as Mars was declining it,
*that* would be coincidence, or if they ran out of M&M's and just
*happened* to have a bunch of Reeses Pieces on hand, *that* would be
coincidence. But I think the actual story is more an example of irony
then coincidence.

Randy S.

Once upon a time, Howard said:
You even quote the definition of the word coincidence,
then explain that Reese's Pieces being the candy was accidental, but seems
to have been planned...while admitting that it was NOT the candy planned.

Choosing Reese's Pieces wasn't accidental.

accidental: occurring unexpectedly, unintentionally, or by chance.

Reese's Pieces didn't appear in the movie unexpectedly (there was a deal
with Hershey's to use them), unintentionally (after the deal was made
they showed Reese's Pieces prominently), or by chance.

Not getting your first choice doesn't make it accidental when you get
your second choice. It would have been a coincidence if, when the prop
guy went to the Kwik-E-Mart, they were out of M&Ms so he grabbed Reese's
Pieces, and at the same time Hershey's was working on a big marketing
campaign, and then the producers went to Hershey's and they decided to
do a product placement. When a movie or TV producer is looking to sell
product placement, they get rejected on the first try all the time and
they try someone else. It isn't an accident; it is business.
--
Chris Adams
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

Randy S. ) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
To be honest, I'm not sure it qualifies. Putting Reeses Pieces in the
movie *was* planned, it was not an accident. It was just their second
choice rather than their first.

The coincidence is that there was another candy that fit the "specs" for
the story.

Despite the fact that it did turn into product placement, M&Ms would have
been used anyway if Reese's Pieces didn't exist (or also turned down
the producers), because the style of the candy was somewhat important
to the plot. But, they would have gotten "normal" screen time, instead
of getting shots that made sure you could read the bag, etc.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/AngryTVGod.gif

Jeff Rife wrote:
Randy S. ) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:

To be honest, I'm not sure it qualifies. Putting Reeses Pieces in the
movie *was* planned, it was not an accident. It was just their second
choice rather than their first.


The coincidence is that there was another candy that fit the "specs" for
the story.

Despite the fact that it did turn into product placement, M&Ms would have
been used anyway if Reese's Pieces didn't exist (or also turned down
the producers), because the style of the candy was somewhat important
to the plot. But, they would have gotten "normal" screen time, instead
of getting shots that made sure you could read the bag, etc.


So the "coincidence" is therefore that Reeses Pieces are shaped like
M&M's and could be used in exactly the same way? Yes, I can buy that
then.

Randy S.

"Randy S." wrote...
So is this the new advertising model?

As others have written, not new at all. It used to annoy me that we were
always treated to a prolonged shot of the Ford emblem whenever Efrem
Zimbalist Jr. first pulled onto the scene in the FBI in 1965. Not only did
we not have TiVo, I'm not sure we had a remote!

In article , Don Jennings
wrote:

"Randy S." wrote...
So is this the new advertising model?

As others have written, not new at all. It used to annoy me that we were
always treated to a prolonged shot of the Ford emblem whenever Efrem
Zimbalist Jr. first pulled onto the scene in the FBI in 1965. Not only did
we not have TiVo, I'm not sure we had a remote!


I remember that they had to add a disclaimer that the FBI was not
actually endorsing Ford cars.

Some TV execs have convinced themselves that product placement is the
way to go. I don't think it is, especially as they tend to do it so
poorly, but I'm just out here watching TV and buying stuff. My guess
is that they need to return to the practice of having the stars of the
show do a commercial for the primary sponsor after the tag, but before
the end credits. I think people would watch a pitch by the actors on
the show they've just seen.

Otherwise, I don't think most commercials will ever be good enough to
snag our interest as we whiz past them.

In article ,
"Dr. Personality" wrote:

In article , Don Jennings
wrote:

"Randy S." wrote...
So is this the new advertising model?

As others have written, not new at all. It used to annoy me that we were
always treated to a prolonged shot of the Ford emblem whenever Efrem
Zimbalist Jr. first pulled onto the scene in the FBI in 1965. Not only did
we not have TiVo, I'm not sure we had a remote!


I remember that they had to add a disclaimer that the FBI was not
actually endorsing Ford cars.

Some TV execs have convinced themselves that product placement is the
way to go. I don't think it is, especially as they tend to do it so
poorly, but I'm just out here watching TV and buying stuff. My guess
is that they need to return to the practice of having the stars of the
show do a commercial for the primary sponsor after the tag, but before
the end credits. I think people would watch a pitch by the actors on
the show they've just seen.

Camels, not a cough in a carload.


Otherwise, I don't think most commercials will ever be good enough to
snag our interest as we whiz past them.