Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version VT3.4 8/17/84; site vortex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!vortex!lauren
From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: ads in movies
Message-ID: <395@vortex.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 26-Aug-84 18:09:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: vortex.395
Posted: Sun Aug 26 18:09:02 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Aug-84 20:11:32 EDT
References: <11600002@hpfcnml.uucp>
Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles
Lines: 21

You bet it's paid advertising, BUT it isn't clear to me that there's
anything wrong with it.  The whole idea in most film making is
to lend an air of authenticity to the situations.  When you go out
normally you see thousands of brand names all around you.  The alternative
to using real brand names in films is to have all sorts of silly
generic names that just call attention to themselves and can ruin
the "feel" of the film.  Our real world is full of brand names, so
a "realistic" movie should also use brand names if it doesn't want
to appear silly.  Of course, if a film starts showing brand names
in "unnatural" situations, things have gone a bit overboard.

I wish they could do the same thing with phone numbers.  It grates
on my nerves everytime someone dials a 555+ number in a film.
In fact, if I had a nickel for every television program or film
where the number used was 555-2368 I might have a fair sum.
(This number is the classic "dummy" number designated by AT&T
years ago for artwork.  In full, it's (311) 555-2368.  I've seen
some old General Telephone docs where they also used this number
or (311) KL-5-2368 -- which is the same number, of course.)

--Lauren--