Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Product placement
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===Tobacco=== Tobacco companies have made direct payment to stars for using their [[cigarette]]s in films. Sylvester Stallone received US$500,000 to use [[Brown and Williamson]] tobacco products in five feature films.<ref>[http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tmq36b00U.S. Exhibit 21,044] Legacy Tobacco Documents Library</ref><ref>[http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hlm56b00 Re: agreements between Stallone and Associated Film Promotions] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110614120311/http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hlm56b00 |date=June 14, 2011 }} Legacy Tobacco Documents Library</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/about/about_collections.jsp#ucbw|title=Master Settlement Agreement Collections|access-date=May 30, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100622090229/http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/about/about_collections.jsp#ucbw|archive-date=June 22, 2010|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> In response to a ''[[Christian Science Monitor]]'' article<ref>{{cite journal |last=Bergman |first=Carol |title=Tobacco's Cloudy Image on The Silver Screen |url=http://www.csmonitor.com/1989/0728/ebond.html |journal=The Christian Science Monitor |access-date=June 13, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140413155826/http://www.csmonitor.com/1989/0728/ebond.html |archive-date=April 13, 2014 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all |date=1989-07-28 }}</ref> accusing the industry of deliberately using product placement as an advertising strategy, the [[Tobacco Institute]] claimed that product placement is driven by filmmakers to "achieve desired artistic effects but also to offset production costs". It also claimed "the 1970 federal ban on cigarette advertising on television and radio does not prohibit payments to filmmakers for the use of cigarettes in a film." The rebuttal concludes with the sentiment that smoking in film provides a certain "aesthetic" which is legitimate and at the filmmaker's discretion.<ref>{{cite web |title=Letter to Curtis Sitome |url=http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yvo72f00/pdf |publisher=University of California |access-date=June 13, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140616043635/http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yvo72f00/pdf |archive-date=June 16, 2014 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)