Author Topic: Interesting Bit of News From the Perfesser (Read 17393 times)

Terry K · « **Reply #15 on:** June 12, 2005, 09:17:03 PM »

Password is less of a problem. The cigarette plugs can be easily edited from them since there's no sponsor logo on the set.

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #16 on:** June 12, 2005, 09:44:06 PM »

If they can't be on GSN anymore, Fremantle could always put out uncut DVD's with parental lock capabilities. They could give them away with the purchase of cartons of Marlboros and Old Golds.

FeudDude · « **Reply #17 on:** June 12, 2005, 10:57:37 PM »

[quote name=\'Terry K\' date=\'Jun 12 2005, 09:17 PM\']Password is less of a problem. The cigarette plugs can be easily edited from them since there's no sponsor logo on the set.

[snapback]88799[/snapback]

[/quote]

Yes...in fact, that's exactly what they've been doing. That explains the abrupt cuts.

ilb4ever2000 · « **Reply #18 on:** June 13, 2005, 12:13:19 AM »

[quote name=\'FeudDude\' date=\'Jun 12 2005, 09:57 PM\']Yes...in fact, that's exactly what they've been doing. That explains the abrupt cuts.

[snapback]88808[/snapback]

[/quote]

If they go to break after the opening, then it was sponsored by Salem (or Dutch Masters Cigars). These shouldn't be a problem.

Now a couple questions:

Cavalier isn't around anymore. Could they still air episode sponsored by them (probably not, since I mentioned they used to blur the signs on IGAS)?

Just what shows had prominent cigarette sponsorship (signs, host pitches, etc.)? We've covered Two for the Money, Judge for Yourself, many 1950s episodes of IGAS, and some TTTTs. Anything else?

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #19 on:** June 13, 2005, 12:41:09 AM »

"Take a Good Look" with Ernie Kovacs, Dutch Masters. "Penny to a Million," was Raleigh. "Go Lucky" was sponsored by Lucky Strikes.

ilb4ever2000 · « **Reply #20 on:** June 13, 2005, 01:07:31 AM »

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Jun 12 2005, 11:41 PM\']"Take a Good Look" with Ernie Kovacs, Dutch Masters. "Penny to a Million," was Raleigh. "Go Lucky" was sponsored by Lucky Strikes.

[snapback]88817[/snapback]

[/quote]

I meant stuff that GSN has. Sorry for not clarifying that...

wschmrdr · « **Reply #21 on:** June 13, 2005, 01:38:29 PM »

There may have been a game of the week sponsored by cigarette commercials, but I think we covered them all.

I think putting out DVDs of the episodes would be VERY expensive, considering there were probably a couple hundred episodes.

I know there was a comment about "right-wing liberals" or conservatives trying to take these off the air. It usually isn't the conservatives that try to make everything in this country "politically correct". I have a feeling it's the same people that try to take statues of the Ten Commandments down, or those that favor affirmative action, etc.

I see these old 1950's game shows as works of art, because that's really what television was back then. They're historical artifacts. Think about it: you don't immediately think Venus DeMilo needs to have a shirt on because her boobs are showing, do you?

TLEberle · « **Reply #22 on:** June 13, 2005, 02:05:54 PM »

[quote name=\'wschmrdr\' date=\'Jun 13 2005, 10:38 AM\']I see these old 1950's game shows as works of art, because that's really what television was back then. [/quote] You keep beating this drum, but no one's listening anymore. TV was an art form back then? What is it now, pray tell? TV is TV. They're all there to make money, not for a greater good to society.

Quote

They're historical artifacts. Think about it: you don't immediately think Venus DeMilo needs to have a shirt on because her boobs are showing, do you?
[snapback]88865[/snapback]

If someone can't figure out the difference between a tobacco ad being improper on television, and the representation of a nude woman as opposed to a real form nude, then I can't help them. This analogy makes no sense.

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #23 on:** June 13, 2005, 02:14:10 PM »

Maybe not a shirt but she could use a couple arms.

Steve Gavazzi · « **Reply #24 on:** June 13, 2005, 02:32:19 PM »

[quote name=\'wschmrdr\' date=\'Jun 13 2005, 01:38 PM\']I have a feeling it's the same people that try to take statues of the Ten Commandments down

[snapback]88865[/snapback]

[/quote]

And you think they do belong in a government building of a country that supposedly represents people of all religions equally?

(Which is not to say that the people who try to get them taken down don't have far too much time on their hands...)

DrBear · « **Reply #25 on:** June 13, 2005, 03:08:57 PM »

(BLOWS LOUD WHISTLE THAT MARKED THE END OF PLAY ON "G.E. COLLEGE BOWL.")

OK, let's not get into a political debate here ...

Terry K · « **Reply #26 on:** June 14, 2005, 10:51:53 AM »

I have to question why they'd even need to cut them? Cable isn't under the FCC regulations in terms of content. The only thing I can think of the settlement with big tobacco.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #27 on:** June 14, 2005, 11:38:33 AM »

[quote name=\'Terry K\' date=\'Jun 14 2005, 10:51 AM\']I have to question why they'd even need to cut them? Cable isn't under the FCC regulations in terms of content. The only thing I can think of the settlement with big tobacco.[/quote]This isn't a cable vs broadcast issue. The Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 wasn't an FCC policy or guideline, it was a law passed by Congress.

NickintheATL · « **Reply #28 on:** June 14, 2005, 01:57:38 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Jun 14 2005, 11:38 AM\'][quote name=\'Terry K\' date=\'Jun 14 2005, 10:51 AM\']I have to question why they'd even need to cut them? Cable isn't under the FCC regulations in terms of content. The only thing I can think of the settlement with big tobacco.[/quote]This isn't a cable vs broadcast issue. The Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 wasn't an FCC policy or guideline, it was a law passed by Congress.

[snapback]88992[/snapback]

[/quote]

You're absolutely right Matt, the law as passed by congress used the terms "television" and "radio" in general, it did not apply to any specific method of transmission in any way shape or form, just to the mediums in general terms.

Please clarify this for me Matt, I'm assuming the act was written in 1969, but did not go into law until 1971, correct?

DrBear · « **Reply #29 on:** June 14, 2005, 05:48:13 PM »

This will show you how long ago that law was passed: it didn't go into effect until midnight of Jan. 1, instead of, say, midnight Dec. 31. Why? So the networks could get revenue from ciggybutt ads on the New Year's bowl games. Today, they'd probably ask for a holdoff until after the Super Bowl.

Of course, types of advertising that were forbidden then are now on air including hard liquor, condoms, and bra ads with live models. What a world, what a world.