ST Alpha - "Apparently Fox wouldn't let 84 Lumber air their full ad, which is why we had to see it online. -- (link)" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 158

Apparently Fox wouldn't let 84 Lumber air their full ad, which is why we had to see it online. -- (link)

Posted by Mop (aka rburriel) Feb 6 '17, 08:56

(No message)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/02/04/company-re-tools-rejected-super-bowl-ad-but-you-can-still-see-the-original/?utm_term=.2da569f83cd1 (www.washingtonpost.com)

Responses:

4:46? Like they would have spent 47.75M!!! -- nm - Spawn Feb 6, 09:00 7
- They edited to the SB ad length and released the longer one online. - spamlet Feb 6, 09:02 3
  - I know, just not sure how they could have made that one fit. - Spawn Feb 6, 09:13 2
    - I would think the wall would have been the money shot for the whole commercial though. -- nm - groiny Feb 6, 09:14 1
      - Yeah, but if they got there and found the door immediately it would feel hollow. - Spawn Feb 6, 09:17
- This is why I call Bullshit. -- nm - Ender Feb 6, 09:01 2
  - It's not BS. Fox clearly rejected a shortened version intended for air -- (edited) - ty97 Feb 6, 09:06 1
    - CENSORSHIP! I hear Trump called Fox and said he'd revoke their FCC license if they didn't pull the ad! -- nm - Mop Feb 6, 09:17
No explicit politics is a longstanding SB ad policy. -- nm - spamlet Feb 6, 09:00
That's not uncommon with Super Bowls ads IIRC, there have been rejected ads in the past for being too political - ty97 Feb 6, 08:59
without delving into it - i read rumours that the owner is actually Pro-Trump. ?? -- nm - Andie Feb 6, 08:57

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.