(full site)
Fark.com

Try out our new mobile site!


Back To Main
   Anheuser-Busch wants all shots of Budweiser removed from new Denzel Washington movie, outraged at the implication that anyone could get drunk off of their product

06 Nov 2012 03:35 AM   |   7556 clicks   |   The Big Story
Showing 1-50 of 79 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
Captain Steroid    [TotalFark]  
i138.photobucket.comView Full Size

05 Nov 2012 09:53 PM
Happy Hours     
Not wanted for questioning:

4.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size

05 Nov 2012 10:21 PM
Mentat    [TotalFark]  

06 Nov 2012 12:07 AM
cygnusx13     
You can get drunk off Bud? I thought you could only get IBS.

/the more you know.

06 Nov 2012 03:37 AM
Gdalescrboz     
"The lawsuit claimes your product encourages minors to drink alcohol therefor you are responsible for the deaths of 5 minors who who driving intoxicated. We will settle for $25million or we can take this to court where we will doup some jury into awarding us $100million by showing them pictures of dead babies and appealing to their emotions rather than facts."

Yeah, in this day and age I wouldn't want my product promoting anything I specifically endorse

06 Nov 2012 03:39 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do     
tuff shiat, Anheuser-Busch, it is what it is. accept it. you want to spend all the dollars to be on top, this shows how popular you are.

you Anheuser-Busch CEO's chose this lifestyle. deal with it

06 Nov 2012 03:42 AM
Gyrfalcon     
Whatever. Call me when they don't want their precious trademarks associated with, say James Bond or Batman.

06 Nov 2012 03:42 AM
mikewadestr     
My understanding of the film is that the guy would have crashed the plane if he wasn't drunk. Go Budweser! Drink and fly straight.

06 Nov 2012 03:44 AM
zerkalo     
Millions in product placement on the line. You think Hollywood would be smarter than this. What are they on?

06 Nov 2012 03:46 AM
henryhill     
I find myself outraged at the kind of people that get drunk on Budweiser also.

06 Nov 2012 03:47 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do     
i guess the producers used Anheuser-Busch as the prop, because it would be absurd any airline pilot would drink that crap.

their product is drunk by only rednecks and wrestlers.

06 Nov 2012 03:50 AM
ShannonKW     
I'm not exactly "outraged", but certainly appalled and disgusted at the implication that people get drunk off Budweiser.

06 Nov 2012 03:53 AM
HotWingAgenda    [TotalFark]  

Gdalescrboz: "The lawsuit claimes your product encourages minors to drink alcohol therefor you are responsible for the deaths of 5 minors who who driving intoxicated. We will settle for $25million or we can take this to court where we will doup some jury into awarding us $100million by showing them pictures of dead babies and appealing to their emotions rather than facts."

Yeah, in this day and age I wouldn't want my product promoting anything I specifically endorse


If it worked that way, brewers would all be getting sued constantly, and losing. If Busch tried to sue a movie studio for encouraging drunk driving, they would suffer just as badly as the studio, if not worse, since the movie itself can't harm anyone, but their beer can.

/lol, beer can

06 Nov 2012 03:54 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do     

HotWingAgenda: /lol, beer can


people make fun of beer in a can. the guinness cans are pretty good.

06 Nov 2012 04:04 AM
Gdalescrboz     

HotWingAgenda
Gdalescrboz: "The lawsuit claimes your product encourages minors to drink alcohol therefor you are responsible for the deaths of 5 minors who who driving intoxicated. We will settle for $25million or we can take this to court where we will doup some jury into awarding us $100million by showing them pictures of dead babies and appealing to their emotions rather than facts."

Yeah, in this day and age I wouldn't want my product promoting anything I specifically endorse

If it worked that way, brewers would all be getting sued constantly, and losing. If Busch tried to sue a movie studio for encouraging drunk driving, they would suffer just as badly as the studio, if not worse, since the movie itself can't harm anyone, but their beer can.

/lol, beer can


No, i mean parents/family of those killed could sue. They could easily be sued if someone wants to claim their product encouraged their husband to drink a bottle of Stolichnaya vodka and go fly a plane, which is exactly what is happening in the movie.

06 Nov 2012 04:05 AM
Gdalescrboz     
HotWingAgenda

Would they win that lawsuit? In todays world, probably. But even if they didnt Budweiser would spend a fortune defending themselves. They are just trying to stop it before it happens

06 Nov 2012 04:06 AM
Omahawg     
take the farkin' rice out of it already!

/hangover

06 Nov 2012 04:13 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do     
i havent seen the movie, but doesn't the drunk dude save lives? i say go fark yourselves.

06 Nov 2012 04:17 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do     

What_Would_Jimi_Do: i havent seen the movie, but doesn't the drunk dude save lives? i say go fark yourselves.


it is fiction.

06 Nov 2012 04:18 AM
Buffet     
Anheuser-Busch can go Fark themselves.

06 Nov 2012 04:19 AM
stoli n coke     
Sounds like a publicity stunt. Budweiser has been featured in virtually every studio movie and TV show that has had a scene that takes place in a bar. Why are they butthurt now?

06 Nov 2012 04:26 AM
ArcadianRefugee     
That's why I only drink

25.media.tumblr.comView Full Size

06 Nov 2012 04:28 AM
Nrokreffefp     
This is awesome! Its like an opposition to brand promotion through films through legal loopholes. Why don't they run a mafia style scheme where they extort cash from people to *not* embarrass/implicate them on film?

06 Nov 2012 04:29 AM
zerkalo     
While I am not a bee rsnob, I can say that I have never been so drunk of Bud to have a hangover the next day

06 Nov 2012 04:30 AM
Happy Hours     

mikewadestr: My understanding of the film is that the guy would have crashed the plane if he wasn't drunk. Go Budweser! Drink and fly straight.


I haven't seen the film but I sort of watched Denzel Washington on Charlie Rose last week. He related a story of when he was making a film early in his career. He and another cast member had a few drinks before a scene was filmed and they both thought they were brilliant.

The director disagreed with their performance and cancelled filming that night because they were both horrible. The point of that story was that they thought they were doing a good job and apparently the pilot in Flight thinks he's doing a good job too. As long as nobody notices Denzel's character is drunk he thinks he's doing well.

This is a rare case of a movie that I actually want to see (but I don't go to movie theaters so I'll have to wait). Whether or not he could have avoided a crash if he were sober is inconsequential. It certainly didn't help the situation and since he was drunk all of the blame is placed on him.

That's just my understanding - as I said I haven't actually seen the movie.

06 Nov 2012 04:36 AM
Bomb Head Mohammed     
thisiswhywecanthavenicethings.jpg

06 Nov 2012 04:40 AM
Monongahela Misfit     
Nope, I don't need written permission to drag Your Company logo thru the mud. I can also burn the flag of any nation I despise, and spit on the graves of people I didn't even know. Why? Because Freedom. Why else? Why do You ask?

Silly Asshole, Freedom is also Responsibility.

06 Nov 2012 04:40 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do     
no one has pointed this out yet. a black pilot. come on really?

06 Nov 2012 04:42 AM
MattyBlast    [TotalFark]  
"Although product placement, where companies pay producers to have their brands seen on-camera, have become ubiquitous in movies and television,..."

...subject-verb agreement has become less and less ubiquitous in poorly-written news articles.

/farking douchebag retard butt-twang editors

06 Nov 2012 05:04 AM
swingerofbirches     
When I was in 12th grade AP English, I wrote a short story that involved a character drinking Budweiser. My teacher was outraged I wrote a story containing someone drinking alcohol (making it seem like she didn't understand a word of what happened in the Shakespeare we read that year). She also pointed out that I should have put a copyright symbol next to Budweiser, which as far as I know, would only seem to imply that I owned the copyright to it.

She was actually a graduate of William and Mary, which is supposed to be America's most brainy school in terms of academic pressure. But she insisted there is no subjunctive in the English language!

She gave me a B in the class, and I got a 5 on the AP exam that she told would be a waste of my money (she really hated me).

/Bad times . . .
//She should get together with Budweiser on this one and raise Hell, again.
///I'm angry for other reasons, but it feels really good to hate old horrible high-school teachers again. Thank you for indulging me.

06 Nov 2012 05:06 AM
Easy Reader     
E.T. (and by consequence adolescent Elliot) got drunk on Coors. God, I miss Spielbérgo drunk scenes. You can often rate the quality of his films by the ABV. Try it!

06 Nov 2012 05:09 AM
Cyclometh    [TotalFark]  
Do not fark with Hollywood. Here's what happens next:

No Budweiser product ever gets into a film for the next 20 years. But tons of placement of their competition does.

06 Nov 2012 05:12 AM
Waldo Pepper     

mikewadestr: My understanding of the film is that the guy would have crashed the plane if he wasn't drunk. Go Budweser! Drink and fly straight.


gee thanks for spoiling the movie.

06 Nov 2012 05:15 AM
Hardy-r-r    [TotalFark]  
I say you shoot a scene where Denzel refuses a Bud and picks up a Keystone.

Happy now, Mr. Andhowsyer Bush

06 Nov 2012 05:17 AM
moothemagiccow     

Gyrfalcon: Whatever. Call me when they don't want their precious trademarks associated with, say James Bond or Batman.


Hey, he may be a womanizing murderer, but don't you want to be him, I mean, he gets lots of ass and probably has herpes and occasional PTSD but he sure looks good in a tuxedo.

06 Nov 2012 05:31 AM
Haliburton Cummings     
i try and have Budweiser removed from everything..fridges, parties.

it's warm piss from the belly of Nazis.... or for you Nazi symps, Las Vegas tapwater...

no thanks...

06 Nov 2012 05:38 AM
MadameX     
i911.photobucket.comView Full Size

06 Nov 2012 05:50 AM
Psycat     
Considering how much money Anheuser-Busch spent over the years to keep pot illegal, I consider this karmic retribution...

06 Nov 2012 05:56 AM
mike_d85     

moothemagiccow: Gyrfalcon: Whatever. Call me when they don't want their precious trademarks associated with, say James Bond or Batman.

Hey, he may be a womanizing murderer, but don't you want to be him, I mean, he gets lots of ass and probably has herpes and occasional PTSD but he sure looks good in a tuxedo.


Funny you mention PTSD because I often wonder if Bond is some fantasy world for a rapist vet with really bad PTSD, a penchant for funny sounding names and a class-warfare mentality.

/"my car has missles and YOU'RE DEAD"
//"Sir, stop beating Dr. No with a wrench"

06 Nov 2012 05:56 AM
Haliburton Cummings     

Psycat: Considering how much money Anheuser-Busch spent over the years to keep pot illegal, I consider this karmic retribution...


(citation needed)

06 Nov 2012 06:16 AM
Psycat     

Haliburton Cummings: (citation needed)


Yes, I know it's Wikipedia, but they echo what I've seen in many other websites.

"PDFA was the subject of criticism when it was revealed by Cynthia Cotts of the Village Voice that their federal tax returns showed that they had received several million dollars worth of funding from major pharmaceutical, tobacco and alcohol corporations including American Brands (Jim Beam whiskey), Philip Morris (Marlboro and Virginia Slims cigarettes, Miller beer), Anheuser Busch (Budweiser, Michelob, Busch beer), R.J. Reynolds (Camel, Salem, Winston cigarettes), as well as pharmaceutical firms Bristol Meyers-Squibb, Merck & Company and Procter & Gamble. From 1997 it has discontinued any direct fiscal association with tobacco and alcohol suppliers, although it still receives donations from pharmaceutical companies.[48] There has been criticism that some of its PSAs have had "little proven effect on drug use."[32]

I have a dial-up that's extremely slooooow, otherwise I'd probably be able to find the actual chart that shows exactly how much the booze, cancer-stick, and pill-pushing industries contributed to the *guffaw* Partnership For a Drug-Free America.

Oh, and here's another link 4 Industries Getting Rich Off the Drug War. If that's not enough, I might Google some more links implicating Anheuser-Busch and others in the never-ending war on non-corporate drugs...

06 Nov 2012 06:34 AM
Psycat     
Seriously, though, why would any street-smart person not think that the beer barons, Anheuser-Busch included, wouldn't spend a lot of money to discourage marijuana legalization?

Alcohol kills about 85-100,000 Americans each year and is implicated in over 50% of violent crime, including murder. All illegal drugs COMBINED maybe kill 15-20,000, and that includes baddies like heroin, meth, and PCP. Since the L/D 50 dosage of pot is something like 20,000 joints, an overdose of THC is very, very unlikely and accidental deaths from herb are infinitesimal compared to those caused by alcohol. Then, of course, there's other negative things about alcohol like hangovers or making a total fool of oneself. And, despite commercials showing eggs in frying pans, the only drug that actually kills brain cells directly is--you guessed it--alcohol.

No wonder the drug peddlers in the booze industry are scared shipless about pot being legalized. On an even playing field, just about any sane person can see which would win in a competition between alcohol and marijuana. I remember reading an article years ago in which bar owners near a college were lamenting the fact that the bars were just about emptied out after herb-smoking became popular on campus.

I also recall an ad in a Playboy back in the 90s from RJ Reynolds in which they portrayed people with vices as martyrs to political correctness by depicting a humorous parade of vices including cigarettes, alcohol, and red meat. Pot, of course, was absent in the parade--funny how those quasi-libertarians who support a person's right to smoke cancer sticks or drink themselves into a coma suddenly get quiet when it comes to the idea of pot legalization. I also recall that ultimately funding for 1930s scare movies like Reefer Madness came indirectly from the recently-legalized booze industry via various won't-somebody-think-of-the-children groups.

Face it, folks, most of the War on Non-Corporate Drugs is a turf war between the legal drug pushers and a potential legal marijuana industry...

06 Nov 2012 06:53 AM
LonMead     

How about just a disclaimer:

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO FLY PASSENGER JETS UPSIDE-DOWN AFTER DRINKING BUDWEISER!

That's something better left for Coors drinkers.

06 Nov 2012 06:58 AM
stonicus     
FTFA: Dougherty and Mark Partridge, a Chicago intellectual property lawyer, also noted that a court rejected an effort to get by Caterpillar Inc. to get its logo removed from tractors driven by the villains in 2003's "George of the Jungle 2." The company had argued its trademark was harmed by having its product associated with the film's villains.

I would bet my life that not one single person who was going to buy a Caterpillar vehicle didn't because of its inclusion in George of the Jungle 2.

06 Nov 2012 07:00 AM
qsblues     
People can get drunk on Budweiser? This must be fiction depicted in a motion picture. Whoda thunk?

06 Nov 2012 07:55 AM
evilmrsock     

stonicus: FTFA: Dougherty and Mark Partridge, a Chicago intellectual property lawyer, also noted that a court rejected an effort to get by Caterpillar Inc. to get its logo removed from tractors driven by the villains in 2003's "George of the Jungle 2." The company had argued its trademark was harmed by having its product associated with the film's villains.

I would bet my life that not one single person who was going to buy a Caterpillar vehicle didn't because of its inclusion in George of the Jungle 2.


Somewhere, a landscaper with an autistic kid who wouldn't stop crying about the goddamn monkeys every goddamn day until he had to sell off his pair of Catepillar mini-dozers and buy Blackcats instead is silently screaming inside, his soul paying out on your side of the bet.

06 Nov 2012 08:05 AM
This text is now purple     

cygnusx13: You can get drunk off Bud? I thought you could only get IBS.

/the more you know.


Budweiser is higher proof than Guinness

06 Nov 2012 08:12 AM
lifeboat     
Many years ago when I was a bartender in a restaurant, I had a guy come in and ask for any beer but Budweiser. I served him something on tap and asked him what his issue was with Bud. He said last time he had it he got wasted and blew chunks all night long. I said, "hey, we've all been there" and he said, "no you don't understand, Chunks is my dog."

/rim shot

06 Nov 2012 08:14 AM
cwolf20     
In other news. A cute little company thinks people go out and drink products from a movie.

06 Nov 2012 08:19 AM
kiwimoogle84    [TotalFark]  

What_Would_Jimi_Do: HotWingAgenda: /lol, beer can

people make fun of beer in a can. the guinness cans are pretty good.


Beer snob thread?

Boddingtons from the can is great. I prefer tap otherwise.

/arrogant bastard FTW

06 Nov 2012 08:22 AM
Showing 1-50 of 79 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined