Filming the commercial, Candice was given free reign to create the “Ms. Cappelli” character any way she wanted. “I made up the whole commercial,” Candice said. “The script is the part that said ‘It’s $8.95 for a year.’ Everything that was said after that, I made up. It was all me and whatever I could come up with.”
#42 Posted on 8.2.05 1943.49 Reposted on: 8.2.12 1944.42
Originally posted by The Associated Press A racy TV ad for a vendor of Web site names was pulled before a second showing during the Super Bowl after NFL executives objected that the spot made light of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" in last year's halftime show.
As was pointed out by CRZ in another thread (The W) there was a Budweiser ad that didn't even get a single airing for the same reason: because it poked fun at last year's Super Bowl half-time mishap. I think this bears repeating: the NFL was upset with these two ads [were there more?] not because they were indecent, not because they contained nudity, not because they contained foul language, but because they made fun of the NFL. So FOX becomes the second network (the Disney owned ESPN with its canceling of "Playmakers" being the first) to make it clear that it will not air anything that upsets NFL executives, regardless of whether or not that material violates any network standards.
Since last post: 2205 days Last activity: 2205 days
#44 Posted on 9.2.05 0210.18 Reposted on: 9.2.12 0210.26
"So FOX becomes the second network (the Disney owned ESPN with its canceling of "Playmakers" being the first) to make it clear that it will not air anything that upsets NFL executives, regardless of whether or not that material violates any network standards."
Because that had nothing to do with the fact that Playmakers sucked? Maybe I'm missing something on that one though, so feel free to dig up their ratings and prove otherwise.
#45 Posted on 9.2.05 0544.07 Reposted on: 9.2.12 0544.19
Originally posted by HrdCoreJoeBecause that had nothing to do with the fact that Playmakers sucked? Maybe I'm missing something on that one though, so feel free to dig up their ratings and prove otherwise.
Happy to oblige:
Originally posted by John ConsoliClick Here (mediaweek.com)Yielding to pressure from the National Football League, ESPN has decided not to renew its successful freshman drama series, Playmakers....The show produced a solid 1.9 household rating, and drew more than 2 million viewers per night during its 11-episode run. In an era where few new shows are ratings successes each year, it is highly unusual for a network to cancel a show that generates solid ratings....The issue of whether ESPN must always be pro-professional sports because it covers professional sports was raised in a Dec. 1 Mediaweek column on sports TV. The decision to cancel the successful Playmakers appears to have answered that question.
Originally posted by Eddie PellsClick Here (xposed.com)"Playmakers" drew a 1.9 rating for the season, meaning an average of about 2 million people watched it each week.That was five times the ratings the network drew for that time slot the previous year.
Originally posted by Darren RovellClick Here (espn.go.com)In its only season, "Playmakers" won critical praise and pulled in a significant audience -- an average of 1.6 million households for each of the show's 11 episodes.