Apple Advertises OLD iPhone

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by Facebook, Apr 15, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Facebook macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2009
    #1
    Why would Apple choose to advertise the old iPhone as opposed to the iPhone 3g in the new movie 17 Again. Maybe this is just a mistake by the director, if it is, I smell a lawsuit.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Roessnakhan macrumors 68040

    Roessnakhan

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    ABQ
    #2
    Uh, lawsuit? Really? :rolleyes: I Love You, Man had an iPhone 2G in it too. Not all movie props are the result of funding from the company to spot their product.
     
  3. SFC Archer macrumors 68000

    SFC Archer

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Location:
    Troy, MT
    #3
    ....AND Apple has nothing to do with it!!! If a movie company/director decides to use an iPhone and goes out and buys it to use as a prop then goody for them. It is not advertising for apple although I am sure they don't mind.

    Not everything revolves around apple and the iPhone...my goodness...wake up:rolleyes:
     
  4. Blue Fox macrumors 6502a

    Blue Fox

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    #4
    Was the movie filmed before the 3G came out?

    24 features various Apple products (the old Cinema Display & Old MacBook Pro). Either that, or Apple wasn't involved at all.
     
  5. alexbates macrumors 65816

    alexbates

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    #5
    It seems like Apple tries to advertise on many TV shows.... like on 24, there are many ACD's and MacBook Pros's. And I'm sure that Apple is advertising there because they are a sponsor of the show.
     
  6. courtney.bella macrumors member

    courtney.bella

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Location:
    texas
    #6

    Also, I believe both Zac Efron and his girlfriend own original iPhones. Maybe it's Zac's phone and he wanted to use it?
     
  7. Roessnakhan macrumors 68040

    Roessnakhan

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    ABQ
    #7
    Yeah I think when it comes to movies they just let their actors use their own phones as there's no point to wasting money on phone props (see House, The Riches, etc.).
     
  8. renewed macrumors 68040

    renewed

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Location:
    Bemalte Blumen duften nicht.
    #8
    Maybe it is because they want to use the iPhone without showing that it is an iPhone.

    What I mean by this is simple. In Two and a Half Men, Charlie uses an iPhone (although half the time he holds it upside down and the ringer is no where close to an iPhone ringer, plus it beeps when he hangs up). Now if you look close you notice the Apple on the back is gone.

    I feel that the original iPhone is easier to sand off the Apple logo, rather then the new 3G. Therefore they can use the iPhone, without actually promoting a brand.

    This way they look new and hip but get to save some money in their pockets.
     
  9. SFC Archer macrumors 68000

    SFC Archer

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Location:
    Troy, MT
    #9
    Come on...Apple is not ADVERTISING...UNLESS you see real iPhone adds during the commercial periods. IF you watch American Idol then THAT is advertising. They advertise iTunes and post iPhone commercials during the breaks.

    Just because an Actor uses an iPhone on ANY show DOES NOT mean apple is advertising. It means that the director believes that that is the appropriate prop because its popular and audiance will relate...its NOT advertising per say.

    You are tunnel visioned.
     
  10. SFStateStudent macrumors 604

    SFStateStudent

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Location:
    San Francisco California, USA
    #10
    +1 ^^^ I've seen too many iPhones v1 & 3G in so many movies and tv shows that I'm just spinning. I've seen the actor(s) use the iPhone covering up the Apple logo and using the iPhone "UPSIDE DOWN" so does this mean they'll be sued for being dumb enough to use the iPhone upside down (sometimes planned) and covering up the Apple logo? I doubt it......
     
  11. cellocello macrumors 68000

    cellocello

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #11
    People are pretty bad at "smelling lawsuits" around here.
     
  12. Roessnakhan macrumors 68040

    Roessnakhan

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    ABQ
    #12
    There's few cases in which a company will restrict the use their product, its like not having to pay anyone for filming in Times Square, given all the ads. Its a public area, and those types are products are expected to be seen.

    Its in scenarios when a bad guy (e.g. a terrorist drinks a coke, or uses an iPhone), that a company can object. Note I say "object" not "sue." :p
     
  13. goosnarrggh macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    #13
    Just a couple of observations:

    1) The 3G was released in July 2008. It's entirely possible that the film entered production well before then. In that case, it may be that the 3G wasn't available to use as a prop yet.

    2) Sometimes, companies do foot the bill for product placements in movies and television. (Apple did this once with a Macontosh Plus in 1986 for Star Trek IV - and Apple Computer Company is listed in the movie's credits. Apparently the producers originally wanted to use an Amiga, but Commodore wouldn't let them use one for free. Apple did.) But most of the time when an Apple product is used in a movie or television show, it's probably because the producer bought it specifically to use as a prop.
     
  14. RITZFit macrumors 65816

    RITZFit

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    In my Corner
    #14
    lawsuits...I lol'd. guess there better not be ANY old products in the movie...no old cars, electronics, etc :rolleyes:
     
  15. SFC Archer macrumors 68000

    SFC Archer

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Location:
    Troy, MT
    #15
    OK I am really confused where this lawsuit thing is coming from:confused::confused::confused:

    Just because an actor uses an iPhone as it was intended to be used, but he/she is using it as a prop as a phone...how is that a lawsuit offense???

    My god, where do they come from...does every damn thing in America have to entail a lawsuit???

    If they were tearing the product apart and telling someone about trade secrets and altering the product then MAYBE yeah. But using the iPhone as a Phone on a friggin movie/tv show...LAWSUIT...NOT, no friggin way...it is utterly stupid!!!

    It is free product advertising and apple wouldnt do a thing about it. Just like all the Mac Book Apples you see on laptops used in movies/tv shows today. Its not paid Apple Advertising, its props that these movie companies use because it adds to the realism of the media. WAKE UP
     
  16. goosnarrggh macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    #16
    It's coming from the final sentence of the original post at the top of this thread. I agree, though, it's ridiculous to suppose that a lawsuit could actually come out of this.
     
  17. TEG macrumors 604

    TEG

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2002
    Location:
    Langley, Washington
    #17
    For the most part, the use of iPhones in TV and Movies are related to the actors. Unless the production company is getting product placement money for a particular phone (like James Bond using Sony Ericcson Phones, because the series is owned by Sony), then often the actors use their personal phones, one from the prop closet, or one from another staff member. I know that Sean Murray's use of an iPhone in NCIS results from the fact that he stood in line in LA and bought one when the came out. It also happens that it also fits his character, so the producers keep featuring it, often doing impossible things they mimic with Quicktime movies.

    Just remember, not all the products shown on TV or in movies are paid endorsements.

    TEG
     
  18. macjock macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    #18
    Charlie in two and a half men used a 2g iphone upside down
     
  19. synth3tik macrumors 68040

    synth3tik

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #19
    WOW really? You think all that?

    1: Apple (officially) does not get involved in product placement.
    2: A lawsuit? Really?
     
  20. Facebook thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2009
    #20
    Nope, Zac Efron has an iPhone 3g, why would be bring is obsolete iPhone on set.
    [​IMG]
     
  21. WildCowboy Administrator/Editor

    WildCowboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #21
    The movie was filmed before the iPhone 3G came out. The film was supposed to be released last August, but was pushed back. Filming took place in early 2008.
     
  22. SFC Archer macrumors 68000

    SFC Archer

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Location:
    Troy, MT
    #22
    Dude...its because they are the OWNERS of the friggin phone they use!!! It has NOTHING to do with ADVERTISING or LAWSUITS.

    My wife has a classic and I have a 3G. If we both go to a concert and have our pictures taken by Rolling Stones and it ends up on the cover of a magazine is Apple going to SUE me or my wife because I am holding the WRONG phone???

    Im done...this stupid lawsuit crap is startin to piss me off and I don't want to go there.:mad::mad::mad:

    Did it ever cross that tunnel visioned mind of yours that he MAY HAVE UPGRADED when the 3G came out???
     
  23. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #23
    Holy crap this thread is funny. OP, you clearly have no idea what would constitute a lawsuit. A lawsuit because an older generation device was used? An actor owning one phone and using another on the set for a movie? Interesting, this should be punishable in a court of law. :rolleyes:

    OP ... :shakes head:
     
  24. Mr_Brightside_@ macrumors 68020

    Mr_Brightside_@

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    Location:
    The 6ix
    #24
    1. His name is Facebook.
    2. He clearly believes 17 Again is an at least somewhat respectable film.
    3. He believes the original iPhone is obsolete.
    I've always wanted to do this, so...
    /thread
    edit: about the lawsuit, I THINK he assumed the movie was shot after the 3G release, that Apple paid for the 3G to be featured, that the director (who would not be responsible for it anyway) accidentally used a 1st gen instead, and that Apple would therefore sue (the director). I see this kind of thing happen on the regular, people. It's no laughing matter.
     
  25. nick9191 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Britain
    #25
    Because they would have shot the film well before July 2008 :rolleyes:

    Lawsuit? The mind boggles.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page