Comments on: Arizona and Florida Anti-Gay Forces Sharing TV Commercials http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/19/3933 News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric Thu, 20 Jun 2013 04:58:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Mark http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/19/3933/comment-page-1#comment-19330 Mark Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:13:07 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3933#comment-19330 It is illegal since at the end of each ad, lists different groups paying for the ads. It is illegal that people who gave money to the proponents campaigns may have been bilked (billed, etc.) by the use of the same footage. The expenditure is questionable since it raises the specter of who this ad was intended for, Arizona or Florida? Here are just three possibilities. It is illegal since at the end of each ad, lists different groups paying for the ads.

It is illegal that people who gave money to the proponents campaigns may have been bilked (billed, etc.) by the use of the same footage.

The expenditure is questionable since it raises the specter of who this ad was intended for, Arizona or Florida?

Here are just three possibilities.

]]> By: Marsha http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/19/3933/comment-page-1#comment-19325 Marsha Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:10:11 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3933#comment-19325 Why would it be illegal to use an ad in two different states? Is there something un-ethical about sharing an ad? The ads seem insulting to me and clearly lie (no one loses benefits...uh, yah) but illegal?, really? Why would it be illegal to use an ad in two different states? Is there something un-ethical about sharing an ad? The ads seem insulting to me and clearly lie (no one loses benefits…uh, yah) but illegal?, really?

]]> By: Louie http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/19/3933/comment-page-1#comment-19301 Louie Mon, 20 Oct 2008 01:47:29 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3933#comment-19301 Amazing, but not surprised. Yes, these ads were nearly identical with the exception of changing the minorities in some of the scenes, like the black boy and black man in the kitchen scene is not in the Arizona clip. Also, the identical piano music opening is identical in BOTH of these ads! The mother/daughter with female in the mirror reflection are identical! The young woman kissing the man in the foyer with the door open and a young man in a green blocked shirt waiting for her, then man and woman kiss as young girl and young man leave are identical! Woman and girl making tortillas is identical in BOTH ads! The man, woman and children on the beach is only in the Florida ad. The newlyweds with the groom on the left and the bride on the right are different people and placed at different points in both ads. And finally the "picnic" scene where the whole family is taking their picture together is the same! Note the clothing on the people is the same, the yellow balloons are the same, the kid holding the football is striking the same pose! Yes, the background looks like it's been modified to remove those giant boulders as seen at Papago park in Phoenix (or could be South Mountain Park) were replaced with palm trees. And also in the Florida one it seems that it was cropped to remove some of the desert foliage that we see in the Arizona version! So, yes! These are esentially the SAME ads! Is this legal? Anyone shown this to Kyrsten Sinema or any of the other politically knowledgable folks to see about the legality of these shenanigans!? Outrageous! Amazing, but not surprised. Yes, these ads were nearly identical with the exception of changing the minorities in some of the scenes, like the black boy and black man in the kitchen scene is not in the Arizona clip.

Also, the identical piano music opening is identical in BOTH of these ads!

The mother/daughter with female in the mirror reflection are identical!

The young woman kissing the man in the foyer with the door open and a young man in a green blocked shirt waiting for her, then man and woman kiss as young girl and young man leave are identical!

Woman and girl making tortillas is identical in BOTH ads!

The man, woman and children on the beach is only in the Florida ad.

The newlyweds with the groom on the left and the bride on the right are different people and placed at different points in both ads.

And finally the “picnic” scene where the whole family is taking their picture together is the same! Note the clothing on the people is the same, the yellow balloons are the same, the kid holding the football is striking the same pose! Yes, the background looks like it’s been modified to remove those giant boulders as seen at Papago park in Phoenix (or could be South Mountain Park) were replaced with palm trees. And also in the Florida one it seems that it was cropped to remove some of the desert foliage that we see in the Arizona version!

So, yes! These are esentially the SAME ads!

Is this legal?

Anyone shown this to Kyrsten Sinema or any of the other politically knowledgable folks to see about the legality of these shenanigans!?

Outrageous!

]]> By: Jim Burroway http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/19/3933/comment-page-1#comment-19291 Jim Burroway Sun, 19 Oct 2008 23:28:33 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3933#comment-19291 Someone in a private email suggested to me that the last scene under the pavilion may have been shot at Papago Park in Phoenix, with the Florida-like fauna added using digital computer effects. I'm not familiar enough with Papago Park to be able to judge this myself. Someone in a private email suggested to me that the last scene under the pavilion may have been shot at Papago Park in Phoenix, with the Florida-like fauna added using digital computer effects. I’m not familiar enough with Papago Park to be able to judge this myself.

]]> By: Rick http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/19/3933/comment-page-1#comment-19290 Rick Sun, 19 Oct 2008 22:52:30 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3933#comment-19290 I was particularly taken with the last scene in both ads, the "families" gather together for the "wedding photograph" and it's the same actors in the same wardrobe, taking the same poses, except in the Arizona ad they are near the desert and in the Florida ad they are by the ocean with palm trees. Did they really really film that scene on location, or is it like everything else with the pro-amendment crowd, a faked reality? I was particularly taken with the last scene in both ads, the “families” gather together for the “wedding photograph” and it’s the same actors in the same wardrobe, taking the same poses, except in the Arizona ad they are near the desert and in the Florida ad they are by the ocean with palm trees. Did they really really film that scene on location, or is it like everything else with the pro-amendment crowd, a faked reality?

]]> By: NG http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/19/3933/comment-page-1#comment-19288 NG Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:37:50 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3933#comment-19288 Obviously a campaign illegality. Hope someone's doing their homework. Obviously a campaign illegality.

Hope someone’s doing their homework.

]]> By: cowboy http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/19/3933/comment-page-1#comment-19284 cowboy Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:55:26 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3933#comment-19284 Would it have been too obvious who made these commercials if they had photographed/filmed the couples at some Mormon Temple? Naaaaaah. It’s still too obvious. Compare the style and production values with any Mormon PSA-type commercials and you’ll see the similarities...right down to the way they include minorities...token ones. It’s produced by the Mormons. Then, I was surprised at the mention in the one commercial about: “no one loses benefits”. Really? REALLY? That’s simply not true. It’s a lie. I’m calling them liars. If they feel good about these commercials I certainly hope they feel good in taking the Sacrament today. Would it have been too obvious who made these commercials if they had photographed/filmed the couples at some Mormon Temple?

Naaaaaah. It’s still too obvious. Compare the style and production values with any Mormon PSA-type commercials and you’ll see the similarities…right down to the way they include minorities…token ones. It’s produced by the Mormons.

Then, I was surprised at the mention in the one commercial about: “no one loses benefits”.

Really? REALLY? That’s simply not true. It’s a lie. I’m calling them liars. If they feel good about these commercials I certainly hope they feel good in taking the Sacrament today.

]]> By: Timothy Kincaid http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/19/3933/comment-page-1#comment-19283 Timothy Kincaid Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:11:02 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3933#comment-19283 I found the difference amusing. And I suspect that if viewers in both locations saw them at once they might find the racial adjustments to be either manipulative or insulting. I found the difference amusing. And I suspect that if viewers in both locations saw them at once they might find the racial adjustments to be either manipulative or insulting.

]]> By: Bill S http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/19/3933/comment-page-1#comment-19281 Bill S Sun, 19 Oct 2008 15:06:13 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3933#comment-19281 wow. They're nearly identical. wow. They’re nearly identical.

]]>