Budweiser brewer Anheuser-Busch has reportedly asked Paramount to obscure all images of its flagship beer in the Robert Zemeckis movie Flight. In the drama, Denzel Washington plays an airline pilot accused of drinking before captaining a plane. It includes scenes showing Washington consuming alcoholic beverages, including Budweiser and assorted vodka brands. The well-reviewed film opened #2 this weekend with $25M. Now, according to wire reports, Budweiser VP Robert McCarthy has penned a letter to Zemeckis’ Image Movers and to Paramount saying Anheuser-Busch had “no knowledge of the use or portrayal of Budweiser” before or during the film’s production and were not contacted by the studio. “We would never condone the misuse of our products, and have a long history of promoting responsible drinking and preventing drunk driving. It is disappointing that Image Movers, the production company, and Paramount chose to use one of our brands in this manner,” McCarthy said in the letter. “We have asked the studio to obscure the Budweiser trademark in current digital copies of the movie and on all subsequent adaptations of the film, including DVD, On Demand, streaming and additional prints not yet distributed to theaters.”
According to the Associated Press, experts say Flight is unlikely to run afoul of trademark protections, as courts have ruled products can be featured in films regardless of whether the companies approve, as long as their appearance is artistically relevant.


“We would never condone the misuse of our product.” They do that every day by making and selling beer. The depiction in “Flight” would only be unfair if no one had ever become impaired from drinking their product. Budweiser would be smart just to keep quiet.
Your argument is stupid. Calling Bud irresponsible for selling beer is like calling Toyota irresponsible for selling cars. Beer and cars don’t cause drunk driving. The people who abuse alcohol, then get behind the wheel, do. Millions of people drink responsibly. Bud isn’t responsible for the minority of people that don’t.
You don’t become impaired from drinking alcohol. You became impaired for making the CHOICE to drink too much alcohol.
Well Bud sure has a substantial placement in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, a film with an enormous under-21 audience. Pay close attention to the confrontation in the bar between Anne Hathaway and the henchman–several long sustained shots of Budweiser branding. If they really gave a damn about “responsible” drinking, would they plug their brand in a Batman movie?
I don’t think Budweiser wants people to drink their product and then fly an airplane. I do not see any harm in showing their product in a Batman movie. Denzel Washington is an alcoholic in the movie. He drinks beer and vodka right out of the bottle like it is water (which it undoubtedly is). I think Budweiser should probably pipe down. It is not a secret that drinking a lot of alcohol impairs your thinking and coordination. This movie does not reveal anything new about the dangers of alcohol consumption.
That depends. Did Bud pay for a favorable product placement in the Dark Knight? If so, then they knew and approved of how the brand was being portrayed.
By the same token, if the producers of Flight had contacted Bud and requested just permission, not money, to use their brand, Bud would have had the chance to say no. No alcohol brand is going to approve the use of their brand as the cause of an airplane crash. Movie producers should know better by now to use recognizable brands on screen without clearing it with the brands’ owners.
Someone has grossly missed the point here. You are also assuming that just because you saw it in the film that it was somehow AB’s idea to put it there. Brands are often placed in films with out the companies approval. And it is most certainly in AB’s best interest to promote responsible drinking behaviors. The fall out from doing the opposite could be crippling in this day and age.
What? Do they think alcholics are choosey enough to avoid Budweiser products or something when searching for something to drink? I don’t think they can state no-one has ever misused their product even if that’s the PR all drinks companies like to spin. So, it’s not really anything unlikely in real life that’s being depicted.
Like someone said above – they would have been better to leave it alone really.
Maybe budweiser should air a commercial about slimy movie producers.
Don’t know where AP secured that “Artistically Relevant” quote from: while incidental capture of a tm may not infringe on Budweisser rights, if the beer was being used by a pilot to get smashed just before flying his aircraft, and the tm was prominently featured, there may will be a tort committed against Bud – disparagement being just one.
And Budweiser was in almost every shot of Adam Sandler’s That’s My Boy…if that isn’t promoting irresponsible behavior I dont know what is!
Uh… they are aware of what they sell, right? Responsible drinking means not drinking at all. Even the slightest amount of alcohol alters your senses. They should shut up.
As an independent producer, we have to get clearance paperwork for every single branded product and image that is recognisably featured on screen. This is an essential part of delivering a movie. So… Paramount doesn’t bother? Really….???
Yeah, I’m astonished that such a huge oversight could occur. I thought movie producers did clearances like this as a matter of course.
Sure, maybe Paramount can get away with it, after PR and legal trouble, but is showing a Bud label in particular really so artisitically important to this movie that it’s worth the trouble and expense? Would he have been less drunk with a different brand of beer? They could have made the same point showing no label at all. We get that he’s drinking beer.
You’re overlooking fair use laws. You are wise to get permissions, but if you use a product the way it is intended it’s fair game. In this case the over consumption of their product is something that is a reality and the reason that any lawsuits they would file would most likely be bounced. The greeking of things such as the apple logo on computers is necessary in the Indie world because most productions couldn’t afford the litigation costs. Paramount isn’t worried because this thing would be dismissed if it was ever filed in court.
Bud, booze are among the best-looking scenes in the movie.
They get all fussy about Flight but their CEO August Busch IV skates on multiple incidents that everyone else would see prison time for. Ok.
Yeah, whatever happened with that whole dead woman incident? (Not the first one, but the second one.)
I guess they don’t count advertising as encouraging people to drink. The most unfortunate part of Bud’s position is that they have an amazing opportunity to do some good, some education about alcoholism – anything that could put a positive spin on the message of the film – that one take responsibility for their actions.
AB does enough marketing to ensure that Bud/Bud Light are in the top 3 beers in the world. To me, that makes them fair game. Besides, did we really think that his character would be downing Samuel Adams’ Utopias?
Like you can get that pissed on Bud anyway. May explain how Denzel manages to land that plane. Give me some Cobra or Heineken any day of the week!
I appreciate the fact that perhaps Paramount could have gotten a green light to put Bud (makers of barely drinkable brew!) on the Big Screen … but this quasi-sanctimonious posturing by Budweiser honchos certainly got eyeballs rolling at my local AA meeting.
Really, Bud? Spuds McKenzie would raise a leg and pee all over this kerfuffle. Truth is, most companies would KILL for product placement in a blockbuster (OK, a modestly successful) flick.
Put simply, Budweiser is creating a BROUHAHA OVER HA HA BREW!
drinking alcohol is irresponsible anyway you cut it. its the worst legal drug out there…maybe schmirnof should also bitch cuz the 2 tiny bottles Denzel drinks before crashing!
It is not possible to be drunk from alcohol and having food digesting at tge same time. It’s the freaks that do not take the time to feed themselves intentionally so that they can get high from one drink and a drunken state from further drinks… using it as an excuse for acting stupid …… same thing with drugs…
It’s called addiction.
Oversimplifying a point that no one is making. Interesting approach.
Always wondered in “Goodfellas” when Henry Hill flashes an (obvious) American Airlines plane ticket and the black censor bar appears over it if that was a creative choice by Scorsese or if he had to do that for legal reasons.
If the last sentence of the article is true– why bother with product clearance at all?
Good point, SaiD. Because if it’s legitimate alcohol, the body has ways of shutting that down…
No major Hollywood production feature a national brand without the participation of, and usually getting paid off by, the trademark owner… even if the product placement deal wasn’t made directly with Budweiser, you can be certain there was a deal made with a broker and Budweiser’s real beef is that they don’t feel like they got their money’s worth.
This is actually good PR. I wanted to buy Budweiser after seeing the movie, lol. What does it matter anyways? I drink on occasion, but I never associate any brand with alcoholics. I’m not going to stay away from Budweiser because of this movie. The people that bought Budweiser are corporate morons. Read a story in Bloomberg the other day about them. They are their own worst enemy.
BTW, this was a great movie, go see it. It should win a lot of Oscars.
“We would never condone the misuse of our products…” Yeah right. that’s like the NFL saying they disapprove of gambling. What a joke. As commented above…Budweiser, it’s best you shut your mouth on this lest you hurt yourself.
The metabolism of digesting beer is so high that the alcohol content has a minimal effect. Bud,becks,ichi,dos,guini, not possible; in the movie the bud bottle is just background material.
No such thing as bad publicity. Very clever.