Drug Tampering Movie Halted

December 6, 2000 4:35 PM

USA Network complies with Tylenol's request to halt production of a drug-tampering movie.
posted by gluechunk (11 comments total)

<topic-drift>

I think it's interesting that the article didn't mention the 1982 Tylenol scare, where seven people died after taking cyanide-laced Tylenol they had unwittingly purchased. That particular incident spawned a nationwide manhunt and numerous copycat poisonings. No one was ever convicted of the random murders. I remember as a kid being terrified to take any OTC anything, not even Flintstones vitamins.

For those who've forgotten or too young to remember, this link will take you to a collection of PDF format Newsweek articles that chronicles the whole 1982 scare.

</topic-drift>
posted by scottandrew at 4:56 PM on December 6, 2000

Oops. Here's that link again. Sorry.
posted by scottandrew at 4:58 PM on December 6, 2000

scottandrew states:

I think it's interesting that the article didn't mention the 1982 Tylenol scare

Um, the article stated:

"The sources said Johnson & Johnson wanted to avoid reminding the public of seven Chicago-area deaths in 1982 from cyanide-tainted Extra Strength Tylenol."

posted by gluechunk at 5:34 PM on December 6, 2000

They did convict someone of trying to shake down the company, though. It was widely believed that he was also responsible for the deaths.
posted by dhartung at 11:27 PM on December 6, 2000

Talk about corporate power. Although, USA network is acting like a complete wimp here. They should have ran the show and during the spots which the drug companies pulled their advertisements placed an ad telling viewers that the drug companies threatened their editorial content and wanted the show pulled.

This would create interest in the show and would be a public relations disaster for the drug companies. By caving in the drug companies, they look like pathetic wimps and any other industry could come along and threaten them as well.
posted by jay at 12:54 AM on December 7, 2000

Very true, Jay. It really demonstrates who's got the power. To think that if someone makes a movie about anything that may be remotely related to anything manufactured, they are subject to that manufacturer's review of the movie... scary.

I guess I won't make my ice cream and donuts movie after all. Krispy Kreme and Ben & Jer... er, Unilever will be on my case.
posted by hijinx at 4:36 AM on December 7, 2000

I wonder if Johnson & Johnson or USA Networks offered any severance compensation to the cast and crew of this film, suddenly out of work right during the holiday season because of a corporate shakedown. Sick.
posted by Dreama at 6:06 AM on December 7, 2000

Reminder: it's called commerical broadcast television for a reason, and it's got nothing to do with words two or three... Anyone who expects an "artistic statement" from something as bland and ad-clothed as the USA Network is being silly. And besides, USA is getting something even better than showing this movie: press coverage without having to spend a cent. Looks like a good deal all around to me...

(Dreama: Union rules for the cast and crew assure that anyone who would really be affected by the cancellation is being compensated; there's a producer or two who may be out a coupla thousand $, but they're not really people anyway, are they?! ;-) ).
posted by m.polo at 6:38 AM on December 7, 2000

just another example of money detering the public from the truth.
posted by radioblasters at 7:30 AM on December 7, 2000

Are you guys kidding? Ever think of why there are laws saying that you can't run into a theater and yell "FIRE!" or mention the word "bomb" in an airport? Even Ron Sato of USA networks said that they were afraid of copycat crimes, and that contributed to the pulling of the movie (not yet finished being shot).
posted by jamescblack at 11:10 AM on December 7, 2000

...but the word "FIRE!" isn't owned by anyone, and the word "bomb" isn't mass-produced.
posted by hijinx at 1:40 PM on December 7, 2000