|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just watched "Thor" today and seems that Honda had its Acura brand being highly touted. Kinda annoying to say the least. well i hope its the sports car at least
|
|
|
|
|
FRANTIC Marlboro boxes are everywhere yuk! bruce
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only thing I even cringed at in the new Star Trek (well, with "Scotty through the tubes" and his little friend, as well as the random, meaningful occurrence of landing young Kirk and old Spock on the same planet -- which isn't as much random as it is geologically possible considering Kirk was marooned after Vulcan was imploded so the Enterprise would be close to the mystery planet (most likely a moon) and Kirk was ejected in a pod that searches out active lifeforms and/or Starfleet Outposts) was the blatant Nokia placement during the opening chase with kid Kirk and the officer. Not only do they use the ring tone most associated with Nokia phones, but then also brandish about its name on the car console as though Nokia paid for everything in the future. It took me out of the movie for a bit, making me wonder why they even thought it would sound reasonable that Nokia would be around in the 24th Century (it wouldn't) nor that I wanted this sci-fi film to take place in a universe where it would. Yeah, the Nokia product placement is annoying. I was also annoyed by product placement in the scene at the bar where Uhura orders a "Budweiser classic". Twister was pretty glaring with the use of the Dodge Ram. That truck could take almost any punishment and still look stylish. Didn't SUVs from Mercedes feature prominently in the Lost World? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull had Mutt driving around a modern Harley Davidson motorcycle. As others have mentioned, the Bond films are full of product placement. I think the scene from Goldfinger where Felix Leiter is by a Kentucky Fried Chicken was one of the first films I noticed product placement. That and Superman and Superman 2. I have a feeling the upcoming Skyfall will be worse than any of the other Bond films, as I thought one of Dragon's updates on this board stated the filmmakers wanted product placement revenue to fund a good chunk of the film's costs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm also on the lookout for movies that show said placed products being destroyed or otherwise shat upon, like the Marlboro truck in Superman II. You should watch Natural Born Killers. There is a scene where blood is splattered on a tv showing one of those polar bear Coca Cola ads. As I recall, Coca Cola was pretty upset that their product placement dollars bought that spot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moonraker: The exciting chase down the Rio roadway with a billboard advertising various products on the way down! So what`s your point? Aren`t there some billboard advertising out there in real life? So if they appear in real life why shouldn`t they do that in movies too?. I personally can`t understand people who complain about product placement in movies. Yep, same. Personally, having real products in films makes me believe more in a show or film. There's nothing more irritating to me than someone walking up to a bartender and ordering a beer. WHAT KIND OF BEER??! They can't just get you "a beer" - they will need to know exactly what product you want to serve you correctly. The same goes for a pack of cigarettes. That sort of thing takes me out of a scene far more than a real product label being glimpsed or named.
|
|
|
|
|
Moonraker: The exciting chase down the Rio roadway with a billboard advertising various products on the way down! So what`s your point? Aren`t there some billboard advertising out there in real life? So if they appear in real life why shouldn`t they do that in movies too?. I personally can`t understand people who complain about product placement in movies. Did you not read my full post? The billboards are NOT THERE IN REAL LIFE. THEY ARE PART OF THE FILM 'PRODUCTION DESIGN' Inother words they are ADVERTISEMENTS disguised as location no more talk from me about MOONRAKER - if it does not bother you, wonderful
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Casino Royale has that scene in the Bahamas where the rookie Bond is driving up the coast and is checking his messages on his Sony Ericcson™ mobile phone. That scene was lifted and dropped into a commercial that very same year. . So Bond uses a Sony Vaio and has an Ericcson phone... makes sense to me because my friend has an iPhone and a Mac Book and an iPad. I don't understand why people here are mad or get distracted by people using REAL products in films or how it is any different then seeing people driving real cars wearing real brands. THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS films, GONE IN 60 SECONDS, XXX, BULLIT and various other films actually have lead actors that define themselves by the car they drive and people don't seem to mind ESPECIALLY if that car fits the character. I don't think anyone who saw GONE will ever forget FORD MUSTANG GT SHELBY. I much rather watch a film like AMERICAN PSYCHO or THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA where the ENTIRE film throws out name brands and labels because the people in these films live or identify themselves by it because there are people in real life that feel the same way about products they buy. Now if anything I more taken out of things when FAKE properties are created to resemble existing ones like REAPER having the actors work at THE BUILDER'S BENCH which is exactly like HOME DEPOT / BUILDER'S SQUARE or in CHUCK where his part of the NERD HERD which is essentially THE GEEK SQUAD. That distracts me more. Seeing things like NOKIA in STAR TREK don't bother me since it is only there for what...2 seconds and nothing is commented about it and I don't mind seeing products in the background as well and even a close up doesn't bother me because mind you, EVERYTHING is placed there for a reason. If STAR TREK pissed you guys so much how do you watch films like THE DESCENDANTS or 50 FIRST DATES which "show off" living in Hawaii. WES ANDERSON'S THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS was littered with a few dozen real life items [glasses, track suits, board games, records, etc] that told you loads about the characters. Product placement where people are SHOWING OFF or PITCHING is what really irks me [Man this MAC BOOK PRO is amazing!!!] or stuff like in IRON MAN where it seemed everyone drove an AUDI and while I don't mind that Tony drove it as did Pepper [he works for her so I assume it is he who bought it] but what I disliked was that in almost all the freeway or driving scenes there was an Audi car. One of the BEST Product placement in recent years was MONEYBALL in that the brands actually helped sell the reality of the film and the world of Baseball.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 16, 2012 - 8:34 AM
|
|
|
By: |
Jim Phelps
(Member)
|
WHEN A SCENE is specifically written to showcase a product it is a COMMERCIAL. For those who "can't understand", the above post is what I'm talking about. The use of not-obvious name-brand products don't bother me at all, nor do obvious, EGREGIOUS corporate-sponsored placement of products, but I DO find the latter amusing, which is why I created this thread. I CAN understand how many of you love and accept product placement in films without hesitation or reservation. After all, 98% of the FSM collective were weaned on Happy Meals, toy commercials masquerading as cartoon shows, and all that crossover merchandising crap from Spielberg and Lucas. To you people, commercialization is nostalgia and probably just as important to your rose-colored memories of that time as the movie itself. Now you're being sold this stuff as adults. You're the same kind of people who willingly bought Coca-Cola T-Shirts and designer labels with the logo emblazoned on the front. Now you're being spoon-fed gadgets and gizmos with today's movies--which happen to be marketed along with the same brands you worshiped as children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seeing things like NOKIA in STAR TREK don't bother me since it is only there for what...2 seconds and nothing is commented about it and I don't mind seeing products in the background as well and even a close up doesn't bother me because mind you, EVERYTHING is placed there for a reason. If STAR TREK pissed you guys so much how do you watch films like THE DESCENDANTS or 50 FIRST DATES which "show off" living in Hawaii. WES ANDERSON'S THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS was littered with a few dozen real life items [glasses, track suits, board games, records, etc] that told you loads about the characters. Product placement where people are SHOWING OFF or PITCHING is what really irks me [Man this MAC BOOK PRO is amazing!!!] or stuff like in IRON MAN where it seemed everyone drove an AUDI and while I don't mind that Tony drove it as did Pepper [he works for her so I assume it is he who bought it] but what I disliked was that in almost all the freeway or driving scenes there was an Audi car. One of the BEST Product placement in recent years was MONEYBALL in that the brands actually helped sell the reality of the film and the world of Baseball. For me, context is everything. The product placement in Star Trek is annoying because I didn't expect it. I don't recall there ever being any product placement in any other incarnation of Star Trek so once it appears it sticks out like a sore thumb. But as you say, the placement is quick, and its use is pretty innocuous. With Bond though, I expect lots of product placement, so unless Daniel Craig smiles to the camera and spends a minute explaining how great Smirnoff vodka tastes, I probably won't care. Similarly, I expect people in modern films to use products because well, that's what we do. I agree with you that product placement is annoying where it feels like a commercial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 20, 2012 - 7:12 AM
|
|
|
By: |
Jim Phelps
(Member)
|
The NCIS version of "Hawaii Five-0" apparently featured an entire minute of SUBWAY sandwich talk. Just like "real life"! Right, kids? http://nyti.ms/y8ogn3" "Product placement in scripted television shows has quickly become a fact of life, as struggling networks seek new ways to make money. Sometimes it’s done subtly, sometimes with a sledgehammer. But this example from “Pu’olo,” Monday’s episode of “Hawaii Five-0? on CBS, was particularly egregious — the most jarring, disruptive and insulting example I’ve seen. For nearly a minute, the unfortunate actors (Alex O’Loughlin, Grace Park and the former sumo wrestler Taylor Wily) stepped completely out of the story in order to plug Subway sandwiches, as the food-truck vendor Kamekona (Mr. Wily) is found eating five subs as part of his new diet. “Trying to eat smarter, brother,” he says. “These Subways sandwiches? So ono” (Hawaiian slang for “delicious,” though it’s also the name of a fish popular in island restaurants and presumably more healthy than a Subway sandwich). The spot — it’s a 50-second commercial, pure and simple — also works in references to the Subway pitchman Jared and several specific menu items."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|