Due to the forgettable nature of the film, I can sort of see why it hasn't been mentioned yet, but wasn't half of 1995's BYE BYE LOVE set at McDonald's?
way to many to mention - as bad as a Bond flic (there is even a 'Q' like scene where the hero is introduced to his new Cadillac sports car!)
"best" plug: a fake Calvin Klein commercial featuring star Scarlett Johannsen!
god bless Michael Bay LOL! bruce
I loved the use of that commercial - and it was a real one as well. It certainly aired on UK tv for a long time. Bay uses that to convey so much - first, she realises she's a clone, second, that she's someone known in the world, and most of all, by seeing advert Scarlett kiss someone, clone Scarlett sees the concept of both kissing and loving for the first time. It's actually very clever.
Again, I'm much more put off by fake adverts in films than real ones. If I saw a "Cola King" ad, I'd just think, that's clearly supposed to be "Coca-Cola" but it looks fake and now I'm drawn out of the movie. If I go to Times Square, I expect to see ads. If I see a movie set in Times Square, I expect to see ads, real ones for real products, and have zero problem with that. Looking around my room now, I see loads of things that would be considered "product placement" in a movie - but it's not, it's real life, and I expect films to reflect that (even in fantastical movies)
TV shows and movies are aping "real life". Sure, there is fun to be had, such as that reference to the "Seinfeld" episode in which "Snapple" was -- in effect -- a punch line for laughter. It was made during the time that the "Snapple Lady" was hot and the product was, too.
Seeing Pepsi displays in supermarkets isn't nearly as disconcerting as seeing a no-real-name cola display. What we see in real life is actually what the filmmakers want us to see in their films. That "Repo Man" photo above is a prime example of stupidity at work. If Estevez had been opening a can of Dinty Moore beef stew or some other commonly known product, the viewer wouldn't think twice about it. Oh, yes, someone would say, "Huh! He likes Dinty Moore!" But "Food" just rips you right out of the scene with a huge snicker.
That filmmakers court brands for cash seems to be bothersome. Why, I can't imagine. Perhaps the world is topsy-turvy. Perhaps filmmakers should be paying the brands to appear in their film and give them a piece of the profits, too?
] That "Repo Man" photo above is a prime example of stupidity at work. If Estevez had been opening a can of Dinty Moore beef stew or some other commonly known product, the viewer wouldn't think twice about it. Oh, yes, someone would say, "Huh! He likes Dinty Moore!" But "Food" just rips you right out of the scene with a huge snicker.
As we've mentioned before, it's not mere product placement that's offensive, it's *egregious* product placement, which takes the viewer out of the scene infinitely [Dinty] mo(o)re than the rare comical effect of emphasizing "generic" products.
Have you seen that Hawaii Five-O "Subway" scene? Watch it and then come back and tell us how it mirrors real life.
Perhaps filmmakers should be paying the brands to appear in their film and get a piece of the profits, too?
Yeah, like "everyday" people who shell out big $$$ for a T-shirt with, say, "Coca-Cola" written on it. Look for your check in the mail, Ensign Pulliam!
I'm more amused by you and others being bothered by those of us who are bothered by the *egregious* product placement in movies.
The WORST, to my mind, was in one of the Matrix movies, when somebody lifts a AA battery into view and from its coloration it OBVIOUS who manufactured it.
At 1:16
Knocked me right out of the movie and started me chortling no end.
The WORST, to my mind, was in one of the Matrix movies, when somebody lifts a AA battery into view
Actually, it was a "C" cell and the most ridiculous bit of bad science ever. If the machines already had "a form of fusion," they wouldn't need the body heat of humans. Also, the so-called "waste heat" of an organism would be a lousy power source even if the machines didn't have fusion. That's not the only silly thing about The Matrix.
The movie was no doubt "based" on many other works—such as the 1995 movie Ghost in the Shell. (The gun shots exploding watermelons in the market, and the text-rain titles are just two similarities.) The one work that The Matrix is most like is James P. Hogan's novel Realtime Interrupt—which even featured a "Neo flexing his muscles" scene at the climax. The scenario in that novel was much more credible than using people as power cells. Although if you want to see "egregious product placement," consider the scenario in the novel.
