 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Showtimes EPISODES.
s.2 has an entire ep wherein Mat Le Blanc tries to give away an Audi Infinity!!!!
it even has a "Q" type scene where he xplains all the 'features' the car has
shameless.
FRIGHT NIGHT
shameless plug for Budweiser (I guess vamps will drink anything)
bruce
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The third season of Warehouse 13 features a pretty shameless plug for the Toyota Prius. One of the characters spends what feels like 5 minutes admiring a Prius, describing its many wonderful features. They also plug Twizzlers fairly often, but they are a bit more subtle pushing that product, so it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb nearly as much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 10, 2012 - 10:10 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Joe E.
(Member)
|
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.
There was previously product placement in Star Trek, albeit not so blatant and objectionably as in the 2009 movie. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier's early scenes used product placement for both Levi Strauss (for Kirk and Bones' blue jeans) and Kraft (for the "marsh melons" consumed around the campfire).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FLIGHT
this was a TERRIFIC film but...
the blatant promo of BUDWEISER & COCA COLA was off putting.
not to mention the Chamber of Commerce touting of the state of Atlanta!
brm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IRON MAN 3
there is a scene where the composition is framed so that we see ORACLE & SUN painted on Stark's computer banks in the left hand side of the screen.
Shameful
But....
nothing tops DEXTER for its non-stpo promos for Apple smart phone.
EVERY TIME SOMEONE USES an Apple smart phone they insert a shot of the phone
Unbelievably crass!
bruce
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Dec 27, 2013 - 10:36 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Prospero
(Member)
|
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.
There was previously product placement in Star Trek, albeit not so blatant and objectionably as in the 2009 movie. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier's early scenes used product placement for both Levi Strauss (for Kirk and Bones' blue jeans) and Kraft (for the "marsh melons" consumed around the campfire).
I remember you could buy the official Star Trek V "marsh melon" holder:
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Marshmallow_dispenser
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the IMDb piece on actor Daniel Craig, the latest James Bond:
"It's amazing how many times I've sat in interviews like this in a bar or a hotel, and it's 11 o'clock in the morning and someone sends a martini over [laughing]. And it's like, Really? It's 11 o'clock! Cheers! I'm not going to drink it."
[On product placement and the controversy over "Skyfall's" featuring of Heineken and not a martini] "Now, product placement, whichever way you look at it, whether you like it or you think it's disgusting, or whatever, it's what it is. Heineken gave us a ton of money for there to be Heineken in a shot in a bar. So, how easy is that? Just to say, O.K., there's Heineken. It's there - it's in the back of the shot. Without them, the movie couldn't get sold, so that all got kind of blown up. 'Bond's new drink is a Heineken.' He likes a lot of drinks - Heineken, champagne; it's all in there. I'll drink a beer in the shot, I'm happy to, but I'm not going to do an 'Ahhhhh' [pantomiming an actor looking refreshed]. And I would say this because they're paying, but they're kind of respectful about it. They don't want to screw the movie up."
It's economics, and while one wouldn't think that the billion dollar James Bond franchise needs it, the bottom line is they probably do. So let's call it a "necessary evil" and try not to obsess so much over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, they want us to believe it's a necessary evil. Where's the product placement in Star Wars
Ummm...the whole film was a huge commercial for the toys and other merchandise, which Lucas had the rights too.
Wizard of Oz was a whole different era.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
) that P.P. is the necessary financial-snake-in-the-grass that, unfortunately, is here to stay.
