Shameless Product Placement - list and discuss

abouttobebanned

This interests me quite a bit and thought it could lead to some good discussions.

Anyone know exactly how much money these movies are making from varying levels of product placement? Take a film i watched on Thursday Night - I Love you man. (It's funny how forums like boards can enter your mind on such occasions - as soon as i saw the different product placements I thought to myself, there's surely a thread about this somewhere...there may actually be...I forgot to check before I started this thread...ok wait...ctrl+t...ok there's not on the first page anyway...that'll do)..

Anyway...there are loads of product placements in this film...but 2 immediately come to mind - iphone and HBO. The iphone in particular..two main characters have iphones...both have the default iphone ringtone (how hard would it have been to change it...the props people got the iphones, took them out of the box and away they went) (Ok they would have had to activate them first)(Ok maybe apple did that for them already).

The iphones were used so often in the film that it actually ended up being a very(VERY) long advert for iphones. HBO were mentioned a lot too...shameless enough but not as extreme as the phones...

I could mention a lot of other films too, but i'll leave that to you guys...

Rhyme

The Island was pretty bad for this.

'Ewan McGregor has to find an address, i know... MSN Search.' *cue MSN Search booth with giant logo*

I tried to ignore it and get on with the film but it, and the rest of the blatant product placement in the film was overwhelming.

BrookieD

Nokia Phone in Star Trek 2009
I thought the film was going down hill after that but it did redeem itself,

Blue_Arsed_Fly

Mac & Me is probably the most famous example of shameless product placement. A bad rip off of ET which serves as a giant Skittles & McDonalds commercial, featuring such utterly pointless scenes as the one below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdvO0tmNjGo

rednik

I would say the Bond movies since Sony have become involved. Just look at the laptop and mobiles in Casino Royale. This has probably occured in other Bond movies but not as blatant.

Siobhers

shameless stuff in this movie..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiLtZBnb7LA

Lamper.sffc

What about cast away with tom hanks. I wonder how many times fedex where shown in that one.

Or when they used coke bottles to hold blood in the hospital in the movie Pearl harbour. Go to minute 6.19

Shocking stuff:D. Have they no shame

Shacklebolt

Lamper.sffc wrote: »

What about cast away with tom hanks. I wonder how many times fedex where shown in that one.

Doesn't count because Fedex didn't pay for it.

speedboatchase

The Best (actually in a non-jokey way Minority Report had very interesting usage of product placement)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiLtZBnb7LA

and the Worst

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeVQwomIgjs

abouttobebanned

Think Apple got a raw deal with their placement lol - "computer's down again"

nix

that piece of crap movie transformers has plenty of it and no doubt the sequel will follow, Michael Bay.. fingers crossed a psycho fan takes him out

kaiser soza

Talladega Nights is a fantastic example of this done in a funny way,Iron Man a one stop ad for Audi cars was not.

amacachi

No film will match the frankly disgusting product placement of Burger King in Arrested Development. I was really disappointed with the writers when I saw it.

L31mr0d

wall-e... about 30 minutes in it becomes one long apple commercial

Lamper.sffc

Shacklebolt wrote: »

Doesn't count because Fedex didn't pay for it.

We have rules now as to whether something is considered product placement or not.:rolleyes:

krudler

Lamper.sffc wrote: »

We have rules now as to whether something is considered product placement or not.:rolleyes:

Well yeah...Fedex didnt pay to have their logo in the movie the producers wanted to use a fake delivery service and just went with Fedex instead, they did lend them the use of a jet for one sequence but thats it, its different than say Coke or Pepsi or whatever who pay to have their products shown on camera, a lot of budget revenue for movies is generated this way, films arent free to make ya know a lot of the money is gotten from merchandise deals and product placement.
Take the Bond movies, Bond uses a Sony phone, Sony laptop and Sony mp3 player, why? because the Bond franchise is owned by Columbia who in turn is owned by Sony, they own the property thay can shove what they like in it, I dont generally mind product placement tbh, if a movie is set in the real world then having real products onscreen doesnt matter, besides nobody bitches about the massive adverts for Atari, Coke, Sony, Kodak and such in the most famous shots of Blade Runner now do they?

Lamper.sffc

krudler wrote: »

Well yeah...Fedex didnt pay to have their logo in the movie the producers wanted to use a fake delivery service and just went with Fedex instead, they did lend them the use of a jet for one sequence but thats it, its different than say Coke or Pepsi or whatever who pay to have their products shown on camera, a lot of budget revenue for movies is generated this way, films arent free to make ya know a lot of the money is gotten from merchandise deals and product placement.
Take the Bond movies, Bond uses a Sony phone, Sony laptop and Sony mp3 player, why? because the Bond franchise is owned by Columbia who in turn is owned by Sony, they own the property thay can shove what they like in it, I dont generally mind product placement tbh, if a movie is set in the real world then having real products onscreen doesnt matter, besides nobody bitches about the massive adverts for Atari, Coke, Sony, Kodak and such in the most famous shots of Blade Runner now do they?

Ok that was a bit long. I understand what product placement is and the purpose of it. But fedex is a product in the movie regardless of payment or not. The company was shown in a good light. Like come on, he even makes sure the package gets to the lady in the end. The company of fedex gained from having their product in the movie. The deal suited both parties. You cant say that they where not trying to advertise fedex in the movie.

L31mr0d

Lamper.sffc wrote: »

I understand what product placement is and the purpose of it. But fedex is a product in the movie regardless of payment or not.

Yes but Fedex was part of the story. They didn't "place" the product in the movie, it would of bugged me more if they had just made up some shipping company. Product placement is really when they graft in some product for no other reason than advertising it.

It's like saying "The People vs. Larry Flynt" shouldn't of had Hustler in it as it was product placement.

There are some exceptions where I'm ok with product placement, like Will Smith in I, Robot and his converse shoes. Some people really do like converse and I could imagine a technophobe in the future grounding himself by surrounding himself with clothes and items from the past.

Lamper.sffc

L31mr0d wrote: »

Yes but Fedex was part of the story. They didn't "place" the product in the movie, it would of bugged me more if they had just made up some shipping company. Product placement is really when they graft in some product for no other reason than advertising it.

It's like saying "The People vs. Larry Flynt" shouldn't of had Hustler in it as it was product placement.

There are some exceptions where I'm ok with product placement, like Will Smith in I, Robot and his converse shoes. Some people really do like converse and I could imagine a technophobe in the future grounding himself by surrounding himself with clothes and items from the past.

I have no problem when its part of the movie. In this case though all the vans are nice and shiny. The clothing is perfectly clean. They where putting fedex into as many scenes as they could and as i said, at the end the parcel gets delivered. This is the agreement they would have come to with fedex. They go to fedex say hay can i use your company in our movie, they say yes but you have to make us look good which is advertising for the company hence product placement. Its just one big infomercial for fedex.
It cant really be compared to The People vs Larry Flint because the film was about hustler and its creator and its not as if they where showing a hustler magazine in every second scene.
Unlike the people vs larry flint and the hustler connection, Cast away was not about fedex. It was about a man on an island. A made up transport company would have made more sense in order not to take away from the movie. I think yous are splitting hairs on this point to be fair.

An article on it. The beyond product placement bit is the interesting part.

http://www.tedfriedman.com/essays/2004/08/cast_away_and_t.html

Make your own mind up, i guess

Shacklebolt

Lamper.sffc wrote: »

We have rules now as to whether something is considered product placement or not.:rolleyes:

Usually if a company didn't pay for it or ask for it, it can't be considered product placement.

Blisterman

amacachi wrote: »

No film will match the frankly disgusting product placement of Burger King in Arrested Development. I was really disappointed with the writers when I saw it.

Well, that was pretty tongue in cheek, and very funny.
Tobias - "It's a wonderful restaurant"
Narrator - "It sure is"

tony1kenobi

The Godfather movies put quite a push on oranges, as well as mob activity...

....the Star Wars films put huge emphasis on space travel...

.....dirty bastards.

speedboatchase

Arrrgh stop arguing about Castaway, let's go back to good examples

Carlsberg and Dr Pepper in Spiderman, very cringe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hOk80p8K2w

Also anybody else find it strange to have Nokia and Budweiser in the new Star Trek?

Saibh

The Matrix - Nokia mobile phone

amacachi

Blisterman wrote: »

Well, that was pretty tongue in cheek, and very funny.
Tobias - "It's a wonderful restaurant"
Narrator - "It sure is"

My post was tongue in cheek too. I wonder if the Arrested Development film will have as much product placement. :P

mike65

Earlier this evening flicked on Film Four, MI 3 was on and Ethan Hawke was making use of some gizmo with a rather conspicious Kodak logo plastered across it. K-ching!

krudler

I dont get the big deal tbh, "oh the lead actor was using a Nokia, ewwww corporate greed in movies" ...or maybe as most people who use mobiles have a Nokia or have had at some stage, being that they're one of if not the biggest phone company in the world, isnt it feasible that people actually use their products?

Look at it this way, if a movie studio had to come up with fake companies and logos for everything from cameras to coffe to soft drinks to pc equipment, look at how much they would have to pay a graphic design team to come up with the logos, put them on products, make sure everything was nice and legal and didnt infringe on existing copyrights in case they got sued, or is it just easier to use things that actually exist in the real world that the company wont mind a bit of free advertising and you get the equipment and props needed for the movie?

Lamper.sffc

krudler wrote: »

I dont get the big deal tbh, "oh the lead actor was using a Nokia, ewwww corporate greed in movies" ...or maybe as most people who use mobiles have a Nokia or have had at some stage, being that they're one of if not the biggest phone company in the world, isnt it feasible that people actually use their products?

Look at it this way, if a movie studio had to come up with fake companies and logos for everything from cameras to coffe to soft drinks to pc equipment, look at how much they would have to pay a graphic design team to come up with the logos, put them on products, make sure everything was nice and legal and didnt infringe on existing copyrights in case they got sued, or is it just easier to use things that actually exist in the real world that the company wont mind a bit of free advertising and you get the equipment and props needed for the movie?

Agreed. When the products are just being used normally in a movie. This thread is about shameless product placement. Like the two bottles of coke bit in pearl harbour. It was supposed to be a shocking and meaningful scene and here we have a close up of coke

Lamper.sffc

James Howlett

Burger King.
When Tony (Robbie Downey) is being taken back to America after breaking out of captivity he is sitting in a helicopter with Pepper Potts. Anyhow he mentions that he wants two things: a Press Conference and an american cheese-burger.

Next scene Tony is walking towards said press conference when a man from behind goes to hand him a Burger King bag, with the logo in full view. Also Tony has to turn around just to keep the logo on sceen for a few seconds more. He practically poses for a picture with the bag in hand.

Hilarious.

Also Sex & the City - wedding day Carrie is freaking out and wants to call Big. She doesn't have a phone so Stanford (I think) hands her his i-phone. The camera actually cuts to a top-down shot of the phone going from his hand into her hand.

So the moral of the story is; if you are reading this on your iphone while eating in burger king...

Mr.Lizard

Not to tempt fate but I don't think anything will ever beat the "tuning up" sequence in Blade Trinity (you know the one I'm talking about!). That wasn't a product placement (either subtle or obvious) it was literally a 30 second ad break spliced into the middle of a movie. I'm sure it was done deliberately by the producers/marketers to test the waters and see how well something like this would be accepted/tolerated by docile audiences. Luckily it appears they did not accept it as I haven't seen anything of its like since. Then again I don't watch too many 'garbage' movies so perhaps stuff like this has happened again since?

My jaw dropped when I saw that bit. I literally couldn't believe it. :eek:

mathie

I, Robot.

"Converse All-Stars, vintage 2004."

Jaysus.

James Howlett

I remember noticing both those from "I, Robot" and "Blade Trinity." Of the two I think "Blade Trinity" is worse, even Michael Bay must have cringed when Jessica Biel swung around and slowlllllyyyyyy put her headphones on. Agh!

Miguel_Sanchez

abouttobebanned wrote: »

Anyway...there are loads of product placements in this film...but 2 immediately come to mind - iphone and HBO. The iphone in particular..two main characters have iphones...both have the default iphone ringtone (how hard would it have been to change it...the props people got the iphones, took them out of the box and away they went) (Ok they would have had to activate them first)(Ok maybe apple did that for them already).

Just so you know. The ringtones would have been added in afterwards in the edit of the film.

Lobster

kaiser soza wrote: »

Talladega Nights is a fantastic example of this done in a funny way,Iron Man a one stop ad for Audi cars was not.

Audi was the first company to come to mind when I seen this thread, there is also the Transporter films and I Robot. I'm sure there are other films also that involve a rs4 or similar driving up to and stopping at the camera so you get a good view of the Badge and grille, Not that I don't like looking at them anyway

carlrac

Hmm... it seems FedEx in Cast Away was mentioned a gazillion times here, but Wilson was just as bad! And to stick with Budweiser sightings, check out the bar scene in Top Gun (they all hold their bottles with labels facing the camera)

Love the coke ad in Blade Runner though

Blisterman

The funny thing is, something you wouldn't bat an eye at in real life (Someone praising an iPhone, drinking a can of coke etc.), seems kinda out of place in a film.

Blisterman

Blisterman wrote: »

The funny thing is, something you wouldn't bat an eye at in real life (Someone praising an iPhone, drinking a can of coke etc.), seems kinda out of place in a film.

For me that's the difference between clever product placement and crap ... if you're drawn out of the film because it's too jarring it's unforgiveable, otherwise it just doesn't bother me.

I've heard complaints about "product placement" in Fight Club but I honestly couldn't see the problem there ... consumerism and the products themselves were such an integral part of the film, I barely noticed the "placement" aspect.

But you can't have a discussion about product placement without mentioning Wayne's World

Xbox 360 in Transformers. I hated that. Although i always thought how good it would be a scene were the 360 is about to attack somebody and it gets a RROD and shuts down .

grames_bond

Deleted User wrote: »

But you can't have a discussion about product placement without mentioning Wayne's World

it's been mentioned twice already!

yes man, red bull all over the place, i still like it though!

L31mr0d

I think product placement is needed, as long as it's not jarring or obvious. More recently a really bad case of product placement I found was in Cloverfield, the guy steals a Nokia that is surrounded by other Nokias and batteries, heads down into the subway, where he proceeds to crouch beside a billboard that's advertising, guess what, Nokia. The camera man, who had been having a seizure up until this point, calmly sets up the shot so that the person crying while calling his family is nicely in the shot with the billboard behind him, with the Nokia slogan "Connecting People" above his head.

I'd of laughed at how crap it looked if I wasn't so nauseous from motion sickness

Mr.Lizard

Cloverfield is a film that fails in every sense of the word. It seems fitting then that I was so bored by it that it even failed to make me noticed it was littered with Nokia product-placement throughtout.

Necronomicon

Already mentioned, but Blade: Trinity and I, Robot are by far the worst offenders for me.

On the flip side, I think Gran Torino used product placement quite well because it was relevant.

When his son is leaving the house you see a close up of 'SUZUKI' written on his car. But as he's taking off you see it's to the chagrin of Clint who makes a typically xenophobic comment

And there's also the small matter of the film title!

James Howlett

"Dre as in DrayXbox 360 in Transformers. I hated that. Although i always thought how good it would be a scene were the 360 is about to attack somebody and it gets a RROD and shuts down."


Bravo.

JCos

Happy Gilmore - Subway.

Still the funniest film ever

Mr.Lizard

JCos wrote: »

Happy Gilmore - Subway.

Still the funniest film ever

I was ok with that because (in terms of the story) it would make sense that some big corporation would want to come along on and sponsor him.

Following from this, I wonder how long tho before superhero movies actually have their heros outfits covered with logos ie like a formula 1 driver. Seems like it could never happen right? Wouldn't surprise me though.

Hrududu

Run Fatboy Run was one giant ad for Nike.

faceman

Product placement is only an issue IMO when it seems more important than the scene its placed in. E.g. over lingering shots, hammering home the brand etc. I also feel its important to have some products that are real, in a film to help ad to the realism.

However ad campaigns that the corporations then use to promote themselves and the film, do more damage IMO. I am a fan of transformers but i felt that GM came off as way to OTT with the movie. Fortunately they cut their advertising budget by a massive amount and wont be as prominent for the sequel.

Mr.Lizard

Mr.Lizard wrote: »

I was ok with that because (in terms of the story) it would make sense that some big corporation would want to come along on and sponsor him.

Following from this, I wonder how long tho before superhero movies actually have their heros outfits covered with logos ie like a formula 1 driver. Seems like it could never happen right? Wouldn't surprise me though.

There's a great scene in Fantastic 4 Rise of the Silver Surfer where Johnny Storm shows them the product sponsored uniforms he managed to get. I thought it was great little dig at the concept of product placement aswell while getting the products on screen at the same time.

Elliemental

I've forgotten what it 's called, but it had the word 'Mimsy' in the title, and it was a God awful kids movie.

Anyway, it's Intel product placement was as subtle as a sledge hammer.
Pepsi kept popping up all over the place too.

Richard Dower

Elliemental wrote: »

I've forgotten what it 's called, but it had the word 'Mimsy' in the title, and it was a God awful kids movie.

Anyway, it's Intel product placement was as subtle as a sledge hammer.
Pepsi kept popping up all over the place too.

Intel....yeah, but it wasn't blatant....it worked with the script/scene. I thought it was one the best scenes of the movie.

"Needless to say, this gets the government’s attention, and the FBI start investigating. The family is held for questioning, and the children’s brains are scanned. This reveals more questions than it answers: both are far further along the evolutionary scale for brain development than any other human on the planet. They’re not being changed as such, they‘re evolving to what humans will become. Emma’s obsession with Mimzy is noted, and Mimzy is scanned. What they see looks almost mechanical, not like a doll at all. So a slice is taken and fed into an electron microscope. The result is staggering. Nanotechnology thousands of years ahead of anything they have seen. Then, right at the centre, at the very limit of scanning, they find a five atom wide Intel logo, etched directly into the middle of what appears to be the great, great, great, many times great grandchild of a computer chip. A logo that the CEO of Intel states bluntly when brought in, is way beyond their capacity to make, and certainly would not be possible for many lifetimes."

http://www.virtualworldlets.net/Shop/ProductsDisplay/Product.php?ID=129

I thought it was a wonderful, sweet movie with a good heart....far better then alot of trash being made.