Why do people have a problem with Product Placements in movies?

DonkeyStyle \o/

crazy angel wrote:

movie with the most advertisements..............................................................supersize me!!!!!! lol

Product placement is great when it's negetive publicity... it's a kind of revenge for all the adds they bombard us with... karma.

I don't like product placement at all, mostly because it's patronising...
"Hey kids, your movie hero drinks coke, so you should too! .. (the super human powers it gives him are merely coincidental. do not attempt to fly because you drank our product - even though that's what we're subliminally suggesting)".

There are people hired around the clock whos only job is to come up with new ways to brianwash us, while keeping it as technically legal as possible.
I resent being a subject of a 'brand awareness' campaign, I resent having a company push their brand on me where it's not wanted, and I resent them making money from this unwelcome intrusion, I resent being 'programmed' to perfer one product over the other based on nothing but the fact that said company has more money than the others and can afford more advanced brainwashing techniques/placement.
Why don't I just let them plant electrodes in my brain, so they can pump me full of 'reccomendations' 24 hours a day?

I've got an add-blocker for my browser, and I mostly watch BBC... do your worst.

Goodshape

I agree with DonkeyStyle.

/re-adjusts tinfoil hat

No though, seriously I do agree. Product placement is bull****. As many have more or less said above, it's one thing LEAVING a product in the world and having it be picked up by the camera, it's another to actually PLACE the product right in front of the camera itself.

The Bond films (as a pretty abstract example.. I haven't seen many of the films mentioned above) have been more or less ruined by product placement I think. It's grand for Bond to have himself a new car, but with each film it seems to be a bigger and bigger deal made of it, and it shows in the films. Never is the car seen in a disparaging light, always given more coverage than it's worth and never suffering any serious damage. It also detracts from the realism when practicly EVERY featured vehicle in the film is from the same manufacturer / every softdrink consumed is coca-cola etc.

Bri

Kingp35 wrote:

when I watch a movie I generally dont even notice it and if I do it doesnt take away from my enjoyment. Why does it bother people so much? Is it just people who see alot of movies like the people who post here who have a problem because the average Joe would pay no notice whatsoever

I'm no film buff, but I think (generally) I'm pretty observant and don't take everything at face-value...maybe you should just allow for different traits in people! I like to enjoy and film and take as much as I can from it.

I don't think the average joe is something I'd aspire to so if that makes me a "tight ass" then guilty as charged.

Big Nelly

Product placemnet

Have a look at Happy Gilmore.....every single company they can think of is advertised in it.....AT&T and Subway are the main ones!!

Stil good film.....they kind of take the piss out of product placement because they have it so mcuh!!

ObeyGiant

Kingp35 wrote:

OK my point was this. Im not trying to say that product placement is films is good or that it isnt good y whole point is that I fail to understand how it makes the movie less enjoyable or a worse film. I simply watch the movie I dont look out for PP. It doesnt affect me when im watching the movie I simply pay no attention to it if it happens.

But don't you see? This is exactly what we're saying here. Noone actively goes looking for product placement (except maybe the loons), so if the filmmakers are smart about it, they can get away with it. They can easily drop a product into a scene and not have it stand out like a sore thumb, only missing a disclaimer along the bottom saying "THIS 10 SECONDS OF THE MOVIE BROUGHT TO YOU BY BEN & JERRY'S ICE CREAM. IT'S DEEE-LICIOUS!"

An example of this would be the phone sequence in the Matrix. When the Nokia drops into his lap, it looks (or well.. looked) like a swish, futuristic phone, and noone really cared that it had the Nokia logo on there. It made perfect sense in terms of the movie. It also worked because everyone who saw the Matrix went out and bought that phone shortly after.

Compare this to the Xbox sequence in the Island (the other end of the spectrum, I know, but I want to illustrate a point). This did nothing for the movie - it didn't tell us anything about the characters, it didn't drive the story along... in fact, it opened a bunch of plot holes. And so the only thing left for it was that it was a deeply insidious piece of product placement that makes me want to burn my Xbox.

Kingp35

ObeyGiant wrote:

Compare this to the Xbox sequence in the Island (the other end of the spectrum, I know, but I want to illustrate a point). This did nothing for the movie - it didn't tell us anything about the characters, it didn't drive the story along... in fact, it opened a bunch of plot holes. And so the only thing left for it was that it was a deeply insidious piece of product placement that makes me want to burn my Xbox.

I agree with you fully on this point that the ridiculous PP like the xbox scene which really there was no need whatsoever for is going too far. That to me though was because it was an entire scene we had to look at and this is not usually the case and very rarely happens.

Bacchus

Kingp35: I think you may be overreacting a bit when you say...

I think its pretty sad if your complaining about somebody picking up a can and heaven forbid the logo is facing the camera. So what? Are you that much of a tight ass that this really bothers you?

... I agree that anyone who lets PP ruin a movie for them is a "tight arse" and should get over it (unless it really is godawful) but nobody here is saying that a movie is bad because of PP. I can't speak for others but I rarely notice PP, in fact the ONLY movies where I have found it to be out of place are I,Robot, Blade 3 and The Island. If you're wondering why every one is listing out so many incidents of bad PP, it's because you asked the question.
You seem to have it in your mind that the people posting here think PP comes from the devils winky and ruins movies. You asked the question, it was obvious this was going to turn into a name and shame list of movies guilty of bad PP. That doesn't mean the people here are "tight arsed" about it. It just means that they recognise that some movies blatently try to sell us stuff at the expense of a better shot (eg The Island, Ewan picking up the bottle to drink. Those few frames stuck on the bottle broke the flow of the scene).

Bard

Quote from Wayne's World:

Benjamin: Wayne! Listen, we need to have a talk about Vanderhoff. The fact is he's the sponsor and you signed a contract guaranteeing him certain concessions, one of them being a spot on the show.
Wayne Campbell: [holding a Pizza Hut box] Well that's where I see things just a little differently. Contract or no, I will not bow to any sponsor.
Benjamin: I'm sorry you feel that way, but basically it's the nature of the beast.
Wayne Campbell: [holding a bag of Doritos] Maybe I'm wrong on this one, but for me, the beast doesn't include selling out. Garth, you know what I'm talking about, right?
Garth Algar: [wearing Reebok wardrobe] It's like people only do these things because they can get paid. And that's just really sad.
Wayne Campbell: I can't talk about it anymore; it's giving me a headache.
Garth Algar: Here, take two of these!
[Dumps two Nuprin pills into Wayne's hand]
Wayne Campbell: Ah, Nuprin. Little. Yellow. Different.
Benjamin: Look, you can stay here in the big leagues and play by the rules, or you can go back to the farm club in Aurora. It's your choice.
Wayne Campbell: [holding a can of Pepsi] Yes, and it's the choice of a new generation.

ObeyGiant

Bacchus wrote:

(eg The Island, Ewan picking up the bottle to drink. Those few frames stuck on the bottle broke the flow of the scene).

Definitely. I'm barely even familiar with that particular product, so I didn't recognise the logo or packaging, but that entire sequence smacked so much of pandering to a corporate 'sponsor' that it stood out almost as much as the Xbox one - from the way it was filmed, to its abrupt inclusion in the story.

TheStrandRoads

It's a very poor excuse to say that 'Product Placement' adds to the realism of a movie.

What makes a movie a true portrail of life is not the use of bloody 'Product Placement'.

It's direction, good storytelling and acting that makes an upstanding and 'real' movie. The film-makers have it too cushy since they're getting copious amounts of funding from various companies for the movies they produce.

Now we can continue to slate the film-makers for their use of 'Product Placement', but we really only have ourselves to blame for paying the money to see these pieces of $hit.

Thankfully, I now know NOT to go see The Island. Cheers for the thread 'Kingp35'. But the answer to your initial question is a very obvious one.

garred

Could'nt give a monkeys if there is product placement or not. I'm just there to watch the movie and to date has'nt spoiled my viewing.
Actually I hav'nt even noticed the main placements highlighted so that will give you an idea of my attention span.

Orange Elephant

I, Robot is the worst.

Will Smith says that his knew shoes are really comfortable and classic 2005...

That's whats annoying, when they go out of their way to make product placements.

The Island didn't have it in your face. The whole Scarlett Johnnson giving all the kids "Ben and Jerry's" ice cream was a bit annoying, but not too bad.

Generally its not too bad, only when its obvious, long and out of place.

call_me_fish

lol this whole thing reminds me of Splinter cell 3 lol

Bri

Orange Elephant wrote:

That's whats annoying, when they go out of their way to make product placements. The Island didn't have it in your face. The whole Scarlett Johnnson giving all the kids "Ben and Jerry's" ice cream was a bit annoying, but not too bad.

Seriously? Did you see an edited version or something?! :eek:

Ben and Jerrys was the least obvious PP because she was standing in front of the logo and only half of it showed. How exactly do you not think the drink scene, the XBox, the MSN search, yada yada yada were not "in your face".



And to the poster who said PP adds nothing to the realism of the movie; I disagree...if a product is reasonably used in a scene it can add to the realism, as opposed to Acme beer.

Kingp35

Bri wrote:

Seriously? And to the poster who said PP adds nothing to the realism of the movie; I disagree...if a product is reasonably used in a scene it can add to the realism, as opposed to Acme beer.

Thats what I meant by adding realism to the scene. I much prefer to see a real product being used in a scene than one a director made up. This however doesnt count for scenes like the xbox scene which shouldnt have been there in the first place.

Pigman II

Have you ever noticed that its usually scifi/fantasy and comedy movies that seem to have the most product placement in them?

It's as tho the producers have already written the movie off as some piece of popcorn selling **** before they've even shot a foot of film.

Lasiest placement : Donnie Darko which has a 2001-style Blockbuster membship card in one shot even tho it's set in 1988 where the logos were different.

Best piece of product placement (not actually placement at all but an attempt to make a point) : Alex Cox's 'Walker'. Set in Nicaragua in the mid-1900's it features scenes of CocaCola vending machines.

DonkeyStyle \o/

One of the few product placements I didn't mind that much was in the Matrix, where morpheus is holding the duracell battery... even though you couldn't see the actual name, the battery has a very distinctive colour of black/gold.
And the trademark duracell 'doinnggg' sound to go with it.
It was done in a classy enough way and got the plot-point across very well... using an instantly recognisable item so there's no mistaking that it's a battery in the two seconds (or so) of footage that it appears in.


Also the one mentioned from Waynes World, that was comedy gold (but I'm still not buying a reebok tracksuit)

Peteee

Looking around me I see 3 Dell logos, 2 philips logos, a Microsoft logo and one Sony logo.

If I didn't see logos, and I saw some generic brand in a movie, i'd nearly be disapointed. I dont particularly like when its in your face (aka converse in I, Robot) but frankly, If there were to be a video game fighting scene in a film, You'd expect it to be a Xbox JUST LIKE IN REAL LIFE.

Every TV you see in a movie is a Sony (partly because TV's figure prominetly in Columbi Tristar pictures!)

I liked the product placement in Minority Report especially. Another thing to note is that 'FedEx' didn't pay a penny to be in Castaway!

ObeyGiant

Peteee wrote:

Looking around me I see 3 Dell logos, 2 philips logos, a Microsoft logo and one Sony logo.

Sure, we're all surrounded by logos, every day. Right now, I'm reading this on a Dell monitor, but I can barely even see the logo, because that's not where the action is. We've already established that product placement works best when the filmmakers don't draw focus from where the action is just so they can unnecessarily include some logo or product.

Peteee wrote:

but frankly, If there were to be a video game fighting scene in a film, You'd expect it to be a Xbox JUST LIKE IN REAL LIFE.

Oh please.
Even if we ignore the ridiculousness of this argument, let's take a look, instead, at something that's already been mentioned: the consistency surrounding this product placement. The movie is set in the future (someone mentions 2050 in the movie, but it's probably not that far) - and yet it uses the old Xbox logo. The one that was replaced this year.

Screengrab of the old logo in use here:
http://www.lowbrowculture.com/pictures/the_island_xbox.jpg

weemcd

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=i_robot

maddox ftw.

it is a joke tho, 10 minutes of ads before the film, you think thank fúck thats over then sit through a film packed with ads.

But its not like many shows are much different, find a teen show now that isnt a walking ipod ad (one tree hill etc.)

Cactus Col

and what about The Wizard?!?! all that nintendo stuff!!!
They must think we're fools!

Didn't mind the runners in I robot, just because they did it in such an obvious way. But the ipod in Blade Trinity really was annoying.

mike65 wrote:

Mac and Me must have been funded by McDonalds alone.

Mc Donalds and Coca Cola backed the film.

Draupnir

The Wizard was made by Nintendo.

One of my favourite product placement scenes is in Bad Boys two, when Martin Lawrences sister is undercover, she is bringing a few of the bad guys on to the back of a truck to launder money in fancy machines which are on the truck.

The truck is cover in Miller Genuine Draft logos and is full of Crates of Miller.

Its just SO blatant. Blatant enough to make me laugh and I like to laugh so I dont mind.

The one I didnt like, was the Carlsberg truck in Spiderman. Put me off the scene.

Blisterman

Evolution has great product placement. It's delibretly over the top ads for Head and Shoulders.

lostexpectation

Peteee wrote:

Another thing to note is that 'FedEx' didn't pay a penny to be in Castaway!

i thought it was strange the way they seemed to portray being a fedex man as glamourous noble work in someway that he was so needed on that flight but he'd be home for xmas or something

Crucifix

Noticing product placement does reduce my enjoyment of a movie. It is on par with a plot-hole, in that it stops me being engrossed in a movie when I'm really getting into it.
28 days later had some bad placement too:
"Do you want Tango or Fanta?"
"Do you have Pepsi?"
And a thirty second close up on a box of malteasers.

Retr0gamer

Cactus Col wrote:

and what about The Wizard?!?! all that nintendo stuff!!!
They must think we're fools!

As a 7 year old it was well worth sitting through that ****e to get my first glimpse of Mario Bros. 3

tba

garred wrote:

Actually I hav'nt even noticed the main placements highlighted so that will give you an idea of my attention span.

Im the same, didnt even notice any advertisement, although I did leave the cinema wanting to purchase a clone of Scarlett Johansson.

lostexpectation

Crucifix wrote:

28 days later had some bad placement too:
"Do you want Tango or Fanta?"
"Do you have Pepsi?"
And a thirty second close up on a box of malteasers.

to me that was more just about the thoughts of them having to survive on junk food whihc wouldn't sustain cos people can't really look after themselves in this modern world... etc etc


there a difference between product placement and paid for product placement ala converse, msn etc (or product placement by companies/filmhouses owned by the same people)

Bacchus

Yeah, the 28 Days Later placement is acceptable because it was more about showing how people had to live after the breakout. Think about, fresh food would be gone off within a week or two. All people would have to survive on is tinned food and junk food. This is an example of placement servicing the plot rather than the placement stealing the stage.

Peteee

Crucifix wrote:

28 days later had some bad placement too:
"Do you want Tango or Fanta?"
"Do you have Pepsi?"

"Do you want Generic Orange flavoured carbonated beverage #1 or Generic Orange flavoured carbonated beverage#2?"
"Do you have the second most popular Cola flavoured drink?"

:rolleyes: