Um, no. The movie takes place on earth. Real earth. Today. Sorry you disagree with that choice, but don't assume that you get to make that choice for the filmmakers.

(Heheh, I used "TransGlobal" as my example above - because it was the fake airline used in the Airport movies, to illustrate how fake names stand out like a sore thumb. Real names just stick out like a thumb.)

Filmmakers do it all the time. Even though the film takes place in the real world, they don't necessarily have to have real world company names. If I were a filmmmaker I would use made up names. Nothing dates a movie like having someone in it singing a McDonald's jingle that isn't around anymore (ie. 'Ordinary People') or referencing a company that no longer exists...

C'mon, how much of a sore thumb was McDonald's in 'Fifth Element'? Huge sore thumb.

You can't say he was trying to be realistic. Pshaw, he had dollar signs in his eyes.

Zemeckis didn't have money in mind when he put Fed Ex in his movie? He most certainly did. ie. The California Raisin Company paid millions of dollars to feature a bus bench with their ad on it in 'Back to the Future' (another Zemeckis film).

FedEx stuck out like an sore advertisement.

I agree with iSm when it comes to real world products in film. BRAND X takes me out of the movie as much as "my phone number is 555-5555".

There was an Email cartoon that made the rounds back then.. It showed him delivering that last package only to find out it had a brand new satellite phone and solar charger.

The 555 thing is annoying, but I understand why they do it. Brand X doesn't bother me, though. In fact, I prefer it. Any mention of a real product or any visual ad in a film takes me out of the reality that the film is trying to sell us. It's like McDonald's in Disneyland. Annoying.
:D

Perhaps I don't see enough films, but nothing like product placement or brand-x vs. the real thing bugs me. People drink Coke, so who cares if there's a Coke on the table? Why should I care if it is FedEx or Transglobal Express?

Just doesn't make a difference to me.

Would it make a difference if you found out that they put that can of Coke in their film just so that they could score 8 million dollars from Coke for advertising it?

It's an interesting question - how much reality do you want in your storytelling? Should the president's name be correct or fictional? Which movie stars "exist" and which don't due to acting in the film itself? I love when movies play with that and have the actor exist anyway, so you have an actor saying that he hates himself or whatever. I can't think of an example off the top of my head.

More on realism:
On Family Guy, Stewie travels to the future.
Stewie: "Everything looks the same!"
Future Stewie: "What did you expect, it's only been thirty years."

Like most things in life, it depends on how it's done. The FedEx placement in Castaway made it a better movie. Looking for the travelocity roaming gnome in the amazing race is a distration.

Not in the least. Capitalism at its best. And if I am so weak minded that I go purchase a coke because I saw Harrison Ford drinking one then I deserve whatever the death-in-a-can soda does to me.

If I recall correctly.....I think it was the movie The Firm (Tom Cruise as a lawyer who ends up unwittingly going to work for a mob law firm). In the book, he gets a new Mercedes as a signing bonus. In the movie, it's a BMW. Why? Because BMW paid for it. Who the hell cares? He's got to drive something. Why not let him drive the car of the biggest bidder?

So no.....it doesn't bother me at all.