I think it depends on the story. If it a brand name pertains to something specific in the story itself and is vital to tell the story, then it should exist. It is not vital to the story to have Hanks work at FedEx. The story would not lose anything if he worked for a company by another name.
I think it also depends on the story. Is it a movie that is impacted by the Watergate scandal? If so, Nixon should be president. If the president's identity or political party is irrelevant, then a generic president should be featured. If 'The Day After Tomorrow' featured George Bush 2, then the movie would be seen as a jab at Bush and Republicans. It makes a total statement to have the president be an actual president.
This was a funny thing I noticed in 'Beverly Hills Cop 2'. The villain in that was Bridget Nielsen. At one point, someone interacts with a poster for the film 'Cobra' (the Stallone vehicle). At the time the movie came out, Nielsen and Stallone were together. So, who was Stallone married to in the reality of 'BHC2'? It's a good question isn't it. Does the villain just look like her?
:shruggage:

How?
That is how we differ. I see it as selling out. And anyone who buys a Coke because Harrison Ford (which he wouldn't by the way, maybe in Japan but not here) told them to is a lemming.
:D

I completely agreee with you. I could care less if a person is drinking Coke, Pepsi, Shasta or Colamonger Cola. If a story is compelling enough, I don't even notice beyond having a mental placeholder for what the company means. However, if an incorrect concept was used, I would find it really disturbing.

To me, commercials have no place in films nor movie theatres. Bleh and double bleh.

I agree with scaeagles on paid advertisements - as long as they don't take me out of the movie. It's all about keeping me within the story.

I don't see how a multi-million dollar budget film can be accused of selling out any further than it already does.

If I wrote a screenplay and Coke wanted my characters to drink Coke in it, I'd happily take whatever they offered as long as the script and direction aren't affected by the transaction. I'd be especially inclined to take it if it meant I'd have just that much more budget for my film - better equipment, more time, etc. I don't see that as "selling out" my script or concept.

I certainly don't want a Truman Story thing going on (you know - with the wife telling Truman what she got at the store in tremendous detail).

Seeing a billboard for Coke or a McDonald's golden arches while someone is driving down the road in a movie only makes sense, because I pass those things all the time. Now if someone passes the golden arches 12 times while driving a mile.....that gets a bit silly.

Chris and I were just discussing this question the other day. I think what brought it up was his recent Inspiration story and the "meaning" or "possible meanings" for the Crow and Charlie. Maybe it's because some of my favorite authors are "magical realists" and blur the lines of reality, but I LIKE to have my lines blurred. I like to have more questions to ponder than difinitive answers. I like a good mix of both reality and un-reality.

This can easily carry over to my feelings - or lack thereof - on product placement. Murakami regularly mentions Disney-realted things as well as pop-culture icons in ways that are jarring, but meant to be so. His reality references seem to punch out the magical realism of the story for a moment which is wonderfully jolting for the reader.

I have a strong desire to re-warch I <3 Huckabees or Adaptation again. I'm in a mood to ponder some more and those two films do a great job of questioning "reality". ;)

But, is it a commercial or is it just something the character would do? If every product in a film was "fabricated" I would think the character and, possibly the film, would seem disingenious.

I can accuse it of selling out. If the message is important enough, despite how much money it has to tell the story, I can still be art. If they pimp the movie by putting blatant ads in it, then I can call it selling out.
It's as simple as that. (And it doesn't stop at ad placements. Placing a popular recording artist into a leading role in a movie, because they know people will watch the film just to see her, is selling out too.)

Shirley McLaine and Debra Winger are sitting on the bed talking about their love lives. Then suddenly, one says 'Let's go to KFC' or better yet Winger pulls out a bucket of KFC hotwings to go with her tea. Ugh, how horrible would that be?

An ad for General Electric in 'Capote'. Yeah, that's great.

I know I'm getting absurd about my examples, but I mean what I say. There is film that is art and then there are movies that are commercial infested nonsense.
Driving down a street and they pass by a McDonalds is fine. Dwelling on the McDonalds for 15 seconds showing someone eating a Big Mac isn't.

Kahuna Burger. There's an example, CP. Why talk about made up Kahuna Burger in 'Pulp Fiction' and then talk about McDonalds in France in another scene?

If a man has a burger in his fist, NA, that had a crumpled up wrapper that we don't see, that doesn't distract from anything. A wrapper that says 'Quarter Pounder' that is deliberately placed to be seen by the camera totally bugs. The blatant product placement makes things more disingenuous to me.
To me, that's exactly what it feels like.