Miscellaneous Movie Musings

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Putting it in a real company immediately creates a connection with the character and exactly what world he lives in (and that it is ours). If he worked at a fake name company is it of the monumental logistical proportions as FedEx? Is it something smaller and more fly-by-night? Is it whatever? Using FedEx creates an immediate shorthand and has a historic well-known slogan that emphasizes the importance of time and efficiency (which is the basis on which the character structures his life).

I disagree. These questions you pose can be answered in the script. A truly good writer and director could pull of that. For example, some films feature made up countries for crying out loud. The whole movie is about a war with 'Country X'. The movie is still believable. It is possible to do. Although I do not hold much faith in filmmakers these days, I think it is something that has been done in the past and done effectively and creatively. To say that people must rely on real businesses is not giving the creative mind much credit.

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

According to Wikipedia, while the term FedEx was a common usage (like KFC) it wasn't officially used by the company until, so apparently it was valid for the timeframe of the movie.

The argument that was placed in this thread is that it was done to add credibility to the film. Credibility and accuracy go hand in hand.

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Do you find it equally obnoxious that many times when you see a movie that could be filmed in any city without affecting the story that the actual city selected is based on a bidding process by which city film offices offer discounts, tax refunds, and other services to attract the film?

If the city isn't vital to the story, then it doesn't bother me. If there's posters all over the film saying 'Come Visit Beautiful Tehachapi', then that would bother me.

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Out of curiosity, do you read Stephen King? He was famous for using real brand names in his novels to add realism to the books and keep them firmly planted in our real world. Quentin Tarantino is famous for his "hip" dialogue that was well known for referencing actual brands and other commercial products thus firmly grounding the story in the real world.

I don't know if authors get paid for doing that. (One of my favorite books is the unabridged 'The Stand'.)
As was said before, Tarantino made up 'Kahuna Burger'. So it can be done and done well.

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

As I said, so long as it isn't fetishistic I don't really care if money changed hands. Just like I don't care that the only reason Harrison Ford agrees to present himself in a movie is if money changes hands.

Yes, but there are a lot of great low budget films out there where very little money changes hands, which doesn't star major actors and where no ads pop up. I'd rather watch ten of those than Ford's last film once.

[Stan4dSteph]

What about the films that have a character who smokes? I have more of an issue with that than with product placement.

Originally Posted by GC

I disagree. These questions you pose can be answered in the script.

Sure, but why waste the time when you have something that is so ingrained in our culture that we immediately know what it is and what it represents? I'd rather get more into the meat of the story than have several pages of contextualization of Company X.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Stan4dSteph

What about the films that have a character who smokes? I have more of an issue with that than with product placement.

I have issues with that, too. I don't agree with glamorizing smoking in films. I mean the films in the 30's, 40's and 50's... wow! That's a lot of smoking going on. Not to mention the numerous takes from shot to shot. Yikes. But at the same time, they aren't wearing Marlboro t-shirts while they do it.

Originally Posted by Stan4dSteph

Sure, but why waste the time when you have something that is so ingrained in our culture that we immediately know what it is and what it represents? I'd rather get more into the meat of the story than have several pages of contextualization of Company X.

There are worse things that they spend time on. You could explain a company that someone works for in a sentence or two. If you show someone working in their environment, based on how frantic they are working you could convey the message that this is a big, successful monster of a company. Think about sci-fi movies, they have to explain a planet, a culture, just about everything. But let's not waste time on that? Let them just work on Earth, in America, at Walmart but have them carry laser guns. (I'm being silly, I know, but I think you get my point?)

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, your point seems to be that showing the real world as it is, chock full of logos everywhere, is a bother to you. That's fine.

Many other people, me included, say it conveys a sense of reality, and can serve as a shorthand of visual communication which is appropriate for a visual art form. Round and round, and this is where I get off.

I'm not gonna top my post about The Louvre. I wish I could have kept the light touch, and I apologize for getting touchy. But The DaVinci Code could have used a lot less talk. I'm really glad they didn't bother to take even four lines to explain some made-up museum with the great art works of history and a painting that was somehow the most famous work of art on an entire planet.

I'm just gonna leave it at that, and hope the thread veers back to musing about other movies. I have no intentions of singing any more praises about freaking Cast Away. The tangent about product placement vs. filmic reality was very interesting. I've got nothing more to say about either subject.


Hopefully, some people will be curious enough about the FedEx controversy to screen Cast Away, and they'll either love it or hate it.

[scaeagles]

I liked Cast Away.

Reality in a movie is not necessary to me. If it were, I'd not watch any movies. However, the more a movie seems realistic or plausible to me, the more I typically like it. Batman Begins is my favorite superhero type movie because, as far as superhero movies go, it was plausible that someone could really be Batman. Superman, Spiderman....they all take some incredible premise to build their movies.

[Gemini Cricket]

I think the 'Da Vinci Code' was a tad too talky myself. The pacing of the book was much faster than the pacing of the movie. (I'm not sure if that makes any sense, but that's what it felt like anyway.)

I'm bummed that I read 'DVC' after the trip we took to Scotland, London and Paris. It was a coincidence that the places were the same...

[mousepod]

Man... I came into this thread waaaay too late. I was gonna talk about how I just watched the Hammer flick "Rasputin, the Mad Monk" starring Christopher Lee in the title role.

Anyway, now that we're talking about product placement, I'm surprised that nobody mentioned Zemeckis' mentor, Spielberg. Minority Report is quite possibly the most shameless example of product placement I've ever seen in a movie.

As far as Castaway is concerned, I would have chosen FedEx, too, if only for their super-cool logo. Once someone pointed out the subliminal arrow in the name, I can't look at the logo and not see it. Keen.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by mousepod

Minority Report is quite possibly the most shameless example of product placement I've ever seen in a movie.

Totally. Although, despite that, I liked 'Minority Report'.

The worst was Taco Bell in 'Demolition Man'. And all those ads in 'Fantastic Four'.

[Ghoulish Delight]

The product placement was the least of my problems with Minority Report. Writing, acting, directing, and cinematography all trumped it.

For the record, the logo was designed in 1994.

http://www.thesneeze.com/mt-archives/000273.php

[tracilicious]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

I'd also like to hear you address the huge problems the movie had with its storytelling. We can stray from product placement for a moment.

What is the moral of the story? Love doesn't last? Love doesn't wait for you? There are worse things than being stuck on an island, you could find out that the love of your life forgot you and got married to someone else?
What great messages!

I really love Cast Away. I won't address product placement (though for me it was very necessary in this story), but I will address the above.

I don't think a story necessarily needs a moral, but for me Cast Away's moral is triumph of the human spirit. He clings to hope by not opening the angel wings package, he creates comradery with an ordinary object to help him survive the constant isolation, he takes his one chance at freedom from the island with bravery and adventure, then in the end even when all seems lost he delivers his package and journeys into the unknown. Life really sucks sometimes but it doesn't end. Even when the most crippling of blows are dealt the indefeatable human spirit survives. He takes his map and goes off to find out what else life has to offer. You don't get a better ending than that, IMO.

I will say though, that one thing really annoyed me about Cast Away. He's gone for four years, in that time she marries and has a two or three year old child. So basically, she would have married within the year he died and got pregnant right away. It seemed a bit rushed to me in that respect. One of my favorite movies ever though, for precisely the reasons iSm described in his original post.