Miscellaneous Movie Musings

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Prudence

Oh! I'd better see the second X-Men movie (which BT took his siblings to and not me!) before number three comes out. Yay summer popcorn flicks!

Which will probably have product placement for Baskin Robbins like the other 2 did.

[CoasterMatt]

Originally Posted by Prudence

DC apparently has more Starbucks per capita than Washington State does.

DC also has more violent crime - those damned lattes and frappucinos are laced with PCP!

[Gemini Cricket]

They shot the last scenes on FedEx property for free. There was huge support from FedEx during the film. Charging them nothing for filming on their site is in essence paying to have them use the logo.

They may not have given them the logos but someone was on set at all time insuring that the logo look right and was portrayed in a correct manner.

I say it again, they did not need to have FedEx all over this film. Nor the brand Wilson.

[Alex]

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 think a lot is added by using the real FedEx that wouldn't even have been added by DHL or UPS or "Hanks Cash and Carry."

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.

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?

I personally don't mind product placement as long as it isn't fetishistic. I don't care if the computer on a desk is an Apple or a Dell or a Sony. I care if for no apparent reason the camera lingers on the logo.

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.

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.

[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?)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by GC

CP ~ I'm thinking we agree.

I'd mojo you if I could

It seems the part we seem to disagree on is regarding CastAway - which I have not seen and can't comment on.

I do agree with Alex for the most part.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh I wish Alex would tolerate my mojo for that concise presentation of the freaking point.


GC, I hope you are getting a good night's sleep as I type this. Your crankiness about FedEx appearing on film and wanting their logo to appear correctly is just about the worst whining I've seen in a while.


(And I've seen some pretty damn fine whining in the mirror, quite often ... so I recognize it, pal.)

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

GC, I hope you are getting a good night's sleep as I type this. Your crankiness about FedEx appearing on film and wanting their logo to appear correctly is just about the worst whining I've seen in a while.


(And I've seen some pretty damn fine whining in the mirror, quite often ... so I recognize it, pal.)

It isn't whining. It's fact.

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 find it interesting that my comments are directed at the film. Yours turned into name calling somewhere along the line after I disagreed with you. That's nice...