Product Placement

"[Pete Ross] works at the IHOP."

Whoever delivered that line put a lot of emphasis on the IHOP for some reason and I thought that was funny.

 

Product Placement: The Movie

 

just because they put real world businesses in a movie they were trying to give a realistic feel to automatically makes it product placement?? I'm not buying it...it's just the simple fact that they wanted the movie to look and feel realistic

 

Stand up look around your place. Go walk into town and tell me you don't see all the product placement. The truth is in the US we are surrounded by it but movies due to licensing have to create a brand less place.

 

So the crap ton of advertising value they got from it was not the main motivator?

 

If I got up and went into town, I'd see IHOP, 7 Eleven, Sears....it's not product placement, it's real life. My town looks very much like Smallville

 

At least they didn't bombard us with Wal-Mart. That could've easily happened.

Product placement is a tricky thing to me. On the one hand, if the story takes place on Earth, and they happen to be fighting in an American town, it would be unrealistic not to show a few places that actually exist.

To me, it's almost more noticeable and distracting when they try to make up places that don't exist, or try to make some alternate version of a store (like instead of Target, there's a store called BullsEye - BullsEye doesn't exist in reality). So in a way, having Sears and IHOP is kind of showing that this is an American setting that takes place in our reality.

It didn't really take me out of the movie - it sort of familiarized me with the setting. That fight could've taken place in a million different small towns in America.

I'll say that this movie handled the issue of product placement a lot better than most movies. We could've had Superman randomly drinking a can of Coca-Cola before he takes flight, or Pa Kent eating Doritos before he gets sucked up into the tornado. Most movies literally do crap like that.

 

What's wrong with product placement. I mean seriously? I don't get it.

 

I'm not saying they didn't make a TON of money off of it but it looks very much like where I live

 

It's just something else for people to complain about.

If product placement means WB gets more money, that can only be good for us, the viewers. We want more DC movies, yes? Then stop complaining about things that don't hurt the movie at all.

Now if Superman sat down at IHOP for a nice breakfast, then shopped around Sears for a bit before grabbing a Slurpee at 7-11, then it'd be a problem. But they were barely cameos during big action sequences.

 

Just to play Devil's Advocate, what would you say if they got a whole different set of brands in place of what we got in the movie. Serves the same purpose but different. I wouldn't know they don't have those there so it my feelings are the same. Would it change much how you feel.

Note that I really don't care either since it wasn't completely in your face, but since this thread is here.

 

What kinds of brands? If they make sense, which they did in MOS, then I'm fine with it.

 

Don't know, doesn't matter, but Kal-El has said he livess in a town very much like Smallville so it felt right to see those things.

 

I hate people that complain about product placement to the point of nitpicking, it's all real based stuff, why wouldn't a 7-11 or an IHOP be at a Smallville? It's not like they're being forced on you to buy their stuff.

It makes me so mad that I'm gonna go to a KFC while drinking a Coca-Cola and having a Marlboro cigarette.

 

I didn't think it was ever distracting. I thought it was tastefully done, actually. The only time I ever thought "product placement!" was when Lois pulled out her Nokia, but it wasn't a huge deal.

 

effing LexCorp and Wayne Enterprises product placement all over the place. Greedy bastards.

 

There was Sears, IHOP, 7-11, Nokia, and some beer I think it was Miller. 5 brands is all I remember and this is some of the most obstructive 'product placement' youve ever seen? That is an extreme exaggeration

 

I'm generally fine with this sort of thing, since it helps offset the cost of the movie.

However, this is the future. Thankfully, that Google movie is bombing. But today I just saw a "reality" tv show about where delivery people log onto a specific website and bid on delivering items that people advertise on the site. It is a shameless half hour (or so...didn't watch the entire thing) promotion for this website...and it is a weekly tv series.

Corporations are learning that people are finding ways to get around advertising...so they will work the advertising into the entertainment...even making entire shows and movies that are just glorified ads.

 

This is kind of a silly complaint. I don't think the camera lingered on any of the brands...I think the camera lingered on the scenes happening around the stores, brands, etc.

I don't see how using real world locations and brands takes you out of a film. The idea was to make it feel like Superman had appeared in the real world, a world we know. The filmmakers addressed this in one of the earlier interviews.

 

why is product placement bad? Would you prefer they land in Larry's Diner or some bs rather than IHOP. dont really see how it makes a difference, if that means the movie is a few mill cheaper than throw it in there. Its not like in the middle of the film, superman turns around and drinks a Pepsi looking at the camera and said "boy this pepsi is refreshing!"

 

I actually posted this in another thread:

 

Subway is shameless. For some reason, every reality show on the History Channel WILL find themselves in a Subway at some point during the season. I remember one episode of American Pickers...the heavy-set one said he was hungry, but didnt want fast food because he was on a diet...then they went on a pick...then as they drove again they talked about looking for a place that was healthy and tasty...then picked again...then finally "THERE"S A SUBWAY!!" and they went in, discussed with each other what sandwich they ordered and hyped up how it is a healthy fast food alternative that tastes delicious.

 

Exactly. I typically hate stuff like this, but if it works - it works.

I'll give another example and the thought process that goes into it.

I was writing a draft of Mighty Max, where one of the characters walks around dressed as a viking (he's an immortal from the past). I needed an area for this viking mentor and his young pupil to take a breather, so I naturally took them to the one place all kids know - Burger King. I did that for a number of reasons. First is we've all gone to Burger King, we all know what Burger King is - it places it in our world. Second is it shows and tells us something about the pupil, that he's just an average kid like everyone else and likes fast food like every other kid. Third, it shows us how out of time and place the viking is - here's this viking dressed like a viking in burger king where little kids are running around wearing crowns; it just in one scene placed a great deal of emphasis upon how out of place he is. I could frankly have this scene take place anywhere, I could have it take place in someone's back lawn it's that kind of scene. But, placing it in Burger King gave me those three things - it gave me character and world a lot better than that backyard ever could have and that's why I chose it as the location. The last thing on my mind was product placement, I'm a writer - I don't think about that, it just happened to say everything I wanted it to say.

Same thing in MOS, it wasn't saying "oh here, look at this" it was saying "this is just like your town." And with IHOP it was telling us who Pete Ross grew up to be in a very fast and easy way it added a lot more to that character. It told us something about him.

Not everything is product placement and yes, as you could see, thought -- intensive thought -- actually goes into a decision like this.

 

Here's another example of saying something when it's not true at all. Not that it's not doing well, but thinking it's a product placement for Google.

Here's the story you think:

Google executives paid them to make a movie about them!

Here's the truth:

Vince Vaughn was reading about how a lot of people were losing their jobs and later that day about how wacky fun-house the google offices are and the contradictions of that. Some people are living life in luxury while others are struggling to just survive. This what inspired him to have that idea for the movie. He LATER went to Google hoping THEY would let him tell the story he wanted to tell (not the other way around).

The genesis of that film had absolutely nothing to do with product placement.

And if it seems like I'm calling you out, I'm sorry - I swear I'm not - I'm just putting this in here as a prime example of someone thinking something is based around product placement whereas that's not always the case. Your later example is though.