But the point is that there is no earthly reason for the shoe scene to be in that movie at all, except as a plug. It’s not a plot point, it doesn’t tell us anything about the character, it’s just an intrusion.
M&M’s turned down Spielberg because they didn’t like the premise of the movie.
Excuse them, they are idiots.
The one that struck me as the most blatant was in Matrix: Reloaded. Towards the beginning, when all the ship captains are meeting in the matrix, a car pulls through the alley, towards the camera, coming to a stop just as the Audi logo on the front grill fills the screen. Ugh.
I’d go for the first Spider-Man film, when Pete’s practicing his new found web-shooting in his room, targetting various objects. Lamp. Picture frame. DR PEPPER CAN! Fullscreen! Look at that! Couldn’t help but laugh.
Then there’s the Head&Shoulders business at the end of Evolution. That was just weird.
I have to completely disagree about the shoe scene in I, Robot. It is far from gratuitious but is meant to help establish WIll Smith’s character as a sort of luddite (not strictly speaking). But in the movie he clearly is not a fan of modern conveniences, esp. robots. This is evidenced not just by the vintage shoes he buys, but by the motorcycle he drives and the stereo system he owns. Nowhere near gratuitous.
This same thing happens in Top Secret! with a Pinto.
but then it blows up.
I guess it’s not the same thing.
In Minority Report there were blatant ads for Lexus, Revo, Guinness, American Express, and Reebok.
You can see a lot more at brandchannel
Don’t forget that piece of shit Josie and the Pussycats. The whole thing was a giant ad for Target, AOL, Starbucks… you name it.
I can just see the scene in the producer’s office.
Producer #1: This script is crap. No one’s gonna pay to see it. We have to make the script better so that more people will buy tickets and we can make some money.
Producer #2: Hey, we can just sell ad space throughout the movie and then it doesn’t matter if anyone sees it.
Producer #1: Genius!
I’ve read that the rise in Reese’s Pieces sales following ET is what really ignited product placement. Remember the movies and TV shows from the 1970s and before where the family’s cupboards would have generic loaves of breads or brands you’d never heard of? (On The Carol Burnett Show, anytime the character drank a soda or a beer it was a can of Tab but with a fake label to hide the brand name.)
Of course there’s no telling how much The Simpson’s has increased the sales of Duff Beer.
Amen! Bond films were financed (at least partially) by placement. But Moonraker has to take the cake for blatant. The appearance of Marlboro Cigarettes might be one thing, but in case you missed it…the Marlboro billboard in the ambulance chace?
Not to mention the British Airways billboard. Maybe it’s insulting to use the term blatant. Why not use the term lazy?
To me the most interesting thing about this is that I initially welcomed the use of actual brands in T.V. shows and movies. I grew up in an era between 1950’s wholesale sponsorship of T.V. shows by corporations (Texaco Star Theater, etc.) and 1990’s use of product placement. It always bugged me that people ate “Crackly Flakes” cereal and drank generic “Soda”. When I first started seeing real products in movies and on T.V., it made the shows seem much more realistic. It’s only recently that it seems like product placement has crossed the line from realism to blatant advertising.
When I saw the thread title, I immediately thought of Castaway. Its portrayal of FedEx may not be 100% positive, but the whole movie did feel like a FedEx commercial to me. (“We’ll get your package to you no matter what we have to go through!”)
My favorite recent example not in a movie or TV show:
There’s a link to the actual ad, but I haven’t been able to bring myself to watch it.
In an episode of Alias from a couple of seasons ago, before I stopped watching the show, Sydney (Jennifer Garner) and Lauren (Melissa George) became involved in a car chase while driving a Ford Focus SUV. For some reason, they needed to call Marshall the tech guy (Kevin Weisman) for some help. He didn’t realize the situation was urgent and started taking about the car, something along the lines of:
Marshall: Hey, Syd, are you driving than new Ford Focus?
Sydney: Yes, but Marshall–
Marshall: Do you like it? Because I’ve been thinking about getting a Ford Focus. They say it handles well–
Sydney: Marshall, FORGET ABOUT THE FORD FOCUS! We need help!
I thought that was pretty egregious.
Although (IMO) the movie “You’ve Got Mail” was terrible all around, a special mention has to made for it’s egregious product placement. This movie’s product placements are particularly execrable since the flick claims to be on the side of small, independent stores rather than large corporations.
Tom Hanks character (the bad guy) is the CEO of a large chain of megalithic bookstores (read “Barnes & Noble”), Melanie Griffith (the character we’re supposed to root for) owns a cuddly-wuddly Kids bookstore (cue schmaltzy sentimental music!) that’s going to be put out of business by Hanks’ store. While characters spend a lot of time defending the “spirit of independent cottage-industries”, they spend a lot more time emailing each other on AOL (logo is prominently splattered across the screen again & again), and drinking coffee at (where else?) Starbucks.
This one actually did nt bother me for one reason. I felt like the director and SMith were actually playing it up and making it as blatant as possible to remove any subtlety at all. In that way, it draws so much attention that it ceases to become a product placement. In other words, they were mocking Converse.
I just watched it, and it’s really not that bad. I don’t think I would have even noticed if it hadn’t been pointed out. It just looks like people eating in a cafeteria, with food sitting around.
No one’s mentioned The Apprentice yet? I quit watching it specifically because they weren’t even trying to pretend it was a legitimate contest any more. It’s an hour long infomercial every week for whatever company ponied up the cash.
And Ford has sponsored several B-grade syndicated action type TV shows. That Pamela Anderson show comes to mind, though I forget the name. Watch it and you’ll see nothing but Fords on the roads. Oh, and don’t forget VIPER, the TV show starring, yes, a Dodge Viper. And some guy driving it, I think, but he wasn’t important.
Here’s a related thread on the history of product placement I started to keep from hijacking this one.