# The most shameless product placement seen in a movie. (and ruins the movie for you) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 23, 2003, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-shameless-product-placement-seen-in-a-movie-and-ruins-the-movie-for-you/183709 "2003-06-23T05:29:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-shameless-product-placement-seen-in-a-movie-and-ruins-the-movie-for-you/183709/81 "2003-06-29T02:15:27Z")
I never saw the movie, but I remember reading a review of Bill Cosby’s \*Ghost Dad. \* The reviewer totally panned it, of course, and dedicated several paragraphs to detailing all of the product placements (which, I suppose, were the most interesting part of the film.) He mentioned that there was a scene after Cosby’s character dies, in which the grieving children console themselves by eating Jello pudding. ---
**Author:** ![skaterboarder87](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@skaterboarder87](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/skaterboarder87)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-shameless-product-placement-seen-in-a-movie-and-ruins-the-movie-for-you/183709/82 "2003-06-29T04:11:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ENugent \* > \*\*How can no one have mentioned that ridiculous Duracell battery in _The Matrix_? \*\* Yes, but at least that had meaning, symbolism. It was integrated as part of the plot, and was used tactfully (read: Wasn’t referenced thousands of times, ala Happy Gilmore’s Subway). ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-shameless-product-placement-seen-in-a-movie-and-ruins-the-movie-for-you/183709/83 "2003-06-29T06:58:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Gaspode \* > I’ve been wondering about the logo on the powerbook. Seems to me, they have powerbooks specifically made for use on screen, with the logo upside down, so when the lid is opened, and the powerbook shown from behind, so to say, the apple is still facing the right way. > > With a normal powerbokk, with the lid opened, the logo would be upside down, no? No. Apple changed the orientation of the logo on their laptop lids a few years back. Apparently Steve Jobs got sick 'n tired of people seeing Powerbooks used in public with upside-down logos – definitely understandable from a “building the brand” persepective. All of the Apple laptops you buy today will display the logo right-side-up when opened. ---
**Author:** ![Already\_in\_Use](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a9adbd/32.png) [@Already\_in\_Use](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Already_in_Use)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-shameless-product-placement-seen-in-a-movie-and-ruins-the-movie-for-you/183709/84 "2003-06-29T13:47:04Z")
I believe there’s FedEx placement in the first _Matrix_: the phone (a Motorola, I think) is FedExed to Neo when he’s at work in the beginning of the movie. And as for military “product placement,” I don’t think the military pays for it per se, but provides equipment and technical advice and such if allowed to review and suggest amendments to the script. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-shameless-product-placement-seen-in-a-movie-and-ruins-the-movie-for-you/183709/85 "2003-06-29T16:36:57Z")
The phone in the first Matrix was a Nokia IIRC. the second one had a samsung. I dont know if this also happened in the states but just before Matrix Reloaded started, they had an ad by Samsung where an agent is running down the street when he passes a store window with a Samsung 42" Plasma screen with Trinity on it. He is temporarily fooled by how “realistic” trinity is on the screen. It was a very poorly done ad and detracted from the movie. ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Tan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/charlie_tan/32/12582_2.png) [@Charlie\_Tan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Tan)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-shameless-product-placement-seen-in-a-movie-and-ruins-the-movie-for-you/183709/86 "2003-06-29T17:31:05Z")
It _was_ a Nokia. And jeepers, have the Fins been good at getting their phones on the big screen or what? ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-shameless-product-placement-seen-in-a-movie-and-ruins-the-movie-for-you/183709/87 "2003-06-29T21:19:40Z")
James Bond. The Tank Chase. Heineken… And then there’s Ice Cold in Alex. ---
**Author:** ![Agrippina](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8797f3/32.png) [@Agrippina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agrippina)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-shameless-product-placement-seen-in-a-movie-and-ruins-the-movie-for-you/183709/88 "2003-06-29T21:36:38Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Bad News Baboon \* > \*\* > The inverse is true, however, when watching a movie or TV show (usually older ones) and it is painfully obvious that there is no such such product._\* Or when they use a fake name to an obvious product logo. I think that happend quite a few times in the show _Seinfeld_. The one I remember is when Elaine and Puddy are on a plane, and Puddy is telling the stewardess about his and Elaine’s relationship. The stewardess is pushing around a cart with cans of COLA (as it’s written on the can), but the cans clearly have the Pepsi logo. ---
**Author:** ![Troy\_McClure\_SF](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troy_mcclure_sf/32/4150_2.png) [@Troy\_McClure\_SF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Troy_McClure_SF)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-shameless-product-placement-seen-in-a-movie-and-ruins-the-movie-for-you/183709/89 "2003-06-29T22:40:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rabid Child \* > **Or when they use a fake name to an obvious product logo.** I used to notice that on Roseanne. Most of their kitchen products reminded me of (I think) Ralph’s generic brands, but I could be wrong. Plus, sometimes, Dan’s beer (named “Beer”) was a dead ringer for Budweiser. ---
**Author:** ![red\_dragon60](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ce73a5/32.png) [@red\_dragon60](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/red_dragon60)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-shameless-product-placement-seen-in-a-movie-and-ruins-the-movie-for-you/183709/90 "2003-06-30T02:14:02Z")
Not a movie, but _Alias_ has such atrocious product placements that I have just about stopped watching it. Sydney steals a car in Europe, it is a Ford Focus, which we know by them showing the logo on the screen for about ten seconds. Then someone asks her what car she is driving over her earpiece, and one of the techs says “I was just about to buy one of those Ford Focuses myself!” On top of that, the Nokia cellphone ring is ever-present. Superman did have one of the first with the Cheerios. Watch for it when he gets up for breakfast in Smallville, and you’ll see the box pointing to the camera. We go outside the house for a looking-in shot through the window, and the Cheerios box has magically turned to point to the camera again. ---
**Author:** ![skaterboarder87](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@skaterboarder87](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/skaterboarder87)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-shameless-product-placement-seen-in-a-movie-and-ruins-the-movie-for-you/183709/91 "2003-06-30T02:22:44Z")
28 Days Later had a lot of Pepsi ads. It was a bit distracting. ---
**Author:** ![BooksWoods](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e0b2c6/32.png) [@BooksWoods](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BooksWoods)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-shameless-product-placement-seen-in-a-movie-and-ruins-the-movie-for-you/183709/92 "2003-06-30T02:53:43Z")
[[The best part about those Cadillacs is that according to the first Matrix movie, the Matrix was created to simulate the year 1999. The two Cadillacs are a CTS and an Escalade EXT, neither of which existed before 2003.]] Yeah, that destroyed the realism in that movie for me, too… ---
**Author:** ![lawoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/35a633/32.png) [@lawoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawoot)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-shameless-product-placement-seen-in-a-movie-and-ruins-the-movie-for-you/183709/93 "2003-06-30T04:22:56Z")
The second Michael Keaton **Batman** movie ([Batman Returns](http://us.imdb.com/Title?0103776) )- where EVERY car in Gotham City (except the Batmobile and Bruce’s Limo) are Volkswagons (Rabbit/Golf, I think). ---
**Author:** ![lawoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/35a633/32.png) [@lawoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawoot)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-shameless-product-placement-seen-in-a-movie-and-ruins-the-movie-for-you/183709/94 "2003-06-30T04:38:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by red\_dragon60 \* > \*\*Superman did have one of the first with the Cheerios. Watch for it when he gets up for breakfast in Smallville, and you’ll see the box pointing to the camera. We go outside the house for a looking-in shot through the window, and the Cheerios box has magically turned to point to the camera again. \*\* Hell, they even have there own credit at the end - next time you see the movie, watch for it: > [@](#): > > Cheerios by General Mills ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-shameless-product-placement-seen-in-a-movie-and-ruins-the-movie-for-you/183709/95 "2003-06-30T10:00:36Z")
I’d hate to rain on any kind of parade, but it sounds like some people are getting a bit carried away. If _any_ visual reference to an existing brand is going to “ruin a movie” for you, you might as well stop watching them entirely and save yourself the trouble. Did the reference to Pan-Am in **2001** ruin the film for you? I doubt it. And if it did, it certainly ought not to have. I hope that the difference between a **James Bond** Omega product placement and the humorous digs in **Happy Gilmore** or **Wayne’s World** is clear to all: there’s straight product placements, and then there’s satire of product placements or at the very least a tongue-in-cheek approach to a tactic that has become the norm in most Hollywood productions. It seems some people have reached the point where they recognize any brand on film and knee-jerk against it as product placement that ruins the movie. That’s a defeatist way of watching film. Let’s face it, we (all of us privileged to post on these boards) live in consumerist societies, where large brand names have become icons and advertising is the doctrine. Brand names --even if only present in the background-- are important parts of our everyday lives, and there is no reason why any film maker ought not to include brand names in his work if his work requires it. Creating fictional brands, especially _convincing_ fictional brands, is hard work and will seldom give the viewer that jolt of recognition, familiarity, and context that real brands – being a part of our everyday lives-- can produce in a matter of a split-second. (As an aside, a Playstation game I saw a few years ago called Red Asphalt was impressive from a corporate communications standpoint: the game, some sort of futuristic death race, involved some 7 or so fictional car types, from the cheapest piece of crap to the ultimate luxury hovercraft: each car model had its own video advertisement, sales pitch, and exquisitely presented brand – a significant effort for a video game, and a sound lampooning of car ads at the same time. See also another game, Wipeout, for fictional brands that are presented with impressive care; most of the Wipeout brand logos look good enough to be real). So there are perfectly valid ways in which filmmakers can insert real brand names in their work without necessarily selling out the film. No doubt many films contain shameless product placements, but not **every** brand you recognize in a film has to be a placement. For instance, the Spider-man beer truck: if it was a fleeting glimpse that some posters here didn’t even notice was it a blatant product placement, or just the familiar detail of the city? That’s rather different from (for example) a lengthy close-up shot of a perfectly-positioned can of Coke, of course. In film, the large sums paid for product placements can render the practice a contentious topic and give the viewer the impression that he has paid to sit through a series of ads. Some films, many films, are definitely guilty of this, but let’s not paint every production with the same brush. A good example of how useful (and less contentious) references to brands can be is to look at other forms of narrative where the presence of brands is (so far anyway) less of an issue. Most of Stephen King’s fiction (with a very few exceptions) revolves around mass-consumerism, which provides an anchor to the reader, a reference point from which King establishes character and environment. Personally I find this abysmally boring because the exercise tends to go on for far too long, but the technique seems to work for many others. C.f. Gibson’s ground-breaking Neuromancer, in which the society of the near future is no longer recognizable in any way… apart from the brand names, used as effective literary devices (Nikon-Zeiss lenses, anyone?). And don’t miss out on Don DeLillo’s brilliant White Noise, in which a character is overwhelmed by ultra-branding and resolves to buy only generic products lest his consciousness be completely effaced by the myriad brands pimped to consumers. There’s no reason to complain about any and all recognized brands just because they happen to be glimpsed on film; the Atari logo in **Bladerunner** , for example, is not as obnoxious a placement as many of those found in recent James Bond films. And you have to remember that Atari was an innovator brand of significant force until its death and resurrection, a veritable cultural symbol of the ‘80s, and that is why it fits in well (in context) in the Bladerunner universe. Not only did Atari give us the video game industry, not only did they put game consoles in your household, but they also made 8, 16, and even 32-bit computers that performed just as well or better than IBM/clone or Apple counterparts for a fraction of the price, with better ease of use and fewer headaches. To my knowledge, some musicians today still employ late '80s or early '90s Atari computers in their trade (check out the inside flip of Fatboy Slim’s CD --“you’ve come a long way, baby” I think–and you will see an Atari ST or Falcon in the middle of his studio picture). Atari were cutting-edge when **Bladerunner** was made, no question about it. Heck, before Apple was founded its to-be founders worked for Atari! I see nothing objectionable in placing the Atari logo in **Bladerunner** : not only was it a brand doing exciting things in 1985, but it contributes colour and detail to the fictional society and landscape of the future, and gives us familiar reference points to make the imaginary futuristic L.A. more real (a technique, as mentioned earlier, that William Gibson employed a few years earlier in Neuromancer, a seminal work of literature). Speaking of the glorious Atari and of film, in **Terminator 2** the young hero uses an Atari Portfolio (the smallest laptop of its time, and one of the slickest) to hack into an ATM and Cyberdine Corp. Yet (to my recollection) the Atari logo on the laptop is not shown and the laptop is never shot clearly. Only those familiar with Atari computers would have recognized the model by its size (fits in a pocket), design, and keyboard. Later in the film there is a shot of Missile Command, an arcade game also made by Atari. I don’t know why T2 didn’t do a better job of showing Atari’s logo, but can you always reflexively tell the differences among product placements, in-jokes, narrative techniques, cultural references, or combinations of the above? ---
**Author:** ![Sengkelat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@Sengkelat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sengkelat)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-shameless-product-placement-seen-in-a-movie-and-ruins-the-movie-for-you/183709/96 "2003-06-30T12:52:10Z")
For the most part, I agree with you, **Abe** – though you do list your location as Hong Kong, so maybe you’ve just learned to tune out omnipresent advertising. I have no problem with real products appearing in movies. We live in a world with recognizable brands, and they will show up if that world is filmed. I merely object to blatant and distracting product placement. For instance, in _Strictly Ballroom_, there’s very little in the way of product placement…until two thirds through the movie, where the main characters climb to the rooftop to dance joyously together…right in front of a giant, lit Coca Cola billboard. Sheesh. I’m amused that the air fresheners in _Repo Man_ were a paid placement. I never would have guessed it, because they never mention the product name. And it’s effective, too; I know a lot of folks who bought the little cardboard pine trees specifically because of the movie. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2003, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-shameless-product-placement-seen-in-a-movie-and-ruins-the-movie-for-you/183709/97 "2003-07-01T14:47:00Z")
It would be great to find a site that lists films by product placements. Searching for one without any luck, I came across this alarming article: > [@](#): > > _from [http://film.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4548330,00.html](http://film.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4548330,00.html)_ > > Simon Wright of London firm Showcase said his firm always asked to read scripts or see the synopsis to ensure their clients’ products were being used for ‘positive purposes’. > > The Americans have gone further and are drawing up plans to use interactive technology to allow viewers to instantly purchase products used by characters they see in movies and TV programmes. A viewer who tunes in to a soap opera or TV sitcom and sees an actor wearing an outfit they admire will be able to press a button and immediately obtain details of how to buy it. > > Critics have warned the new technology could transform TV programmes into full-length commercials. It also sketches some details about **Die Another Day** product placements. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2003, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-shameless-product-placement-seen-in-a-movie-and-ruins-the-movie-for-you/183709/98 "2003-07-01T14:50:34Z")
By the way, I notice that in my long message I made the embarrassing error of confusing the dates of Blade Runner and Neuromancer. Blade came first, two years later or so came Neuro. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2003, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-shameless-product-placement-seen-in-a-movie-and-ruins-the-movie-for-you/183709/99 "2003-07-01T15:13:05Z")
Yikes. You people pay way too much attention to movies. I have never had a movie ruined for me by product placement. God knows there are six million other ways to ruin a movie without taking advertisement into account. ---
**Author:** ![Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2003, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-shameless-product-placement-seen-in-a-movie-and-ruins-the-movie-for-you/183709/100 "2003-07-01T16:18:27Z")
Don’t forget the Ford Mustang in _Bullet_ or the placement Smith & Wesson did in all those Dirty Harry movies. Riggs alway flashing that Berretta around in the Leathal Weapon series. All the Boeing aircraft in _Memphis Belle_ and _12 O’clock High_. And it seems you can’t find any movie about the Viet Nam war without catching a couple dozen shots of Colt m-16s. And Grumman practically saturated _Top Gun_ with those F-14’s. And the Death Star from _Star Wars_? The AT&T logo! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-shameless-product-placement-seen-in-a-movie-and-ruins-the-movie-for-you/183709.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-shameless-product-placement-seen-in-a-movie-and-ruins-the-movie-for-you/183709.md?page=6)