By what they were saying, most of the companies and products they chose to include were chosen just by how well they emphasized that Marty was in a different time. Texaco changed its logo quite a bit, for example, whereas Shell hadn’t, so they chose Texaco for the gas station. In another scene, where Marty gets a drink from soda machine, they said they chose Coke because the 1955-style bottle and design was so different from the 1985 style, while Pepsi didn’t look all that different. Tab and Pepsi Free were just chosen for the jokes on their names, imo.
Incidentally, according to the writer, Einstein was originally a chimp. One of the producers insisted they change it, on the grounds that “movies with chimps never make money.” Good call.
That scene was in the novel, so I wouldn’t blame Nicolas Meyer. In the book, H.G., after a lifetime of 19th Century English food, finds that a Big Mac is the most delicious thing he’s ever tasted.
In 2001, I think the use of some real brands (like Pan Am) was intended to make it clear that they weren’t depicting a distant future unconnected to the lives of contemporary (1968) viewers – having a Pan Am commercial space shuttle is a way of saying “This is going to happen; you’ll see it in your lifetime.” Of course, it’s 2004 and I’m still waiting…
Yeah, that’s the one I opened this thread to post about. Of course, that movie was already ruined by everything else in the entire movie…so I guess it doesn’t really fit the bill.
2001’s use of product placement was also revolutionary for sci-fi. Up to that point, every object & product in a sci-fi movie was generic (probably true of movies in general, actually…). By putting the Pan Am & AT&T logos in his movie, Kubrick makes a subtle but crystal-clear point that this world of 30 years in the future is very much an extension of our own; some things are different, some things are immediately recognizable.
The other logo in 2001 was IBM - on the console of the Orion and Aries 3b spaceships - not HAL. I’ve read a ton about 2001, but have never seen anything to indicate that Kubrick was paid for the product placements - it was not done in those days.
And AT&T is not allowed to use the old Bell System logo under the terms of the consent agreement. It makes me a bit nostalgic, since I started out working for the old Western Electric. BTW, the Death Star came before the AT&T logo - reverse product placement?
Product placements don’t ruin movies for me, and some aren’t “shameless” but more essential, like “Cast Away”. I feel like Abe in that regard.
Sometimes they just kind of “jolt” me out of my “movie mindset” though. A recent one was a guy eating McD’s during “S.W.A.T.” which I enjoyed as an action movie.
There’s no real point to having the guy eating. The camera just kind of lingers on it for a minute and they make a couple of jokes about his wife finding out. It almost seemed like they were trying to make me think it WASN’T a product placement by being very blatant about it.
I like the product placement as it is used in a movie like Back to the Future, where it establishes the different time in which Marty has found himself, in a shorthand that makes sense to alost everyone in the audience.
I’m also glad for the product placement in Elliott’s room in E.T., because if I ever want to show my kids EXACTLY what was in a kid’s room when I was that age, all I have to do is show them that movie. “Look! Stratego! And a Speak & Spell!”, etc. Perfect time capsule.
I opened this thread to make a comment about the Yahoo! ad in Inspector Gadget, but it appears I beat myself by more than a year.
Oh, come on! That’s ridiculous! Big Kahuna Burger, now that is a tasty burger. There’s no point in boycotting them over it. However, I’ve never been a fan of big tobacco, and I don’t smoke, but if I did, you can be sure I’d never buy any Red Apple cigarettes.