Product Placement: All Bad?

[denarced]

Hello,

 

Background

 

In the most recent WAN show Linus and Luke discussed product placement and the discussion seemed to have a generally negative tone. A reference was made to Transformers and how ridiculous product placement was in that or those movies. I decided to google cause I didn't really understand what the problem was since I didn't consider product placement to be a problem in Transformers (any of them).

 

Argument

 

That reference to Transformers brought back on old subject: if a car has to be shown in a scene because it's part of the story or the scenery (e.g. town or city in US since 1950s), is it all the same or better to use an existing and well known brand? If the story is placed on planet earth and a given period of time, isn't it part of the experience that when a car is shown it's a brand that you'd expect to see anyway in that region and time? Is it a problem only when any given shot is changed specifically to show a brand? I just watched half a youtube video bitching about all of the product placement in Transformers - Age of Extinction. Out of the first two dozen product placements, guess how many I even spotted? Only a few and some of those made sense. Lockdown is a Lamborghini and Bumblebee is a Camaro; they're cool cars. It never even occurred to me to consider product placement because I was too busy enjoying the movie and that, in my mind, is the point. Once I saw that a Nokia phone in a movie (possibly X-Files) and in particular the brand was shown for a full second or two; that was a bit irritating and there I understand why some people are ticked off about product placement because it interrupted the experience.

 

Am I completely off the mark?

Are you guys much more sensitive about this? Sensitive in the sense that you constantly see product placement and it interrupts your experience?

Is there something else that causes product placement to be a problem?

 

[Volbet]

Is the real question is how did you enjoy Transformers: Age of Extinction?

 

It don't think product placement is all bad. I don't think it adds to the realism, but I don't think it necessarily takes away from the realism either. 

If the product placement can be done in a subtle manner I don't really care. However, most product placement done in a subtle manner (see Man of Steel, for example). 

The makes of a product aren't going to pay if the product is only seen on the edge of the screen or is only seen for a few seconds.

 

On a different note, I think the product placement you don't see is more of a problem. For example, the Transformers movies were all funded by the US Department of Defence, and they had a say in the final cut of the movie. 

And one of them (I forgot which one) was also co-funded by the Chinese government, which meant that they had a say in the state of the final product. Essentially, cencoring the movie in all countiries.

[PlayStation 2]

I'd say it really depends on how you use it. A game like Project CARS with Nvidia (or, on the flip side, a game like Dirt Rally with AMD) plastered all over it just detracts from the realism, while movies that cleverly use product placement as a small... not even part of something, isn't annoying.

[denarced]

@Volbet, first of all: I really like your "Location"  That kind of healthy humor is very important in a workplace and I try to encourage it  (in a somewhat serious tone)

 

Second, thanks for your thoughts. I believe we're pretty much in agreement as far as visible product placement is concerned. On the non-visible product placement I'll have to gather my thoughts but for now I'll just say that it seems to be an oxymoron; product placement is visible by definition. I understand it can also be audible so maybe it at least has to be something that your senses can pick up.

[denarced]

6 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

I'd say it really depends on how you use it. A game like Project CARS with Nvidia (or, on the flip side, a game like Dirt Rally with AMD) plastered all over it just detracts from the realism, while movies that cleverly use product placement as a small... not even part of something, isn't annoying.

Did you happen to catch any of the Transformers movies? Any of them problematic in this regard? Some other movie that was? It seems that we're on the same page on this one. Sometimes it seems that some people have too much time on their hands because they pay too much attention to product placement but I started this thread to see if there's another explanation.

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, denarced said:

Did you happen to catch any of the Transformers movies? Any of them problematic in this regard? Some other movie that was? It seems that we're on the same page on this one. Sometimes it seems that some people have too much time on their hands because they pay too much attention to product placement but I started this thread to see if there's another explanation.

I've never really cared for the four movies because they were just too boring, but yeah, there's product placement up the ass in the movies. Mostly from Chevrolet.

[denarced]

3 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

I've never really cared for the four movies because they were just too boring, but yeah, there's product placement up the ass in the movies. Mostly from Chevrolet.

It'd be an interesting conversation to consider whether Bumblebee (Chevrolet Camaro) is a product placement Can something that's playing such a central role be considered product placement?

[Volbet]

8 minutes ago, denarced said:

@Volbet, first of all: I really like your "Location"  That kind of healthy humor is very important in a workplace and I try to encourage it  (in a somewhat serious tone)

 

Second, thanks for your thoughts. I believe we're pretty much in agreement as far as visible product placement is concerned. On the non-visible product placement I'll have to gather my thoughts but for now I'll just say that it seems to be an oxymoron; product placement is visible by definition. I understand it can also be audible so maybe it at least has to be something that your senses can pick up.

Calling it non-visible product placement might have been a stretch on my part, but I was just trying to use the same language throughout my post. 

Although, you can still convey an idea via the a movie without having an actual product in the movie. 

 

For example, Transformers: Age of Extinction carried a very pro-China (and anti-Hong Kong) message, which was mostly due to the Chinese government sponsoring the film. 

The reason why I think this is worse, is becuase it isn't obvious to the consumer why the movie carries this message. 

When iHop shows up in Man of Steel no one doubted that iHop had payed for that ad space. 

But messages made by a movie are much more subtle, and people would have to look into how the movie was funded to know why the movie had the message it had. 

[EricX2]

Never watched any transformers movies and don't plan on it unless they actually start following the source material, but to me product placement in games and movies can add to the realism because there are real products and ads in the world. Having a Chevrolet in a movie doesn't seem like product placement, it seems like keeping with realism because that's a real brand that exists in the world. If they focus on the Chevrolet badge on every scene that's distracting, if it exists just to show a real logo and attention isn't made to it then I don't see any problems. in fact I hate movies or shows where they blank out the logos. That really does distract me more than showing the logo would.

 

I guess my whole thing is does it make it feel closer to what it's like if you go out in the real world? If so then how can that not add to realism?

 

 

 

[denarced]

2 minutes ago, Volbet said:

Calling it non-visible product placement might have been a stretch on my part, but I was just trying to use the same language throughout my post. 

Although, you can still convey an idea via the a movie without having an actual product in the movie. 

 

For example, Transformers: Age of Extinction carried a very pro-China (and anti-Hong Kong) message, which was mostly due to the Chinese government sponsoring the film. 

The reason why I think this is worse, is becuase it isn't obvious to the consumer why the movie carries this message. 

When iHop shows up in Man of Steel no one doubted that iHop had payed for that ad space. 

But messages made by a movie are much more subtle, and people would have to look into how the movie was funded to know why the movie had the message it had. 

A bit of a stretch, yes. Sorry, I can't help but comment on stuff like that even thou it's probably a distraction  Tends to be somewhat useful in code reviews but probably not elsewhere.

 

I noticed the macho-bullshit-military-posturing on China's part. I've gotten used to that in some American movies and TV-series; first season of NCIS comes to mind. I missed the Hong Kong part. How was it expressed?

[PlayStation 2]

17 minutes ago, denarced said:

It'd be an interesting conversation to consider whether Bumblebee (Chevrolet Camaro) is a product placement Can something that's playing such a central role be considered product placement?

There's actually a lot of GM cars that come into play in the Transformers films.

[denarced]

@Dan Castellaneta true. In my first post I referred to a youtube clip. It ranted quite a few times about the cars. Both the main characters and the ones that had less than a second of screen time.

[denarced]

11 minutes ago, EricX2 said:

in fact I hate movies or shows where they blank out the logos. That really does distract me more than showing the logo would.

Or make up brands when there are real ones. They could've just picked up some randomly or at least ones that fit into the story. The rich guy would smoke Marlboro and so on. Or at least in Finland Marlboro is (or at least was the last time I checked 20 years ago) one of the more expensive brands.

[Volbet]

14 minutes ago, denarced said:

A bit of a stretch, yes. Sorry, I can't help but comment on stuff like that even thou it's probably a distraction  Tends to be somewhat useful in code reviews but probably not elsewhere.

 

I noticed the macho-bullshit-military-posturing on China's part. I've gotten used to that in some American movies and TV-series; first season of NCIS comes to mind. I missed the Hong Kong part. How was it expressed?

It has been years since I saw the movie, so I might get some details wrong. 

 

But there is a scene where some Hong Kong official see the destruction of Hong Kong and say "We need to call Beijing" (or something like that).

Also, for some reason they are speaking English instead of Cantonese, which was just fun to me. 

Then Beijing sends fighter jets and saves the day.

 

While this might not seem like a big thing, it would be considered very much a punch in the face by people in Hong Kong, who generally try to distance themself from the government in mainland China. 

Implying that the officials of Hong Kong are incompetent and needs the help of Beijing is pretty much in the vein of Chinese propaganda that been pumped into Hong Kong since the late 1990's. 

Basically, the Chinese government has tried to convince the people of Hong Kong that they need a stronger connection to the central government of Chia. 

[denarced]

1 minute ago, Volbet said:

It has been years since I saw the movie, so I might get some details wrong. 

 

But there is a scene where some Hong Kong official see the destruction of Hong Kong and say "We need to call Beijing" (or something like that).

Also, for some reason they are speaking English instead of Cantonese, which was just fun to me. 

 

While this might not seem like a big thing, it would be considered very much a punch in the face by people in Hong Kong, who generally try to distance themself from the government in mainland China. 

Implying that the officials of Hong Kong are incompetent and needs the help of Beijing is pretty much in the vein of Chinese propaganda that been pumped into Hong Kong since the late 1990's. 

Basically, the Chinese government has tried to convince the people of Hong Kong that they need a stronger connection to the central government of Chia. 

Wow. No wonder I didn't pick up that one. Very local and I'm not from around China or Hong Kong.

[dalekphalm]

3 hours ago, Volbet said:

It has been years since I saw the movie, so I might get some details wrong. 

 

But there is a scene where some Hong Kong official see the destruction of Hong Kong and say "We need to call Beijing" (or something like that).

Also, for some reason they are speaking English instead of Cantonese, which was just fun to me. 

Then Beijing sends fighter jets and saves the day.

 

While this might not seem like a big thing, it would be considered very much a punch in the face by people in Hong Kong, who generally try to distance themself from the government in mainland China. 

Implying that the officials of Hong Kong are incompetent and needs the help of Beijing is pretty much in the vein of Chinese propaganda that been pumped into Hong Kong since the late 1990's. 

Basically, the Chinese government has tried to convince the people of Hong Kong that they need a stronger connection to the central government of Chia. 

Just out of curiosity, does Hong Kong have it's own civil defense force/national guard/militia? I mean, they have their own police, yes. But would the Hong Kong government be able to field Fighter Jets, etc, into battle by themselves?

[Volbet]

7 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Just out of curiosity, does Hong Kong have it's own civil defense force/national guard/militia? I mean, they have their own police, yes. But would the Hong Kong government be able to field Fighter Jets, etc, into battle by themselves?

I'm not an expert on the region, but I do know that Hong Kong has its own military force. Whether or not they have fighter jets I can't say.

[QueenDemetria]

I actually like product placement better than made-up/fake brands.

[dalekphalm]

16 minutes ago, Volbet said:

I'm not an expert on the region, but I do know that Hong Kong has its own military force. Whether or not they have fighter jets I can't say.

According to this that's not correct:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Hong_Kong

 

During the British Colonial era, they had their own regiment, but it was formally part of the British armed forces.

 

In modern Hong Kong, the defence of the city state is performed by the Hong Kong Garrison of the People's Liberation Army, and is directly under the command of the mainland military command.

 

Furthermore, according to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Hong_Kong_Garrison#Aircraft_Inventory

 

Hong Kong has ~16 Helicopters, none of which are gunships/combat aircraft. I can kind of see pride issues where local Hong Kong citizens/government would feel like this movie is a slap in their face, but realistically, if giant cybernetic alien robots did invade Hong Kong, they would NEED the assistance of the Mainland Chinese armed forces.

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, QueenDemetria said:

I actually like product placement better than made-up/fake brands.

I think made-up/fake brands can be kind of funny, as neat "easter eggs", but frankly, I have zero issues with product placement, as long as they're just treating it like real life (Which most movies do) - eg: A man whips out his iPhone, then jumps into his BMW, then loads his FN P-90, while checking his email on his Surface Pro 3. As long as the characters don't go out of their way to mention the name of said device (Unless it would make sense in the narrative context), then I feel like it's a non-issue.

 

I don't know. All I'm saying is that if I'm watching a movie, and a car rolls up and has a "FORD" emblem on the front, because it's an F-150 pickup truck, I'd just be like "Yup, that's how that truck looks in real life". It wouldn't phase me, and I wouldn't even notice it.

[Volbet]

21 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

According to this that's not correct:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Hong_Kong

 

During the British Colonial era, they had their own regiment, but it was formally part of the British armed forces.

 

In modern Hong Kong, the defence of the city state is performed by the Hong Kong Garrison of the People's Liberation Army, and is directly under the command of the mainland military command.

 

Furthermore, according to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Hong_Kong_Garrison#Aircraft_Inventory

 

Hong Kong has ~16 Helicopters, none of which are gunships/combat aircraft. I can kind of see pride issues where local Hong Kong citizens/government would feel like this movie is a slap in their face, but realistically, if giant cybernetic alien robots did invade Hong Kong, they would NEED the assistance of the Mainland Chinese armed forces.

I'm not arguing that it's unrealistic that they have to get assistance from mainland China. I'm just trying to explain how it was perceived by people in Hong Kong (or atleast the people I know in Hong Kong).

 

The criticism was also not so much aimed at the fact that the officials in Hong Kong had to ask for assistant. The criticism was aimed at how the entire sittuation was framed.

The official in Hong Kong were framed as completely incompetent while the Chinese army was shown as the most awesome entity on planet Earth. 

 

I also though that the Hong Kong Garrison of the People's Liberation Army was it's own seperate entity, but the more you know, I guess. 

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Volbet said:

I'm not arguing that it's unrealistic that they have to get assistance from mainland China. I'm just trying to explain how it was perceived by people in Hong Kong (or atleast the people I know in Hong Kong).

 

The criticism was also not so much aimed at the fact that the officials in Hong Kong had to ask for assistant. The criticism was aimed at how the entire sittuation was framed.

The official in Hong Kong were framed as completely incompetent while the Chinese army was shown as the most awesome entity on planet Earth. 

 

I also though that the Hong Kong Garrison of the People's Liberation Army was it's own seperate entiry, but the more you know, I guess. 

Oh I get it. But it's the same thing how Michael Bay has a raging boner for the US Military. They wanted to do something, and knew they would need the support of the Chinese government to get away with it. So they appeased them with "Hey China Military rocks!"

[sgtcool]

Its only obvious from the Beats crappill

 

in other movies if theres an apple device in it, otherwise its fine