Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2017 14:25:47 GMT
Okay, I am going to preface this by saying I think product placement can be an asset to a film. It can also be annoying.
When is Product Placement Acceptable?
I want to use "Man of Steel" (2013) as an example of product placement being acceptable. In the Smallville fight sequence, we see Superman and Zod crash through a "7/11" gas station. Then we see Faora and Superman crash and fight inside an "iHop", and then a train wrecks a "Sears".
There are a lot of people who complain about that scene. Why? That is what a small town U.S.A. looks like. I think it's realistic. You see a Cheveron or a Texaco while driving through a town, or a Waffle House, or whatever. That made the scene have realism (in my opinion).
What would make it unacceptable?
If Lois Lane asked Clark Kent "Hey, tell me your story!" and he replies "What if I don't want my story told?" then Lois replied, "It's going to get out eventually, let me tell your side" and he replied "Okay, lets go to the iHop and talk about it over some coffee and pancakes"...
That would be terrible product placement that ruins a scene.
But simply using real stores in the background its just real life. In fact, I would feel it was more unrealistic if they crashed through a "Smallville House of Pancakes" or he was drinking "Gotham Lite Beer" or whatever. Then it seems too fictional. This made the movie feel he was in our world.
When is Product Placement Unacceptable?
I will use "Garfield" (2004) as an example. When they show Jon's toy train, he has "Wendy's" and "Pepsi" toy billboards that the toy train passes by. Who has toy billboards of "Wendy's". That's over the top.
What would make it acceptable?
If he had something like McDonald's toys collection and said he and his dad spent a lot of time going there as a kid and it was the only fond memories he had of his dad, so he collected the Happy Meal toys as a kid to remind him of his father. Something like that, okay, I can buy. That is something kids did do in the 1990s, collect Happy Meal toys. But I don't know of any kid who had a model train with "Wal-Mart" or "K-Mart" plastic toy sized billboards next to their toy train.
In the end, product placement is fine. I get they need sponsors to pay for movie budgets sometimes. Just do it organically within the film, in a way that doesn't look distracting or over the top. Like showing a "Macy's" commercial in the background, then focusing the shot on the TV and then going back to the story for no reason whatsoever. Instead, have a scene where they stop and talk in front of a "Macy's" with the store's logo behind them. That is product placement, but it's organic. We often stop to talk with people in front of stores in real life.
When is Product Placement Acceptable?
I want to use "Man of Steel" (2013) as an example of product placement being acceptable. In the Smallville fight sequence, we see Superman and Zod crash through a "7/11" gas station. Then we see Faora and Superman crash and fight inside an "iHop", and then a train wrecks a "Sears".
There are a lot of people who complain about that scene. Why? That is what a small town U.S.A. looks like. I think it's realistic. You see a Cheveron or a Texaco while driving through a town, or a Waffle House, or whatever. That made the scene have realism (in my opinion).
What would make it unacceptable?
If Lois Lane asked Clark Kent "Hey, tell me your story!" and he replies "What if I don't want my story told?" then Lois replied, "It's going to get out eventually, let me tell your side" and he replied "Okay, lets go to the iHop and talk about it over some coffee and pancakes"...
That would be terrible product placement that ruins a scene.
But simply using real stores in the background its just real life. In fact, I would feel it was more unrealistic if they crashed through a "Smallville House of Pancakes" or he was drinking "Gotham Lite Beer" or whatever. Then it seems too fictional. This made the movie feel he was in our world.
When is Product Placement Unacceptable?
I will use "Garfield" (2004) as an example. When they show Jon's toy train, he has "Wendy's" and "Pepsi" toy billboards that the toy train passes by. Who has toy billboards of "Wendy's". That's over the top.
What would make it acceptable?
If he had something like McDonald's toys collection and said he and his dad spent a lot of time going there as a kid and it was the only fond memories he had of his dad, so he collected the Happy Meal toys as a kid to remind him of his father. Something like that, okay, I can buy. That is something kids did do in the 1990s, collect Happy Meal toys. But I don't know of any kid who had a model train with "Wal-Mart" or "K-Mart" plastic toy sized billboards next to their toy train.
In the end, product placement is fine. I get they need sponsors to pay for movie budgets sometimes. Just do it organically within the film, in a way that doesn't look distracting or over the top. Like showing a "Macy's" commercial in the background, then focusing the shot on the TV and then going back to the story for no reason whatsoever. Instead, have a scene where they stop and talk in front of a "Macy's" with the store's logo behind them. That is product placement, but it's organic. We often stop to talk with people in front of stores in real life.
