It’s like in a music video when the artist suddenly pulls out the new Samsung explosive device, and your heart sinks a little.
Not only is it necessary for even decent movies to be packaged within some IP, they also seem to rely on selling ad space within the movie itself.
Very bleak.
Yes?
Edit: Even if you want to be reductive and consider the entire movie as just a big brand advertisment, this doesn’t make sense. Does Burger King subsidize their commercials by running Samsung Ads within them?
Edit2: This is probably a bad retort, see my other comments for clarification.
Cross-Promotion definitely exists. In the US, a lot of iPhone ads are paid for by the carriers so they can put a blurb at the end.
Burger King is actually a weird example for you to use. They use cross-promotion more than almost any other company.
BK was also a leader in cross-promotion. In 1977, they ran commercials using Star Wars advertising while selling glasses with the characters from the film.
Movie studios have been using paid promotions for products since the 90s. Iirc the very first paid movie tie-in was in ET. The studio had planned on using M&Ms in the film but were rejected by Mars. Hershey’s heard about this and paid them to instead use Reese’s Pieces in the movie.
It’s fair to hate it, I usually do, but it happens all the time. The only one I can think of that I liked was 30 Rock, especially with their Snapple product placement.
Community’s Subway arc was pretty good too, IMO.
Okay, yeah, that too.
Please hand me my jacket.
BK made a Spiderman hamburger. Does that count?
Not really to the point I was trying to make here.
I understand your point, but a movie that is itself a 2-hour advertisement doesn’t lose any of its value by showing other brands.
What’s bleak is that a movie about a toy grosses over a billion at the box office. Not that BMW or Samsung want you to look at their stuff.
This critique irks me for some reason. Consider this: Imagine the latest Top Gun had some scene where Tom Cruise literally high fives Uncle Sam, then slowly whispers “Freedom” and winks into the camera. You’d rightfully find this jarring, a poor aesthetic choice, weird.
But then someone online tells you why you’d expect anything else from a franchise that’s heavily subsidized and supported by the military industrial complex, and demanding a sort of artistic consistency from such a franchise is pointless to begin with.
Tldr: I think you can critique the art even if you’re aware of it’s ideological confines.
(This reply hinges on such a scene not being in the latest Top Gun movie, which I haven’t see yet to be honest)
It might not be as obvious as literally winking into the camera, but Top Gun had substantial monetary investment from the U.S. military, and they definitely tried to make being in the military look cool and fun and attractive.
They definitely don’t show what it’s really like to be a service member, and that’s for good reason.
Yeah that’s kind of my point. Even knowing it’s partial propaganda, you’d know when something is “off”. Just like even knowing that Barbie is partially a branding campaign, You know how the car comercial scene is “off”.
I guess what I’m saying is I don’t see either top gun or Barbie movie as “partial propaganda”, I see them as entirely propaganda. So, at least for me, having some additional propaganda for Samsung phones or car brands doesn’t seem out of place or jarring for me.
It’s honestly more jarring for me to see how the military is portrayed compared to what it’s actually like.
A fair point, but in your original example we’re talking about a cell phone. That’s a significantly more subtle inclusion than Tom draping himself in an American flag and riding off on the back of an eagle.
I don’t remember the scene we’re talking about, so if it was a cell phone in the real world I see no issue. If it was in Barbie’s world then it should’ve been plastic. That would be my only complaint.
Actually , yes