That's "Häxan," actually. And to increase my hipsteritude, I really think one ought to read the original Cortázar short story before watching Blow-Up.Johnny Novgorod said:
When did films become glorified commercials?
- Thread starter Fox12
- Start date
Recommended Videos
(Queen Michael said:
I did! But most people in Argentina did, Cortázar (and Borges) are a must-read in high school. It's weirder to watch Blow Up than to read the inspiring story. The story was called Las babas del diablo (something like "The Devil's Drool") and as far as I can tell was only conceptually related to the movie, in terms of over-analyzing a scene. Same deal with Godard's Weekend (adapted form La autopista del sur, "The South Highway").
That story's a movie too? Huh. And here in Sweden, it's next to impossible to find other people who read Cortázar.Johnny Novgorod said:
Like most things, its perfectly fine >IF done right<.Fox12 said:
If you do it wrong, you do it like for example that stupid, infamous shoe-scene in I, Robot. Completely redundant, and embarrassing to watch.
If you do it right, you do it like in a few of the Iron Man movies. Tony Stark is a rich playboy, is it product placement if he comes rolling in to his party in a Ferrari? I guess, is it out of character or immersion-breaking? Not in the slightest. We expect this of Tony and then it works.
Honestly I find the rules and traditions around this odd. I've seen many a thriller where some guy is trying to research something online, and there is nothing resembling actual computer programs, browsers, google or anything. I really dont get this, and to me its actually immersion breaking when the products I expect people use, is not there. But as I said, just do it right.
I might have answered a bit beside the question OP, but it was my immediate thoughts.
Also: A Monopoly movie? Huh? I dont know what hungry hippoes is, I dont understand how you can make a movie about a magazine (unless its a documentary) and I dont really get why one would want a Lego movie. I am not in any way planning to watch these movies and I dont understand why they exist.
Films and television have been rife with ad space and product placement for as long as television and film have been around, practically. In fact, during the early years of television, it was common for a show to just stop at some point and have the actors start hocking a product from a company that was helping to fund the show. No cuts just zoom in on the actor as a stage hand hands them the product. Today, at least, these are relocated to the commercial time slots.Fox12 said:
Same goes for movies. Product placement and, at times, blatant ad spaces have been common for decades.
So the real question is: when haven't films been glorified commercials?
They annoy me, but again...they're common place and have been since films inception. So it's nothing new.
Absolutely not. In fact, film quality has gotten better as the years go on.
Sure, you'll have film snobs ***** and moan about all the swill in theaters today, arguing that "they don't make them like they used to!"
Well good. And why? Because most films from decades past were just as bloody awful as the bad films of today. In fact, if film makers decades ago had the tools and resources we have today in the production of film they'd be making films similar to contemporary films.
Most film snobs seem to just arbitrarily forget how many awful, mediocre films were in theaters along side their favorite "classics". For every "Godfather", "Pulp Fiction", and "Citizen Cane" there were dozens even hundreds of films like "All Women Are Bad", "Cleopatra", "Ernest Scared Stupid", and "Disaster Movie".
So no. Film quality has not "gotten worse". If anything, it's gotten better in some areas and stayed the same in others.
Damn.Vivi22 said:
In any case, I still feel like there's certainly been an increase in product placement in mainstream cinema, and there's no denying that Hollywood in searching for anything with a recognizable name to make a movie out of. That's why there are so many fairy tale movies being made. There are certainly still well made films being released, but even when I think of the films released a decade ago, I feel like they weren't the same commercial vehicle they are now. Yes, we were likely to see a monopoly board placed in the background of a scene ten years age. We were not likely, however, to see a major motion picture made about the board game.
I'll tell you exactly when this happened. E.T. was the start of the licensing trend thanks to Reese's FUCKING Pieces. After that, EVERY major company wanted a piece of Hollywood by way of product placement. I don't know if it was the first Product placement in a movie, but it DEFINITELY made it much larger than it was.Fox12 said:
So... Blame Spielburg for that as well as the rape of Indy.
Worse...They never said "you sank my battleship!"EeveeElectro said:
I'd demand my money back if I didn't watch it on Netflix.
This is from Wikipedia, feel free to check up on it thought
"The earliest documented account of an exhibition of projected motion pictures in the United States was in June 1894 in Richmond, Indiana by Charles Francis Jenkins"
So I would have to say June, 1894.
"The earliest documented account of an exhibition of projected motion pictures in the United States was in June 1894 in Richmond, Indiana by Charles Francis Jenkins"
So I would have to say June, 1894.
There is nothing new about product placement in movies. It only appears to be that way because with the passage of time terrible films that rely on advertising revenue to turn a profit quickly fade from the popular consciousness. I'm more annoyed by the amount of movies released today which are really nothing more than glorified commercials for their own sequels. It's tolerable when done right, but more often than not they'll bungle it.
I thought they already made a Battleship movie. It was called "Hunt for Red October".Zachary Amaranth said:
Besides that embarassment of a movie made by the ADHD Movie Directors Group, aka Michael Bay and friends, was more ... I'm sorry, I just have no idea what they hell they were thinking when they 'made' that.... thing. I doubt they did either.
Wait, that was based on the board game?!?! How the hell did I not notice that, I just assumed it was just named that because it was an action movie that revolved around ships (haven't seen it though). Wow, I think I need to sit in the corner and rethink my life now.Fox12 said: