David Lynch on Product Placement.

[David.rhsc]

The script I'm working on currently is a roadtrip movie, and the travelers will munch on burgers & cookies, drink soda & lemonade at various points; if I can get someone to pay me some money (or feed the cast and crew for a day or 2?) in exchange for having their product in there, I'd be thrilled.

That's a lot different than a completely extraneous ECU of the Armalite logo on a soldier's rifle - specifically the logo stamped into the lower, not a reaction shot of the soldier, a special just for the logo. There's a question of emphasis here. Is the PP incidental to the scene, seamless, or does it call attention to itself like the shot I just mentioned from WWZ.

 

[mlesemann]

There's a question of emphasis here. Is the PP incidental to the scene, seamless, or does it call attention to itself like the shot I just mentioned from WWZ.

Yup, I totally agree.

 

[rayw]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjB6r-HDDI0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75D0PZi9OA4

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

May I just suggest the most gratuitous product placement in history has to be this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdnoqCViqUo

It's a giant advertisement with a film somewhere inside.

I'm wondering how this movie came to be made. Did the filmmakers approach google, or did google approach them?

 

[jax_rox]

I'm wondering how this movie came to be made. Did the filmmakers approach google, or did google approach them?

From what I've heard - the filmmakers approached Google, and supposedly Google put no money into the film.


In terms of product placement - I don't particularly have an issue with it. If it's the difference between a film getting made or not getting made, or the difference between people having jobs and not having jobs, then does it really matter? Some movies are annoying with the obvious product placement, but for the majority, you don't notice it, or at least enough to take issue with it. I notice much more aggressive product placement in music videos these days.

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

From what I've heard - the filmmakers approached Google, and supposedly Google put no money into the film.

Wow. I've seen the film (and thank God I won't ever have to see it again), and it felt like a google advertisement with Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson. I'd be annoyed if I made a two hour advertisement disguised as a movie, and didn't get paid for it.

 

[Kinsman]

Hey, David's entitled to his opinion.
And if InBev/Anheuser-Busch was gonna give me cash for placement, I'd let a character drink their swill visibly.

 

[directorik]

Isn't there a difference between product placement (which Lynch
thinks is "bullshit") and having (or mentioning) products in a movie?

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

Yep. It's the difference between:

"Heineken? Fuck that shit. PABST BLUE RIBBON."

And:

"Pabst Blue Ribbon? Fuck that shit. HEINEKEN."

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

That line is in Blue Velvet because it is an interesting, funny line, not because he's promoting a product. Has anybody seen the film "A Perfect World"?

Spoiler

Two prisoners break out of jail, and are being chased by cops. When stealing a car, one of the characters gets annoyed with the car, and says "I only drive Ford". Not a product placement, a line that Eastwood liked that involved a product.

Same with the line in Blue Velvet.