Eraserhead re-release includes CGI KFC bucket
March 30, 2007 9:24 AM   Subscribe


 
I love you, Mr. Lynch.
posted by slimepuppy at 9:30 AM on March 30, 2007


Wouldn't this statement go better with a delicious Coke?
posted by Peter H at 9:33 AM on March 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


On the other hand, what company would really want their product placed in one of his movies?
posted by octothorpe at 9:38 AM on March 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


Wait, not to be obtuse, but since I don't know this director at all... what, exactly, is bullshit? The charge that product placement goes on? Or is he opposed to it?

n.b. I haven't watched the entire interview
posted by TheNewWazoo at 9:40 AM on March 30, 2007


Good clip, but I don't think I'm going to jump on the product-placement-hating bandwagon. It definitely can be annoying, especially when overly-obvious or too frequently. OTOH, patronage is a long-standing tradition in art and I don't see how this is any different.

You might think that most patrons don't have their products right in the artwork. However, for one thing movies have a lot more space to put that kind of thing in. Not just physio-temporally, but also mentally: In a photograph, a can of Coke is going to be visible during the entire "experience" whereas a single scene in a movie is only a small snippet of the "experience".

For another thing, how many famous paintings and statues are of the patrons themselves? The product there is the reputation of the patron.

It's easy to claim that product placement means the filmmaker compromised their art, but a film is already a huge series of compromises both among artists (writers, actors, directors, etc) and non-artists (studio execs, accountants, etc).
posted by DU at 9:44 AM on March 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


On the other hand, what company would really want their product placed in one of his movies?

Some kind of anti-anxiety med?

"Oh these dwarves wouldn't be talking backwards at me if I'd only taken my calmulex!"
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 9:44 AM on March 30, 2007 [4 favorites]


Actually, Lynch's Blue Velvet probably shaped my beer preference years before I hit drinking age. Can't think of either of those beers without hearing that line in my head.
posted by chinese_fashion at 9:47 AM on March 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


"Mmmm. Good pie. Comstock™ filling?"
posted by miss lynnster at 9:47 AM on March 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


awesome. totally fizzznuckin awesome.
posted by MeatLightning at 9:48 AM on March 30, 2007


One thing about this clip that just struck me: supposedly David Lynch almost never swears. Dennis Hopper has an anecdote about going over the Blue Velvet script with Lynch, who would point to the word "fuck" on the page rather than saying it out loud. So yes, product placement is something he is strongly against.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 9:51 AM on March 30, 2007


Hear hear Chinese Fashion!

On a semi related note, my ex and I watched all of Sex and the City in one month and there was this one season where product placement began and I don't think I've ever seen that gutted my suspension of disbelief so savagely. Maybe it was just poorly written, or maybe it was the contrast between the less popular seasons, I don't know, but I was disgusted and the rest of the show was spent trying to forget about it (until it popped up again of course)
posted by Brainy at 9:54 AM on March 30, 2007


Lynch: Right after the 9 minute car-headlight-lit hold on the crazy gay cowboy's dilated pupils, we'll make sure that we see the Jack Daniels label on the broken bottle before he bludgeons the underage gigolo for shooting his mother's head off with a genuine Winchester shotgun. It's outside that abandoned biker bar in Barstow I was telling you about. Deal?

Jack Daniels Rep: Um. Sure. Yep. Wait. What?
posted by jimmythefish at 9:55 AM on March 30, 2007 [3 favorites]


Well, Eraserhead early in my adult life and forever after damaged my interest in purchasing / eating cornish game hens.

And, now that I think about it, for having children too. Hm.
posted by aught at 9:55 AM on March 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


Too bad his new book wasn't as good as his statement.
posted by MDA38 at 10:02 AM on March 30, 2007


I;m a big fan of Repo Man. BEER and FOOD.
posted by Artw at 10:10 AM on March 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


TM does strange things to the brain.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:17 AM on March 30, 2007


Too bad his new book wasn't as good as his statement.

It works better as an audiobook I think. It helps to hear Lynch's voice which always has an undertone of goofiness for me that would be missing if I just read the thing.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 10:18 AM on March 30, 2007


I'm at work, so I can't watch the video, but I feel like it's worth distinguishing between two types of product placement. One is the use of the product to fill the space where some sort of product would be in real life. For instance, everyone will drive Fords, but they've got to be driving some sort of car. It can be a little jarring, but it's not that bad, in my opinion.

On the other end we have blatant advertisement. Someone mentions the product by name, and describes all its many glories. Or, someone is obsessed with the product and talks about it all the time.

To take two examples from one show, everyone on the O.C. drove Ford brand cars. Ford owns a lot of brands (Ford, Lincoln, Land Rover, Jaguar) so this worked. If you were astute or cared about cars you picked up on it, but otherwise, whatever, the rich people drove Jags, the poor people drove Fords, and it more or less resembled reality.

The second example is from an episode where one character mentioned watching a Vcast, and someone asked what a Vcast was, and we got a lecture on how cool Vcast was.

Clearly, both are advertising, but one detracts from the quality of the show, while the other doesn't.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 10:25 AM on March 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


This is as good a place as any to say that the scene in "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me" where Laura Palmer discovers she has no hope of redemption is one of the scariest scenes that I can recall seeing in a movie. Slashing deaths, sudden noises, and assorted gore don't hold a candle to the concept of no hope of redemption.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:28 AM on March 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


I love Lynch and I love his honesty here. And I completely agree when it's a case of big studios just raking in more bucks. But I'd imagine there are some independent filmmakers out there for whom a product placement deal might make the difference between finishing and not finishing a film. Moreover, I think it can be done skillfully and non-obtrusively. But come to think of it, I can see how that could become problematic -- "sorry, starving artist, we agreed to 5 2-second closeups of the nike logo; we're not interested in whether or not the story calls for it."

FWIW, I think Matthew Barney's Cremaster films offer a completely different take on what "product placement" (I doubt he was paid for using the logos, and I'm guessing he could have been sued) could mean. A gas station attendant lies dead and bleeding under the Goodyear logo; the Chrysler logo becomes a symbol of transcendence and of the unity of the film cycle itself.
posted by treepour at 10:34 AM on March 30, 2007


You might as well have just said "Topic: Product placement. Let's chat!"
posted by poppo at 10:49 AM on March 30, 2007


chinese_fashion writes "Actually, Lynch's Blue Velvet probably shaped my beer preference years before I hit drinking age."

You're not alone.
posted by brundlefly at 10:51 AM on March 30, 2007


I'm agin' it.
posted by everichon at 10:59 AM on March 30, 2007


My friends and I had a phase, when we were 15 or so, of drinking Coors - cause that's what Magnum PI drank.
posted by Flashman at 10:59 AM on March 30, 2007


You might as well have just said "Topic: Product placement. Let's chat!"

Bullshit, fucking bullshit. :)

Also, check out David Foster Wallace on Charlie Rose in a somewhat uncomfortable interview ("You are seriously asking me for my opinion on The English Patient") in which he sums up a David Lynch film, let me paraphrase:

A husband and wife are arguing about peanut butter brands and this leads to the husband killing the wife. The police come and instead of investigating the murder continue to debate whether or not which peanut butter brand is the best.

See, I see perfect opportunity for product placement in a Lynchian film.
posted by geoff. at 11:02 AM on March 30, 2007 [4 favorites]


Too bad he can't stop shilling for that TM crap.
posted by klangklangston at 11:10 AM on March 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


I don't know if you guys know this, and it's why that YouTube clip really plays to the industry types, but Lynch is known for rarely if ever swearing.

I did some day-playing as Art Department Swing and grip on Twin Peaks a couple of times and I thought the guy was putting everybody on with his "Golly" this and "Gosh darn" that. But all the regulars assured me it was genuine.

First time I ever saw a director who didn't swear all the time.

So. I guess he feels very strongly about product placement.
posted by tkchrist at 11:12 AM on March 30, 2007


Hahaha, check out this 4 minute "hair color commercial if directed by David Linch". There's also this actual cigarette add he directed.
posted by delmoi at 11:15 AM on March 30, 2007


"This is David Lynch Signature Cup Coffee. It is an exquisite expresso [sic]. An exquisite decaf and an exquisite house blend. [. . .] There are ideas in every bean."
posted by Evstar at 11:15 AM on March 30, 2007


Arguments that subtle product placement isn't problematic only go so far for me. The fact is that via modern marketing, products are designed down to the last detail to be eye-catching, to have a memorable visual signature—and anyone who gives a good goddam about cinematography can't with good conscience dismiss the impact of throwing something as purpose-built as a corporate logo into a composition.

Consider how important a role effective use of dated decoration is to a period film. Logos from n decades back are employed to full effect as triggers to the verisimilitude of the scene, because they are a such a striking cue to watchers with a sense of the era in question. Why should we imagine that's any less so for contemporary settings and the appearance of logos therein?

If you didn't write a can of Coke into a scene, why would you put something as distracting (and, with product placement such an above-the-table topic of discussion at this point, as commercially suggestive) as a Coke logo into that scene?

I'm not saying that product placement is a priori a great big deal, one way or the other; but it's definitely a matter of consideration, to director and viewer alike, even when used "incidentally".

"Boingboing? Fuck that shit! Metafilter Blue webbin'!"
posted by cortex at 11:17 AM on March 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


Thank you, God. What an inspiration.
posted by phaedon at 11:23 AM on March 30, 2007


But I'd imagine there are some independent filmmakers out there for whom a product placement deal might make the difference between finishing and not finishing a film.

I imagine there are some independent filmmakers out there for whom giving blowjobs down at the docks might make the difference between finishing and not finishing a film. I guess we all do what we feel comfortable doing.
posted by languagehat at 11:28 AM on March 30, 2007 [3 favorites]


Just to be the Devil's advocate here -- one thing that really sticks out for me is when films/TV show off-brand products ... like, when the hero asks for a shot of whiskey and it's poured from a bottle of "Kevin Williams" or "Old Great-Uncle." Kinda makes you need a spotter to suspend the disbelief.

Conversely, I LOVED the products in Robocop, where they were meant to be part of the fun.
posted by chinese_fashion at 11:30 AM on March 30, 2007


Oh yeah, sure. Next you're going to tell me that the typewriter-that-turns-into-a-giant-cockroach corporation didn't pay anything at all for their advertising.
posted by Kickstart70 at 11:30 AM on March 30, 2007


Regarding real product placement, I have to say that Adam Sandler movies are SO FUCKING BLATANT about it that it's truly ridiculous. Not that his movies are great anyway, but this just makes them whorish.
posted by Kickstart70 at 11:33 AM on March 30, 2007


My night job involves watching television shows to pick out the product placement and creating marketing surveys to see if people notice the placement. It's not a bad job, to tell the truth. But I am now incapable of not noticing the products.

Here's a quick rundown of the product placement state of the union (for television):

Reality shows are the worst. The Amazing Race, America's Top Model, Top Chef, stuff like that, are just lousy with placement. As somebody said above, we're almost returning to the age of sponsored programming in some cases. The Bravo show Clean This House is pretty much a Clorox ad. (It's also a very, very stupid show)

Dramas a lot less, and mostly cars and cell phones. For instance, every car in The Shield is a Chevy (something I never noticed while just watching the show). Cop shows (especially the "scientific" ones) use a lot of computer monitors.

Sitcoms, suprisingly light. Sure, there's been some famous cases, like Friends selling a whole episode to a chain, but mostly the sitcoms are pretty bare.

On preview: Chinese Fashion, they call those fake brands "greeking the logo."
posted by Bookhouse at 11:35 AM on March 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


The interview was very interesting. Thanks. Glad he hates product placement and won't allow his weird worlds of the deep mind, which is obviously what they are, right back to Eraserhead, to be normified by them. I'm not feeling too great, but that interview cheered me up.

What's with the hand? He shoulda been a sculptor.
posted by Listener at 11:35 AM on March 30, 2007


Oh, and funniest product placement: The (awesome) cop show The Wire has heavy Dunkin' Donuts placement.
posted by Bookhouse at 11:36 AM on March 30, 2007


Oh yeah, sure. Next you're going to tell me that the typewriter-that-turns-into-a-giant-cockroach corporation didn't pay anything at all for their advertising.

That was Cronenberg.
posted by octothorpe at 11:46 AM on March 30, 2007


Eraserhead, brought to you by Staedtler.
posted by zippy at 11:52 AM on March 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


That was Cronenberg.

*runs off to change Wikipedia* No, it was Lynch!

...

Damn, I've been thinking it was Lynch since I saw the movie in the theatre. You've shattered my worldview.
posted by Kickstart70 at 12:01 PM on March 30, 2007


This is great. It's like that scene in Fargo where a nice Minnesotan customer, driven to desperation by the tru-coat finish he didn't order on his new car, tells William H. Macy - "You're a liar Mr Lundegard - a f-f-fucking liar!".
posted by tiny crocodile at 12:02 PM on March 30, 2007


aught writes: Well, Eraserhead early in my adult life and forever after damaged my interest in purchasing / eating cornish game hens.

I've avoided so many recipes for fear of their blood-spewing cavities.
posted by unsupervised at 12:15 PM on March 30, 2007


Just to be the Devil's advocate here -- one thing that really sticks out for me is when films/TV show off-brand products ... like, when the hero asks for a shot of whiskey and it's poured from a bottle of "Kevin Williams" or "Old Great-Uncle." Kinda makes you need a spotter to suspend the disbelief.

chinese_fashion, that happens to me quite a bit as well. I'm not a fan of over-the-top product placement but I always notice when a character uses an obviously fake brand and it's jarring. For me, seeing someone take a swig out of a can that says "SODA" on it requires more of a suspension of disbelief than if they just grabbed a can of Coke or Pepsi or whatever. When that sort of thing is included as a sort of jokey wink to the audience I can get into it but a lot of the time it just looks wrong to me and takes me out of the movie for a few moments.
posted by LeeJay at 12:16 PM on March 30, 2007


Does Idiocracy count?
posted by sookypops at 12:17 PM on March 30, 2007


Bullshit. That's how I feel. Total fucking bullshit.
posted by Dave Faris at 12:28 PM on March 30, 2007


I imagine there are some independent filmmakers out there for whom giving blowjobs down at the docks might make the difference between finishing and not finishing a film. I guess we all do what we feel comfortable doing.

I didn't blowjobs at the dock had become so lucrative. To think I've been doing them for free all these years. I'm so behind the curve.

Seriously, though, making films is incredibly expensive. Unless you're independently wealthy, you're probably going to end up giving a few blowjobs, metaphorically or literally.

So you refuse to seek a product placement deal. Instead you try to find investors who, by definition, want to maximize return potential while minimizing risk. So you've got make your film "sexy" enough in conventional ways to make it seem like it could make some bucks. How does that not compromise your vision?

According to the full interview, Lynch was fortunate enough to get a grant from the AFI that got him off the ground. Not everyone's that lucky, even ones with oodles of talent. And, as Lynch himself pointed out, many of the grants go to already-known "rising stars." So, good for Lynch (and us, IMO) that he got that grant -- but the rest of us have to figure out how to work within the parameters of the market.
posted by treepour at 12:35 PM on March 30, 2007


The product placement that grated on me the most was when Kevin on the US Office talked about this great paper shredder he got to use from time to time, and that it could even shred credit cards.

The shredder had a giant Staples logo on it, which I thought was odd, considering that the company Kevin worked for supposedly competed with Staples.

Then in the commercials, there was a Staples ad for that same shredder.
posted by drezdn at 12:45 PM on March 30, 2007


Count me as another who doesn't mind when it's done subtly. Offscreen, we see a brand logo every 2 seconds anyway, so what's the difference if they get paid for the brands in the movie? I get annoyed when there's a giant Pepsi(R) can in the foreground facing the camera for no good reason, but if Jack Bauer carries a Microtech Halo III it just makes it seem more authentic than if he whipped out some prop designer's creation.
posted by callmejay at 12:46 PM on March 30, 2007


Well, Eraserhead early in my adult life and forever after damaged my interest in purchasing / eating cornish game hens.

And, now that I think about it, for having children too. Hm.


Yes, aught, yes. On both.
posted by pinky at 12:49 PM on March 30, 2007


Product placement generally doesn't bother me, unless it's like the huge-budget shoe ad that was I, Robot.
posted by brundlefly at 12:52 PM on March 30, 2007


bookhouse, may I ask how you got this job? Sounds weirdly intriguing.

I agree that Bravo shows are the worst for product placement. Top Chef was just ridiculous with it.
posted by miss tea at 12:58 PM on March 30, 2007


ahha hey bookhouse i work there too!!

theyve really established a pattern with the bravo shows. they are so tightly branded.

for whatever reason products being placed in movies stick out like bigger sore thumbs than in tv. i hated the departed for several reasons but couldnt really get past the fact that leo chased down his valium or whatever with a nice can of sprite in one scene. it didnt fit in, wasnt at all seamless, detracted from the already crummy plot for me and made me wonder how that benefits sprites brand? maybe thats just me with my product placement goggles on.

yeah drezdn. its depressing when you can point out the products very blatently and then the next commercial is for the same brand. i would think they would at least like to try to subliminally drive it home. to show you one second later as an ad that staples is throwing wads of money into the show is almost insulting.
posted by c at 12:58 PM on March 30, 2007


drezdn, that was a particularly offensive placement.
posted by Mister_A at 1:07 PM on March 30, 2007


Miss Tea -- I got the job through mediabistro. Check there to see if they're hiring.
posted by Bookhouse at 1:08 PM on March 30, 2007


I just watched Children of Men and I don't think there was a single product placement. I mean, cigarettes were smoked, beer was drank, food was eaten, crummy futuristic cars were driven, and there was no discernible branding on any of them. The cigarettes, you could tell there was a label on the packet, but no lingering money shot of the logo. Wonderful film, by the way.
posted by Mister_A at 1:10 PM on March 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


The only part of Little Miss Sunshine that I found even remotely annoying was the scene at the beginning when the family is at the dinner table eating chicken and drinking.... Sprite Zero.
posted by phaedon at 1:24 PM on March 30, 2007


Best use of no-product placement in a movie?
Repo Man.
"I'm thirsty. Let's get a drink."
CUT TO: six-pack of generic white cans labeled 'Drink' hitting the convenience store counter.

Worst use of product placement in a movie?
Godzilla 1985. The added American footage is mostly shots of military men standing next to cans of Dr. Pepper.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 1:30 PM on March 30, 2007


Regarding David Lynch:
My mind was blown forever when I sat down in the theater to watch The Straight Story and these credits rolled across the screen:

"Walt Disney Presents
A David Lynch Film."
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 1:32 PM on March 30, 2007 [3 favorites]


Fuzzy Monster: I would say the worst placement in a movie was when there was a undercover drug bust/car chase in a renovated Miller Light truck in "Bad Boys II" (which I'm on record as stating is the worst movie made to date).
posted by Burhanistan at 1:34 PM on March 30, 2007


Burhanistan:
Granted, that does sound pretty bad. But... have you seen Godzilla: 1985? There was Dr. Pepper everywhere. Even places it shouldn't be, like on top of electronic control panels. The only thing it was missing was Godzilla fighting a man in a giant floppy Can of Dr. Pepper suit.

The product placement in Godzilla 1985 strikes me as so egregious because it was tacked on later by the American producers. Believe it or not, it wouldn't bug me as much if the whole movie had been a shill from the start, like Mac and Me or The Wizard.
("I love the Power Glove. It's so bad.")
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 2:04 PM on March 30, 2007


I'd have to nominate the sci-fi Stallone pic Demolition Man, in which the only restaurant left in the world is Taco Bell.
posted by Bookhouse at 2:07 PM on March 30, 2007


As previously mentioned, I, Robot had the worst shoe product placement. It was just horrible.


24 is bad for its Sprint phone placement. Once scene, using some stupid feature of the phone, with a close up on the screen showing sprint on the edge of the phone, then right after that a tv commecial for sprint.
posted by Iax at 2:27 PM on March 30, 2007


It would be more realistic, Iax, if Jack Bauer spent 3 whole episodes waiting for Sprint Customer Service to pick up.
posted by Mister_A at 2:31 PM on March 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


And I completely agree when it's a case of big studios just raking in more bucks.

Not just the big studios, some independent and arthouse people can be pretty blatant about it too. Pedro Almodóvar, God bless him, has a particularly bad case of brand whoredom, even if perhaps not quite as evident to non-Spaniards, who can't recognise most plugged products (although the ubiquitous IKEA furniture in "All About My Mother" should be hard to miss).
posted by Skeptic at 2:43 PM on March 30, 2007


Bookhouse writes "I'd have to nominate the sci-fi Stallone pic Demolition Man, in which the only restaurant left in the world is Taco Bell."

I give that one a pass for its glorious blatantness. I love the idea of the Franchise Wars.

"Ha! He doesn't know how to use the two sea shells!"
posted by brundlefly at 3:02 PM on March 30, 2007


Heineken? Fuck that shit. Pepsi Blue!

(ribbon)
posted by 23skidoo at 3:02 PM on March 30, 2007


Bookhouse wrote: "Reality shows are the worst. The Amazing Race, America's Top Model, Top Chef, stuff like that, are just lousy with placement. As somebody said above, we're almost returning to the age of sponsored programming in some cases. The Bravo show Clean This House is pretty much a Clorox ad. (It's also a very, very stupid show)"

Wow, sounds like it's going straight back to the early days when the shows were "sponsored by" some product, which was talked about by a host, not just shown in a commercial.

And to think that when pay tv came out and I said "Who would want that?" I was told the benefit would be no commercials. Yeah, right.
posted by Listener at 3:03 PM on March 30, 2007


I remember driving past an In-N-Out and thinking "those are some good burgers, Dude." I felt used. Product placement can make even a good movie seem bad.
posted by Citizen Premier at 3:19 PM on March 30, 2007


Stay true to the idea.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:26 PM on March 30, 2007


24 is bad for its Sprint phone placement. Once scene, using some stupid feature of the phone, with a close up on the screen showing sprint on the edge of the phone, then right after that a tv commecial for sprint.
posted by Iax at 5:27 PM on March 30


I have never watched 24, but I know they have product placement for Cisco IP phones. How do I know this? Because my office just got them. Some Cisco drone went around to people's offices demonstrating the features, and he explained that you could change the ringtone. He pointed to a ring tone labeled '24' and said, "You know on the show 24, this is the same ringtone, because they use these phones on the show." and he pressed it like three times in a row. Beep boop beeeeep.

I glared at him for a few seconds, then I reminded him he had his back to the windows, and we were on the 12th floor.

Some days are better than others.
posted by Pastabagel at 3:40 PM on March 30, 2007


If you TiVo a program do you watch the ads? If you download a program do you watch the ads? Advertising pays for TV and if you aren't watching the ads outside the program, the only place for them to go is inside. Expect to see a huge rise in product placement in the future.
posted by meech at 3:46 PM on March 30, 2007


Advertising pays for TV

I'm pretty sure I pay a ridiculous amount monthly for TV, though I keep trying to convince my gf to kill it once and for all.
posted by mrgrimm at 4:03 PM on March 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


> Advertising pays for TV

I'm pretty sure I pay a ridiculous amount monthly for TV


And yet advertising pays for TV. Likewise, your magazine subscriptions are not free, but they do not pay for the magazine either. Why do you think Adbusters is like nine bucks an issue?
posted by cortex at 4:09 PM on March 30, 2007


Citizen Premier writes "I remember driving past an In-N-Out and thinking 'those are some good burgers, Dude.'"

When I first saw The Big Lebowski I had never heard of In-N-Out and I thought it was a made up business. When I moved to California, I was blown away to see it actually exists. It was like Jesus actually showed up at my door to tell me he's a pederast.
posted by brundlefly at 4:29 PM on March 30, 2007


In-N-Out burgers are better than Jesus.

*cashes check*

No, really, they're damn good.
posted by languagehat at 4:38 PM on March 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


My favorite product placement was in Daredevil, when we see Daredevil's father falling into the slow agony of alcoholism through DELICIOUS DELICIOUS HEINEKEN.

My second favorite was in early high school, when we were forced to watch an anti-drug presentation that was blatantly put on by Pepsi and some Hollywood studio or another.

Don't smoke weed, kids! Watch DELICIOUS DELICIOUS BILLY CRYSTAL MOVIES.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:46 PM on March 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


When I first saw The Big Lebowski I had never heard of In-N-Out and I thought it was a made up business. When I moved to California, I was blown away to see it actually exists. It was like Jesus actually showed up at my door to tell me he's a pederast.

I had that sort of experience a lot as a kid, but no revelation was so great as the dawning awareness that there really are Circle-K stores. Something in my understanding both of Bill & Ted of the world changed that day.
posted by cortex at 4:47 PM on March 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


No, really, they're damn good.

Yeah, that's pretty much why I was able to forgive The Big Lebowski.
posted by Citizen Premier at 5:32 PM on March 30, 2007


As usual, ideological opposition/support isn't my favourite.

Lynch said "bullshit" about the trend of product "placement"...which doesn't mean much, to me. Neither do I care much.

Yet if I ever was to direct a movie, I'd certainly do product placement unless I was asked to adapt my movie to fit the products or put more products...it becomes an advertisement, in which the story is you are so intelligent and so not stupid if you buy this product your life will be better and have hot sex.

But I guess directors decide little to nothing, unless they are celebrity names in target audience. So inserting advertisement is one more way to give directors less to direct and more to assemble...that'd quickly look like bullshit.
posted by elpapacito at 5:59 PM on March 30, 2007


If a movie is good enough, I can overlook product-placement. I can't overlook the 30-second spots inserted into an otherwise decent movie - I have to react to them, even if it just means leaving the room or muting the sound.

On the whole, if companies are going to collectively spend millions and millions and millions of dollars promoting their stupid products, I'd rather they travelled the less-egregiously annoying path of product-placement, refined it, and helped to get some movies/videogames made along the way.

In a perfect world, or as near-to-perfect as is likely to be attainable, the television ad break would simply disappear as advertising migrated quietly and unobtrusively into the features. Of course, the television network would still feel the need to advertise itself, which never makes sense to me.
posted by Ritchie at 6:05 PM on March 30, 2007


I have never watched 24 ...

I watch it, and it is the WORST when it comes to product placement. They manage to avoid all subtlety at every opportunity - there was one episode where Jack jumps into an SUV, and they zoom right in on the Ford logo in the back. It made me laugh hysterically, for some reason. They manage to talk about configuring the "Cisco router" in almost every episode.

More interestingly, I've discovered that I very well may be a terrorist - they use the same laptop (Sony Vaio UX) and PDA phone as I do. Apparently, the Vaio UX, in addition to being a portable multimedia toy, can also be used to arm nuclear devices. Who knew? I expect a knock on the door at any time. Apparently, the good guys use Macs and the terrorists use Windows.
posted by me & my monkey at 6:15 PM on March 30, 2007


Let's go do some crimes!
posted by beerbajay at 6:32 PM on March 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


Also, check out David Foster Wallace on Charlie Rose

Nice segue. DFW's essay in A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again about Lynch in general and Lost Highway in particular is still one of my faves.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:01 PM on March 30, 2007


Pedro Almodóvar, God bless him, has a particularly bad case of brand whoredom

I didn't actually really notice this at all until I finally got around to seeing his last film, Volver. There's a reusable shopping bag from a major French hypermarket chain that's clearly visible in a few scenes. It has a distinctive enough design that I'm sure any Spaniard/Frenchman/European who's spent time shopping at this particular chain would recognize it almost immediately. For the life of me I can't tell if it's blatant product placement or whether he just really liked the aesthetics and colors of this particular bag.
posted by timelord at 8:05 PM on March 30, 2007


The David Foster Wallace essay on Lynch and Lost Highway

Liek most DFW, it can be an exhausting read.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:09 PM on March 30, 2007


Exhausting? I say exhiliarating! But I'm weird that way, maybe.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:32 PM on March 30, 2007


timelord For the life of me I can't tell if it's blatant product placement or whether he just really liked the aesthetics and colors of this particular bag.

Product placement, definitely. In "All about my mother" there were at least:

IKEA: Most interiors appeared to come straight out of the catalog).
FNAC (a book/music/electronics store that is pretty big in France and Spain): Several shots just "happened" to show their biggest Madrid store.
Solán de Cabras (a Spanish mineral water brand): Bottles and drink cartons were quite ubiquitous. In a particularly ludicrous scene a drink carton takes center stage, with the main characters in the background.

He's not subtle, Pedro...
posted by Skeptic at 1:26 AM on March 31, 2007


So, I'm listening to the interview, and Lynch is all but doing an infommercial for his coffee, and he's shilling Transcendental Meditation, and then he has the big finish about product placement. My question is: is it all a joke? Is the whole thing to pull our leg?
posted by Trochanter at 8:07 AM on March 31, 2007


In Studio 60, I recall one scene where the head writer and the director of the fake show are discussing how to handle the unpleasant necessity of product placement in their fictional television show, and they're standing in front of candy vending machines, with the logos of two candies taking up at least 25% of the screen.
posted by Dave Faris at 9:03 AM on March 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


« Older Return Of The Mummy   |   Moon Camera Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments