MovieChat Forums > Fire Maidens from Outer Space (1956) Discussion > FMOOS: Landmark in cinematic product pla...

FMOOS: Landmark in cinematic product placement


As anyone can tell from watching this film, Cy Roth was an innovative and ground-breaking director, not least in the way he nimbly arranged subtle yet telling ways to make sure Fire Maidens of Outer Space was bought and paid for.

Two words: product placement.

Resorting to a practice almost unheard-of in 1956, Mr. Roth, not to be deterred by the caution of lesser filmmakers, went ahead and scored hefty checks from no fewer than four major companies to help finance his opus, in exchange for practical demonstrations in the film of their products' every-day utility.

TWA -- Lots of shots of Trans World Airlines' brand-new Constellation in flight (admittedly not as realistic as Roth's V-2 shots in space, but motion picture techniques have their limitations), plus that adorable TWA flight bag Tony Dexter carries on the unoccupied and unpaid-for seat next to him, handy for toting top-secret scientific papers rolled up in his underwear. As a bonus, there's the airline name over the entrance at London Airport. These repeated logo shots kept TWA in business for half a century longer.

Longines -- What trip into space could succeed without knowing the correct Earth-time? Longines was there every step of the way, with the critical matter of precise flight synchronization ("We'll be ready to leave in about a week") well in hand by the placing of a second Longines clock inside the control room. Outside of which stands a...

Coca-Cola -- machine. Necessary to keep the guy with the interplanetary telephone awake and sugar-sharp so he can send and receive messages every few days...provided, of course, he has the two bob needed to pay for his choice of the wide array of Coca-Cola products available in 1956: Coke, and, ur, more Coke. Maybe an inadvertent Pepsi got in there.

Chesterfields -- Nothing matters more than the long-term health of the crew, and their frequent resort to the soothing, energy-inducing satisfaction of an unfiltered Chesterfield helped clear the air (metaphorically), sharpening their senses and allowing them to properly assess the dangers they face and decide upon a logical course of action. Not wishing to overdo their screen time, the publicity-shy tobacco purveyor received only two shots of the packet of their butts, sitting at the ready on the countertop next to the ship's radio man. But rest assured that the 900 other cigarettes smoked at every conceivable occasion on this trip were Chesterfields, and only Chesterfields. In fact, so nourishing are Chesterfields that, as we see in the film, the crew carries neither food nor drink with them. Only Chesterfields...the space-food sticks of the fifties.

Totaling nearly $300, these corporate purchases not only covered the complete production costs of FMOOS, but provided Cy Roth with a comfortable retirement until the box-office receipts started pouring in.

And people talk so much about the product placements in 2001. Eat (or smoke) your heart out, Stanley Kubrick.

reply

[deleted]

Yes, I think you're right. No picture of the name itself, but we hear it spoken, and see the camera.

Think of all the paper backings from the snapshots he took, peeled off and littered the 13th moon's (you should pardon the expression) virgin landscape with. Just leaving appropriate proof of mankind's visit, I guess.

Edit: Even though from my reply it's pretty obvious what the topic was, for the record, the poster who has since deleted his post above was referring to the spacemen's use of a Polaroid camera...although much like TWA, the reference doesn't do the company much good today.

reply

Yep, I heard that too. The crewman with the camera says clearly the word 'Polaroid' whilst he snaps a shot.
I was really surprised at the obvious product placements in this movie too.

reply

Yes, even though the earlier poster has deleted his post (understandable: it's not easy for people to endure the embarrassment of posting on this board), it's clear even from my reply he was talking about "Polaroid". I missed that one in my OP.

I've seen this movie off and on (mostly off) for 50-plus years but it was a long time before the product placement aspect really struck me. I think I spent so much time wrapped up in its other marvels that it wasn't until late in the game that the picture's blatant commercialism finally penetrated my consciousness.

And people say this isn't a multi-layered film.

reply