MovieChat Forums > The Greatest Movie Ever Sold (2011) Discussion > Does it matter?

Does it matter?

posted 13 years ago by man_in_motion-676-550583
26 replies | jump to latest

So movies have sponsorship; it's been going on for decades, and it's not unlike anything seen on TV. Is Mr. Spurlock trying to say that it's unfair to indie filmmakers? If he is, then that's just tough luck. Some hit it "Hollywood big," others hit it "Sundance big." It's just the roll of the dice. I don't hate him, but it seems like he's scraping the bottom of the barrel for documentaries now. First "Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden," then the utter misery that was "Freakanomics" (all of it, not just his section), and now this. Also, I'm certain that "Super Size Me" counts as product placement for organic food companies.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] man_in_motion-676-550583 13 years ago

So? Directors/Producers need funding for films, and the easiest way is through product placement. That being said, I haven't noticed an obvious plug in a Hollywood movie in a long while. I just focus on the story; I don't look for every plug there might be. Also, by using product placement for a documentary against product placement, Spurlock seems to have created a massive contradiction.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] saad_sa11 13 years ago

This "century" isn't even over!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ravenosa 13 years ago

"So? Directors/Producers need funding for films, and the easiest way is through product placement."

And that's what "The Greatest Movie Ever Sold" is about.

Interesting subject - can't wait to see it.

[–] MrCub18 12 years ago

Except this wasn't a documentary "against" product placement...

[–] NoirCat2528 13 years ago

Yeah, but c'mon, product placement and advertising in movies has really exploded to ridiculous, out of control proportions starting this century.

In movies, maybe, but not television. I once bought a DVD of Burns and Allen (George Burns and Gracie Allen's sitcom in the 50's) and was surprised to see that their condensed milk sponsor not only got a big commercial in the middle, but the product was significantly worked into *every* episode. Now that's some creative writing. Anyway, as bad as things have gotten on TV (Heroes, anyone?) it's nowhere near as bad as that. Sure that was when everything was live and there weren't taped commercials, but still. It was shocking to see because everyone complains about it now, no matter how subtle it is, when clearly people from that era just accepted it as the norm.

[–] Promontorium 13 years ago

That's a great point. In the old days, a show was blatantly sponsored by a product, many shows had their sponsor in the title (particularly game shows). I think advertising has gotten much better in general.

Sometimes they beat you over the head, and that's annoying, otherwise I don't get these people who seem pissed off because a character is drinking a Coke. PEOPLE DRINK COKE IT HAPPENS, TV shows and movies seem LESS REAL to me when they remove real brands, use fake brands, or censor the brands they're using.

[–] vannalee-shop 13 years ago

It's true that corporate sponsorship played a big role in early TV. Like any new technology, most people wouldn't buy TVs unless there was something on to watch. For a station to put something on to watch required paying for sets, actors, writers, equipment, probably a broadcasting license, etc. Corporations saw an opportunity to build public goodwill by bankrolling TV shows and entertaining consumers who would loyally buy their brands. Once a certain number of households had TVs, networks could break down the hour and sell to many separate sponsors.

Now that we all fast-forward the commercials, unless something grabs our eyes, companies are more frequently weaving products into the staging or storyline, sometimes to the point of distraction. At least with the GE Hour or Chesterfield Theater (or whatever they were called), there was an element of disclosure. I think the backlash against product placement these boards reflect might cause advertisers to become sneakier, at least as sneaky as they can be without escaping our notice entirely.

[–] DerekTran 13 years ago

the thing is we dont have a lot of time to figure out the truth from the fiction. thats one way it gets to you. Everyone is affect by product placements, you just dont realize it. It may not be for the Nike shoes, or POM juice, but you are affected.

If you want a truck, with horsepower and all that jazz, do you think of ford and dodge? or Kia and Nissan?

Have i ever owned or do i know anyuthing about trucks? Nope, but i never seen a truck commercial for nissan or kia. and iv'e seen a lot for the former. and yes nisaan and kia both have trucks you can buy.

if i want a coffee i go to Tim Horton. Why? .. idk their coffee is good but i never really tried other places. I went to Tim's along time ago and i've stuck with it.

advertisements make an impression of you whether you like it or not.. and it starts from a young age.

always be weary of what you see or hear!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] londons_lone_wolf 13 years ago

I will hold off judgment until I view the film. However, I disagree that the premise of the movie is to show how advertisement is an unfair advantage for films with larger budgets. If anything it proves that indie film makers can get sponsorship in their movies.

I believe the movie is an inside view into the world of getting sponsors for films. It is a tale of how one man makes a movie and gets sponsors to fund it for him. If you will, a movie about making the movie.

I quite enjoyed his "30 Days" series but did not watch "Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden". Freakanomics was not his movie, he did part of it and the source material was not one of his choosing. I do not believe he had creative control over that film.

"Super Size Me" is not advertisement for organic food companies, they were not featured in the film and their logo is never seen nor mentioned. If you are referring to how it makes you not want to eat fast food then the same argument can be made for restaurants and grocery stores. If you are referring to his vegan girlfriend then how would you go about showing his last night without food while he spent it with his vegan girlfriend? They should not change reality for fear of referencing organic food companies.

--

There is no contradiction in this film. Everyone seems to be misinterpreting it as bashing ads in films before actually viewing the film, while that may be included, it is not the central focus of the film based on the interviews I have seen on Youtube. I assume you are talking about getting advertisement for a blatant anti advertisement film? While it may look that way it is not, my assumption as to what the premise is would be stated above.

This is the specific interview - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Vndc87deI

[–] floyd_dylan 13 years ago

I really hate his state the obvious documentaries.

He tells us nothing new, his super size me wasn't a huge revelation., I was thinking, yes know McDs are bad for me, and yes we know junk food is making people fat. We all know that, because there have been hundreds of tv shows and documentaries before this film, telling us what’s bad for us.

There are lots of fascinating documentaries out there, that are far more superior such as one I saw, where we find out what goes inside everyday food we eat, such as bread which contains E920, the ingredient to create E920 is duck feathers, in China they use human hair.

With today’s technology, these documentaries aren’t really hard to find worker.

[–] londons_lone_wolf 13 years ago

I can respect that.

I enjoy them from an entertainment aspect but I understand how you would feel that way and this one looks no different. It is probably more so stating the obvious than anyone of his films prior to it.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] c_guenther 13 years ago

IMHO, someone who copies an internet meme-saying like "herp a derp" has no business criticizing another person for their cleverness (or lack thereof).

[–] slyle 13 years ago

I don't think the point of "Super Size Me" was that fast food is bad for you. That's obvious. The point was that food companies in general are not looking out for your health. You can't just assume that food products that are made are safe to eat no matter who is giving them to you. All the stuff about the school lunches and how it can it can actually be cheaper for schools to give more healthy foods but they don't because the "evil food corporations" do a better job of lobbying for the contracts really summed it up well. Food is a really big business and food companies don't always do what's right, they usually do what's profitable and many times that means selling stuff that's bad for you, but telling you it's good for you. You have to do the research and make informed decisions yourself.

I'll admit I am curious as to what the actual point of this movie is, though. I'm guessing it's something about the influence of product placement and advertising on our spending habits, but it does seem quite a bit more obvious than "Super Size Me."

[–] Gamesmith 13 years ago

Floyd, you'd be surprised how many people don't realize how awful fast food is. And this includes Starbucks' coffees.
A standard Caffe Mocha with milk is already 380 calories in the venti size and with whipped cream (a common topping) it jumps to 450. That's not even counting an actual food item. It's ridiculously easy to blow your entire day's calories in drinks and snacks, excluding actual food. And I'm not even talking about the 15 grams of fat in that drink.

[–] bek-12 13 years ago

I'm certain that "Super Size Me" counts as product placement for organic food companies.

It's been a few years since I saw it, but which particular products were shown in SSM? Unless there was a specific brand name, there was no product placement.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Doctor_Filth 13 years ago

If your question is: Does this subject merit examination? then the answer is undoubtedly yes. Brands have infiltrated every nook and cranny of modern society, they are constantly around us, so much so that it is easy to forget their presence. But their presence absolutely has an effect. Whether it is positive or negative remains to be seen--it's almost impossible to judge because of just how engrained brands are into our everyday lives.

Brands are everywhere for a reason. They influence the decisions we make. They change our surrounding environment--the brandless city highlighted in the film is clearly distinct from my own urban experiences. And the way that brands are presented to us (subtly placed within our movies and television shows) can have an almost subliminal effect.

Also, you have to question the priorities of a society in which an underfunded school (such as the one depicted in the film) must turn to advertising for financial assistance. This practice could start a very slippery slope indeed.

Mr. Spurlock doesn't condemn the process of product placement, he merely tries to explore some of its implications.

[–] HHFan 13 years ago

It matters because they try to influence the movies to sell their product, they don't care about art only money and appealing to the lowest common denominator, and the money never goes to lower the price of admission. Plus it perpetuates the amoral copyright.

--
Lets nuke the site from orbit - its the only way to be sure.

[–] TheManInOil 12 years ago

He didn't say anything like that. His stated goal was just to draw people's attention to how this works and let them decide for themselves what the significance is.

"I'll book you. I'll book you on something. I'll find something in the book to book you on."