RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,574
Posts: 5,423,531
Members: 24,810
Currently online: 437
Newest member: toaster

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12

New Wizkids Attack Wing Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Coto Drama Sold To Fox
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Braga Inks Deal
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Remastered Original Series Re-release
By: T'Bonz on Sep 11

UK Trek Ships Calendar Debuts
By: T'Bonz on Sep 10


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 8 2012, 05:09 AM   #16
Enterprise is Great
Rear Admiral
 
Enterprise is Great's Avatar
 
Re: Product placement

No but it's weird seeing the Pan Am logo in a movie taking place in 2001 long after it ceased to exist.
__________________
JJverse Star Trek...ROCKED on May 17, 2013 and beyond!
Enterprise is Great is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8 2012, 05:16 AM   #17
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Product placement

Enterprise is Great wrote: View Post
No but it's weird seeing the Pan Am logo in a movie taking place in 2001 long after it ceased to exist.
Funny how "predicting" the future works.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8 2012, 10:01 AM   #18
teacake
Admiral
 
teacake's Avatar
 
Location: Militant Janeway True Path Devotees Compound. With Sehlats.
Re: Product placement

We can only hope our children laugh their asses off at Uhura ordering a Budweiser for the same reason.
__________________

"Damnit Spock. God damnit!" Kirk ST:V
■ ■ ■
Janeway does Melbourne
teacake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 8 2012, 10:49 AM   #19
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Product placement

New companies can always come along and resurrect an old name/brand/logo/whatever.

If they have PADDs with Apple logos in STID, the irony may cause the universe to implode.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8 2012, 01:27 PM   #20
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Product placement

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
Product placement is a sad reality of movies these days. Sometimes its painfully obvious, like in I, Robot Will Smith's character just happens to be into vintage products from the year the movie came out. Sometimes a movie has fun with its product placement, like Snakes on a Plane.
The article I linked to even described how it affects the screenplay because the companies come in and want to have it their way.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8 2012, 02:54 PM   #21
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Product placement

Enterprise is Great wrote: View Post
No but it's weird seeing the Pan Am logo in a movie taking place in 2001 long after it ceased to exist.
Well, it's not like we had a manned expedition to Jupiter in 2001 (or a few years later, I think it was supposed to be) either.


KingDaniel wrote: View Post
If they have PADDs with Apple logos in STID, the irony may cause the universe to implode.
STID? If you're doing Roman numerals, that would be Star Trek 499. Gotta admire your optimism about the franchise's longevity.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8 2012, 03:05 PM   #22
Titus Andronicus
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Augusta, GA
Re: Product placement

Christopher wrote: View Post
Enterprise is Great wrote: View Post
No but it's weird seeing the Pan Am logo in a movie taking place in 2001 long after it ceased to exist.
Well, it's not like we had a manned expedition to Jupiter in 2001 (or a few years later, I think it was supposed to be) either.


KingDaniel wrote: View Post
If they have PADDs with Apple logos in STID, the irony may cause the universe to implode.
STID? If you're doing Roman numerals, that would be Star Trek 499. Gotta admire your optimism about the franchise's longevity.
I believe it's a reference to the rumored title, Star Trek Into Darkness.

Although if my great great great great great great......grandkids are enjoying new Trek films I'd be very happy for them, lol.
__________________
Kurt Vonnegut: 1922-2007
Titus Andronicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8 2012, 03:42 PM   #23
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Product placement

Ahh, okay, I didn't see that until after reading that post. I'm up to speed now. And TrekMovie is saying it's definitely confirmed.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8 2012, 03:45 PM   #24
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Product placement

Yep, I was abbreviating the supposed new name.

499 Star Trek films... I'd like to see them try!
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8 2012, 03:47 PM   #25
ChristopherPike
Rear Admiral
 
ChristopherPike's Avatar
 
Re: Product placement

STID?

Of course, you realise in its abreviated form it could also stand for Sexually Transmitted Infective Disease?

Bad Robot Productions would kindly like to remind the ladies and gentlemen of the audience, that they are strongly advised to wear protection.
__________________
STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE Season 5 on Netflix Facebook page
ChristopherPike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8 2012, 05:30 PM   #26
SimpleLogic
Guest
 
Re: Product placement

Christopher wrote: View Post
SimpleLogic wrote: View Post
I would prefer the movies stayed away from it.
Easy to say, but it's not like they do it for fun. Without the revenue that comes from product placement, the studio could never afford to make a film as hugely expensive as a modern sci-fi blockbuster. So it's just something we have to accept as a necessary tradeoff for getting the movie made at all -- just like commercial breaks are the necessary tradeoff for getting TV shows made. (And more and more shows these days have built-in product placements because it's gotten so easy to fast-forward or channel-surf through commercials.)

It's not unreasonable that some corporations might survive a few more centuries. The longest-lived independent company in history, Japan's Kongō Gumi, lasted for 1,400 years. Various hotels and breweries and such have been in business for up to a millennium. The Beretta firearms company is nearly 500 years old, as is Cambridge University Press.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies

Still, I tend to feel that for an SF film, it would make more sense to have product placements for the likes of aerospace firms and computer manufacturers, or maybe biotech or energy companies, rather than something like soft drinks.

Ultimately, though, it comes down to which companies are willing to invest in your movie, so the filmmakers may not have complete freedom of choice about which products they have to work in. If you try to get IBM and Virgin Aerospace as financial backers but the best you can manage is Taco Bell and Geico, then you really don't have any choice but to posit a far future where Taco Bell and Geico are alive and well and haven't materially altered their corporate logos in centuries. (Although I think there are some cases where a film's production designers have been allowed to come up with new, futuristic logos that the advertisers actually used in their tie-in campaigns, with their approval, of course. I can't remember an example, though.)
That maybe true for untried things but all The Star Trek movies made a profit (some more than others) and most without any product placement. Trek is such a big media brand unto itself it shouldn't have to lower itself to things like that. $100 DVD sets anyone?
  Reply With Quote
Old September 8 2012, 06:51 PM   #27
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Product placement

SimpleLogic wrote: View Post
That maybe true for untried things but all The Star Trek movies made a profit (some more than others) and most without any product placement. Trek is such a big media brand unto itself it shouldn't have to lower itself to things like that. $100 DVD sets anyone?
What you need to understand is that movies today have gotten far more expensive. On top of which, most of the previous Trek movies were given mid-range budgets, whereas the Abrams movies are top-tier, tentpole movies. They're so expensive that Paramount and Bad Robot have had to bring in additional production partners simply to finance the films -- Spyglass Entertainment on the 2009 film and Skydance Productions on the upcoming sequel. Indeed, Skydance's whole reason for existing is to co-finance Paramount films. It's just hard to understand how insanely Hollywood production costs are ballooning these days. They have to get money any way they can, from multiple different sources.

There's also the fact that promotion goes both ways. What you can get in exchange for inserting a product placement in your film is help from the corporation in promoting your film with their commercials and tie-in products. And that's very important. Marketing, getting a film out there and into the public eye, is critical to its success. No Trek film since ST:TMP has really had a big tie-in marketing campaign until ST 2009. Paramount wanted to give it a big promotional push, to really turn it into a studio tentpole property. In the past, they didn't really have to, since ST was popular enough to promote itself -- but then ST's popularity faded and the films were too slow to adjust, which is probably a factor in why the last couple of TNG films had underwhelming box office (though admittedly not the only factor). This time around, Paramount really wanted to go all-out in promoting the film, and in modern times that requires getting sponsors to offer promotional tie-ins. And putting product placements for those sponsors in your film is often the tit for tat. Star Trek promotes Nokia in the movie, and Nokia in turn promotes Star Trek in its ads. It's just part of how the big-budget movie business works these days.

As for the DVD sets, the profits from those go to CBS, which owns the franchise as a whole. But Paramount makes the movies, because Paramount kept the rights to the former Viacom's motion picture properties when they split with CBS. So Paramount can't fund the movies with CBS's profits for the DVD sets.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8 2012, 06:59 PM   #28
SimpleLogic
Guest
 
Re: Product placement

I see. I still doubt its that hard to find funding though when the words "Star Trek" are mentioned. If it was there wouldn't be 12 movies. I just really feel that having an obvious product placement in the 'future' just cheapens the magic of the story a bit no matter the reason. Don't get me wrong it doesn't bother me as much as it may seem from my post but I can do without it for sure.

Might as well paint the Enterprise up like a NASCAR.
  Reply With Quote
Old September 8 2012, 07:34 PM   #29
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Product placement

SimpleLogic wrote: View Post
I see. I still doubt its that hard to find funding though when the words "Star Trek" are mentioned. If it was there wouldn't be 12 movies.
Times change. Star Trek was very popular for a while, but then its popularity faded. Paramount decided to relaunch it as a tentpole franchise, but they could no longer rely on the popularity it had formerly had a decade earlier. They had to approach it the same way they'd approach any other tentpole revival of a moribund franchise, the way they did with Mission: Impossible (remember, it was Abrams's success with M:I:III that convinced Paramount to ask him to do the same for Star Trek, its other Desilu-legacy franchise).

And, again, movies these days are insanely freaking expensive. You simply cannot rely on word of mouth when your film costs nine figures to make.


I just really feel that having an obvious product placement in the 'future' just cheapens the magic of the story a bit no matter the reason.
Like I said, some corporations have endured for centuries, a few for over a millennium. If we saw, say, Obi-Wan Kenobi downing a Pepsi or Bilbo Baggins wearing Levis, that would be a bit much, but the Star Trek universe is supposed to be the future of our Earth, and it's not that implausible that Budweiser, a brand that's already 136 years old, or Nokia, a company that was founded 147 years ago, would still exist 232-243 years from now.

I remember a Trek novel from the '80s, Crisis on Centaurus by Brad Ferguson, that had a scene with a Tellarite on Alpha Centauri using an American Express ATM. And that wasn't even a paid product placement. The author just assumed that some recognizable elements of our era would survive into the future.


Might as well paint the Enterprise up like a NASCAR.
Well, that's obviously not going to happen, but I wouldn't find it unbelievable if we saw that some of its components were imprinted with the names of real aerospace contractors or the like. The Space Shuttle's robot arm had its builder's logo on it, and I've seen photos of things like satellites or ISS components that had their makers' logos on them -- just as most vehicles and equipment down here on Earth are branded with their makers' logos. If anything, seeing all these futuristic spaceships in TV and movies without any manufacturers' logos of any kind on them is rather unrealistic.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8 2012, 07:43 PM   #30
tighr
Commodore
 
tighr's Avatar
 
Location: California
Re: Product placement

teacake wrote: View Post
We can only hope our children laugh their asses off at Uhura ordering a Budweiser for the same reason.
Budweiser is actually very likely to still exist in 250 years. Nokia, maybe not.
__________________
~Tighr™: Not helping the situation since 1983
tighr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.