Product placement

[Christopher]

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.

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.

 

[Titus Andronicus]

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.

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.

 

[Christopher]

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.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Yep, I was abbreviating the supposed new name.

499 Star Trek films... I'd like to see them try!

 

[ChristopherPike]

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.

 

[SimpleLogic]

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?

 

[Christopher]

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.

 

[SimpleLogic]

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.

 

[Christopher]

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.

 

[tighr]

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.

 

[Matt S]

If anything, having a little bit of today's stuff in the far flung furture made it seem more real.

Exactly how I felt. Too much would've been an issue, but the movie handled it incredibly well.....Lets all be honest: 60's style of the future was incredibly naive, so having some 'real world' name drops Like Budweiser seems pretty realistic to me. Beer is gonna make it to the 23rd century folks!!!!

 

[Xaios]

The Budweiser placement didn't bother me in the least, because a) I can EASILY see them lasting that long, and b) the placement at least happened in a reasonable context. The Nokia placement, conversely (*snicker*IROBOT*snicker*), was incredibly awkward. It came out of the blue, and they could have just as easily used an era communicator, which served as a point of inspiration for a lot of modern cell phones IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I wasn't bothered by any of the placement in ST:IV either. The Pacific Bell placement was a great sight gag, and the Apple placement set up one of Scotty's best comedic moments.

 

[Christopher]

Budweiser is actually very likely to still exist in 250 years. Nokia, maybe not.

As I pointed out above, the Nokia brand name is actually a few years older than the Budweiser brand name. Although I exaggerated a bit; the original company of that name was an ancestor of the modern electronics/telecommunications corporation, which was formed in 1967 by the merger of the original Nokia and two other jointly owned companies. Still, it's nearly as old as Star Trek itself, for what that's worth.

The Nokia placement, conversely (*snicker*IROBOT*snicker*), was incredibly awkward. It came out of the blue, and they could have just as easily used an era communicator, which served as a point of inspiration for a lot of modern cell phones IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Yeah, but the communicators we've seen before are Starfleet models. How do we know that civilian communicators aren't manufactured by telecommunications/electronics companies like Nokia or Sony or whatever?

Not to mention that the Nokia communication panel was in the dashboard of a 1965 Corvette. Obviously its owner had a thing for antiques. Maybe it was actually a modern communicator but Kirk's uncle (or George Kirk, its previous owner according to a deleted scene) had it dressed up with an archaic Nokia logo for authenticity (though he got the era wrong by about 40 years).

 

[Xaios]

Yeah, but the communicators we've seen before are Starfleet models. How do we know that civilian communicators aren't manufactured by telecommunications/electronics companies like Nokia or Sony or whatever?

That's actually a valid point, hadn't thought about it that way.

Not to mention that the Nokia communication panel was in the dashboard of a 1965 Corvette. Obviously its owner had a thing for antiques. Maybe it was actually a modern communicator but Kirk's uncle (or George Kirk, its previous owner according to a deleted scene) had it dressed up with an archaic Nokia logo for authenticity (though he got the era wrong by about 40 years).

Possibly, but even if that's what they were going for, the execution just makes it... less than believable.

 

[JarodRussell]

I wasn't bothered by any of the placement in ST:IV either. The Pacific Bell placement was a great sight gag, and the Apple placement set up one of Scotty's best comedic moments.

Product placement in The Voyage Home is an exception because they friggin' time travelled to the present day Earth. Scotty needed to use a computer, so it would have been either Apple or IBM.

 

[Mr_Homn]

Will there be more blatant product placement like Nokia and Budweiser in the next Trek film?

Yes, I think there will be. Probably more blatant now that they know they can get away with it.

What do you think?

I think it's stupid, and doesn't make sense in Star Trek. It made sense in IV because of the time travel, as you said. The idea of Multi Billion Dollar corporations still plugging away in the 23rd century does not fit with Star Trek. Kirk driving his corvette listening to BEASTY BOYS answering his nokia phone and ordering budweisers sounds like a bad nightmare of a movie. too bad it really happened. even worse that fans swallowed it up and ask for more.

 

[Christopher]

I think it's stupid, and doesn't make sense in Star Trek. It made sense in IV because of the time travel, as you said. The idea of Multi Billion Dollar corporations still plugging away in the 23rd century does not fit with Star Trek.

Actually, in the 23rd century, it makes perfect sense. The whole "moneyless society" thing didn't come along until TNG. Yes, Kirk said in TVH that they don't use money in the 23rd century, but TOS was full of references to money and capitalism -- Harry Mudd and Cyrano Jones as businessmen/traders, the "rich lithium miners" in "Mudd's Women," credits as a unit of currency in "Catspaw," "Mirror, Mirror," and "The Trouble With Tribbles," Kirk telling Scotty he'd earned his pay for the week in one or two episodes, Kirk saying in "Errand of Mercy" that Starfleet had invested a great deal of money in his and Spock's training, Spock in "The Apple" reporting just how much money they'd invested in his training, Flint in "Requiem for Methuselah" and Carter Winston in "The Survivor" described as having great wealth, etc. There's no question that capitalism was alive and well in the 2260s. The most logical interpretation of Kirk's TVH line is that they don't use currency because they've switched to a purely virtual/electronic credit-based system -- as we increasingly have today with things like credit cards and PayPal.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Will there be more blatant product placement like Nokia and Budweiser in the next Trek film?

Yes, I think there will be. Probably more blatant now that they know they can get away with it.

What do you think?

I think it's stupid, and doesn't make sense in Star Trek. It made sense in IV because of the time travel, as you said. The idea of Multi Billion Dollar corporations still plugging away in the 23rd century does not fit with Star Trek. Kirk driving his corvette listening to BEASTY BOYS answering his nokia phone and ordering budweisers sounds like a bad nightmare of a movie. too bad it really happened. even worse that fans swallowed it up and ask for more.

Why doesn't it make sense? Where doea it said that corporations do not exist in Star Trek? Do you think that Corvettes, Budwiser and the Beastie Boys will somehow disappear from history? That Humans are so "enlightened" that they won't find the vehicles and music of the past interesting and only drink "boutique beers"? Frankly that makes less sense than beer, the Beastie Boys and Corvettes not existing in the future.

 

[Mr_Homn]

I think it's stupid, and doesn't make sense in Star Trek. It made sense in IV because of the time travel, as you said. The idea of Multi Billion Dollar corporations still plugging away in the 23rd century does not fit with Star Trek.

Actually, in the 23rd century, it makes perfect sense. The whole "moneyless society" thing didn't come along until TNG. Yes, Kirk said in TVH that they don't use money in the 23rd century, but TOS was full of references to money and capitalism -- Harry Mudd and Cyrano Jones as businessmen/traders, the "rich lithium miners" in "Mudd's Women," credits as a unit of currency in "Catspaw," "Mirror, Mirror," and "The Trouble With Tribbles," Kirk telling Scotty he'd earned his pay for the week in one or two episodes, Kirk saying in "Errand of Mercy" that Starfleet had invested a great deal of money in his and Spock's training, Spock in "The Apple" reporting just how much money they'd invested in his training, Flint in "Requiem for Methuselah" and Carter Winston in "The Survivor" described as having great wealth, etc. There's no question that capitalism was alive and well in the 2260s. The most logical interpretation of Kirk's TVH line is that they don't use currency because they've switched to a purely virtual/electronic credit-based system -- as we increasingly have today with things like credit cards and PayPal.

Almost all of those references to money dealt with outsiders of the federation. Harry mudd was a criminal and an independent smuggler. He would need money to deal with whatever non federation forces he would encounter daily. Same with Cyrano Jones. He is a trader who deals with non federation types all the time. The federation could still give it's people credits that they could use to deal with these types. They portrayed all this stuff pretty well in ds9.

Kirk telling Scotty he earned his pay was most likely an expression, a vestigial idiom. Just like when he said "mind the store". Unless you took that literally and you think the Bridge is a store. Maybe they sell popsicles and lemonade to all those klingons they encounter.

As for The Apple, Spock could have easily been talking about time, not money. 120,200 hours invested in his training. Kirk didn't let him finish.

Errand of Mercy is the trickiest one. I'm sure Timo could whip up some explanation if he wanted to. Like Federation outsources some of it's training to third parties so they would need to use some kind of currency, like latinum or gold or even spices, for dealing with these outsiders. Works for me. It's really the only line that can't be easily explained away.

But it's just one line and there are plenty of little inconsistencies like this, especially in the original series. United Earth Ship Enterprise? Vulcanians? "Mankind has no need for gods. We find the One quite adequate." Really? So now the federation has an agreed upon religion? Of course not. These things happen when you are still fleshing out your universe.

The decision (by the powers that be) was eventually reached that there was no money used int he federation, even in the 23rd century.

As you pointed out, Kirk clearly says they don't use money in the 23rd century, so even if the no money thing wasn't planned from the beginning, it was retconned. Federation doesn't use money in the 23rd century.

Why doesn't it make sense? Where doea it said that corporations do not exist in Star Trek? Do you think that Corvettes, Budwiser and the Beastie Boys will somehow disappear from history? That Humans are so "enlightened" that they won't find the vehicles and music of the past interesting and only drink "boutique beers"? Frankly that makes less sense than beer, the Beastie Boys and Corvettes not existing in the future.

I think it's quite likely that all those corporations would cease to exist after World War III kills 600 million people and many of the planets major governments and cities have been completely destroyed. I mean do you really expect me to believe that pretty much every world government is destroyed, along with their economies, but somehow Nokia survives and is still selling outdated cell phones in the 23rd century?

I could see beastie boys surviving, though. I don't have a problem with that. We've already seen plenty of ancient forms of music surviving well into the 24th century.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Do we even know that much about WWIII, other than the body count? Is there a list of which cities, countries and corporations perished? Do we even know where the fighting took place? Various Japanese and German corporations managed to survive WWII in spite of being the targets of Allied bombing.