Product placement

[F. King Daniel]

and it's not a TNG concept, actually. "no money in 23rd century" was first mentioned in the voyage home, which came out before TNG. It was a gene roddenberry concept and he retconned his universe. Sorry if it's disappointing to you

Then they retconned the recon. Big deal. Suddenly there are less lines you have to ignore than you did before the original rewrite.

As for big corporations existing in the future - thats an idea thats been around forever. Just look at Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, which lists the manufacturers of the Enterprise's components, weapons etc. Look at FASA's RPG suppliments that give each of those conpanies a logo and a backstory. The now-defunt Experience the Enterprise website even mentioned one of those old companies, Leeding Engines Ltd., as the manufacturer of the 2009 Enterprise's warp nacelles.

If future-Apple is the supplier of Starfleet's PADDs in the 23rd century, it'll be a cute in-joke, and also fit with a lot of the Trek I grew up with.

 

[Therin of Andor]

With STV neither Jack Daniels, Kraft or Levi was directly mentioned, just generalized versions.

There were numerous press releases boasting that Levi's had supplied the jeans. They probably made sure the tags were visible, too. I think that Levi's and Kraft also had screen credits.

 

[tighr]

Cell phone companies and other major corporations surviving in a world where the economy and most governments are non existent for 30+ years? That's pretty ridiculous.

It's not really that ridiculous. Consider Anheuser-Busch, which survived through the Prohibition-Era. They simply stopped making beer, and started making other stuff in the interim. Likewise, lots of Japanese companies survived World War II, and German companies didn't disappear during either World War, either. A strong company will adapt.

Nintendo is a prime example of adapting your niche; they've been in business since the late 1880s... yes, I said 1880. It wasn't until recently that they started making video games.

 

[Mr_Homn]

With STV neither Jack Daniels, Kraft or Levi was directly mentioned, just generalized versions.

There were numerous press releases boasting that Levi's had supplied the jeans. They probably made sure the tags were visible, too. I think that Levi's and Kraft also had screen credits.

There's a very obvious difference between press releases and screen credits, and blatantly sticking a nokia phone and budweiser in our faces during the movie. I've seen TFF at least a dozen times, and I never noticed what brand of jeans Kirk was wearing. They didn't feature a 10 second close-up on the tag, and none of the characters mentioned levi jeans. That would have been excessive and jarring, like something out of the 2009 movie.

 

[JarodRussell]

With STV neither Jack Daniels, Kraft or Levi was directly mentioned, just generalized versions.

There were numerous press releases boasting that Levi's had supplied the jeans. They probably made sure the tags were visible, too. I think that Levi's and Kraft also had screen credits.

There's a very obvious difference between press releases and screen credits, and blatantly sticking a nokia phone and budweiser in our faces during the movie. I've seen TFF at least a dozen times, and I never noticed what brand of jeans Kirk was wearing. They didn't feature a 10 second close-up on the tag, and none of the characters mentioned levi jeans. That would have been excessive and jarring, like something out of the 2009 movie.

This.

There was also no in your face Apple placement in The Voyage Home. It was just there and he used it.

 

[Sindatur]

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.

That's exactly how I've always seen "We don't use money", is that they don't carry around physical cash, because they carry around their Debit Card, or whatever means there currently is to draw "money" from your bank account. Not using money, doesn't necessarily mean you don't have to pay for things.

Although it often costs me 40 cents or 75 cents at a liquor store/convenience store to use my ATM card, I almost never carry cash, and almost always use my ATM card

 

[Sindatur]

Again, you're falsely assuming it's proven that Harry and Cyrano somehow weren't Federation citizens. There is no reason to assume that, except that you don't want them to be Federation citizens because it would prove your assumption wrong. It's completely circular reasoning.

I'm not assuming whether they are citizens either way. You are assuming they ARE citizens. I am saying they obviously deal with non-feds every day, by the very nature of their business. Harry Mudd was a criminal smuggler, he's obviously in league with plenty of shady types. Cyrano is a con man, same thing. They would need money to deal with these folks.

It makes just as much sense as the fact that so many familiar cities, nations, societies, and pieces of cultural heritage survive intact after WWIII despite what Riker claimed in FC. Maybe Riker just exaggerated. Again, one should go with the preponderance of evidence. You can't just ignore a whole pile of evidence in favor of one outlying data point that contradicts all the rest.

Now riker exaggerated. who exactly is twisting the facts to fit their view? lol

Not the same thing at all. It's not like Riker said the cities were completely OBLITERATED with NOTHING left. The important parts were destroyed. Some monuments survived, some art survived, etc. A lot of it would likely be rebuilt. Not unrealistic at all.

Cell phone companies and other major corporations surviving in a world where the economy and most governments are non existent for 30+ years? That's pretty ridiculous.

Just off the top of my head, I can recall references to Paris, Leningrad, and Cambridge University as well (regarding Picard, Chekov, and Data, respectively).

In general, I'm leery of applying TNG assumptions to TOS . . . or the new movie. The way I see it, the new movie was primarily based on classic STAR TREK, as opposed to the later spin-offs, so I'm not really sure why we're talking about TNG-era concepts at all.

Those references don't really say much though. The cities may exist in the 23rd and 24th century again, but from what riker says, they were in shambles at one point. They must have been rebuilt. Now, the non major cities, and who is to say what that is, might never have been seriously damaged.

As far as tng-era concepts... We are talking about star trek canon. This is pre TOS history according to the canon. World war III had serious effects, and it seems largely ignored in nutrek. It would appear that there WAS no world war 3 at all if these present day corporations are still fine and dandy in the 23rd century. If it had been a hard reboot, it wouldn't matter. But they decided to connect Nutrek to the old universe. they can't have it both ways. (well, obviously they can, and they did, but i'm still gonna call B.S. when i see it )

I wish it was a hard reboot, but they decided to take on all the historical baggage of pre-kirk. But they largely ignored it.

Using your logic regarding Nokia, I can't iamgine how you come to the conclusion Nokia must've crumbled. By your own admission, the planet wasn't utterly destroyed, only targeted cities would've seen such devestation. As long as you've got any surviving people from a Communications Company, and a Communcations Infrastructure sadly in need of repair, of course, that Communications company is going to come out of the other side of the crisis stronger than ever. Nokia (Or AT&T or MCI, or Comcast, whoever) would've been instrumental in rebuilding, and therefore would become a major Powerhouse of a Corporation (Even if you accept that it's not a For Profit Business, but, rather becomes a Government Communications Department)

 

[tighr]

Although it often costs me 40 cents or 75 cents at a liquor store/convenience store to use my ATM card, I almost never carry cash, and almost always use my ATM card

Just some advice, you would probably be better off getting a credit card and earning points. Rather than spend 40-75 cents per transaction, you could be making cash-back bonuses for free, and paying off your bill every month incurring no interest. Also, credit cards typically have better fraud reimbursement than debit cards (i.e., $0 liability).

 

[ProwlAlpha]

So Mr Homn, how do you propose to finance the new Trek movie? I, personally, thought it was a nice touch to have some type of connection between the two eras (ours and the 23rd Century). Besides, if the Swedish Company, Stora, can survive from the late 13th Century to the here and now, then why cant Budweiser and Nokia survive?

 

[Takeru]

Just some advice, you would probably be better off getting a credit card and earning points. Rather than spend 40-75 cents per transaction, you could be making cash-back bonuses for free, and paying off your bill every month incurring no interest. Also, credit cards typically have better fraud reimbursement than debit cards (i.e., $0 liability).

I have to go off topic for a moment because of this post. I've noticed for some time that it seems to be important in america to build credit or making points or whatever it's called. Apparently it's smart to be in debt and pay it off because otherwise you can't buy a house or whatever because for some asinine reason it's considered not trustworthy if you only spend money you actually have?

I really don't get it, probably because I come from a country where credit cards are barely used, it's a concept that's foreign to me, I'm 31 years old, I have never owned a credit card, I was never in debt. Would american banks consider me a risky customer because I didn't overspend half of my life?

 

[horatio83]

It wasn't strictly product placement but Sideways' Merlot vs. Pinot Noir thingy was at least funny.
Otherwise product placement simply sucks. Is it so much to ask for a clear separation between movies and advertisement? Nobody can tell me that these few extra bucks make much of a difference in the case of a nine-digit-budget blockbuster.

 

[Harvey]

There's never been a clear line between movies and advertisement, as product placement has existed since the silent era (just cribbing from Wikipedia, Wings (1927) and M (1931) both have prominent product placements in them), and movies and other forms of advertisements (i.e. advertisements before and after theatrical screenings, cross-promotion in print and radio) have been linked since cinema's inception.

 

[T'Girl]

Apparently it's smart to be in debt and pay it off because otherwise you can't buy a house or whatever because for some asinine reason it's considered not trustworthy if you only spend money you actually have?

Exactly, it easy enough for a bank to check your income, but a single year's income isn't going to repay a home loan. A pattern of entering debt and then consistantly repaying that debt, on time mind you, is what a lender wants to see.

The same with seeing how much time you spent in your life unemployed, if you lose one job and have a new one in a few days or weeks, this is something banks like to see.

These things show that you'll hustle your ass and repay a twenty year loan.

Makes a huge amount of sense if you stop and give it a few seconds of thought.

 

[Garak]

Product placement does suck, but it's one of those things when I see it I go, "that's shitty" and then move on.

Something's gotta help pay the bills so we can keep watching flicks.

 

[Sindatur]

Apparently it's smart to be in debt and pay it off because otherwise you can't buy a house or whatever because for some asinine reason it's considered not trustworthy if you only spend money you actually have?

Exactly, it easy enough for a bank to check your income, but a single year's income isn't going to repay a home loan. A pattern of entering debt and then consistantly repaying that debt, on time mind you, is what a lender wants to see.

The same with seeing how much time you spent in your life unemployed, if you lose one job and have a new one in a few days or weeks, this is something banks like to see.

These things show that you'll hustle your ass and repay a twenty year loan.

Makes a huge amount of sense if you stop and give it a few seconds of thought.

Yea, in order to borrow money, you must have an extensive resume of experience with repaying money.

But, when it comes to electing a President, we don't have any such qualms about wanting to see a resume of Leadership or Government experience

As far as Product Placement, I honestly don't see the gripe. I'd much rather see a Heineken Beer being drank than have the hand covering up the label, or have some stupid brand name like Fizzie Beer XXX or Corn Flakes Cereal versus Crispy Flakes.

As far as cars go, I'd rather see Mustang or Volvo on the car than some made up generic Car Company

 

[tighr]

Just some advice, you would probably be better off getting a credit card and earning points. Rather than spend 40-75 cents per transaction, you could be making cash-back bonuses for free, and paying off your bill every month incurring no interest. Also, credit cards typically have better fraud reimbursement than debit cards (i.e., $0 liability).

I have to go off topic for a moment because of this post. I've noticed for some time that it seems to be important in america to build credit or making points or whatever it's called. Apparently it's smart to be in debt and pay it off because otherwise you can't buy a house or whatever because for some asinine reason it's considered not trustworthy if you only spend money you actually have?

Oh, don't get me wrong. My post had nothing to do with building a credit score or going into debt or anything of the sort. "Earning points" is just airline miles or cashback or whatever, which is essentially free money (the credit issuer is able to give you money by skimming off the top of the fees they collect from merchants). And I use my credit cards same-as-cash, because I pay it off in full every month. It's a good way to consolidate/track my spending, versus paying for things with cash and then wondering where all my money went at the end of the month.