New Developments?

Yeah I know... and boy did it feel great!

I remember when the show first started all the girls were walking around in those "Love the OC" tops, and I vowed right then and there I would never date a girl who wore one of those, or loved the show.

I was quite proud of myself until my girlfriend came over one day wearing that exact same top!

She used to (hehehe) watch the show religeously... and now she's got the DVDs. Most shows like that never last too long, especially when they start to kill off key characters. There's only so much controversy you can cram into a small group of stereotypical teen doofuses.

-Cub. =o)

Jasper it's probably not quite that straight forward, but I think a vote will be interesting.

If Tex lit a cigarette from a pack of Camels rather than Llamas or Luckys that's fine, we know what brand is being hinted at anyway, but if Tex picked up pack of Camels, held them to the screen, took a smoke and said 'Damn that's a fine cigarette, I must remember to buy some more'. I'd feel sorely disappointed.

But it's an interesting thread.

No. For the simple reason that product placement detracts from The Story and The Story Telling.

And about product placement, forget I, Robot. If you've seen S.W.A.T. you'll know what I mean. TWO WHOLE SCENES dedicated to a fast-food chain and a carbonated drink.

Makes me angry just thinking about it, because I pay to go see a movie so I can be entertained. Not massively pissed off.

To quote George Carlin; "I don't have 'pet peeves', okay? I got major psychotic f***in' hatreds!!"

-Fred

I dont think product placement really takes much from the story. What your describing with S.W.A.T. is true, it is a bad movie, but not because of the product placement.

If a game is good then it doesnt matter if there are a few name brands here or there.

I love George Carlin quotes.

Also, I'd have to agree. The product placement in S.W.A.T. wasn't what made the movie stink. I think it was the plot, and pacing myself. And even then I would call it mediocre, not bad. I enjoyed S.W.A.T. It's not like I'll ever pop it in to watch it again, but I enjoyed the first run through.

I think subtle product placement really isn't a bad thing, because it just makes the "reality" of a reality based movie, show, or game more ... well real. I'd much rather the guy in S.W.A.T. be eating McDonalds (actually the whole world should join in on the tasty food chain's menu.), instead of just some generic "uncle jimbo jacks food shack", simply because I recognize it from my own life, and therefore can see it in a more "real" light. I don't know if that makes sense. Product placement to me, isn't even advertising. I never seen an ingame item that made me want to go buy it. It just added to the reality of the product for me. If the company's think it's advertising, by all means, let them foot the bill. Doesn't bother me.

Although I do admit, in Need For Speed Underground, the billboards for McDonalds were annoying, because I worked there at that time, and they kept reminding me "you gotta go to work in like one hour!"

I agree with freepizza (and not just because of the free pizza). So, you're playing the game and Tex drives by a McDonalds or stops and buys a coke. So what? I don't hear anybody complaining cause he's drinking Jack Daniels? In the books he smokes Lucky Strikes (very popular in the 50's) and nobody complains about that!

Look! Here's the bottom line: if you want a new Tex game you better be ready to make some sacrafices. If not, kiss Tex good-bye!

That is one of my key points though Jim. There is a VERY distinctive difference between a real life product that occurs naturally in the story, (then it is PART of the story), and product placement. Product placement is unnatural placement of a product in a story, either making the story revolve around a product or worse, derail it completely in order to sell the damn thing. It's like abnormally fake boobs. It may be bigger, but it's definately not better, because it is something blatantly wrong that's staring you in the face.

Tex swingin' back his last glass of Jack's can be natural. Tex stopping by the FABULOUS local Mickey D's to get himself a REFRESHING Coke however makes me want to go out in the streets and stab forty people at random.

Uhm... yeah

-Fred

Point taken, Fred. I guess I just misunderstood product placement.

I think the only problem that we are having here Fred is out definition of product placement.

I looked it up and in almost all the definitions the words that popped up most were "prominent display" Which I think would mean just a billboard or a coke can or something coming into view of the camera with enough time for the veiwer to realize what it is.

I'm not sure what your talking about with a product driving the story, but I dont think that would be product placement.

What I am talking about is that product placement is fake. It's like the story skips for a moment to allow you to see some commercial for some product or other, and then the story resumes. But when you return to your original programming (so to speak) the story feels off.

Action-movies have of late been increasingly more aggressive to push products that in the natural course of telling that story, wouldn't occur.
Using I, Robot as an example, what the hell does those shoes have to do with the rest of the overall plot. I'll tell you. Sweet F.A.

The story skips a beat, the rest of the film becomes annoying because you know that no matter how many times you see that movie, that part of the movie is now tainted.

Like a scratched record, it destroys the fabric of enchantment by introducing a unnatural element to something you otherwise enjoy.

When you however see someone in a movie taking a swig of a bottle of Jack's, or light a Lucky, or drain a coke-bottle, IF that is a natural part of the story, it's not so much product placement as it is just, like I said, part of the story itself.

(On a sidenote, this is one of the many reasons I love Tarantino's films. No product placement at all.)

-Fred