Filmmakers! Raise money or defer costs with Product Placement

Batutta said:
I'm not talking about ART with a capital A. Entertainment can be art. I'm saying if your only motivation to make a film is to make money, and all your creative decisions are based around maximizing profit, your film will be a disposable pile of garbage.
Click to expand...

You seem to be taking an extreme, all or nothing stance when there is actually a lot of middle ground. For example, let's say I have a scene that takes place inside a hardware store. I go down to my local hardware store to see about using it as a location and they say they want $XXX or if we show an exterior of their store including the sign we can shoot inside for free. Well, I want to shoot at a hardware store, and I was going to have an establishing exterior shot anyway, so why wouldn't I go the product placement/free route? My script stays exactly the same, I get to shoot inside for free, I don't have to mess w/making a "generic" hardware store exterior shot, and the store gets some inexpensive advertising. It's a win/win situation, IMO.

To hop into the world of video games for a second, there is a game on Xbox Live called "Yaris" that is a very crappy arcade car game paid for by Toyota to promote the Yaris. The product placement, not the game play, is the focus of that game. On the flip side, "Gran Tourismo" for the PlayStation has dozens of real world cars in the game but that hasn't stopped it from being one of the best racing franchises ever because the game play, not the product placement, is the focus of the GT franchise.


-A
 
art is the last three letters of fart.

Make the movie you want, pay for it how you can. Posterity will decide if it's art.
 
Jim Brennan said:
art is the last three letters of fart.

Make the movie you want, pay for it how you can. Posterity will decide if it's art.
Click to expand...

art 1 (ärt)
n.
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

I consider all creative work to be art. Whether or not it is good or bad art is for others to decide, which is why i later said I should have qualified my original statement. However, I am a bit bothered by people who consider Art to be some kind of dirty word to be derided. Perhaps in people's minds it conjures up images of museums and "people who seem so lofty they sound as though they **** marble." If you engage in any kind of creative process, you ARE an artist. Embrace that. Work on your art. Perfect it. Enjoy doing it and give the world something great.
 
Last edited:
Batutta said:
No, I didn't. Read the rest of my posts.
Click to expand...
Yer right. After 3 or 4 "f*ck product placement" posts I missed a qualifying sentence at the end of one post where you basically said you are fine w/product placement if it's naturally occurring in the scene anyway. My mistake. :thumbup:


-A
 
adkimery said:
Yer right. After 3 or 4 "f*ck product placement" posts I missed a qualifying sentence at the end of one post where you basically said you are fine w/product placement if it's naturally occurring in the scene anyway. My mistake. :thumbup:


-A
Click to expand...

:laugh:
 
Actually I have nothing against "art". I just find then when people try to create "art" they create self-absorbed, pretentious crap. Whether a film is art is completely subjective. Michelangelo hated painting, but he did the Sistine because he got paid. But he still poured his heart into it. Yet, lots of people thought it was pornographic. Now we think it's a masterpiece. It's all perspective.

And "creativity" is as subjective a term as "art" For me, being creative is figuring out how to get my kid to eat. On a set, being creative is figuring out how to shoot the scene without blowing the breakers, or getting my leading man through his lines before he has "bail for another gig". I've done things that I crapped out at the last minute that other people thought were "artistic", "creative" and I must be so "talented". Other things I have labored over, and been extremely passionate about that others didn't get at all.

Create what you want. That should be enough. Leave it to others to decide if it's art.
 
Jim Brennan said:
Actually I have nothing against "art". I just find then when people try to create "art" they create self-absorbed, pretentious crap.
Click to expand...

This is an attitude that has nothing to do with what art really is. What is and isn't art really isn't all that subjective. It has a precise definition. It's all the baggage we bring to it that has made it a subjective term. My ultimate point is that things like product placement have NOTHING to do with the art and craft of filmmaking, and should not intrude on the creative decision making process. And trust me, I've worked with these people. I know how they think. If they had their way every actor in a film would have the logo tatooed on their forehead. They want to slap product brands on every inch of viewable space possible -- movie screens, tv screens, cell phones, ipods, bathroom stalls, EVERYWHERE! And they won't stop at product placement. They'll soon want dialogue added, scenes added, plot points changed...As Lynch said, "Total, phucking bullshit!"
 
Yes I agree with a lot of what you're saying. (and I think your avatar is yelling at me)

But I wouldn't say that things like product placement have nothing to do with art. They pay to have it made.

If you want to make sculpture from sand, then you probably don't have a lot of overhead. But we choose to work in a costly, collaborative medium. I'll be the first one to say that films don't have to cost as much as they do, and I think you can make a good film for under a hundred grand. But even at that rate, somebody has to pay for the pizza. If a producer gets a credit because they brought the deal together, why can't Coke get a credit for paying some of the bills? Hollywood doesn't make art. It makes a product.
 
Jim Brennan said:
Hollywood doesn't make art. It makes a product.
Click to expand...

This is where they are wrong. They think they make a product, but making movies is not making burgers. You can go to any McDonald's in the world and get the same cheeseburger every time. Films are not cheeseburgers. They are pieces of art. Each one is a unique creation, with its own individual point of view. This is what gives them their value. Hollywood loves sequels and comic book movies because it's the closest they can get to making cheeseburgers. They don't have to put much creative effort into it because the hard work has already been done. But even still, they have to bring something new to make people want to watch it. Nobody wants to watch the same exact film made the same exact way every time, try as Hollywood might. Hollywood makes art, whether they like it or not, and actually, I think not.
 
I disagree, they are not "wrong". They are making cheeseburgers. FIlms are a commodity. Can they be artistic and creative? absolutely. Are all films artistic and creative? I guess it depends on your definition of the words.

I have absolutely no problem with Hollywood doing what they do, just like I have no problem with sports stars making obscene amounts of money. The audience is willing to pay for it, and as long as Johnny Suburbs is willing to shell out for the pleasure, they will continue to do it. I just choose not to participate very much.

Movies are all unique, in that the nature of collaborative synergy demands it. That doesn't make them art. Art transcends craft, and speaks across demographics (IMHO). Pearl Harbor just didn't do that. It was a cheeseburger.
 
Jim Brennan said:
I disagree, they are not "wrong". They are making cheeseburgers. FIlms are a commodity.
Click to expand...

But it is not the same. Hollywood is not designing ONE product and then mass producing it. They are making individual things. A film does not have value just because it is a film. It gets its value from its unique point of view, the skill of the writer, actors, director and craftsmen, the ART with which it was made. Pear Harbor failed because it was a poorly made piece of art. Having too many external, irrelevant concerns that intrude on the creative process is a recipe for making a bad film, which usually results in poorer box office. I say usually because there are certain movies which are guaranteed massive box office no matter what. Lucas could've called his film Indiana Jones and the Spooge of Sasquatch and it still would've grossed 300 million.
 
Like I said, I agree with a lot of what you are saying. But I think Hollywood is mass producing the same products. There are variances in the recipe, (like the difference between a Big Mac or a Whopper), and there are even a variety of products (now you can get a baked potato, chicken nuggets or a snack wrap). They are a manufacturer, and they will sell you whatever they think you will buy. Period.

That is not to say that there aren't a vast array of creative artists involved in the process. I respect the hell out of those people and don't want to diminish either their efforts or their skills. But Hollywood doesn't care about that either. If six guys living in a tent in Bakersfield could do the same thing, they would hire them and fire everyone else.
 
There is hardly a film that is made without product placement of some kind. And that three second look at a logo...basically that is the bumper for the DVX fest....

Gotta pay the bills somehow. If making an appeal to converse to help front some of the money for the making of I Robot...well, thats what I would do.

There is product placement everywhere. TV, Radio, Film. If it is a matter of not getting the money to shoot the final scene the way I had wanted it or tossing in a coke can on the table in one of the scenes, I'll be tossing that coke can in there.

Just like in the film "The Mist". That grocery store was filled with products that were donated. So they didn't have to pay to stock the store on the soundstage. Good deal to me. Product placement, you bettcha. :D
 
I think in some cases product placement and product integration are being used interchangably here when they are different...

It's also a differnet discussion whether you are talking about indie versus studio film...

For an indie, when you're producing and raising the money yourself you can negotiate your own product placement deals either for cash, product or locations and simply refuse integration or to allow even the placement to be intrusive... You might get more or less but that is your choice... The point of the interview and putting it on this thread is because I believe indie filmmakers need to be aware of all of their options cause we need every bit of help we can get... I know on my next indie film I will save money without sacrificing art... Again 99.99999999% of films have props and locations... real props, and real locations work better with audiences then fake ones most of the time... So if you are going to use real ones, why not choose ones that helps your cause if you can? Now, with a no to low budget feature with a first or second time director, and no stars you're not going to get many offers for product placement, but you could get some, and that some could help you afford something to make your movie better... isn't that worth at least exploring?

Studios are a different beast for obvious reasons.

As Jay talks about in the interview "madison avenue" use to not think much of product placement and that has changed... Further as a result of TIVO and DVR product integration (where writers are being told to write in products and make it part of the story line)... is becoming more prevalent. As a writer and an actor integration makes me queesy but from a business perspective I have to say I understand it...
 
Batutta said:
This is what happens when marketing people make movies--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdvO0tmNjGo&eurl=http://johnaugust.com/
Click to expand...


But I'm not talking about marketing people making movies. I'm talking about a company pitching in to cover the cost, and having their product in the shot. If I have a guy sitting at a bar, having a beer, why not let Coors write a check for 50K and have him drink that? Personally I hate Coors. But so what? How is that the loss of some creative integrity? Would it be better if the film never gets made?

I'm not saying that filling a film with banner ads is a good thing. But the film industry is no different than any other. It is driven by revenue.

Perhaps a true test of creativity is to work within those boundaries, yet still create something you are proud of.
 
Batutta, what's wrong with a Mountain Dew soda machine transforming into a robot? did I mention MOUNTAIN DEW?..........mountain dew. sorry. I like MOUTAIN DEW!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top