Sax Russel
Banned
Everything has bad reviews so that doesn't bug me too much. Curtis seems like a massive prick too so he's easy to ignore.
But if there's one thing that grinds my gears it's overdone product placement =X. Hope that's not that bad.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
First reactions to Jurassic World appear
- Thread starter bananafactory
- Start date
- Status
Everything has bad reviews so that doesn't bug me too much. Curtis seems like a massive prick too so he's easy to ignore.
But if there's one thing that grinds my gears it's overdone product placement =X. Hope that's not that bad.
Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!
Member
So they stood on the shoulders of giants to accomplish something as fast as they could and before they even knew what they had they patented it, slapped it on a plastic lunchbox and now they're selling it?
Arkam
Member
While I agree the Jp sequels were terrebad JW has all the marking to be worse. Though I am a bad person to ask since I think ALL the JP films are weak butchering of a solid pair of books. For me they are JP>3>2 and can see JW as a challenger to 3.
All that complaining said... Ill be seeing JW in theaters for sure. Cant miss some HQ CG dinos!
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Why is this even a concern? It's never made any sense to me.
You live in a world where "product placement" is more prevalent and intrusive than anything I've ever seen in even the most egregiously ad-filled movie. The idea that you are spotting recognizable brands in a feature film shouldn't be distracting. If anything it should be more immersive, because then it's not shit like Gony laptops and Hamfung phones going online and using Lookie-Up websearch to find someone's Friendplace page.
Complaining about product placement is like admitting you were looking for things to be distracted by.
Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!
Member
Ive never been bothered by product placement before but I found hulk wearing beats in avengers to be slightly outputting. I think because he had no reason to even be wearing headphones in that scene. Incidental product placement is fine but creating a reason for a character to show off a product can be off putting
VICTORsaurio
Member
While I enjoy tastefully done product placement (which it seems to me it's the kind of placement in JW) it can get annoying when it's really awkwardly in your face like: "Let me bing this on my Sony laptop" *zoom in on the sony logo*
Holy shit, thank you, finally someone gets it.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I understand, but I don't find that sort of thing to *actually* happen all that often. It's on the level of that other thread about everyone falling asleep in theaters.
Sometimes a shot will be framed and a logo will be in frame. That's one thing. Shouldn't be any more distracting than if there was no logo in frame, or there was a fake one in frame. But I can't think, off the top of my head, of instances where cameras are pushing in on the logo like that.
Or with the Beats example - I didn't even notice that. I mean, it likely registered to me that Hulk was wearing headphones in the scene, and the headphones were beats, but everyone wears those shitty headphones. It didn't occur to me to register that as an advertisement at all, mostly because I was paying attention to the movie itself, and not distracting myself by playing a game of "spot the branding"
Demoncarnotaur
Member
I think if any movie can get away with product placement as part of the story, it's this. Have you ever been to Universal Studios, Disney or any other major theme park/resort? It's inescapable and would be very strange to see a park of this scope without it. Time will tell how it's handled, but if anything I imagine the 'Samsung Innovation Center' will be the only one that really screams product placement.
Was it necessary? Well, beyond the vehicles probably not, but I don't think Jurassic World featuring a Margarittaville, Starbucks or IMAX theater is going to pull me out of the film. I still think that's all better than showing a car crash just to focus the camera on crates of Coke that come tumbling out. That shit bothers me.
It's a bummer hearing about some scenes looking like a car commercial- I know exactly what scenes those are, and was hoping they were only for the online advertisements. For what it's worth, Colin said he had a B-Unit film some car scenes while he was busy with some heavy story moments, so at least we know what happened there.
Anyways, some of these critiques may be fair, but it's hard to take them seriously when they're so sensationalist.
Was it necessary? Well, beyond the vehicles probably not, but I don't think Jurassic World featuring a Margarittaville, Starbucks or IMAX theater is going to pull me out of the film. I still think that's all better than showing a car crash just to focus the camera on crates of Coke that come tumbling out. That shit bothers me.
It's a bummer hearing about some scenes looking like a car commercial- I know exactly what scenes those are, and was hoping they were only for the online advertisements. For what it's worth, Colin said he had a B-Unit film some car scenes while he was busy with some heavy story moments, so at least we know what happened there.
Anyways, some of these critiques may be fair, but it's hard to take them seriously when they're so sensationalist.
thecouncil
Banned
Sears and IHOP, y'know?
Delta Assault
Member
I think House of Cards was the worst.
There was one episode in season 3 where they actually did a commercial for swiping a picture from a tablet onto a TV.
Nazgul_Hunter
Member
^. Product placement is OK when it's organic and when it's not shot like a commercial / product porn
I only play the spot the product placement game when I'm dragged to Transformers, since it helps me pass the time >_> Those are super over saturated though, so it makes for a fun game!
This guy sounds like a whiner to me. Just throwing out the most hyperbolic statements kind of makes me discount him automatically.The bad and ugly:
And is it just me, or is "mysoginy" or "mysoginistic" being thrown around a ton lately?
Scorpion Soldier
Member
Trevorow said there's some indirect product placement, but that it's there for a reason.
http://www.slashfilm.com/colin-trevorrow-jurassic-world-interview/2/
Makes sense to me, considering the fact that Jurassic World is all about being a corporate juggernaut, and the fact that there's a lot of it that's simply part of the park makes it a lot more subtle than for example the product placements in Transformers: Age of Extinction. (You know you're not being subtle when you're holding an IMAX camera about 5 inches away from a Beats speaker...)
TheClimaxan
Member
I agree. I don't mind placement when it helps with the sense of reality and immersion. It's like when I play Madden and the Nike and Gatorade logos are everywhere. It helps with the realism. I'm fully expecting some James Bond-esque beauty shots of a Mercedez in Jurassic World. As long as they don't go overboard it wont bother me.
Product placement doesn't have to be "looked for." It's obnoxious enough by design. It's hard to not recognize things that are burned into our photographic memory. For everything else the filmmakers utilize screen placement, contrast, size, movement, character eyeline or focus, etc to direct the viewer's eyes.
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
He sounds super pretentious and douchy. What's his GAF username?
Even if this film isn't good there is no way it won't be fun. Jurassic Park 3 wasn't good, but it was fun. I imagine the new Terminator will be fun, but I have no delusions about it being good.
I...don't know what to believe. The good:
The bad and ugly:
Well, for the tweets part of this you quoted 5 positive tweets from 5 different people, then 4 negative tweets from 1 person. You did follow-up with some unattributed textbox quotes from another forum but eh.
bananafactory
Banned
How are people tired of Chris Pratt? He's been on camera in like one movie.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
You recognized a recognizable thing.
Why is that inherently distracting?
"Man, you know someone got paid to put that in the movie."
"Man, you know the person in the movie is paid to be in this movie."
The fact that so many of these complaints come after watching movies that are in and of themselves branding exercises makes it even more weird/ridiculous. it almost always seems to me that most of that complaining has nothing to do with whether the brands were "intrusive," and everything to do with being somehow rewarded for publicly having noticed that there were brands in the shot as if it somehow inherently reduces the artistic endeavor being undertaken.
VICTORsaurio
Member
Dinosaurs weren't paid though
It's easier for me to get tired of over rated talent. The guy's face is seemingly everywhere and I just don't find him to be that talented or charming.
Put Bill Murray in another 100 movies and I still don't know if I'd tire of him.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Well that's a union dispute. I'm not touching that shit.
Where is the BDH love on this forum?
Anton Sugar
Member
Don't get me wrong, I WANT the movie to be good. I'm just wondering what is in the movie that prompted such a response.
Studios pay actors to be the main attraction. Companies pay studios to distract from the story.
P.S. It's funny to hear "product placement" and "artistic endeavor" in the same sentence.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
It only distracts from the story if you're really easily distracted, is what I'm saying. At which point the "criticism" ends up losing weight because it's less about actual criticism and more about telling people you noticed a noticeable thing that didn't actually affect the storytelling at all.
It's a cheap appeal to some sort of weird flavor of "audience integrity" that rings hollow almost every time it's burped up.
What's the point of product placement if not to be noticed?
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Why does "notice" = "distracted"
And the point of "product placement" is to secure extra funding for the rest of the production. That a recognizable brand is now visible in the frame as the story unfolds is only distracting if the director & editor choose to shoot and cut the film in such a way that they're effectively stopping the story to do an advertisement for the product in question. And that almost NEVER happens.
It's base-level, lazy cynicism offered up as cultured, sophisticated criticism and it's more often than not just whiny bullshit used as deck-stacking frosting on a shitty opinion layer cake. "There's some crap I didn't like, but I can't really explain it well, but I know that it's bad, I guess, and OH, on top of that, someone was drinking Budweiser in a scene and then someone got thrown into a Sears, it was so stupid."
The bad and ugly:
Sounds like a Gaffer.
If that's the case than whatever you do never watch the first Back to the Future film!!!
Reads like PrattGAF defender.
Pratt wasn't mentioned though.
Delta Assault
Member
Her
Moneyball
Zero Dark Thirty
Guardians of the Galaxy
Jurassic World
That's a lot more than just one movie.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Liking Jurassic World is a mark on one's character.
But he wasn't anywhere near as prominent in 3/5 of those films.
It took me a moment to even remember his characters in Her and ZDT.
Anton Sugar
Member
Her (2013)
Moneyball (2011)
Zero Dark Thirty (2012)
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
Jurassic World (2015)
LEGO Movie (2014)
Such overexposure. He was only the star of three of those, too.
Fudgepuppy
Banned
I fully believe this guy yells "Unsubscribed!" whenever someone says something he doesn't like.
The Lamonster
Member
<----right here. She is a talented beauty.
Mediocre movies ="TOTAL FUCKING SHIT!!!!"
...You were saying?
You didn't hear? He's playing Tom Hanks in Bridge of Spies.
You have like 5 people saying good things and ONE pompous sounding asshole hyperbolizing...
- Status