Saturday, April 17, 2010
Branding Deals Come Early in the Filmmaking Process
NYTimes.com: "Jordan Yospe had some notes on the script for “The 28th Amendment,” a thriller about a president and a rogue Special Forces agent on the run. Some of the White House scenes were not detailed enough, Mr. Yospe thought. And, he suggested, the heroes should stop for a snack while they were on the lam."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This changes the way I viewed branding in films. I had thought that they were only a convenience, but the "Up In The Air" example changes my mind completely. The fact that there are lawyers whose jobs it is to go find corporate sponsorship for the script rather than the film is fascinating. It helps the writers get their scripts made, as if the scripts have funding, they are a safer bet for the studios. At this point, it is a good thing for Hollywood to get any sort of leg up that they can. It is interesting to note however that this method only really succeeds in studio, larger budget films.
I am not really sure what to think of this. On one hand, the commercialization of the art of film making is horrible. It may damage the ability of the writer or director to fulfill their creative vision. If the writer has entered a deal with a particular company and later decides they need to cut the scene or make edits, how would that turn out legally? Probably not very well. On the other hand, this system allows more movies to be produced and, consequently, more people are able to be artists and create something to share with others. In addition, like the article mentions, this process allows the branding to be more seamlessly worked into the script. Although, at that point doesn't that just make a film one long ad. I know there is no magic solution to arts funding, but I can't imaging that product placement is the best way to go.
This is ridiculous. IT seems that all art is becoming commercialized and more about sticking a name, brand or image into a movie without any reason other then to add a few bucks to budget. Can theater do this? No. Why? Because not enough people see theater. Theater can be sponsored though, as the NFL is doing with their football show but other then that nope. Film making has gone downhill as we can see from this years Oscars. There may have been 10 best films but maybe two or three were really good. Other then that it was commercial successes that made them a possible contender for best film. So for a writer to include a dodge truck, or M&M candy bar right in the first draft because of money is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.
I think product placement is a good thing if used in the right way. As the article points out, if it allows for a lower budget film to be made then it is certainly used well. Some TV shows and movies really overdo product placement. It should never be made to seem like just an advertisement for the product. I can think of some TV shows, like Monk, which used to do this. Characters would talk about how great a Buick was. This in itself is not terrible, but when the commercial break comes on with a Buick ad first thing, it becomes overkill. I think that product placement can add some needed realism to a lot of films. I think the reverse of product placement is also interesting, like in films of JJ Abrams and Quentin Tarantino, who have established their own fictitious brands to create a different universe.
Post a Comment