A Rant about the current state of the Cinema

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
I am not one to usually post long verbose tirades concerning that which amounts to triviality, but over the holiday week, I treated myself to something that used to give me deep fulfillment in many years past.

I treated my self and my girlfriend to a movie in an actual stadium seated big screen theater.

I have never been so appalled in my life!

What is this society coming to that we subject ourselves to the senseless bombardment of 5, count them FIVE commercial products advertisements that have no relation to the movies, or movie related industry, even before the movie started. And no doubt, the trend is becoming more prevalent and pervasive as the clock ticks on.

Now, I can understand trailers. These are the advertisements commissioned by the studios to pimp out the most necessary and appealing aspects of the current projects they wish for us to consume on a weekly, if not daily basis. I won't get into the psychological ramifications of subjecting ourselves to the commodity of which I speak, (I'll leave that to bob). Surely we can all agree that there is an appropriate time for all things under the sun, entertainment being one of them.

But increasingly we allow ourselves (at least here in a major city in the States) to quietly acquiesce to the manipulation of our selected enjoyment of the arts, by means of subliminal (or not so subliminal) intrusion of those who want to think for us.

Art, in this case Cinematic Art, should not be subject to the commercialization of a capitalistic society! When I go to a Broadway Musical, I receive a program from the playhouse that promotes upcoming features (similar to the visual trailers in a cinema house), and that program may have adverts in them, which I can accept pay for the printing of said program. But nowhere on the stage does a troupe of players come out and talk about any product as a means to endorse it for our consumeristic enjoyment. If I purchase a musical CD, there are no tracks specifically designed to sell me on the latest hair removal crème interlaced between the symphonies of whomever I choose to listen to.

It isn't right that we as an audience should have to endure commercials prior to viewing our art. I can accept that corporations solicit movies studios to utilize product placement with the visual medium for numerous reason (including believability), and that cinema houses offset overhead costs by soliciting local advertisers to fill a screen between feature films to maintain a sense of tranquility among its patrons. But what I witnessed last week was a travesty.

I can only pray that DVD production will not sell out its art (like the coke commercials on the Indy VHS videos) or that in a remote instance, a skip button will allow me the option to bypass what has become an insult to my education and entertainment.
 

00Kevin

Indyfan
agreed

yeah, bloody adds

those commericals at the begining of movies are so bloody annoying

okay, the movie adds and 'please don't watch bootleg' are okay, but what's with all these bloody hygiene commercials? If I see one more add for 'body fantasies' or 'bod' I' going to go on a rampage and smash all people even remotely involved in those products




as for what ren said....yeah, agreed again, they're everwhere *watches helplessly as the evil adds take over the world*

and btw, hahaha, nice 'word from our sponsors'






*quickly edits out all adds for 24 in his profiles* :D jk

[Edited by 00Kevin on 01-05-2004 at 01:20 pm]
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Sam Adams...hmmm, good :D

I just think that art and advertising shouldn't mix, especially when we don't have a choice in the matter. I know advertising is a very important vehicle for fiscal revenue, but if this type of advert showed up at the Hollywood Bowl prior to a John Williams Tribute the Beethovan, the critical art world would be agast! What makes cinema different.

And your right 00Kev. When the L.A. Times shows a spot highlighting what a location scout does for a living, or fightbootleg.org has a spot the concerning piracy of art, that is one thing. When a Hollywood duo goes into a restaurant for lunch, with the art of the film, I don't care which one it is...it makes the characters believable. When Metamucil and Kraft start insulting us before the film starts just because I am a captive audience, it's another.

[Edited by apalehorse on 01-05-2004 at 01:27 pm]
 

vaxer

Moderator Emeritus
As Renderking said about the cloths, we are all becomming walking adds. It is not us but the brands that should pay us for wearing a shirt with a big logo advertizing the brand in the middle.

As for the movies I don't really minde the adds as long as they don't put any in the middle of the movie. this will evetually happen when you'll be able to chose between full price with no adds in the middle and low price with adds in the middle.

Money money money is all that counts, we are the stupid manipulated victims, we all just fall into the trap like mindless sheep. But can we do anything anout it, I'm not sure. We may ourselves be one day the advertizers and try anything possible to force our useless products into the people's brains.

You can't do anything without being bombed with countless adds. So buy buy buy or die.
 

thefumegator

New member
Well then, these immoral bedfellows ought to set you right off: PRODUCT PLACEMENT. In other words, Coca-Cola paying great sums of money for their product to appear in Die Hard 83.

At least with ads (which I hate as much as you do, BTW) you know what you're getting, instead of subliminal, underhanded crap like product placement.

As for the regular topic though, I agree: when I go to see a movie, I want to see the film I paid for, and the trailers for other films on the chance that I might like one of them. That's it.

You needn't feel alone; I agree with you completely.

Wes
 

tall square

New member
It really has gotten out of control. Last summer I visited Orange County, where in the cineplexes they show 20 whole minutes of commercials before the start of the movie; everyone is familiar with them and they're just known as "The 20." The ads are before the actual showtimes, but anyone who hopes to get a seat in a cineplex has to get there several minutes early and endure them.

And what seems the most ridiculous about this new institution is just how useless these commercials really are. All of these "preshow countdowns" usually include some US military enlistment encouragement, but is anyone's opinion really swayed by them? It seems to me that most people already have firm opinions set, and are not so on edge that they're willing to join the military based on seeing some surreal action sequence. People who join the military do not do so out of boredom as such mentality would suggest.
And I don't really need some huge guy beatboxing to tell me to try Sprite Remix; I tried it before I even saw the ads because I hadn't seen it before. People are still going to buy the drink regardless of how much they see some guy screaming "REMIXX".

A lot of advertising just seems ridiculous and unnecessary these days, and the cinema has unfortunately fallen victim.
 

thefumegator

New member
Well, the difference between us, the "walking billboards, and films, is that we often wear products that "advertise" things that we believe in, such as Hats Direct, as you mentioned.

However, product placement and advertisement in/with films has nothing to do with something that the production crew, director, or producer believes in, but in who is the high bidder. With film advertising, it's all about money.

So while we know that what we're advertising is a good product, the product advertised in the film could be complete and utter crap. Who knows?

I don't think all advertising is bad, but most of it crosses a line, in my mind.

Wes
 

LASTCRUSADER

New member
I know that I don't pay ten bucks to go into a movie theatre and have to put up with 20 minutes worth commercials. If I wanted commercials I would sit at home and watch the movie thats being featured on my local cable stations. We put up with enough commercials and advirtisement as it is. Besides movies make enough money already. The greed in today's society is disgusting.
 

LASTCRUSADER

New member
vaxer said:
LASTCRUSADER said:
I know that I don't pay ten bucks...

Ten bucks! :eek: don't tell me it's that expensive to go to the movies in your country!

I would say $10 is the going rate right now.Unless you go on a Tuesday and its half the price. I'm in Canada by the way.
 

vaxer

Moderator Emeritus
after thinking about it it's not that much.
I pay 5.50 Euros in France which recently meant about 5.50 US$. but now that the US$ went down it's about 7 US$.

And you are from Canada so you must be speaking in canadian$
and 5.50 euros eqals 9 CAN$. So it ends up being pretty much the same.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
vaxer said:
LASTCRUSADER said:
I know that I don't pay ten bucks...

Ten bucks! :eek: don't tell me it's that expensive to go to the movies in your country!

$9.50 in the Orange County Area of Sou. CA, $10+ at the good theaters in L.A.

Originally posted by thefumegator
Well, the difference between us, the "walking billboards, and films, is that we often wear products that "advertise" things that we believe in, such as Hats Direct, as you mentioned.

However, product placement and advertisement in/with films has nothing to do with something that the production crew, director, or producer believes in, but in who is the high bidder. With film advertising, it's all about money.

So while we know that what we're advertising is a good product, the product advertised in the film could be complete and utter crap. Who knows?

I don't think all advertising is bad, but most of it crosses a line, in my mind.

It seems that we are straying from the heart of the rant, which to me is the reason there is an epidemic of of a loss of culture. Movie Theaters, or Cinema Houses (as I like to call them) are no different than du Lourve, Huntington Library, or Versaille. Each showcase their respectable arts. Each participate in the promotion of upcoming exhibits, through some form of advertising. But you would be appaled if you wanted to see the Mona Lisa, and there was a scheduled viewing at 12:00, and when you got there, you had to wait until some attendant pulled the veil with a coke bottle away from the art.

I'm not talking about the billboards along the road getting to the museum, or the shirt on the back of the guy standing next to me, appreciating the art, I am talking about the art itself.

You also cannot sanitize a movie by removing EVERY reference to a consumer product. Otherwise you wind up with something like....(well nevermind, that is a topic for a different thread.)
 

Joe Brody

Well-known member
Like Vaxar, I don't mind pre-showtime onscreen commercials -- but I draw the line at product placement in the actual film.

I tolerate the pre-showtime ads for a simple reason: they represent additional revenue for theatre owners. Now I won't argue that this additional revenue helps to keeps ticket prices down, but I would argue that the more profitable a theatre is, the more screens will be built. The more screens, the easier it for me to see the movie I want, when I want.

As for product placement in the movies -- below is what I consider to be an egregious example involving the upcoming Steve Martin project 'Shopgirl' (I've copied this text from a post I made on another forum):

For the upcoming big screen adaptation of Steve Martin's 'Shopgirl', Saks Fifth Avenue has displaced Neiman Marcus as the upscale Beverly Hills department store in which much of the novel's action takes place. Hoping to attract younger shoppers, Saks committed to extensive promotion of the movie in its own ad space and stores in exchange for massive exposure in the movie.

". . . .the Saks name is intermixed totally throughout the script, and the movie will create opportunities for product placements within the Saks product placement. The movies producers say they are condsidering cameo roles for products . . . such as Estee Lauder Cos. and Lancome. . . ." (WSJ, 9/26/03).

In my opinion, this is a particularly egregious example of the effect that product placement can have on a creative work. In the novel, the "coldly glamorous" Neimans with its "shallow employees and customers" serves as a contrasting backdrop for the odd romance that springs up between the leads. In the adaptation, "Saks is a more pleasant venue and features lighthearted scenes." (WSJ)

So much for artistic integrity.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Very interesting point, there Joe. But how prevelant do you feel this sort of business practice is? And does it truely jepordize the art, or simply the artistic integrity? How is this sort of manipulation such an insult to the general populace, who may never be aware of the intricate back story? How then do we defing artistic manipulation and integrity?

Adverts prior to the film roll running are the cinemas way to pay for the theater, agreed. That is why a portion of the ads are locally sponsered. My objection is to the ads that are included on the film roll, that are not movie industry related...ie consumer products.

To me the important issue is how to we protect ourselves from overt tactics to cheapen the art experience prior to our emersion in it?

[Edited by apalehorse on 01-07-2004 at 01:10 pm]
 

Joe Brody

Well-known member
Mr. Fisk,

I made my earlier post some time back on Austin's rant table under the heading 'Ultimate Product Placement'. I too have noted the decreased activity over there -- but I still check it out daily.

apalehorse,

I think product placement in film is an increasingly serious issue. I cringe at the thought of some brand manager from a large consumer product company sitting on a set having a say in how a scene is being shot to give a product the best exposure. Sometimes a product placement is innocuous and doesn't hurt the film -- like the Jeep Wrangler/Rubicon in Tomb Raider II, other times it's a real detriment. I recall watching a recent romantic comedy where bud had obviously done a placement deal. Seemingly at every turn, someone was holding a bud. For me the placement rang so false that it distracted me from the action. Disgusting.

Use 'Shopgirl' as an example. Steve Martin is going to have to adapt his novel to appease Saks. So right off he's conceded his vision of the cold impersonal store in favor of a zany Saks-friendly environment. Next, Saks is evidently going to insert product placements into the scenes set in Saks. Shots will be designed to include signage and products. . . . and [Shuddder] there may even be a discussion about specific products. Quite possibly, precious seconds of screentime will be wasted on product placement that Steve Martin or the director would rather have used elsewhere in the film. I'm not doing the best job of describing this -- you're more of a true student of film than I -- but I think you get the idea of the damage this can cause.

As to your larger question, I don't know what can be done to stop it. I'm sure the Bond fans will be along any moment to talk about the increasing product placement they have had to endure in recent films.
 
A Rant about the current state of the Raven

My apologies to the original poster whom I am paraphrasing...

I am not one to usually post long verbose tirades concerning that which amounts to triviality, but over two years ago, I treated myself to something that used to give me deep fulfillment in many years past.

I joined a message board, apparently THE MESSAGE BOARD, (my very first as a matter of fact) to treat my self to conversations regarding Indiana Jones.

I have never been so appalled in my life!

What is this society coming to that we subject ourselves to the senseless bombardment of endless, and I mean ENDLESS threads that have no relation to the Indy movies, or Indy movie related industry?

And no doubt, the trend is becoming more prevalent and pervasive as the clock ticks on.

Now, I can understand the occasional thread rearding film in general. These are the accommodations of the upkeep to pimp out the Raven so that we continue to visit and converse. Surely we can all agree that there is an appropriate time for all things under the sun, Non-Indy entertainment being one of them.

But increasingly we allow ourselves (at least here in THE major Indiana Jones Message Board) to quietly acquiesce to the manipulation of our selected enjoyment of the archaeologist in question, by means of subliminal (or not so subliminal) intrusion of those who want to do everything besides.

It isn't right that we as Indiana Jones fans on an Indiana Jones message board should have to endure sifting the endless non-indy content prior to viewing our art. I can accept that the Raven accomadates the occasional film discussion to maintain the feeling of tranquility among its patrons. But what I continually witness is a travesty.

I can only pray that The Raven will not continue to allow this "sell out" which has become an insult to my education and entertainment.

Addendum: I'm here posting news and items about Indiana Jones all the time...it's not as though there is nothing Indy related or NEW to discuss. Members should really reflect on why they bother coming here at all. From the the barely multisyllabic responses to gossip about films that haven't even been announced...are you really THAT vapid?
 
Last edited:

WillKill4Food

New member
Pale Horse said:
Hear, hear. Fans of a certain type of films, in our case the adventure offered by Indiana Jones, will naturally want to discuss other films with like minds. This past week I visited a few other forums, and I found, quite to my surprise, that "barely multisyllabic responses" are much more common elsewhere; the Raven is still pretty top-notch as far as I can tell. I find this criticism, which is mostly coming from a Steve and a Stoo, rather invalid.
 
Pale Horse said:
...said the author of such Indiana Jones threads like
SMURFS!?!
Virgins!
Stooges
JUNK!
:)
Worth commenting on, though they don't even constitute a quarter of my creations...

As you...er, I ranted:

Now, I can understand the occasional thread rearding film in general. These are the accommodations of the upkeep to pimp out the Raven so that we continue to visit and converse. Surely we can all agree that there is an appropriate time for all things under the sun, Non-Indy entertainment being one of them.

Must you make me illustrate parody? ...or revisit the Teletubies thread? There was a time you felt the same way, did you miss my earlier Pale Horse quote?

Now, regarding your homo erotic extrapolations of the Steve vs Stu thread...:confused:

Montana Smith said:
I did.

And now I don't bother much at all. ;)

...and a damned shame too.

WillKill4Food said:
Hear, hear. Fans of a certain type of films, in our case the adventure offered by Indiana Jones, will naturally want to discuss other films with like minds.
That's not the target of the rant.
WillKill4Food said:
This past week I visited a few other forums, and I found, quite to my surprise, that "barely multisyllabic responses" are much more common elsewhere
I don't frequent other forums...I don't care what they do.
WillKill4Food said:
...the Raven is still pretty top-notch as far as I can tell.
Good for you.
WillKill4Food said:
I find this criticism, which is mostly coming from a Steve and a Stoo, rather invalid.
Then I'll expect you've said your fill.

But somehow I doubt it...
 
Last edited:
Top