New dog. Mat training. Day 2. Appartment 1 / Mat 1. Progress. Review: The Island Movie
Let’s take some time to go over the ridiculous amount of product placement that ruined this movie. I’d tell you about the storyline but I was too busy being confronted with perpetually unending product placement to pay attention.
Product Placement
Puma: It begins with every single one of the Clones wearing Puma product. Not only do they wear it, but Ewan Mcgregor holds a shoe, with the Puma insignia on the back, right up to the screen. It’s so incredibly visible. He does so in a request to retrieve his left shoe. How might you ask, does one lose their shoe in such a, supposedly, organized environment? Well, that’s an example of plot-holes due to product placement
Entertainment: The Clones fight each other in a virtual reality Xbox fighting machine. The idea is cool, but the ridiculously blatant product placement is not. Was this green themed scene originally part of the movie? Or, did they add it to place this product?
Water: the Clones seem to like Aquafina. It’s served in their quasi-bars and other facilities that offer food & drink throughout the movie
Phones: Apparently the phonebooks of the future are controlled by Microsoft. Another fine example, of blatant, art-killing product placement thanks to MSNSearch
Mac Truck: While the scene with the train wheels flying off the back of another blatantly placed Mac Truck advertisment is very cool. I sincerly doubt that any truck driver neglects to check his side view mirrors long enough not to notice gigantic flying train wheels flying off the back of his or her truck
Cadillac CIEN: This car used in a main chase scene. But, before they get in the car there is an exasperated soliloquy that just happens to contain about 6 of the top technical details that two boys talking about cars would share to polish their ego’s (Correction courtesy of Ahmed)
Ice Cream: Scarlet Johansen buys Ben & Jerry’s ice cream for all the kids, it takes her about 10 full seconds to hand it out with the Ben & Jerry’s logo in the background the whole time. How does she know how to buy ice cream? Who knows!?
Ask me what I liked about the movie? I couldn’t tell you, I was too busy wasting $9.95 to watch a gigantic commercial based around a couple of barely believable action scenes and an even less believable plotline.
Obviously subtlety isn’t a word in the vocabulary of Dreamworks.
product placement complaints are becoming about as old as the product placement shots themselves… listen… who cares… you allege that the placement has a negative effect on the movie… i don’t think so… at least not for this movie… anyway.. its occured to me that if i was to take a video camera and film corresponding locations in real life… there would actually be MORE product placement because its all around us… .. i think the avereage joe is affected by this stuff a hell of alot less than you are…. arguably any logo/sign that doesnt display utility is product placement… get over it… If you are such a staunch anti-capitalist it shouldnt be a deal cos it shouldnt affect you…
oh and you forgot the carbon fibre boat… its a real boat.. most expensive yacht in the world… that’s product placement too i guess…
also its not a chrsyler it’s a caddie… and uh..
as far as the movie goes.. for reference i thought not a bad attempt at a Logan’s run remake.. creepy in the right places and paced well for the frst 2/3 ran long as is typical lately…. Oh and Sean Bean felt terribly under-used and perhaps mis-cast…. Needed a more charismatic security guy to apprehend them… Would have liked more scenes in the city about their society…. and really wish i hadnt gone in knowing the suprise.. would have been alot better….
Understandably product placement is unavoidable. But why do they have to be so blatant as to build entire scenes around it?
Chrysler… Cadillac… irrelevant. The placement, again, is blatant.
Staunch anti-capitalist? No, definitely not. Disappointed by a poorly written movie with plot holes, reminiscent of Swiss-cheese, whose major scenes have been written around product placement? Yes.
HI Brandon,
I found your site because I googled about the blatent use of Product placement in this film.
Anti capitalist definately not, but what gets me is that it distracts you away from the whole story of a film back to reality. The whole premise of going to watch films like these is that they are fiction. Films are ment to draw you in and hold your imagination to belive what is going on in the storyline.
This blatent product placement cheapens the film and jolts the viewer back to reality thus making for an interupted concentration span.
I mean this film was just one long commercial with bits in between. Those who argue that it is more real as reality is all around us are missing the point, yes every high street is full of brands and advertising, thats part of the reason why so many people enjoy watching movies because they are not subjected to this marketing for a couple of hours until they get back in their cars and head back into reality.
It seems to me that Michael Bay will only be making these types of films so I will not be bothering to see any of his movies again. Rember the song from Team America World Police about how shit pearl harbour was.
If not check it out very fucking funny.
Other Placements in the film:
calvin klein, The fact that Johansson is the face of already must have been the first Placement Bay thought up. Maybe thats what landed her the part?
Michelob Light, In the kitchen scene with 2 Ewan McGregors, Nice lingering few seconds shot on the bottle and then a healthy gulp form McGreggor himself ahh, it makes me puke.
As with the comments above, I found the blatant product placement highly distracting from the movie and very demeaning to me as a viewer. It was as subtle as being hit by a Mack truck (sorry couldn’t help myself :-)).
Surely they could have at least interweaved MSN or XBox ads into some surrounding images of nondescript signs, rather than having them slap you in the face like that.
For example, Bond films have been havens for product placement in recent times, but manage to do it with a bit more subtlety IMO (this may be disputed).
I’m just glad I didn’t know or notice the Aquafina and Ben & Jerry’s brand names (not big in Australia) and simply missed the Puma stuff altogether, as that would have entirely wrecked the film for me.
Who-f***ing-cares !? Jesus, get a life people! A beautiful world out there, and you’re sitting here worried about product-placement in a movie that actually pictures REAL LIFE as you see it everyday.
Mac, the difference is I paid to watch this movie. The best example I can think of is long commercial breaks on television movies. I can change the channel at home, but not in a movie theatre.
Well, imagine you saw these fantastic shoes, and you rush to buy them. But then you realise they are Puma. So, are you still going to buy them? Even better, imagine you see this fantastic ad about this new line of products from Puma, and you see a fantastic one Aren’t you going to buy it, just because you saw it advertised somewhere? Product placement is everywhere, and it’s profitable for everyone.. Why should movies be any different? They need money to make the movie, don’t they? And why all the fuss about this particular movie, every other movie has product placement… Bah.
Mac, The fuss over this movie is the frequency and severity of the placement. Honestly, if they spent as much time fixing the plot holes as they did placing product this would have been one hell of a movie. A good movie makes serious money at the box office, in rentals, and through people who purchase it.
The reason I think it’s so horrible is the financial ramifications and the negative effect on the art of film. If one can make more money, immediately, from making a movie filled with placement, such as, The Island. It doesn’t matter if it does poorly: at the box office, at the rental place, or in end user sales. It is my thought, that this directly translates to more movies being about placing product, rather than providing entertainment.
Movies are made to make money, but the reason we: go to the theatre, rent the movie, or buy the movie – isn’t becuase we want to watch advertising. It’s because we want to be entertained.
Duality between advertising and entertainment is understandable. “The Island”, however, is a great example of how to kill a movie with product placement.
Word.
The product placement was so blatent in this film, at one point I was so distracted by it that it took me out of the movie. A good fiction film is supposed to suspend reality for the viewer, the viewer should get lost in the movie and forget that he/she is actually watching it. The advertising in this film, jolted me out of that state and ruined the movie.
I dont mind product placement, sometimes it helps fund the project and helps to pay the crew, but when it ruins the movie experience it is too much.
I totally agree, I saw this film tonight and believe it or not, actually enjoyed the film (I’m fairly easy to please), however I would have enjoyed it more were it not for the RIDICULOUS amounts of product placement.
The absolute lack of subtlety reminded me of Waynes world, where they hold up the products and offer sheepish grins to the camera.
I sat in the cinema trying to count how many times I saw product placement. I couldn’t keep track, it was so often.
Plot holes and advertising aside, I thought it was cool.
I was not so offended by the placement as I was by the complete lack of plausibility in any of the chase scenes. There was no suspense, only explosions. I actually didn’t mind the conversation about the Caddy, because it helped illustrate how vain and self-centered the “original” Lincoln character was. I was more disturbed that they could both fall off a building unharmed while being shot at. Reminded me of “Life of Brian” Just stupid. I want to get the DVD and completely re-cut it. This movie could-have been great.
Um….Where can I purchase those Puma Shoes? Cause..I’m quite jealous.
heh, Roger V found this site through this google search.
FWIW; There are “right” ways and “wrong” ways to do product placement. A can of coke sitting on a table in the background is normal. A guy who smiles at the camera, then takes a big swig of Coke while the camera focuses on the can, that’s ridiculous. This is the sort of product placement that drives people crazy, and I can’t belive a couple of you don’t seem to get this. Maybe you’re too young to know better and are just numb to it all, having grown up never knowing any different.
When Trinity and Neo used cool looking Nokia cell phones in “The Matrix”, I didn’t care because the use of a phone was integral to the plot and for realism, they might as well use a recognizable phone. However, when Will Smith in “I, Robot”, for no reason at all, mentioned his shoes several times – even mentioning how they were from “way back in [our time]” – I was mad. Why the heck is he bringing up his shoes? What do they have to do with the movie? And why did the camera spend so much time focused on them? That was stupid, and ruined an otherwise excellent movie.
To be honest, the Puma clothes in “The Island” didn’t bother me. They have to wear clothes. I don’t care if they’re Pumas. I care when they spend unnecessary camera time focusing on the clothes in an obvious attempt to sell them to the audience, however. That’s lame. The X-box and several of the other placements bothered me and distracted from the movie. That’s also lame. The Calvin Klein thing didn’t bother me a bit. It was an integral part of the movie. No problem.
So – to do product placement right, you take a good movie plot and use real elements where necessary. If the movie calls for a group of friends to go out for a beer as a part of a plotline, put a real beer in there and let the highest bidder pay for their beer to show up. Just don’t focus the camera on the product unless there’s a real need for it as a part of the plot! When the guy takes a drink, focus on the guy, not the stupid beer!
To do it wrong: Write in elements that didn’t exist in the first place, or otherwise give screen time to something that has nothing to do with the movie, just to pimp a product. Focus on the product unnecessarily, etc.
That’s my take on it.
Well said!
“Not only do they wear it, but Ewan Mcgregor holds a shoe, with the Puma insignia on the back, right up to the screen. It’s so incredibly visible.”
actually he doesnt pick the shoe up, but yes, blatant product placement
I must admit that I found the blatancy of product placement vaguely irritating as it hovered on the edge of my consciousness; however, after being bombarded with placement in nearly every action/sci-fi film of the last ten years (A.I. is a good example), I’ve grown accustomed to it and less irritated by it. I find that as a smart consumer, you take notice of when you’re being marketed at. I also admit admiration of those companies who are better able to market something to me without my taking notice of it immediately. Now, having said all that, I must also point out that product placement adds much to a film’s budget.
“Now, having said all that, I must also point out that product placement adds much to a film’s budget.”
Which is almost a shame, because this is one film that may have been better with a small budget to restrain Michael Bay’s impulses.
Exactly, it’s not supposed to be the primary front of the movie. Product placement should be an afterthought, or, well planned enough to look as such.
Agreed. Product placement aside, some scenes were just overkill action.
The big problem i have with product placement is why the hell am i paying to see a commercial?
I really like those Puma Shoes I’m a design freak who enjoys the movie just like it is
I just paused the movie to Google the overused advertisements in this movie and came upon this and a few other sites noting it. I didn’t think ‘I Robot’ could be outdone but this was just insane, maybe it’s just me but it ruined the feel of the entire movie for me.
Do they get paid that much more to make them that horribly obvious? I was half expecting them to have the clones sit down and watch a Pepsi commercial, because that would add so much to the plot.
The car is not a caddie, its the new Chryler ME 4-12, its not even in production yet, it its chase seen was amazing.
Thank you
Just so you all know. if you didn’t like this film primarily because of the blatant advertising, you aren’t really enjoying a movie at all. You went in with a terrible mind set and were never really interested in seeing the movie. You probably heard about the ads before you went and saw it and then obviously paid attention only to the advertising and not to the extremely awesome movie that took place around the advertising.
It may very well be a slight rip off of Logans Run but a majority of the movie was like watching a remake of George Lucas’ THX 1138. If you’ve never seen this movie in it’s white washed glory. go watch it and then tell me that they didn’t steal any of it for use in the Island.
Stop paying attention to the blatant advertising. They at least tried to keep it mostly part of the back ground unlike Wayne’s World and the Truman Show.
Stop being retarded and watch the freaking movie!!
Actually,
I went close to opening day in Canada before I had heard anything about the movie other than the previews. A close friend and I are sci-fi aficionados. In other words, we usually go to see new movies the day or shortly after the day they come out. When I got home that afternoon, I wrote this article.
Alas, it’s hard not to notice advertising when it’s so “in your face”. Honestly, the scene with the X-Box logo flashing in your face at least ten times in an epilepsy inducing manner didn’t strike you as just a tad bit overt? Not to mention a few way overdone action scenes and a particularly weak plot.
The movie was crap, and I was disappointed that I paid to watch an informercial. That is why this article exists. People, continue being intelligent and do not waste your time with this movie.
Wayne’s World? The placement in that movie was comic relief. Considering it’s a comedy and this is a sci-fi it is a fairly difficult to compare the two. Especially, considering that a good sci-fi should bring you into its realm. This was not the case with this movie. Instead of trying to create a world that you were a part of they tried to hide their poor ambiance from you by adding huge sound/sight/motion action scenes. Now that’s advertising and that’s not what I paid to see.
Anyone who is a true fan of Sci-Fi films is going to love this film regardless of the large amount of advertising throughout the film.
If you agree that the film is a rip off of both Logan’s Run and THX 1138 with a bit of Blade Runner mixed in, you can’t help but to love this flik. The way that Michael Bay (one of the most juvenille directors in Hollywood at the time) could bring together portions of these past wonderful movies is amazing. He does it with the knowledge that he won’t be able to do it better than the past directors but does realize he’s got a great film on his hands.
This film would not be the same had Michael Bay not directed it. It may have been better if someone else had directed it but Michael Bay had the balls to grab it up before any one else did.
Personally I believe they almost had to put as much advertising in this film as they did in order to pay for a couple of the best action chase scenes in the history of film. The costs to make a film with this good of CGI is unbelievable and there is no way that Michael Bay and his usual producers could have paid for this film so they had to sell out as much as they did. If you hadn’t realized that and still didn’t just accept the film for the wonderfulness that it is, you need to educate yourself in great films.
Note: Comment removed for obscenity. Please read the comment form. Justin Braveheart, if you can’t think of an intelligent way to get your point across. Don’t.
Thanks,
Brandon Erik Bertelsen
@ Justin Braveheart: Comment edited for horrible spelling, grammar and general expletives. Thank you, come again.
@ Karl the Brain:
I guess that’s where a difference of opinion comes in. To me, a sense of realism has to be involved; allow me to extrapolate on that idea. Granted, a science fiction film will have a lot of elements that are beyond belief. But these elements must have some “imagine that” factor to them.
A Mac truck driver who does not stop while loosing his entire load of train wheels does not have the “imagine that” factor it was cheap and completely unrealistic. Nor does two people surviving from a fall from a giant “K” ( I assume they couldn’t find an advertiser with enough money to support that scene and have their logo falling through the air) as it descends from the heavens. Obviously, these action scenes passed through your analytical ability to reason. Hey, pigs can fly too you know.
I digress, this review was less on the story line, and more about the advertising, because that is what grabbed my attention the most.
The only scene in the entire movie that I had time to actually come to grips with was when all of the clones came rushing out of the facility and looked out along the horizon. That was grandoise, but provocative freedom a truly unknown kind of freedom that was touching. If there was one scene in the movie that was done really well, that was it.
I’m sorry for my rudeness then. Your last comment is well said.
However I would like to bring your attention to your last comment;
If you watch the movie THX 1138, the exact same thing happens but it’s only one person, THX 1138 (played by the great Robert Duvall) that actually escapes from their “Utopia” and looks out at the horizon in the exact same (almost identical) horizon.
I still give kudos to Michael Bay for making this film the masterpiece that it is.
And I do somewhat agree that the advertising was a little too much for comfort admitting that the flashing x-box, Puma in your face, aquafina spectacular did take away a certain aspect of the film that I wish would have been able to be maintained with out the need for attention screaming from the advertisements.
I also really really hated the fact that the Microsoft logo was so out of place. beacuse in my minds eye, Macintosh will be the only computer system in the future for it’s lack of stupidity in design. Also a Mac symbol would have been a whole lot more un obtrusive to the whole feel of the film.
I just rented the DVD and came out fairly unsatisfied by the experience. I agree that product placement can increase realism, but people often forget that films are about escaping reality, not to mention the plot of the film is quite simply unrealistic.
The problem was subtlely. The missing shoe was not explained. It was there like you said, because Puma paid them to do so.
I am totally honest here when I say that I rented the film having no idea about the product placement debate. Such is the joy of having a life not revolving around Sci-Fi mags. From the beginning I noticed the attempt to shove brands into the centerpiece of the screen, often turning a whole sequence into an elaborate commercial.
@ Jon Choo
Product Placement is seen in every movie you can possible rent that has been made in the last twenty five years. I know full well that THE ISLAND does overdo it in quite a few spots.
The plot may seem ‘unrealistic’ but you just said that films are about escaping reality. If this plot didn’t make you feel that then you need to stick to the documentaries.
I AGAIN bring up the fact that everyone who has watched this movie NEEDS to watch THX 1138! There is SO much in common between these two movies. I vaguely remember Robert Duvall also missing a key part of his clothing and working in a workshop wondering where the things they worked on actually went. Sure there are many differences between Lucas’ sci-fi masterpiece and Bay’s somewhat called piece. But nonetheless as I said before this movie does easily remind us that films are about escaping reality.
Have just seen the brilliant THX, was unaware of this film at the time I saw the Island, which I thought was OK, but now having seen THX I think it would have been more honest to just call The Island THX the remake (if THX needed remaking at all, for a 1970 film the effects and filming are great).
As for product placement, I’m a marketer but am totally against it both from a personal point of view (“stop ruining my films”) and a professional point of view. I think a backlash is coming and manufacturers will increasingly be resented for intruding on entertainment viewers have paid to see.
When you read a magazine, you can choose to ignore the adverts. Sometimes advertisers try to conceal ads in content that looks like editorial. However they are obliged to have a heading at the top of the page such as “Advertisement Feature”. There is a clear separation. This is to preserve the integrity and accuracy of the main editorial content.
So I’m disappointed that filmakers are increasingly allowing product ads to affect their storylines. Castaway was another classic example “a two hour ad about how Fed Ex always deliver.
I’m not an advocate of blanking out brands entirely. In the UK on some of the government owned TV channels brand names on (eg) beers are actually censored – fuzzed out. This is almost as distracting as the blatant product placements decribed above. Background logos in a film set in the current day are fine, but I think assuming these same brands will be around 200 years in the future is pushing it.
I think you missed one of the biggest bits of product placement of all. There’s one scene where a bottle of Michelob Light is on a table, the shot is nothing but the bottle of Michelob in the center of the screen with a heavenly light in the background for a good three seconds before he actually grabs the bottle and takes a big, refreshing swig.
You know, that is true about the mich. But I would have to say that after already watching the beginning half hour of ad after ad placement I just very well could have blocked that all out. Really after you try to block out a lot of the movie because of the ads you really just stop watching completely and all you’re doing is blankly watching commercials for the next 1.5 hours of your life. It gets old!
First off, it was definitely a Cadillac Cien, not the Chrysler H-12. All the cars in the movie were from General Motors except for the thinly disguised Chrysler 300 police cars. (more advertisement). People only realize what there are interested in. I can barely recall the Pumas, (now that you guys mentioned it i can remember) but i honestly don’t remember the Microsoft logos being flashed. However, I remember the getaway car(Cadillac), the Hummer H2’s chasing the futuristic Mack Truck, the yellow Chevy SSR that they had in the desert, and the Chrysler police cars. Another example was Bad Boys II and the Matrix Reloaded.( every car on the highway was a brand new GM product) I remember having General Motors being shoved down my throat in both movies, and now in The Island. The point is, folks, we see whatever we want to see. The advertisements worked if we can honestly sit here and primarily remember the ads. My neice probably wouldn’t remember the cars, but she might remember the pumas or the Calvin Klein ad. Even though it was a huge overload of advertisements, not everybody is going to notice what you notice. So lighten up, and enjoy the movie without being offended by the advertisements, because you might’ve been the only one to notice
this is insane!
ok, so there might have been a few product references in the movie. so what? does that immediately write it off as a piece of entertainment? i hope that nobody who is whining here subscribes to cable, satellite, pays for magazines with ads in them, because what is the difference here? obviously there will be brands in the future, why not include that as a part of the film? also, with the current trend in advertising, it would appear to me that there is going to be more and more of it… nobody made a ruckus with Blade Runner and the huge Coke (and other product) ads plastered on the sides of LA buildings in 2020 or whatever that movie was set in. my point is, america is a consumerist hole, and we have ALL made it that way. we pay to watch the celebrities, the trailers, the crap on tv, all of it, and the only person we have to blame is ourselves!
ouch. as for me, give me a rolloflex and a kayak. and a couple thousand square miles of Boundary Waters.
[...] Product Displacement Veröffentlicht 23. Februar 2009 Fundstück , Kino Bei großen Filmproduktionen ist Product Placement ja heutzutage eine fast schon übliche Werbeform, um zumindest einen Teil des Films zu finanzieren. (Unangenehmstes Beispiel ist für mich bisher der Film The Island, in dem nicht weniger als 26 Produkte beworben wurden, und dadurch sogar Plotholes entstanden.) [...]
Honestly I PREFER the advertisements. It makes the “future” seem so much more real. It makes the movie accessible.