The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I saw "Evolution" at the weekend.
Enjoyable enough for a summer movie.
Except for one point that had me foaming at the mouth and wanting to tear down the cinema.
It advertised, very strongly, a certain anti-dandruff shampoo.
So much with one of the characters (after suggesting that this shampoo would kill the aliens due to a chemical component), "I use it. See how non-flaky and soft my hair and scalp are?"
People laughed at this line. Sure, it was delivered by the moron character, so could sound funny. Until, this shampoo was used against the aliens. Many bottles are used, many labels are shown to the camera.
And, the final scene is of 3 main characters doing a commercial for this product.
"But it's the characters in the movie, they're capitalising on their fame to advertise it, it's ironic" was the argument used by a mate.
Wrong.
This scene was 3 stars, holding a genuine name brand shampoo and saying "It's great"
Excuse me?
I didn't pay £5 to watch a bloody commercial for this product, how dare you use this movie to promote that.
Now, I'm aware that product placement is used heavily in moives. Castaway used Fed Ex, Bond uses BMW and some watch etc etc etc.
Why?
Tomb Raider is being advertised with a make of mobile phone seen often, as is the Spiderman trailer I posted a link to.
I find this disgusting that companies can slip their products into a movie and I have to sit there and pretend it's ok.
Commercials on tv are there to raise revenue for the station.
That's why the BBC doesn't have them, license fee takes care of that.
But I paid my money to watch this movie, they've already made their profit.
Don't make me sit there and watch a damn advert for products that I dont want and dont need.
The line between art and commerce is blurring more and more, and I personally find this disgusting.
Go watch a movie and spot how many products you see in there.
Austin Powers 2 was a criminal offence for this.
Wayne's World at least made a joke about it.
But, you can see all manner of products in movies, simply because the company paid to be associated with that movie.
And, back to Evolution, the shampoo was used because the characters claim it contained "Seratin".
It doesn't. The company I work for creates the fragrances in this product, and the Seratin they mentioned is only available in one shampoo, because raw material cost prohibits mass market usage.
So, you can't even use the excuse that this brand was mentioned and featured so heavily because it was necessary.
It wasn't. It was a pure and simple exercise in promotional funding.
I'm off to lay in a dark room now until my head calms down.
Enjoyable enough for a summer movie.
Except for one point that had me foaming at the mouth and wanting to tear down the cinema.
It advertised, very strongly, a certain anti-dandruff shampoo.
So much with one of the characters (after suggesting that this shampoo would kill the aliens due to a chemical component), "I use it. See how non-flaky and soft my hair and scalp are?"
People laughed at this line. Sure, it was delivered by the moron character, so could sound funny. Until, this shampoo was used against the aliens. Many bottles are used, many labels are shown to the camera.
And, the final scene is of 3 main characters doing a commercial for this product.
"But it's the characters in the movie, they're capitalising on their fame to advertise it, it's ironic" was the argument used by a mate.
Wrong.
This scene was 3 stars, holding a genuine name brand shampoo and saying "It's great"
Excuse me?
I didn't pay £5 to watch a bloody commercial for this product, how dare you use this movie to promote that.
Now, I'm aware that product placement is used heavily in moives. Castaway used Fed Ex, Bond uses BMW and some watch etc etc etc.
Why?
Tomb Raider is being advertised with a make of mobile phone seen often, as is the Spiderman trailer I posted a link to.
I find this disgusting that companies can slip their products into a movie and I have to sit there and pretend it's ok.
Commercials on tv are there to raise revenue for the station.
That's why the BBC doesn't have them, license fee takes care of that.
But I paid my money to watch this movie, they've already made their profit.
Don't make me sit there and watch a damn advert for products that I dont want and dont need.
The line between art and commerce is blurring more and more, and I personally find this disgusting.
Go watch a movie and spot how many products you see in there.
Austin Powers 2 was a criminal offence for this.
Wayne's World at least made a joke about it.
But, you can see all manner of products in movies, simply because the company paid to be associated with that movie.
And, back to Evolution, the shampoo was used because the characters claim it contained "Seratin".
It doesn't. The company I work for creates the fragrances in this product, and the Seratin they mentioned is only available in one shampoo, because raw material cost prohibits mass market usage.
So, you can't even use the excuse that this brand was mentioned and featured so heavily because it was necessary.
It wasn't. It was a pure and simple exercise in promotional funding.
I'm off to lay in a dark room now until my head calms down.
Page:
If it was the smaller movies, using this to help fund it then I wouldn't mind so much, they need it to make their movie - fair enough. But the like of Spiderman has a budget of many, many millions of dollars, to use this as extra revenue is a bit, well, naff really.
Using that same argument about paying to go and watch a film, is it right that they have adverts and trailers on before the film actually starts?
Ok, i don't mind the trailers too much, they give me and idea of whats going to be about soon. But why do they have adverts for banks and credit cards and stuff on before the film? When i went to watch Ctrouching watsit Hidden thingy there was just over 30 minutes of crap before the film. 30 minutes!! The film itself was just over an hour and a half! Thats nearly 25% extra, on stuff most people probably don't want to see!
Going back to Goatboys point, it happens lots in films, the Bond ones have been mentioned, but i swear i've seen an advert for landrover or someone, showing clips of tomb raider where the car is used! It's ridiculous.
But it may not just be the obvious ones. I may be wrong here, but do you think McDonalds, may 'persuade' to have one of their branches in the background of a shot instead of BK, or KFC? Makes you wonder, doesn't it.
Ok, i don't mind the trailers too much, they give me and idea of whats going to be about soon. But why do they have adverts for banks and credit cards and stuff on before the film? When i went to watch Ctrouching watsit Hidden thingy there was just over 30 minutes of crap before the film. 30 minutes!! The film itself was just over an hour and a half! Thats nearly 25% extra, on stuff most people probably don't want to see!
Going back to Goatboys point, it happens lots in films, the Bond ones have been mentioned, but i swear i've seen an advert for landrover or someone, showing clips of tomb raider where the car is used! It's ridiculous.
But it may not just be the obvious ones. I may be wrong here, but do you think McDonalds, may 'persuade' to have one of their branches in the background of a shot instead of BK, or KFC? Makes you wonder, doesn't it.
I saw "Evolution" at the weekend.
Enjoyable enough for a summer movie.
Except for one point that had me foaming at the mouth and wanting to tear down the cinema.
It advertised, very strongly, a certain anti-dandruff shampoo.
So much with one of the characters (after suggesting that this shampoo would kill the aliens due to a chemical component), "I use it. See how non-flaky and soft my hair and scalp are?"
People laughed at this line. Sure, it was delivered by the moron character, so could sound funny. Until, this shampoo was used against the aliens. Many bottles are used, many labels are shown to the camera.
And, the final scene is of 3 main characters doing a commercial for this product.
"But it's the characters in the movie, they're capitalising on their fame to advertise it, it's ironic" was the argument used by a mate.
Wrong.
This scene was 3 stars, holding a genuine name brand shampoo and saying "It's great"
Excuse me?
I didn't pay £5 to watch a bloody commercial for this product, how dare you use this movie to promote that.
Now, I'm aware that product placement is used heavily in moives. Castaway used Fed Ex, Bond uses BMW and some watch etc etc etc.
Why?
Tomb Raider is being advertised with a make of mobile phone seen often, as is the Spiderman trailer I posted a link to.
I find this disgusting that companies can slip their products into a movie and I have to sit there and pretend it's ok.
Commercials on tv are there to raise revenue for the station.
That's why the BBC doesn't have them, license fee takes care of that.
But I paid my money to watch this movie, they've already made their profit.
Don't make me sit there and watch a damn advert for products that I dont want and dont need.
The line between art and commerce is blurring more and more, and I personally find this disgusting.
Go watch a movie and spot how many products you see in there.
Austin Powers 2 was a criminal offence for this.
Wayne's World at least made a joke about it.
But, you can see all manner of products in movies, simply because the company paid to be associated with that movie.
And, back to Evolution, the shampoo was used because the characters claim it contained "Seratin".
It doesn't. The company I work for creates the fragrances in this product, and the Seratin they mentioned is only available in one shampoo, because raw material cost prohibits mass market usage.
So, you can't even use the excuse that this brand was mentioned and featured so heavily because it was necessary.
It wasn't. It was a pure and simple exercise in promotional funding.
I'm off to lay in a dark room now until my head calms down.
Enjoyable enough for a summer movie.
Except for one point that had me foaming at the mouth and wanting to tear down the cinema.
It advertised, very strongly, a certain anti-dandruff shampoo.
So much with one of the characters (after suggesting that this shampoo would kill the aliens due to a chemical component), "I use it. See how non-flaky and soft my hair and scalp are?"
People laughed at this line. Sure, it was delivered by the moron character, so could sound funny. Until, this shampoo was used against the aliens. Many bottles are used, many labels are shown to the camera.
And, the final scene is of 3 main characters doing a commercial for this product.
"But it's the characters in the movie, they're capitalising on their fame to advertise it, it's ironic" was the argument used by a mate.
Wrong.
This scene was 3 stars, holding a genuine name brand shampoo and saying "It's great"
Excuse me?
I didn't pay £5 to watch a bloody commercial for this product, how dare you use this movie to promote that.
Now, I'm aware that product placement is used heavily in moives. Castaway used Fed Ex, Bond uses BMW and some watch etc etc etc.
Why?
Tomb Raider is being advertised with a make of mobile phone seen often, as is the Spiderman trailer I posted a link to.
I find this disgusting that companies can slip their products into a movie and I have to sit there and pretend it's ok.
Commercials on tv are there to raise revenue for the station.
That's why the BBC doesn't have them, license fee takes care of that.
But I paid my money to watch this movie, they've already made their profit.
Don't make me sit there and watch a damn advert for products that I dont want and dont need.
The line between art and commerce is blurring more and more, and I personally find this disgusting.
Go watch a movie and spot how many products you see in there.
Austin Powers 2 was a criminal offence for this.
Wayne's World at least made a joke about it.
But, you can see all manner of products in movies, simply because the company paid to be associated with that movie.
And, back to Evolution, the shampoo was used because the characters claim it contained "Seratin".
It doesn't. The company I work for creates the fragrances in this product, and the Seratin they mentioned is only available in one shampoo, because raw material cost prohibits mass market usage.
So, you can't even use the excuse that this brand was mentioned and featured so heavily because it was necessary.
It wasn't. It was a pure and simple exercise in promotional funding.
I'm off to lay in a dark room now until my head calms down.
Page: