Photos
I will see this movie, because I’m running low on anti-Morgan Spurlock sentiment, gotta refill that well, but this movie is all kinds of wrong. First of all, the only thesis statement less in need of proving than “fast food is bad for you” (Supersize Me, 2004) is “corporate advertising is everywhere.” If Morgan Spurlock’s documentaries were a magazine it would put Duh Aficionado out of business. Even more importantly, though, he’s got his math upside down. Because unless I am mistaken, it’s still going to cost me $12 to go see this in the theater, so what the FUCK do I care if the movie was paid for by sponsorship agreements? GET POMEGRANATE JUICE TO BUY MY MOVIE TICKET AND THEN WE WILL TALK ABOUT WHAT A GREAT TRICK YOU HAVE PULLED OFF, SIR. Ugh, and if there is some false drama in this movie where it looks like he’s “not going to be able to finish the film” unless he gets a last minute investment from Sketchers Shape Ups or some shit, I am going to blow my lid! I’m going to blow my lid right off! Ugh. Morgan Spurlock. I hope he gets a Gillette sponsorship to deal with that facial hair. (Ad hominem attacks aren’t very cool, but neither is making a career out of self-aggrandizing condescension, so.)
This post is brought to you by Fandrango.
 |
 |
If Morgan Spurlock had made Catfish, it would be about catfish.
The following blog post was brought to you by Chex Mix.
You mean the preceding blog post? Now I’m feeling all sorts of pressured to resume one of my long-dead blogs and write a pro-Chex Mix post that I can link to here, just to lend validity to your statement.
BOOM goes the blogomite!
http://bmworldreport.blogspot.com/2011/03/and-now-word-from-our-sponsor.html
Bowel movement World report ®
lulz
GENERAL® SNUS© – Now In Chex™ Flavor
So let me see if I get the premise behind product placement rage.
1. Person makes movie set in the real world.
2. Characters in movie use products that exist in the real world.
3. Sellers of those products pay to have their products in movie instead of other products, which helps to get movie made in the first place.
4. I’m angry because art and commerce are mingling in the same space.
I’ll try and remember to be pissed off at the Medicis next time I’m admiring a da Vinci painting.
SNAPZ
He went Renaissance on your asses
Bubonic plague ZING!
I can understand product placement rage to a certain extent. When it interferes with the flow of the movie (I’m looking at you, Austin Powers 2 and also Austin Powers 3), then it gets annoying. But if it’s done properly, and it keeps things I like getting made, then I am FOR it!
P.S. I watched an indie film this weekend called Pretty Ugly People. It had no product placement that I could detect. It was also really fucking terrible.
Oh, for sure. Things can get out of hand. But I don’t really get why people are upset when a character is drinking a Snapple in a movie because Snapple paid for it to be there. People drink Snapple! Totally normal behavior right there.
You know what I find more distracting? When they make up a phony generic stand-in product that creates a cognitive dissonance because I know that it doesn’t really exist.
What I want is for a director to make up a phony product placement for a product that doesn’t really exist, but COULD. Not for humor purposes, but just totally played off like it’s a real thing. It would be great. Get angry consumers to flood Frito Lay with hundreds of letters because they’re not really able to purchase the new sushi-flavored Doritos they saw Jennifer Aniston eating on the big screen.
Like the starbucks orange mocha frappucinos in zoolander! Which never really existed.
“Out of control?” Why, whatever do you mean?
But we’re still allowed to be miffed that tobacco companies pay for (non-branded) product use even after they promised not to, right? Or should I just shuffle back over to motherjones.com?
Hey, it’s the guy from the Rage Against the Machine video!
Aaaaaaaaand the trailer had a commercial tagged to the end. Fantastic.
Hi, Internet friends. It’s your old pal Frank Lloyd Wrong here. Doesn’t it just feel like the working week just gets longer and longer? Sometimes I need a little pick me up to fuel my patented-brand of snarky commenting. That’s why I turn to General, the original Swedish Snus, exclusively.
It’s a sophisticated blend of 23 different types of tobacco from the world’s best plantations. A recipe created by Johan A Boman more than 150 years ago. A secret recipe – topped off with a drop of bergamot oil.
It is no coincidence that Swedish snus is the best in the world. All the additives are approved for use in food and the production process falls under the Swedish Food Act. The good folks at General have also developed their own, unique quality standard to guarantee the highest possible quality.
So take it from your pal, Frank Lloyd Wrong, when you are feeling down in the mouth, pop in some General, the original Swedish Snus.
Looks like somebody wants to win an exclusive trip for 2 to Sweden to tour a snus factory.
That shit’s straight outta Life Magazine. You’re like a copywriting time traveler, Quick Draw.
Ralph Nader isn’t up on his Futurama technology.
isnt that reactor about to melt down
HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!! WAS THAT LIL SEBASTIAN?!?!??!?!?
He just whinnied!!!!
Ha Morgan Spurlock’s middle name is ‘Valentine’.
Also his wife always reminded me of Kitty from Arrested Development…
I WISH that were the last time we’re going to catch a sight of these [people].
If Wikipedia is to be believed (and it is, at all times, in all circumstances), Richard Gere’s middle name is Tiffany. Maybe the two of them could form some sort of support group.
Yep it’s true! One of those mom’s-maiden-name-things…
Let’s not give it a nice name. It’s one of those asshole things. Tradition be damned, giving your son the middle name Tiffany is something assholes do.
Evelyn William “Bill” McNeal.
Also, in honor of the giant General Snus ad that makes this post Moving Targetgum as I try to click on links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHGO-h7aDSU#t=2m18s
Sterling Mallory Archer
Kenneth Ellen Parcell
Man, my buddy’s middle name is Valentine…I always thought that was cool, until Mustache Valentine Smugface ruined it for everybody.
I actually met Morgan right as Super Size Me was being released. We talked for 10-15 minutes and he came off as a really nice, genuine guy. Take his movies for what they’re worth (debatable). Couldn’t you say that Inside Job’s thesis that the financial services industry totally screwed the pooch and was corrupt could also be a cover story in DUH! Aficionado? I’m not sitting here defending him (maybe a little), but he seemed like a really nice guy right when fame was hitting him and at the very least, he got me to stop eating McDonald’s. (I’m a puppet and I know it)
Being a ‘nice guy’ and being good at making documentaries are two different things. I’d say most documentaries could be covered in DUH Aficionado. Most stem from ‘things most people already know’ and then delve into the details about said thing, that we were previously unaware of. Spurlock has good intentions, but bad logic. In the case of Super Size Me, eating McDonalds every day didn’t prove anything. We all knew he was going to get sick. If you eat anything all day every day for an extended period of time you’re going to get sick. Why not just make a doc about the food industry in general like Food Inc. ( not my favorite, but more effective IMO) He tries to do too much of the campy, tongue in cheek, entertainment spin which just ends up being off-putting.
Oh, but that’s his thing isn’t it? I don’t think Spurlock has aspirations to be Errol Morris. I’m not saying this is right, but to me it seems that Spurlock is a doc maker for the masses. He commercializes and makes accessible a form of film which most people wouldn’t regularly watch. I’ll gladly admit that Super Size Me was one of the first documentaries I ever saw and its message, while not groundbreaking, was certainly strong. He popularizes a less generally accessible art form. I see nothing wrong with that. Without Super Size Me, would I have ever seen Collapse or My Architect? I don’t know, maybe, but I know seeing Spurlock’s film certainly made me more ready to watch a documentary. There’s value in that, no matter how schlocky or campy he may seem. Docs for the PEOPLE!
But Collapse and My Architect are horrible! THE ROLLERBLADING SCENE!!
The premise is pretty thin but hopefully he can pad it up into a fun little half-hour special, best of luck to him. Wait, it’s a full-length movie? Ah, fuck.
Ughhhh. Okay, guy, here’s the thing. Self-aware, ironic involvement with advertising? Still fucking advertising. DFW for the win…11 years ago.
And Gabe? If the ad hominem is against something that is a personal marketing choice, then it stops being ad hom.
My favorite ad homonym is add.
No, I’m with that one person: is there a plot to this movie or… is it just a bunch of unimpressed guys in suits sitting in meetings trying to determine if giving Morgan Spurlock money is a good idea?
I’m somewhat biased because I’m in school for advertising, but I don’t understand some people’s “outrage” over it. I get that ads can be annoying/overwhelming, but the creators/industry aren’t some insidious cabal that needs to be exposed to the American public. I assume that the majority of people are aware of advertising and how it works, and just roll their eyes and move on; I consider them the smart ones. The idiots are the people who think they’ve stumbled upon some conspiracy and proceed to behave as if they’re the first person to figure out how ads work.
Two things:
The annoying/overwhelming deal is pretty damned important for me and it continues to become more and more so. It makes the world a more miserable place, and we’ve enough of that already. Simplest example: billboards are illegal in Vermont. You go for a drive, and you’re billboard free. It’s really wonderful. You get used to it. You go traveling, cross into New York and you suddenly feel under assault by all these strange things looming on the side of the road.
The majority of people doesn’t include children. Ads target children and our relations to them. They don’t know advertising works and don’t even know what it is. So, yeah, that is pretty insidious.
I am pro-ads and billboards and anti-children!
-Somebody
In regards to your second point, I think that’s what parents are for
that’s such a cop-out answer. Parent’s jobs are to keep their kids alive and somewhat healthy until they can fend for themselves, it’s not to try and fight off billionaire dollar corporations in a war against their children’s emotional attachment to things. That’s a fight that the majority of parents are going to lose.
.
never thought I’d hear Matt and Kim songs used in a documentary trailer.
On the new season of 30 Days, Morgan Spurlock attempts to live for a month as a documentary filmmaker. Fish-out-of-water hilarity ensues.
Uh…I could get more behind this “advertising–so what?!” attitude if we weren’t being asked to give large corporations the same rights as human beings or funding huge bonuses with our tax dollars. This being the case, ragging on them actually seems to be pretty timely.
How is he ragging on them though?
im waiting for the next spurlock documentary “stating for obvious”. in which spurlock uncovers the obvious truth that those free condo weekends in vale are really just tricks to get you to join a time share!
I don’t know. I guess I don’t feel the same way about Morgan Spurlock that Gabe does. We can all agree that he would put Duh Aficionado out of business, but maybe this movie will provide some interesting behind-the-scenes revelations about the advertising industry?? Which would be interesting, yes?
“Super Size Me” was gimmicky but also entertaining, and it actually had a small effect on the fast food industry. Super sized meals don’t exist anymore and kids can get apples or whatever at McDonald’s now. What I’m saying is, this movie will probably be a giant No Duh but that might not mean it’s completely worthless.
(Quick aside: there are marketing campaigns for milk, beef, and pork for some reason. Why? Does this lead to higher milk sales? And how come there aren’t any commercials for lentils? Or broccoli? Or oxygen? I don’t understand.)
Late reply!
There are ads for these things because the meat and dairy industries have suffered negative publicity over the years with regard to health/fatiness issues, treatment of livestock, etc. The ranchers/farmers don’t want these perceptions to become pervasive and so they mount campaigns to counter the negative public perception.
I think that the public’s perception of vegetables is that they’re obviously good for you. Everyone is aware on some level that they should be eaten in certain quantities (even if they don’t always do it), and there’s nobody out there telling people that broccoli’s bad for you or that it’s treated cruelly. In short, they don’t have the same type of image problems.
And oxygen’s part of the air, so…
Well there should be ads for broccoli. But thank you for your insight, kind friend.
A+ for the informed explanation! BUT. There are ads for cotton as well, which I have never understood! Have you some insight on this strangeness, perhaps? You don’t even eat it! So there should be less image problems still, right?
The best part of this trailer is the reviewers comments. “The Inception of documentaries!”
Hahahha, what?
Grieg can add drama to anything – “Oh my gosh, he’s talking to ad execs, what will happen next? Oh my gosh, he is talking to even more ad execs, yet I have the palpable sense that tension is mounting! Still more boardroom meetings with ad execs! Ahhhh! Ralph Nader is the Mountain King! I can’t stand it!”