12Apr/02Off
Digital ads entangle
CNET: Digital ads entangle "Spider-Man"
"The suit, which spends three pages describing the importance of Times Square--calling it a "one-of-a-kind advertising venue"--says teasers for the "Spider-Man" movie, set to be released in May, do not depict the area accurately. They say existing billboards are digitally altered in trailers and commercials for the film to show ads for companies such as USA Today and Cingular Wireless when Samsung and NBC should appear."
Ummm... DUH! It's a MOOOOOVIE. It's FIIIICTION. It's not REEEEAL.
What next, is the NYPD going to sue because they're depicting a superhero fighting crime in NY when in reality it's the men-in-blue who do all the work?
About Jim Roepcke
No description. Please complete your profile.Roepcke Computing Solutions
Archive Calendar
Blogroll
Saved Searches
- WebObjects on Twitter Tweets about WebObjects (without all the iTunes store tweet spam)
Willing to Fail
WebObjects book
Badges
Recent tweets
- @kazempour http://bit.ly/9KOnBp enjoy :) 1 day ago
- i just swapped the name and description around on my blog, it's now "Jim Roepcke's weblog" instead of "have browser, will travel". 3 days ago
- @elliottkember come to Canada, the US is a hop skip and jump away and you have no HC worries. in reply to elliottkember 4 days ago
- More updates...
April 13th, 2002 - 11:02
At 02:04 AM 4/13/2002 -0400, Jim wrote:
>CNET: Digital ads entangle “Spider-Man”
>(http://news.com.com/2100-1023-882158.html)
>
>”The suit, which spends three pages describing the importance of Times
>Square–calling it a “one-of-a-kind advertising venue”–says teasers for
>the “Spider-Man” movie, set to be released in May, do not depict the area
>accurately. They say existing billboards are digitally altered in trailers
>and commercials for the film to show ads for companies such as USA Today
>and Cingular Wireless when Samsung and NBC should appear.”
>
>Ummm… DUH! It’s a MOOOOOVIE. It’s FIIIICTION. It’s not REEEEAL.
I suspect in this case the billboard company will win since the film will
leave the impression that the billboard company has some sort of business
relationship with USA Today and Cingular, which would create all sorts of
problems. Suppose some film decided, for example, to stick a racist message
over the real billboard.
April 13th, 2002 - 13:52
On Saturday, April 13, 2002, at 12:02 PM, Brian Carnell
wrote:
> I suspect in this case the billboard company will win since the film
> will
> leave the impression that the billboard company has some sort of
> business
> relationship with USA Today and Cingular, which would create all sorts
> of
> problems. Suppose some film decided, for example, to stick a racist
> message
> over the real billboard.
It doesn’t matter. It’s fiction… art. Anyone whod’ think the
real-life billboard company actually supported racism because they saw
some racist message in a fictional superhero movie needs their head
examined. And anyway, that’s not what happened.
I’ll concede that it’s a little slimy to have replaced one news outlet
with another and one cellular company with another, rather than say…
replacing them with a shoe and car manufacturer. But life isn’t fair.
If the advertisers bought space on that billboard thinking they’d see
their ad on movies, they need THEIR heads examined too. It’s common
practice in sports TV already to superimpose advertising all over the
place.
It boils down to freedom of expression. You can’t let the laywers win
this one. Bad bad bad precedent.
Jim
April 13th, 2002 - 14:02
On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:52:28 -0400, Jim Roepcke wrote:
>It doesn’t matter. It’s fiction… art.
I agree with your general point, but it’s not art…it’s business.
Someone else bought the rights to have their sign put on a particular billboard in that film — the director didn’t just decide he’d rather see a cell phone ad there.
I can see where the owner of the said “real” billboard would be mad that he didn’t get any money from that.
g.
April 13th, 2002 - 17:30
At 05:52 PM 4/13/2002 -0400, Jim wrote:
>It doesn’t matter. It’s fiction… art. Anyone whod’ think the
>real-life billboard company actually supported racism because they saw
>some racist message in a fictional superhero movie needs their head
>examined. And anyway, that’s not what happened.
The problem here is that this is not a fictional city. From my
understanding, the city in the film is New York. Suppose I show a shot of a
famous restaurant in New York and added some sort of ad, etc. Same thing.
Times Square is clearly the sort of thing where people are going to assume
that if the ad for USA Today is there, it must have been actually there
(frankly, *I* would have assumed that as well — I would have saw this film
and assumed USA Today rented the billboard for the time when that shot was
filmed).
April 13th, 2002 - 14:57
On Saturday, April 13, 2002, at 03:02 PM, Greg Pierce wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:52:28 -0400, Jim Roepcke wrote:
>> It doesn’t matter. It’s fiction… art.
>
> I agree with your general point, but it’s not art…it’s business.
It is business, but it’s not the business of the person who bought some
real estate to say what goes in someone else’s film.
> Someone else bought the rights to have their sign put on a particular
> billboard in that film — the director didn’t just decide he’d rather
> see a cell phone ad there.
>
> I can see where the owner of the said “real” billboard would be mad
> that he didn’t get any money from that.
Me too, but I don’t think it’s right to have people controlling the
output of a filmmaker. If it was a documentary rather than a sci-fi
fiction movie, I could MAYBE see some validity, but it’s fiction so I
think anything goes.
If they had left the original ads in place but they showed Spidey
perched atop the billboard, or crashing through it, or covering it in
webbing, would they have sued for tresspassing or vandalism? That’s
what they’re really trying to pull. It’s baloney.
Jim
April 14th, 2002 - 07:17
to sue because the billboard WAS used without permission. Product
placement issues, anyone? These days anytime, that’s *anytime* I see a
brand name product in a TV program or movie I’m sure it was PAID to be placed
there. Thus anytime I see such a placement I’m immediately moved to
*disfavor* such products. Slimy bastards, sell, sell, SELL, all the damned
time. I, for one, am sick of it.
April 13th, 2002 - 17:37
On Saturday, April 13, 2002, at 06:30 PM, Brian Carnell
wrote:
> At 05:52 PM 4/13/2002 -0400, Jim wrote:
>
>> It doesn’t matter. It’s fiction… art. Anyone whod’ think the
>> real-life billboard company actually supported racism because they saw
>> some racist message in a fictional superhero movie needs their head
>> examined. And anyway, that’s not what happened.
>
> The problem here is that this is not a fictional city. From my
> understanding, the city in the film is New York. Suppose I show a shot
> of a
> famous restaurant in New York and added some sort of ad, etc. Same
> thing.
> Times Square is clearly the sort of thing where people are going to
> assume
> that if the ad for USA Today is there, it must have been actually there
> (frankly, *I* would have assumed that as well — I would have saw this
> film
> and assumed USA Today rented the billboard for the time when that shot
> was
> filmed).
That’s a fair assumption, but it would be incorrect. Their job is not
to sell New York or to portray and accurate depiction of the city.
Their job is to tell a story and make money doing it.
Now, if their contract with New York City that gave them the permits to
film their had stipulated they would not alter anything in the
landscape, that would be different.
I feel bad for the spidey team. First they decided they had to remove
the (very cool) scene from the film where spidey erects a massive web
between the twin WTC towers to catch a bad-guy’s helicopter, and now
this. It’s their goddamn movie, let them tell it like they want to!
(my 2 cents)
Jim
April 14th, 2002 - 10:28
One exception to this of which I’m aware is that you can’t film in NYC without having a UPS truck show up in the background. UPS eventually came to an agreement that there is a blanket release for depiction of UPS trucks and drivers in movies, so long as they are not intended subject matter. Drivers in NYC are made aware of this when they sign on, so those religiously opposed to being filmed can get another job.