They're Baaaaack

I have the perfect example of nostalgia in commercials. The Double Mint Twins. Now it might just be because I moved overseas at the time, but I haven’t seen a Double Mint commercial since I was 8. Even when I moved back to the states I didn’t seen one. It has to be a good ten years since I’ve actually seen a Double Mint commercial that wasn’t recorded on VHS. And the scary thing is that when I see the new commercial what I’m hearing in my head and what they’re saying on screen isn’t they same thing. What I’m hearing in my head is the jingle from when I was eight, which is what the company is probably going for but I still find it creepy. That and the new Twins scar me a little. You could be that perky back in the 80’s and may be the early 90’s, now it’s just freaky. That and they kind of look a little like the woman in the Orbit’s commercials.

Another example, though it is some what dated, is the Toys ‘R’ Us jingle. If you’ve ever seen any of the old Toys ‘R’ Us commercials they always featured some adult playing with kittle kid toys singing “I don’ wanta grow up. I’m a Toys ‘R’ Us Kid. They’ve got a million toys and games that I can play with. From bikes, to trains, to video games, it’s the biggest toy store there is. Oh, I don’t wanta grow up, because if I did, I couldn’t be a Toys ‘R’ Us Kid.” Yes I remember the jingle from at lest a dozen years ago (sadly however I cant seem to remember when my next paper is due). The point is the commercials themselves were based on nostalgia. They latterly depicted adults openly admitting their longing for their childhood. And even in some of today’s Toys ‘R’ Us commercials you can still hear, if not the whole jingle at lest some parts of it (I think it may only be the bit about bikes and trains though).

It’s All E.T.’s fault

I’d have to say product placement in the movies really got started with the film E.T. M&M’s loss on that. According to the original script E.T. was suppose to be eating M&M. But M&M decided that Spielberg would have to pay them to use their product in the movie. Which didn’t go over to well. Then Reese’s comes along and offers to pay them to use Reese’s Pieces. After that Reese’s goes from almost nothing to owning 5% of the candy market.

Unless the there’s attempt at product placement in a movie people don’t seem to actually notice it. In my experience if they make it to obvious people tend to be put off the product if they don’t already like it. It seems the more subliminal a placement the better it is.

And then there are the TV commercials that actually use a clip from a movie as their add. Like a few years ago when Godzilla came out. Kodak used Godzilla’s first run through New York to sell their new disposable camera. iRobot was used in the same way by; I think it was Nesan, to advertise a car. And at times I think Cellular was one big phone ad.

Sometimes it’s actually hard to tell what’s an ad and what’s a movie or show.

Does Everything Have To Be Dubbed? And Why Is Something Always Blowing Up?

This weekend I had a very interesting conversation with one of my coworkers while manning the Box at amc. One of our Guest asks what the movie The Protector was about. Not the theater provides a summary of its movies for us to give out when asked. But those summaries tend to suck and nobody wants to stand there and listen to them any ways. So I gave a brief assessment based of the previews shown and what I heard from my other coworkers when the Guest tuned me out as I was reading the summary provided by amc. Then the guy manning one of the other registers asks if they had seen a film called ONG BAK 2. As it turns out The Protector and ONG BAK 2 are the exact same film. In fact you can walk right across the way and buy it on DVD rather than spending the money at the theater to see it. However there is one difference between what you'll see in theaters and what you'll see on the DVD being sold at the other end of the mall. The movie being shown in the theater has had about 20 to 30 minutes cut out of it to 'make it suite American audiences'.

Now I myself have never seen either of these movies and there for I am not stating my own thoughts or views of the films, but merely relaying what I have been told. According to the individual I spoke with, who has seen both The Protector and ONG BAK 2, the original was the better of the two and that he felt that The Protector was geared more towards fighting. Which is what people where coming to see. Originally the movie was about the quest for the retrieval of something sacred and that the main character held dear to himself in his own right. Now it's become some guy out for revenge.

It kind of makes you wonder if the only thing people are interested in is mindless violence. I offer Crank (which I have in fact seen) as an example on this front. That is basically all that movie is. Just one act of random violence after another. Not only that, but the main character spends about 20 minutes running around in a hospital gown with his ass hanging out for all the world to see. There's even a public sex scene. Don't get me wrong I thought it was a good movie and funny as Hell at some points but still. Hell even on our slow days the movies that get the most attendance are the one where something blows up or offers the best chance of seeing something blow up.

Now I can see making a movie geared to a specific audience type. But to cut up a perfectly good film to make it fit someone else's standards of acceptable is too much really. Don't even get me started on the dubbing of Japanese's Animation. Trust me you could fill a book with what I have to say on the topic. Basically what I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't have to take something that's good in its own right and change it so that it can be considered ok by the masses on the other side of the globe.

Septemper 11

Just a picture I found to honor Sept. 11.