Spielberg (Back to the Future)

[Ronnie Schnell]

I have noticed that in all movies that involve Steven Spielberg in a
production capacity, there seems to be a lot of blatant commercialism,
especially for a certain cola manufacturing company mentioned in some
previous articles. In back to the future, there was about 5 minutes of
commercials for a certain department store. They were in a shopping
mall and this department store was all you could see the whole time. It
is certainly conceivable that these companies were ``sponsors.'' Does
anyone know anymore about this?

#Ron
...mit-eddie!ronnie
ron...@mit-mc.arpa
ron...@mit-eddie.arpa
ron...@suhep.bitnet
(315) 422-1187

[M. A. Upmalis]

It isn't uncommon for companies to actively seek to get included
into movies. By wining and dining producers, offering to supply
thew production with materials (how much <your brand here> colas
could a crew/cast drink in a 2 month shoot, nice to get it free...

My favourite answer was the generic food/drink in REPO MAN,

The sin isn't peculiar to Spielberg, check out TV shows etc.
How many firebirds to Rockford go through?
--
Mike Upmalis (mupmalis@watarts)<University of Waterloo>

ihnp4!watmath!watarts!mupmalis

[Sean Casey]

Oh, you know how it is in real life. We drink Generic Cola and we shop
at Mr. Generic. We wear Generic shoes and drive Generic cars. Movies
should reflect that. Otherwise, they might lose touch with reality.

:-)

--

- Sean Casey UUCP: se...@ukma.UUCP or
- Department of Mathematics {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean
- University of Kentucky ARPA: ukma!se...@ANL-MCS.ARPA

[Ronnie Schnell]

> Oh, you know how it is in real life. We drink Generic Cola and we shop
> at Mr. Generic. We wear Generic shoes and drive Generic cars. Movies
> should reflect that. Otherwise, they might lose touch with reality.

> :-)

Well, the producers/directors seemed to have no problem blurring out all
of the other stores at the twin/lone pines mall, with the exception of
one department store and a photography developing store, both of which
shall remain nameless.

#Ron

[ter...@tekcrl.uucp]

>>> Oh, you know how it is in real life. We drink Generic Cola and we shop
>>> at Mr. Generic. We wear Generic shoes and drive Generic cars. Movies
>>> should reflect that. Otherwise, they might lose touch with reality.

>>Well, the producers/directors seemed to have no problem blurring out all

>>of the other stores at the twin/lone pines mall, with the exception of
>>one department store and a photography developing store, both of which
>>shall remain nameless.

>I don't know, they DO lend an important air of verisimitude.

>Besides, shouldn't whoever gets used as props pay for the free publicity?

But they do!!! Remember ET??? They originally wanted to use M & M's (*)
candy when Elliot is trying to get ET to come out of the shed, but M & M's
didn't think it was a wise choice, so they used Reese's Pieces (*) instead,
and Reese's Pieces sold like hot cakes for a while after the movie opened.
I vaguely remember whoever makes Reese's paying a tidy sum for "this honor".

You think I'd sign my name to this???

(*) Reese's Pieces and M & M's are probably trademarks of two totally different
companies and I really don't care.

[Stoll W William]

On the subject of blatant commercialism, the following article appeared
In the Newark NJ paper, the Star Ledger (Thurs, 8-1-85):

The raisins ended up on the cutting room floor
rather than in the mouth of actor Michael J. Fox, so
the California Raisin Advisory Board got a $25,000
refund. The film's producers were paid $50,000 to
have Fox munch on raisins during the popular movie,
"Back to the Future." That scene was cut, and
advisory board members threatended to sue. But they
were appeased when a $25,000 refund check arrived.
After all, the movie shows California raisins
advertised on a bus stop bench.

Bill Stoll, ..!whuxlm!wws