Entertainment desk
< August 23	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 24[edit]

Product Placements[edit]

A question above amde me think about soemthing. Recently while watchign TV ive been seeign a gross placemtn of ads inside the shows. Jsut to name towo, The Dead Zone and Who Wants to be a Superhero. It is jsut so blatent that they are advertisign their product. I mean it distracts me from the storyline in shows liek the deadzoen or takes away fro mthe thrill in shows lie kWho Wants to be a Superhero. No mroe than a coupel years ago this wasn't as prevelant (in shows like Friends and Everybody Loves Raymond). Why is this so? Thanks schyler 00:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps since you found out about the advertising it appears more obvious (kinda like how once you see a pattern in random-things it is hard not to see the pattern). Also it may be that some shows are just better setup for more 'subtle' product placement. In Friends if Ross decided to start driving a Mercedes it wouldn't be an unrealistic storyline, but in some shows such a storyline might appear 'unlikely'. ny156uk 00:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No this is not the case. In the middle of the particular episode of The Dead ZOne i'm thinking of Johnny takes out his Visa Card and swipes it and the camera stays on teh Visa logo for about 5 seconds. John's friends Bruce says soemthign alogn the lines og domn't u need to swipe it throught slot and johnny replys no i just hover it ober the stand and it beeps and bruce says wow i need to get myself a visa card. The actign for that particular part of the show was so terrible it made me drop my mouth. It was such horrendous placement. Ive seen this a lot lately on tv shows. WHY? schyler 01:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one, you have to think of the great competition for a consumer's attention to advertising. Everbody (including advertising executives) knows that, while watching television, a great number of people "skip" through the commercials during the TV show. In real time, they leave the room to go to the bathroom, they get a drink, etc. When watching a taped show or TIVO, they fast forward and skip the commercials. So, as a business strategy, the advertisers realize that they really are powerless to grab consumer attention during the standard TV commercial. However, in changing the paradigm, they are quite powerful in grabbing consumer attention (via product placement) during the TV show itself. Consumers / viewers maintain great control over skipping traditional commercials, but are virtually powerless when faced with the (not so) "subtle" advertising via product placement during the course of the TV show itself. (Joseph A. Spadaro 02:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This practice will continue unless consumers decide that they will boycott products which are so advertised. Alternatively, perhaps we could get legislatures to ban such ads, on the basis that they are subliminal (well, more subtle ads are, at least) and the viewers haven't agreed to view them. StuRat 04:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say product placement is a far more intelligent form of advertising. How much larger (worldwide) have lazy-boy become due to Chandler and Joey making them out to be amazing? Was that product placement or merely a storyline that required a real brand to 'ring true' to the watcher. Seinfeld used to actively name brands regularly but I understand that they didn't do it for more money, but because they found it made the comedy stronger. I remember hearing a singer talking about how having their song in movies is better than any advertising. You have individuals watching and feeling emotions when they hear your song, if they are gripped they will take in the music and the individuals may come to associate, say, the romantic love scene with your song. Your song then already has an emotional tie with the individual. These more subtle forms of advertising could raise ethical questions in some quarters, but by and large I see them as a good development (when done well) compared to 5 minute breaks during my watching of a show. ny156uk 11:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In 1978 I saw, fairly close together, two movies that contained gratuitous lingering shots of the Transamerica Pyramid. (One was Invasion of the Body Snatchers; I've long since forgotten what the other was.) Eventually I noticed that both were from United Artists, a subsidiary of Transamerica. Hm, I see by United Artists that since MGM bought UA it has removed Transamerica's name from the films; I wonder whether those pyramid shots have been cut (or shortened). —Tamfang 03:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch Josie and the Pussycats (film) again if you haven't already. In regards to the topic, this 2001 film has THE MOST product placements EVER. Although any NASCAR related film can also take for the EXTREME in product placements. To answer your question, it's the ole' One-Two punch on economic platform of SUPPLY & DEMAND. If it works, and people keep buying, more ads = more buying. more buying more ads. --i am the kwisatz haderach 20:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes that people know which movies are full of product placements and then make an informed purchase decision. Unless they disclose how many product placements are in the movie, people have no basis to make a purchase decision. StuRat 14:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

movie[edit]

Did wallace berry and shirley temple make a movie together and what was the title of it

I assume you mean Wallace Beery. According to the "People Working Together" (Joint Ventures) advanced search facility on IMDB, they made no movies together, but they were both featured on a 1976 documentary called "America at the Movies". JackofOz 00:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent (within 6 months) New York Times article[edit]

ON green CEO or executive directors. Does anyone remember seeing this? I read it and put it aside but now cant find it!! Lots of googling to new avail. If anyone remembers this article, or something similar can you point me in the right direction? (or help me brainstorm more search terms, I have used green, environment, CEO, executive director, officer...)

Thanks

Ebenbayer 00:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Collins Best Years As A Pop and Rock Star[edit]

When was it Phil Collins best years being a pop and rock star and selling his albums?--Writer Cartoonist 03:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to his discography at our Phil Collins article, he had number one songs as a solo artist from 1982-89. StuRat 04:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott and Lisey never had children[edit]

Why didn't Lisey and Scott Landon have children in Stephen King's second-to-first new book, Lisey's Story?--Writer Cartoonist 03:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should they? Lots of people don't have children. Actually, most protagonists seem not to have children, perhaps for the same reason that they never go to the bathroom.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I've been doing it wrong. —Tamfang 03:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lonely Girl[edit]

where can the latest info be found on a video named the Lonely Teenager played on You Tube ?

Probably lonelygirl15 would be a good place to start. --Mdwyer 05:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Batman villain[edit]

In one of the comic series of Batman, there was a villain who, if i recall correctly, dressed exactly like Batman except in red. I also remember that at the end of one comic he attempted to shoot James Gordon, who fell down, apparently bleeding, but it was later revealed to be a vest that was designed to make it look like he was bleeding. Any idea who this villain might be? By the way, I know it isn't Anarky. Thanks asyndeton 13:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After Batman's downfall at the hands of Bane, a protege of sorts steps up to take the Batman mantle and keep Gotham safe. Azrael is really more of an anti-hero than a villain, but he was a very important character in the Knightfall series. Beekone 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catman had a costume similar to Batman's, but colored yellow and red (and lately tannish-brown). If that's not it, check out this list, which appears fairly comprehensive. 24.250.32.81 11:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I know that Catman isn't my guy. Azrael is probably who I'm after, though I'm still not 100% convinced. asyndeton 23:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember when the comics were released? '80s, '90s, earlier? 24.250.32.81 11:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% but, if I remember correctly, '90s would have been too late and anything before '70s would have been too early. I think '80s sounds about right. asyndeton 11:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well Azrael was a pure-form '90s character (anti-hero with a troubled past and a devil-may-care attitude, dispensing his own brand of justice in the seedy underbelly of...sorry, I got caught up in it for a second there), introduced in '92...his article doesn't mention anything about trying to shoot Gordon, but I'm at a loss for a better suggestion. I'll keep meditating on it. 24.250.32.81 14:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Wrath? Look, beginnings and MO similar to Batman's, a fan of lethal weaponry, an obsession with killing the man he blames for his parents' death (Police Commissioner James Gordon), and introduced in 1984. Sound good? 24.250.32.81 14:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had a search for 'Batman Wrath' and the guy on the right here is exactly who I'm after. Thanks for all the help. asyndeton 14:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Azrael from Knightfall. Once Bruce Wayne is healed and able to resume his role as Batman, Azrael dawns a crimson version of his sleeker Batman costume. Beekone 13:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly! Love, 24.250.32.81 22:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]