PRoduct placement is okay when it is done well and not designed to call your attention to a product as if to just say "hey, buy this."

I cut the cars slack because of the nature of the show and it's not as if characters are really shouting out "hey, look at that Bugatti Veryon, it sure is cool." But scenes like the beer on the ground which had a completely pointless pan shot to show them off, the chinese milk which is front and center on screen, the pill which is bizzarely pushed forward despite the fact that it's not even a product of KSI and so on and so forth.

Compare this to, say the state farm ad in Avengers, it's in the background for a lot of the NY fight but the camera is never front and center on it.

If you are going to draw the audience's attention to a product it needs to work within the context of the shot rather than just be an out of place attention grab (think Dr. Pepper can in Spider-man).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9hepxidZyo

30 Rock covered it pretty well.

 

She is (ugly, that is) that's the point.

 

But she's not. That's why its eye candy.

 

You find that kind of girl attractive?

 

Physically? Sure. I have my criticisms, but Fox is alright looking. Enough for me to call her attractive. She's not the hottest girl I've ever seen, but in no way would I call her ugly.

Now, of course personality outweighs any physical characteristic she or anyone could have. I'm happily tied to my girlfriend, but there's nothing wrong with finding other people sexy.

 

I find her to be rather ugly, and a bland actress too.

 

You'll probably find yourself in a very small minority on the former, though probably not on the latter.

The reason there are expensive cars in the film (beyond marketing them) is because they're an aspirational product. They're exciting (because they're fast, flashy, and difficult to own unless you're rich), and that excitement helps deepen the fantasy for the audience when they watch the film.

 

Meh, I prefer 90's cars.

 

Again, something you may find yourself in a very small minority for.

 

Oh I know.

90's cars ftw.

 

It's seems disingenuous to be put out over product placement in a two hour + commercial when the whole point of these films is to try and sell things to people. This entire series is littered with examples of egregious product placement: Dell, Cisco, Nokia, etc. Some are more glaring than others, but what can you expect from something born from blatant commercialism? I can't fault them for that because, going in, I understand what I'm going to see ... a movie that is going to try and sell me stuff.

 

^This.

 

While I agree that Transformers is largely to sell toys and standard popcorn fare and thus shouldn't be held to standards of high cinema that doesn't mean I can lower my standards of general quality film making.

Again, I understand it's to sell toys - A LOT of shows and movies are. The difference is that poor product placement basically halts the suspension of disbelief in the film as if to shout to the viewer "by this product" and has little to no connontation to the narrative.

Again, I have NO problems with the cars or the transformers themselves, because the products they represent fit within the narrative of the film. Having Cade angrily drink a beer on camera after crashing a space ship? No problem because it is supported by his character being aggitated and posturing against the guy who he just hit. But the shot of the beer on the ground? Superflous, we saw him hit the truck, we saw the beer spray in the shot we did not need a shot of the beer on the ground as well to establish that it was there - it was done JUST to draw attention to the beer for the audience.

Look at it this way, watch an episode of South Park that name drops products - putting aside the fact that South Park is satrical or is parodying the product - the name of the product serves a purpose in the narrative and is supported by it, the story doesn't just stop for it.

One example I like to draw to is Boondocks - there is an episode where two characters are supposed to kidnap Oprah but they aren't in the right location. Turns out they got lost because they were told to go to the Borders next door to the Starbucks. They accidentally wound up at a Barnes & Noble next door to a Coffee Bean. Although four brands are named there, it serves the purpose of 1) the narrative in that they screwed up the plan 2) the joke in that these are similar brands and easily confused and 3) the characters in that they do not pay attention to directions well.

I understand shilling products to kids but that doesn't mean you should sell out the narrative to do so. Iron Man was mean to appeal to kids but
the mention of things like Burger King have a logical reason to be shown, not Transformers which tends to be awful about it.

 

And then we dont get toys of Mirage/Dino and Stingaur.

 

Cars in general are expensive but collecting toys is much cheaper