Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2011 January 1

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.

January 1

Why are there so many movie rip offs with some even promoting products?!

I think it is a weird,stupid, and rude idea to steal someone else's movie idea make your own crappy rip off it's like how in china there are so many knock offs of expensive things. My example of product placement in one of these pieces of bull crap is Mac and Me a movie that was a rip off of E.T. which also promotes NASA, McDonald's, Sears, Coca Cola, and Skittles and the film ended with a freeze frame and the words "We'll be back!" superimposed, but after abysmal reviews and dismal box office returns, a planned sequel was shelved. These are some awards the film won and was nominated for: 1988 Golden Raspberry Awards Four Nominations: Worst New Star (Ronald McDonald) [Winner] Worst Director (Stewart Raffill) [Winner] Worst Picture (R.J. Louis) [Nominated] Worst Screenplay (Stewart Raffill, Steve Feke) [Nominated] Pretty "good" awards huh?! I wanna know is why people wanna make this bull crap and why sometimes they think the promoting major companies' products will help?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!??!?!!??!? --76.176.141.172 (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)DPS--76.176.141.172 (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Some times, when a company is losing business, even a little bit, they do anything to get back up where they were. They make these lame ripoffs and do product promotions in them as an attempt to boost business, and i can agree with you on the fact that it is copy-catting and stupid. Take all ripoff artests to Judge Judith Sheindlen! N.I.M. I miss you 01:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Why? To make money, I guess. I recommend you use Wikipedia reviews to avoid such stuff. Anyway the Mac and Me article claims they didn't get paid for the blatant promos, and hints that it was a kind of running gag. And I personally don't have a problem with NASA being the minders of the alien. That's quite logical, and NASA is not a commercial entity. The other stuff is OTT though. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You know what i'm getting at though right? A good deal of the 'ripoffs', are to promote business or their products. Companies tend to use media to influence people to buy their product or do business with them. High Low 48 is right,about the nasa thing and the McDonalds thing, but keep in mind, when someone is even losing a bit of money, they'll do almost anything to get said money back. Another reason companies do it is to parrity products, or just for the fun of it, see what the people think. I still say take all ripoff artest to Judge Judith Sheindlen. N.I.M. I miss you (redacted) 02:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

But isn't Judge Judy just a rip-off of Judge Wapner ? StuRat (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a new phenomenon. The film 2001: A Space Odyssey, made in 1968, had blatant product placement. See here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Despite that page's title, it's not product placement unless it's done for the purpose of advertising. Depicting Pan Am, IBM, etc. was an appropriate artistic decision and calling it "blatant product placement" is completely missing that point. --Anonymous, 08:34 UTC, January 1, 2011, edited later for clarity.

And it's risky in the longer run. 2001 is considered a classic. The same cannot be said for the Pan Am company. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Pan Am was a pioneer of Transatlantic and Transpacific commercial air transport. I wouldn't view them as any less classic then the defunct Washington Senators baseball club. Googlemeister (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Points taken, but another thing to realize is that some times, a company decides to promote products for the hell of it, see what happens. N.I.M. I miss you (redacted) 06:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

For stu Rat's comment, Judge Judy is not a rip-off, more likely, it was inspired by Judge Wapner. There's a difference between a ripoff and mear inspiration. Judge Judy was inspiration, Mac and Me is a ripoff. in the same way, the Jetsons is inspired by the flinstones,, and 2001 space odicy is a ripoff in some ways, and in others, it's inspiration. As someone who is a movie righter, I know the difference between inspiration and ripoff. If in the movie, someone was driving only ford nissan trucks, then the movie would in its own way be promoting ford nissan trucks. However, if it was ford spaceman trucks, then that's not necesarily promoting an existing product, as Ford Spaceman is completely made up as far as i know. If a movie writer creates a name similar to an existing product or company, it is a case of inspiration, as the exact name or product mentioned in the movie does not exist for real. The name is inspired by the existing product, Ford Nissan = Ford Spaceman, but the name is unique in its own way, Spaceman instead of Nissan. On the other hand, if they coppied the product and its exact name, then that can be considered a rippoff and promotion as long as the company aprooves of the use of the products. There is another case of inspiration that i know about, Smarty-Mart in Kim Possible. The name Smarty-Mart and the store itself is inspired by Wal-Mart. This doesn't mean that Kim Possible is advertizing "Come to walmart! buy, buy, buy! Best deals!", rather, it is mearly parratying the existing chane of stores. That's not prommotion, so the inspiration examples like the ones i mentioned are not ripoffs. hope that helps clear up confusions. regards, N.I.M. I miss you (redacted) 08:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If the above is a sample of your writing skills, I'd recommend not giving up the day job. :) You're right, it's often inspiration and can be parody. Comedies, especially in the old days, constantly parodied legitimate companies while also acknowledging their existence. For example, the telegram service they called "Western Onion". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, i spell check my movie scripts, anyway, what you said is true. N.I.M. I miss you (redacted) 19:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by N.I.M. (talk • contribs)

Why do you keep on telling Elena Apostoleanu, whoever she is, to go behind the line? If you sign your responses with 4 tildes (~), your user name will come up automatically without the need for special links and other ... stuff. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That's my new signature, and that line is a joke line, unless Inna has a problom with that, in which case i'll change the line to something she suggests, anyway that's irrelivent. N.I.M. (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

misnomers in cds

Why do companies give cds misnomers, i.e. Club Hits 2010, when it was released in 2009? It should be Club Hits 2009, why do companies do that? N.I.M. I miss you (redacted) 18:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Marketing hype, to make it seem more "current". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood, but it's not like the cd is from the future, "Wow! a CD from the future! i'm so lucky!" N.I.M. I miss you (redacted) 19:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by N.I.M. (talk • contribs)

If released towards the end of 2009 (September onwards), then it's the CD they're going to be using into 2010 and onwards. 90.193.232.239 (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not only music companies that do it. Lots of things come out in the previous month or year based on what their title is. For instance, car companies release their next model year around October of the previous year. So you could have bought a 2011 car last month. Magazines as well. I already have the January editions of all my regular magazine subscriptions, and have for a couple weeks, and it's only been January for a few hours now. Dismas|^(talk) 21:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I received the February 2011 issue of Mojo on 30 December. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

ok, thanks. here i thought there was a case of desception going on, gues not, wfhu! N.I.M. (talk) (redacted) 01:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

See also: Cover date. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)