Commercial Tie-Ins to Movies (And Why They Present Mixed Messages)

When I went to see The Lorax with a friend (it was either that or The Vow), I was severely disappointed. As an animation fanatic I was impressed by the visuals, but that didn't make up for the lazy writing, choppy three-act structure, and two dimensional characters (yes, I know I'm being very critcial of a children's movie, but it was an adaptation of one of my favourite books so I believe I have the right). It didn't even keep the same "anti-corporate" message of the book - it was expressed very plainly in the movie, but it was the commercial tie-ins that displayed the mixed message. A significant message in The Lorax was that slick advertising can compell people to buy things they don't need, a very modern message and very applicable to children growing up in a world revolving around the media. Except commercial tie-ins with The Lorax for companies like IHOP and Mazda, which exploit The Lorax characters for means of advertising, completely neutralize the plain message of the movie. Using characters from a movie portraying an anti-corporate message to advertise products seems very oxymoronic and presents mixed messages to the viewers. It seems as if the very company that created The Lorax, Illumination Entertainment, is using their own anti-corporate characters to fulfill their own corporate greed. And because of this, viewers are becoming more desensitized to messages in movies because they see them contradicted everywhere in real life.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/13/living/lorax-movie/index.html

Positive Feminist Progress in the Media

Even one hundred years after women have gained the right to vote, it disgusts me how we are still represented in the media. Advertisements featuring passive females, female characters being depicted with stereotypical “women” qualities ….the list goes on and on. In class we focused on the media’s suppression of the progress of women’s representations, but not on the media that has evolved women’s representations positively. The prime example that comes to mind is one of my favourite shows, ABC’s Once Upon a Time. The show features fairytale characters under a curse where they live in our modern world and don’t remember who they are. Fairytales—and more specifically, Disney’s portrayal of them—are often criticized for downgrading women by making the female characters “helpless” and dependent on men. Once Upon a Time, however, takes classic fairytales and manipulates them so that more often than not, it is the woman who is the saviour of the male character. A classic example of a passive fairytale character, Snow White, is portrayed as strong and independent, but also has very human emotions. This differs from some female characters in the media whose only redeeming quality is being “badass”, but has no emotion, making them a very inhuman and unrelatable character. Snow White in Once Upon a Time saves the prince even though he was holding her against her will, showing strength but at the same time good morals, great qualities in the hero of any classic story. All of the other female characters in this show demonstrate these traits to some degree, making them great role models for children growing up with fairytales. Taking previously passive female characters and redefining their roles into strong, identifiable heroines is an example of the positive progress the media’s representation of women.

Snow White in ABC's Once Upon a Time

Tis the Season for Consuming

As important it is to remind our parents how much we appreciate them, I am very cynical against the idea of "mother's day" and "father's day". It wasn't until this mother's day, while at my job at Harvest Moon restaurant I witnessed a line of people going out the door, eager for the day's "mother's day special", that I realized just how big of a marketing scheme these special "holidays" are. Yes, it's nice, even important, to have a special day dedicated to the parental figures in our lives. But that's not what mother's and father's day means anymore. The message marketers send to us is that we must buy something in order to show our appreciation. And sure, buying nice things for our moms and dads is a good way to show appreciation. But when the entire theme in a store for May is revolving around one Sunday in that month...that is when things begin to get out of hand. We live in a consumer society, and when marketers get any excuse to market their product, they jump on it. Mother's and father's day becomes less of a day to ponder why we appreciate these parental figures so much, but what can we buy to demonstrate this appreciation. These days are good representations of our consuming society and its connection with all holidays - Easter, Christmas. It's not about why we celebrate the holiday but what we can do to celebrate it. And our progressing consuming attitudes are playing right into the hands of marketers.

Nostalgia in the Media

In my opinion, there is hardly a feeling more complex than the emotions associated with nostalgia. There is the happiness of innocent memories but also the sadness that those times have passed. But, as complex as it is, nostalgia is a feeling we all crave. We all want to return to a simpler time, and marketers know this. A recent example I noticed was a Wendy's commercial, re-using the old catchline from when my parents were in high school, "Where's the Beef?" Nostalgia as a marketing tool is usually in advertisements targeted to an older audience, as that Wendy's commercial would not be understood by my generation (unless your dad has a story of getting kicked out of a Wendy's for saying that line to the manager when the server forgets to put a patty in his burger). I've noticed this tactic being used as a marketing technique in mediums other than advertisements. Movie or television remakes of nostalgic things are very effective. For me personally, The Avengers and the television show Once Upon a Time are hugely nostalgic for me and also happen to be some of my favourite things to watch. Sometimes I wonder if it is the quality of the shows or movies that influence my consumption, or if it is the reminder of simpler times they give me.

Wendy's used nostalgia as a marketing tool in its current Where's the Beef? commercial

Is Originality Dead?

Seeing one of my favourite TV shows from the UK, BBC's modern rendition of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, in Maclean's magazine got me very excited. The show has won several awards and is gaining mass audiences. How often do you see British television in the mainstream North American media? That is why I got really excited to see it in Maclean's, because it is truly proof of the gaining popularity this current 6 episode mini-series is getting. It is not surprising, then, that other television corporations are eager to ride on the coattails of Sherlock's success. A very prominent example is CBS's upcoming show, Elementary, which will also feature a modern-day Sherlock Holmes, except in New York rather than London. There is already a lot of spite among the Sherlock fans towards Elementary, after the co-creators of Sherlock consulted the creators of Elementary saying they did not want them to continue because they were the original creators of the modern-day Sherlock Holmes idea. It is instances like these that raise the question - is originality dead? Is there literally no unique ideas out there, or has the media taught us to take the easy route and rely on the success of others? It seems to be making television companies money anyhow, so why make the effort of being original?

Elementary Vs. Sherlock 

"It's Not For Women"

I remember a while ago seeing Dr. Pepper being advertised in a sort of satire action film commercial. It advertised the drink as being "manly", and suggested that action films are strictly for men and women's interests are strictly to romantic comedies. This commercial actually made me very angry. I am a fan of superhero movies, and I am sick of society telling me I should prefer Nicholas Sparks films. When my dad and brother were planning to go see The Avengers, my dad was surprised when I said I wanted to go see it too. Why? Because commercials like this Dr. Pepper ad are continually reinforcing gender segregation. I can't believe that it is the 21st century and the media is still telling us how we are expected to act because of a biological difference. I also can't believe that something as simple as watching an action movie or drinking a Dr. Pepper is considered defying the media's expectations for me as a girl.

Doctor Pepper commercial labelled "It's Not For Women"

Disclaimer: Sorry Ben! I didn't realize you had already written an entry on this commercial.

Streaming - Not the Threat Music Corporations Make It Out to Be

When we first started talking about streaming's role in copyright infringement in class, I was pretty on the fence about my opinions on whether or not it was a major threat to the future of the music industry. Now, after introducing myself to streaming on CBC Music and browsing such a large streaming site, I have begun to lean towards the idea that streaming music is more helpful than hurtful to music corporations. For one thing, a common factor I've noticed on CBC Music is that no albums released in the last couple months are available for streaming. It's not like every song by every band you like is available to listen for free--if you really like a band and want to listen to its newest album, you cannot stream it. Fans who want to listen to the music immediately have the choice of buying it and supporting the artist or illegally downloading it for free. Flash is also required to stream music, at least from CBC. So even if I was willing to use up my data on my iPhone to stream music on the bus or walking or whenever I listen to music, I wouldn’t be able to stream the music because Flash is not compatible with my iPhone. These factors make streaming inconvenient compared to buying or downloading the .mp3 file, and fans will always pay money for music made by an artist they wish to support. Not only do consumers realize the convenience of owning the music, but streaming is a great opportunity to introduce music to an audience that would never have been introduced to it in the first place. To me, streaming acts more like an advertising tool than a replacement for paid-for music.

YouTube - A Copyright Violator or Advertising Medium?

Under YouTube's slogan, "Broadcast Yourself", there should be fine print reading "as long as it's within the boundaries that record labels have limited your creative expression to”. YouTube is at the mercy of any corporation that does not want their content shared worldwide, which means every single of the millions of videos uploaded to YouTube must have their audio carefully scanned and checked to make sure it does not belong to any of the corporations that claim their copyrighted material over YouTube.  As soon as a video violates that copyright law, even if it’s just a kid making a harmless cover in their bedroom, it is deleted out of existence, no question. However, corporations have begun to become smarter about their approach to abolishing copyright on video sharing sites such as YouTube. They have begun to realize that by deleting people’s videos they are only creating enemies with their consumers, and that when a video is uploaded to YouTube, no profit is being made by the creator. In essence, rather than stealing their material, YouTube upload-ers are actually becoming an increasing means of advertisement. Many record labels, when they detect their copyrighted material being used in a video, will instead put an advertisement for the song directly beneath the video rather than deleting it altogether. I know that I personally have been introduced to a lot of music because of this new advertising method, and I’m sure a lot of other consumers have as well. It isn’t just the music industry taking advantage of YouTube as an advertising source. Corporations like CBS, BBC, and VEVO have their own YouTube channels and upload their own choice content. NBC even uploaded the entire pilot episode of Smash to YouTube as a way of introducing the show. This revolutionary method of using YouTube as an advertising medium will undoubtedly change the way in which the marketing world works.

The Sexualization of Food in Advertisements

Sexualizing food - it's an advertising fad more common in the United States than here in Canada, but is nonetheless just as apparent. When I was watching TV in California with my American friend a couple weeks ago, an advertisement for an American fast food restaurant called Jack-in-the-Box came on, featuring a man getting married to a bacon cheeseburger. My friend was unfazed—as far the sexualization of food in ads goes, this was on the mild end of the spectrum in America. For instance, Carl’s Jr, another American fast food joint, has a reputation of creating far more provocative advertisements. Their commercial intended for the Super Bowl, featuring model Kate Upton slowly undressing while eating the new Southwest Patty Melt, is a more recent example. The commercial was so provocative that it was banned from being aired. Studies have shown that this means of advertising isn’t always effective. For example, overtly sexual ads have been shown to not work on women the same way they work on men, narrowing the target audience in commercials. So why do companies continue to use the sexualization of food to advertise their products? Well, there’s attention for one thing—when a commercial becomes controversial, especially to the point of being banned, it provokes more attention than a standard advertisement. Also, especially in the States, there are a lot more fast food restaurants and therefore more competition. Each company has to find their own gimmick to make them stand out against the fast food giants like McDonald’s, Wendy’s, and Burger King. Because of the successfulness these commercials have given fast food companies like Carl’s Jr, it doesn’t look like the fad of sexualizing food is going to fade away anytime soon.

  

Jack in the Box's "Marry Bacon" commercial:

Carl's Jr's banned Super Bowl commercial:

 

Gender Representation in Pixar Movies

Because of the reputation Disney has for portraying innocence and purity in its movies, people are very apt to be critical and find fault in them. Pixar studios, however, does not have the same "children-only" reputation and so is less susceptible to that kind of critical eye. Disney's first film, Snow White, was released in 1938 and therefore should be given more leniency towards the gender roles it portrays because that kind of gender segregation was acceptable at the time it was released. Pixar's first full-length animated feature, Toy Story, was released in 1995 and since then the company has released 12 movies, and are therefore more current and should, in my opinion, be more critically analyzed for the gender roles Pixar portrays. Like more current Disney movies (Tangled for example), Pixar has created strong female characters that have more on their mind than finding the right guy, have unique personalities and can fend for themselves. Pixar female characters do have one major fault however: they are never the main protagonist. They may be strong-willed and independent, but they are always portrayed as the love interest (Atta from A Bug's Life or Eve from Wall-E) or the companion to the protagonist (Dory from Finding Nemo). The main protagonist is always male. In the summer of 2012, Pixar will be releasing its 13th animated film, Brave, which will be the first Pixar movie featuring a female character as the main protagonist. Brave is the story of a Scottish princess who is willing to go to any means to change the fate that being a girl has forced her into. This is a very important message for anyone facing discrimination, whether it be based on gender, race, etc, but does not, in my opinion, exempt Pixar from their history of gender representation. The fact that the plot revolves around the fact that Merida, the princess, is female just causes more discrimination, in my opinion. When Pixar can make a film where the main protagonist is simply female for a reason that does not revolve around the plot is when I will stop viewing the company as slightly prejudice. To get an idea of what I'm talking about, take Pixar movies like Ratatouille or Toy Story. It would make absolutely no difference if Remy or Buzz or Woody were female characters, whereas the plot in Brave depends on the gender of the protagonist. Just how I love Disney despite its obvious flaws, I do adore every Pixar movie and the creativity and brilliance behind each one. I am very excited for Brave and the step Pixar is taking by making their protagonist female, which I hope is a step in the direction of more women heroes who aren't simply female because the plot depends on it.
Brave Trailer:

These are the movie posters from every Pixar movie taken from the Pixar website...notice how hardly any of them feature a female character

http://www.pixar.com/featurefilms/index.html