The Musings Of An Opinionated Sod [Help Me Grow!]

Have P&G Got Into The Movie Biz?
November 18, 2009, 6:41 am
Filed under: Comment

So I sat through the latest Hollywood blockbuster extravaganza – 2012 – and whilst it was always going to contain the classic traits of that sort of movie, namely … all CGI no substance, actors who have followed the Keanu Reeves school of method acting and more plot holes than a A-Team strategy … even I was surprised how utterly and completely pants it was.

To be honest, I spent more time laughing at the movie than anything else … it really is something to be [dis]believed … however after it finished, I realised that whilst the film company is claiming it is another flick from Roland Emmerich’s ‘Disaster Production Line’ [Independence Day, Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow] I am of the belief it was actually written and produced by P&G.

Now you might think I’m talking pants, but remember product creation, sponsorship and placement is nothing new for organisations like this … afterall the term ‘soap opera’ came about after P&G’s arch-enemy, Unilever, started paying/sponsoring/making television and radio dramas [in the early days of programming] to help promote their washing powder products!

Anyway back to the ‘proof points’ of P&G’s Hollywood credentials …

1/ There Is No Subtlety At All – I Mean NONE!

Storyline … acting … product placement… are all executed with extreme levels of obviousness. Either the film crew were made up of Liberace’s children or they think the human race is made up of total retards*

Some of my favourite bits?

[i] To make sure people know one of the characters is supposed to be the Queen of England, they make her appear on screen with a load of corgi dogs!

[ii] To try and make people think this is ‘real life’, they have Danny Glover playing the US President and some bad actor with a bad Austrian accent playing Arnie.

[iii] One of the characters is on the phone, listening to his friend as a tsunami approaches [despite the fact they showed the other guy ring off 2 seconds before].

You know when the friend has died because you hear some splashing of water before silence.

Now maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think a 1500 foot wave would make the sound of some gentle splashing do you?

[iv] There are SONY Vaio computers at every turn and surprise, surprise … SONY Pictures were behind the making of this movie.

2/ Contrived Emotion/Humour

Someone dies = actors cry.
Someone does something brave = actors smile.
Someone does something bad = actors grimace.

All backed up with an orchestral soundtrack that comes straight off the CD entitled ‘Cliché movie moments’. [ie: Dark minor chords = bad stuff. Swirling major chords = good stuff]

Seriously, if people interacted like that in real life, we would either all kill ourselves or kill eachother – especially when your loved one can go from adoration to hatred [or vice–versa] simply because you forgot to put some sweetener in their fucking cup of coffee!

3/ Unbelievable Claims

The movie is supposedly based on some ancient prophecies.

Let’s look at those last 2 words again: ANCIENT PROPHECIES.

That’s very much like using some non-descript “Doctor” to explain why P&G’s ‘Product X’is better for you than any of the other leading products on the market.

Mind you, if some Hollywood company is going to spend a shitload of cash on some claims from hundreds/thousands/millions of years ago … then I am more than happy to get my share with some declarations of my own. How about “Banks will make the World implode with the weight of debt they place upon us” or “Cats will fly”? Send money direct to my Paypal account please …

4/ Developed Through Bad Research Groups

You get the distinct impression this movie was written as it was being filmed – with each section quickly tested against a research group consisting of people even Jerry Springer would turn down.

For example no animal is allowed to be shown to be hurt… they can show the slow and painful death of kids, parents and/or elderly folk but if a fluffy animal is hurt, you’re dead!

However the bit that really bugs me is that throughout the movie, pointless and/or unrealistic elements are seemingly dropped in for no real reason other than to help rationalise the ridiculous story with the conspiracy theorists / fantasists / thickos who demand their delusions are nicely wrapped up with a great big pink bow on it.


Well the worst one is described in ‘point 6’, however it is rather amusing that we are asked to believe that a ship designed to withstand the force of a 1500 foot Tsunami wave fails because some ‘rope’ has got caught up in one of their 100 ton, water tight doors.

See what I mean? This is straight out of a Pantene ad …

5/ Family

It doesn’t matter what life throws at you … it doesn’t matter what state your marriage is in … it doesn’t matter how self centred you are … it doesn’t matter how pissed off your kids are with you … when something happens that could affect the livelihood of your family, you come together and love each other with the energy and passion that could be used to power Chicago.

Oh and it is also important that at a time of total crisis, the family are able to perform feats even Superman would find out of his reach.

Hold your breath underwater for 19 minutes and 33 seconds? Pah … easy.

Fly a plane through a collapsing World even though you’ve only ever had 3 lessons? No problem.

Navigate a Winnebago at speed around falling balls of fire and lava from an erupting volcano? Do it with your eyes closed.

6/ He Who Owns The Distribution, Owns The Market

Sorry George! Ha.

Quality doesn’t count, just own the distribution … or in this case … ensure your movie is shown at the majority of the World’s cinemas so that people are disproportionately likely to buy a ticket to it.

7/ Product Placement

I’ve already talked about the SONY Vaio thing … but that’s nothing … apart from a Bentley plug that singlehandedly would stop me buying one of the bastards even if I could afford it, they plug a brand I never thought could [let alone would] appear in a Hollywood movie.

Are you ready for what it is?

OK, it’s GOODNITES nappies.

I am not kidding you.

According to the story the little girl of the lead characters still wets the bed – despite being 7 years old, which they make sure they articulate clearly – which is why the mother packs her off with some ‘GOODNITES Nappies’ for when she goes camping with her Dad.

Oh but it gets better – or worse as the case may be.

At the end of the movie … infact the VERY LAST LINE … the little girl announces proudly that she no longer wets the bed, in short, she’s claiming that using these Kimberly Clarke products helped her stop pissing the sheets and is now able to go on sleepovers without leaving an embarrassing mark.

Who the fuck comes up with this shit????

Just think … someone got paid to write that storyline. I hope to fuck they got paid a shitload because their career and credibility is never going to recover after that.

Seriously what was everyone thinking?

I know movies cost a lot of money but surely they could of said ‘no’ to this bollocks? I just hope to god this didn’t come from the brain [hahaha] of someone in adland – but I have a horrible feeling it might have – which means I’ll be reading about this “inspirational use of product placement” in AdAge sometime in the near future.

Sure I’ve remembered the name of the brand and what they do – but even if I had 1000 bed wetting kids at home – I’d never buy their products, not unless I was going to use them as firelighters to burn down the offices of Kimberly Clarke, SONY Pictures and anyone else related to this monstrosity.

So there you go, seven reasons why I think P&G wrote and directed the god awful [unless it’s really a comedy, in which case, it’s bloody brilliant] 2012.

You think I’m wrong don’t you?

Why? Is it because you think there’s no way they’d advertise a competitor’s product if they really were behind it?

Let me tell you, when you see how clunckilly they’ve made the placement, you’ll realise it has more to do with brand espionage than anything else.

Seriously, if I was at Saatchi’s I’d start to get a bit worried because it seems one of their biggest clients has decided they don’t need them anymore and can do it all by themselves.

Hell, how ungrateful can they get when Saatchi’s have spent years and billions of dollars infusing that faceless, clinical, advertising-by-numbers organisation with their philosophy [and proprietary tool] ‘Lovemarks’.


15 Comments so far
Leave a comment

somefuckinghow youve made me want to go and see this steaming pile of excessive german director cgi indulgent shit.

how the fuck have you managed that when i know its going to make me feel the same way as spending 5 hours listening to the musical equivalent of the steaming pile of excessive german director cgi indulgent shit: queen.

are p&g paying you in brown paper bags handed over at freeway roadside stops for your manipulation skills?

youre evil fucking personified, youve even made me like this post. momentarily.

Comment by andy@cynic

just looked at that photo of david icke. what a fucking nutcase he was.

fancy being a goalkeeper for coventry city or nottingham forest or some fucking shit team like that.

makes claiming youre god or jesus or mary or fucking joseph understandable and less fucking embarrassing.

Comment by andy@cynic

just checked out david ickes story and he was a fucking goalkeeper for coventry city and he did go to nottingham forest but just to watch how their shit goalkeeper picked up balls from the back of the net or something.

how the fuck did i know or remember that shit? david icke has fucking mind control powers beyond campbell, copperfield or that beardy twat on british tv pretending he might kill himself to get the ratings up. no fucking wonder he thinks hes from gods balls or whatever, im starting to believe it too.

poor fucking god squad followers. david icke. lol

Comment by andy@cynic

All of the above is genius. I am envious and salute it.

Comment by Niko

looking for some info and pictures of the product placement, a quick google search brought some diaper lover sites up. i kid you not. they like the product placement over there 😛

Comment by peggy

I saw it and this post has cast a whole new light on the movie but I’m not sure if that is a good thing.

Comment by DH

I want to see the movie now. Great, funny post.

Comment by Mark Wright

Nappies, corgi dogs, ancient legends, world destruction. Whats not to like? 2012 sounds cool and P&G will win cannes metal next year.

Comment by DD

I did read a quicker review of 2012 which went:

2012 – Disaster Movie : Movie Disaster

Comment by Rob Mortimer

You’ll eat your words on 01.01.12. LOL.

Comment by Laurie McCabe

You’ll see why 2012 won’t be like 2012.

Comment by Rob Mortimer

so why did they do it? the pp is too obvious and the nappies are not necessary for the plot, at least from what i can tell. i, for one, hate it if i see packshots or hear people talk about brands in movies or tv-shows, if they are not necessary for the plot. i guess many people know that a company paid one way or another to show up. id wager it is more effective (since less annoying), if the pp is done a bit more discreet… pp for nappies in this movie is just super strange.

Comment by peggy

how does it feel making all that effort with this post and getting fuck all comments?

welcome to my fucking world.

Comment by andy@cynic

It should feel normal for him shouldn’t it?

Comment by Billy Whizz

seems like a proof that anarchy doenst work on day one lol… where the heck s rob. he threw that post in, which left me assured that i do not want to watch that movie, wondering if p&g have found a new way to damage their competitor… and hes gone. probably still recovering from yesterday

Comment by peggy

Leave a Reply