Entertainment desk
< December 24	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 26 >

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.

December 25

Why is there virtually ZERO product placement in Disney films? ^{(Ref: The Pacifier)}

In many other hit films, we get to see real-world products all over the place.

However, in Disney films like The Pacifier, even the automotive marque badges have to be pulled off the radiator grilles, and the Girl Scouts have to be renamed the Firefly Scouts.

Does the whole Marketing industry hate to be seen on Disney? Why exclude themselves from Disney films while being let seen in others? --66.142.220.234 (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary for Disney movies to take place in the "real world"? And I don't think "the marketing industry" is excluding itself from Disney movies...companies pay for advertising, the movie studio (or whoever) doesn't pay them. If the movie doesn't need their money, there's no need to place products in it. I'm sure Disney can afford to pay for its own movies. If you're just talking about whether it interrupts the story as you're watching it, then sometimes an obvious change can be jarring, although it signifies that this is not "real" (as with "Firefly Scouts"). But conspicuous product placement can also be jarring. The last Star Trek movie, for example, had Nokia phones; and Transformers was essentially a three-hour car advertisement with a very loose plot. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to hazard a guess, the product they are placing is themselves - Disney leverages it's creative output in a myriad of ways - merchandise, theme parks, video prequels, toys - 3rd party product placement would distract from the promotion of the Disney brand itself. Exxolon (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was going to be my guess also. Who needs money from General Mills or General Motors when you've got the Disney label going for you? The purpose of product placement is to bring money in. Disney may well feel that they (1) don't need the money and/or (2) don't need to kiss up to the conditions demanded by would-be product places (as suggested below). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For legal reasons, a movie needs to get clearance to show any real world products (since showing them in a negative light could potentially damage the brand, providing the basis for a lawsuit). One famous example is that the movie ET was supposed to feature M&M's, but they couldn't get legal clearance quickly enough, so they used Reese's_Pieces, instead, which would give them such clearance. (I'm not sure if this story is true or not.) So, to avoid the hassle and cost of getting legal clearances, some studios choose to avoid showing any real-world products, instead.

One other thought, perhaps Disney is afraid of a parental boycott if they start pushing junk food or other no-no's onto their young audiences in their movies. StuRat (talk) 04:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe their preferred aesthetic doesn't involve commercial imagery. Bus stop (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, perhaps the OP's premise is false, or else items like this might explain why (or if) they have stopped doing product placement:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if they intend to charge for product placement, they may not want to show any products for free, and that could lead to some rather silly ways to hide those product names. StuRat (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the funniest credit I've ever seen, other than intentionally funny credits like at the end of the Airplane and Naked Gun movies, was buried somewhere in the seemingly endless closing credits of Superman (1978): "Cheerios by General Mills." That was just in case you missed the prominently placed Cheerios box that Ma Kent was pouring from, at breakfast on the farm. Doubly funny is that everyone knows Superman ate Kellogg's cereals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The funniest credit I saw was at the end of Elvis Has Left the Building, about a serial killer who goes after Elvis impersonators. It said "No actual Elvi were harmed during the making of this film". StuRat (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I'm not sure that the question's premise is true. The "Toy Story" series is packed with product placement. Perhaps their fantasy titles don't lend themselves to marketing real-world products, but you can't tell me that the the recent Tinker Bell films weren't designed to move merchandise. APL (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have successfully demolished the OP's original assertion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But wasn't Toy Story animated entirely by Pixar and only distributed by Disney? Googlemeister (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, And of course, Tron Legacy featured a number of product placements before the jump to The Grid. (Apple, Coors, Nokia, Ducati,...), whether these were paid placements or non-paid ones, I don't know. APL (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The probability of non-paid placements in a film is rather low. It's even possible that Coca-Cola paid to use their name in Dr. Strangelove, though I kind of doubt it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that's not true. There are lots of non-paid placements. They're not always completely 'innocent' though. They often happen because of long-standing ~~arraignments~~arrangement between studios and companies. On the other hand Some are pretty innocent. Supposedly Coors wound up onscreen because the director liked the way the golden can worked with that shot's yellowish lighting. Here are a couple of refs specifically about Tron : [2] [3].APL (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL @ "long-standing arraignments" ... being read so many charges, in front of the judge, that your legs get tired ? StuRat (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Your honor, I'll plead guilty to 1st degree spell-check abuse if you just let me go sit down! APL (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar adjustment

Well, I am having some trouble with my second hand Signature acoustic guitar.What I'm experiencing is that...the strings 6,5 and 3 (E, A and G) touch my frets,. What do i do??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.7.170 (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's steel-stringed, you could loosen the truss rod (which may be hidden inside the sound hole, or behind a plate at the other end of the neck). If it's nylon-stringed, it won't have one. Another possibility is to try and raise the nut by detaching it, slipping something underneath it, and applying glue, but the only time I tried this procedure I in fact broke the nut and had to carve a new one (from an ebony chopstick since you ask), so it depends how much you value your guitar, and there may well be a less stupid option I hadn't thought of. 213.122.62.89 (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spend $40 and have a professional do it. If you live near a major metro area, you likely have a store like Sam Ash or Guitar Center, or an independent luthier who can perform routine maintenance like this. If you're the kind of person who changes your own oil in your car and does your own plumbing, you could possibly adjust the action yourself. If not, its a cheap sort of thing that the professionals casn do for you. They can also install new strings, recondition the wood, and get it up into playing order for you for what is usually not a bad price. --Jayron32 21:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if this seems over-obvious, but many guitars have mechanisms to adjust the height of each end of the bridge which you may have overlooked: if so, raising the low-E end slightly may well solve the problem. Lower/heavier strings vibrate over a wider displacement than higher/lighter strings, so they need a little more room (a "higher action"), which any decent guitar will be designed to give them. Such adjustments are commonly catered for because, as you may know, different sets of strings can be heavier or lighter overall, depending on personal preference, and one generally wants the action to be as low as possible without fouling the frets. (I am assuming an acoustic guitar, by the way - electric guitars commonly have means of adjusting each string's bridge point individually.)

Raising the nut a little (after loosening off the strings) either evenly or a little more on the low-string side, as 213 suggested above, should also be possible (and may help) as the nut should not be fixed by glue - the strings' tension should be enough to keep it in place. Unlike with the bridge, the material used to shim up a nut is not so critical as it is not transmitting the strings' vibrations to the body as the bridge does. Alternatively, a suitable, slightly higher replacement nut should be easily (and relatively cheaply) obtainable from a general music shop or luthier. (You may need to file down its bottom edge to get optimum height and slope.)

It's possible that the problem is not caused by incorrect bridge or nut adjustment, but by either the lifting of some of the frets or by warping in the neck. Detecting and correcting raised frets is do-able but by no means easy, and a warped neck is definitely a luthier's job. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

looking for linda sorenson in cyberchase

can someone please find me the episode of cyberchase with Linda Sorenson in it? thanks, marry christmas. N.I.M. (talk) 07:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry

How many Christmas episodes of Tom and Jerry have there ever been made?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See List of Tom and Jerry cartoons. --Jayron32 21:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevent metadiscussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

That list doesn't take into account the various Tom and Jerry television shows which have been made over the years. Including them, there are way more than the 162 epicoes the article you linked to describes. Also, please try not to bite the newbies in your edit summaries 87.142.63.36 (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Bowie Huang isn't a newbie. Unless being around since about 2007 counts as "newbie" 2) The article I link contains additional links to the TV shows in question. --Jayron32 21:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of their edits are to the sandbox. It seems evident that they aren't a seasoned and experienced editor. It's the spirit of WP:BITE which matters, not the length of time they've been on Wikipedia. 87.142.63.36 (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This account is not his only account. He's been a very active editor for as long time. Many Wikipedians know him quite well. He is neither new nor inexperienced. --Jayron32 23:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Question

I love wikipedia. such a large helpful information database and i respect those who work on it. I want to make an article about my book/world but realize wikipedia is reserved for more imortant things. Where could I write such an article and actually get it posted? My book IS published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.69.86.179 (talk) 12:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an article about yourself is a conflict of interest, for one thing. Secondly, it would need to pass a certain level of notability (WP:NOTABILITY) before an article would be justified. In other words, the book would have to receive a large amount of coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the source (e.g., someone other than you). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original poster is asking about sites other than Wikipedia, not rules for posting on Wikipedia. One obvious suggestion is "Well, start your own web site". Perhaps someone can provide references for that. --Anonymous, 20:11 UTC, December 25, 2010.

If the book is notable, you could request an article to be written about it here Jarkeld (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Chzz ► 03:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]