E.T Sequel...kinda. (1 Viewer)

[Bryan^H]

I’m on Colin’s side. I’m disgusted that E.T. was used in this way, especially for a company as rotten as Comcast. I’m disappointed Spielberg signed off on this idea. He will not do a real sequel but, will let greedy corporations cash in on his creation!?

Spielberg probably got a few easy million$ for signing off on the idea. At this point I have completely given up on Spielberg ever making a truly great film again ( "Saving Private Ryan' being his last great film IMO). I haven't loved anything Spielberg has done in about 20 years, so this commercial doesn't bother me from that standpoint.
It tarnishes nothing, and just signifies how powerful, and imaginative his early films (like E.T.) actually were.

 

[MatthewA]

It is not irrelevant when they spend the whole commercial doing so. It's not like Comcast has a monopoly on telecommunications.

This time he comes for vacation and clearly had plans to go home afterward, so he didn't really need to phone home...

People, or in this case aliens, don't only phone home out of need. Sometimes they do so because they want to. And this contradicts the claim that they just copied the original film beat-for-beat if he's back by choice.

You still failed to demonstrate how this any crasser than the product placement in the original film and all the advertising related to it is not. "It was new then" does not wash because older movies than this are still being merchandised.

They're not selling "ET" - they're trying to convince Gen Xers like me to switch to Comcast!

They're also promoting NBC and Universal, the studio who made E.T. They're selling the whole company.

Spielberg was on board as a consultant, so it shows they were serious about at least making it look right. It was born out of the same love and affection for the film you claim to have. I would be more offended if, say, they used Jaws characters to sell toothpaste.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

People, or in this case aliens, don't only phone home out of need. Sometimes they do so because they want to. And this contradicts the claim that they just copied the original film beat-for-beat if he's back by choice.

Okay, Straw Man. I never claimed they "copied the original film beat-for-beat" - I claimed they used scenes from the original and recreated them.

It's a greatest hits reel of "ET" scenes.

And one would assume that an advanced alien species doesn't need some kid's freaking cell phone to call his mates - not when he's here intentionally. One assumes the dude would learn from his mistakes!

You still failed to demonstrate how this any crasser than the product placement in the original film and all the advertising related to it is not. "It was new then" does not wash because older movies than this are still being merchandised.

One more time: the use of RP in the movie didn't exist to sell product. It's an integral aspect of the movie.

But nothing I do to "demonstrate" will matter to you. You're convinced that the use of RP in the original movie is just the same as a commercial 37 years later that recreates the movie to sell Comcast.

Good luck with that, hoss!

 

[MartinP.]

I have to ask some of you, knowing this was a commercial, and don't tell me you didn't, and not liking that idea, why did you watch it?

E.T. commercials are not a new thing, by the way. I just searched on youtube and there's a playlist of 28 of them. (Some have been deleted.)

I don't mind subtle product placement in films. Subtle. It's realistic. Even though many complained about it, it was even very clever in Back to the Future II. A Black & Decker Pizza Hydrator--that's hysterical! And this isn't recent, it's always been around. There's product placement for Lipton Tea in 1933's Best Picture winner, Cavalcade, for example.

So many things bother people. Reminds me of one of Lily Tomlin's lines: "Man learned to talk because of his deep inner need to complain."

 

[MatthewA]

Okay, Straw Man. I never claimed they "copied the original film beat-for-beat" - I claimed they used scenes from the original and recreated them.

It's a greatest hits reel of "ET" scenes.

And one would assume that an advanced alien species doesn't need some kid's freaking cell phone to call his mates - not when he's here intentionally. One assumes the dude would learn from his mistakes!



One more time: the use of RP in the movie didn't exist to sell product. It's an integral aspect of the movie.

But nothing I do to "demonstrate" will matter to you. You're convinced that the use of RP in the original movie is just the same as a commercial 37 years later that recreates the movie to sell Comcast.

Good luck with that, hoss!

Tomato, tomahto.

Nothing in this commercial actually alters the audio and video content of the original. Nothing. How is this as bad or worse than altering the actual film? That, to me, is a far greater insult to the film than a commercial such as this because it involves a change to the actual film itself. It is no longer the same film the world fell in love with.

And as for post-1982 technology, how would E.T. even know about any of this if he had not come back to Earth anyway? Everything he learned about Earth, he learned about the Earth of 1982. How else would he have learned about technologies that came into existence since then?

If the original film didn't want to sell product, they wouldn't have gone to a company for permission to use it. That may not have been the intent, but it sure was the effect and the sales prove it. If Spielberg had just wanted to use generic unbranded candy, he would have. It made a difference enough for him to go to the candy company personally.

And they didn't just promote Reese's Pieces. Elliott showing Star Wars toys to E.T. was no less of a product placement, even if it was to acknowledge the special relationship between Lucas and Spielberg. Purely in filmmaking terms, I think Spielberg is the superior director but Lucas did more to change the game for movie technology.

So many things bother people. Reminds me of one of Lily Tomlin's lines: "Man learned to talk because of his deep inner need to complain."

And the year before E.T., Lily made The Incredible Shrinking Woman, also for Universal, where she started shrinking because of too many consumer products that aren't good for you. That was supposed to be more satirical and less kid-friendly. But I digress.

 

[Mark-P]

This thread has gotten so off-topic. Sometimes I think you guys don't even know what product placement is. You seem to think every time a brand is shown on camera, it is product placement. It's only when a company PAYS for its product to be used is it product placement. When filmmakers use real brands to enhance the realism of their story and avoid the fakery of pretend brands, it is not product placement. Yes they still have to get permission to use those brands because the companies have a right to not have their products shown in ways in which they don't approve. But granting permission and even getting the benefit of free advertising does not equate to product placement.

 

[MatthewA]

Either way, Spielberg could have put a stop to it but didn't. He got more input than Lucas seems to have on the most recent Star Wars films. And it's hard to get too upset about this after too many MouseCorp sequels that failed miserably to live up to the originals. The world has changed since E.T. came out, and whatever their intentions were, I thought it was kind of cute to see how he would react to the changes. And seeing Elliott as a father is especially poignant considering how his own father walked out on the family in the original.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I’ve just watched it. Yeah, it’s a commercial but I thought they went easy with it. If ET returned, sure you’d show him the internet. I loved the 3D goggle bit. Instead of complaining about crass commercialism, I’m going to thank the producers for bringing back ET for a brief moment.

This brief moment warmed up my heart-light. What power the story retains. Nice to see Henry has grown up into a handsome man.

For those that think it’s crass commercialism, all I can say to you is “Bah, Humbug!”.

 

[Radioman970]

Next I wanna see Max go back to the island for more rumpus! (watched that yesterday)

 

[MartinP.]

If the original film didn't want to sell product, they wouldn't have gone to a company for permission to use it. That may not have been the intent, but it sure was the effect and the sales prove it.

SIDEBAR:

In one case it worked in reverse, too. The local Market Basket grocery chain in SoCal, sold a store brand of potato salad in a small plastic tub, which I bought on occasion. I still remember one day watching a local newscaster report that the store was discontinuing the item due to slumping sales. Reportedly due to the fact it's the item E.T. pulls out of the refrigerator and sticks his tongue in and doesn't like it and tosses it aside. Kids didn't want it because E.T. didn't like it.

Still, how kids could really tell that was Market Basket Potato Salad is beyond me. But I do remember hearing that on the news back then and probably because it was a product I bought.

 

[MatthewA]

In one case it worked in reverse, too. The local Market Basket grocery chain in SoCal, sold a store brand of potato salad in a small plastic tub, which I bought on occasion. I still remember one day watching a local newscaster report that the store was discontinuing the item due to slumping sales. Reportedly due to the fact it's the item E.T. pulls out of the refrigerator and sticks his tongue in and doesn't like it and tosses it aside. Kids didn't want it because E.T. didn't like it.

He also drank Coors beer. See how many recognizable brand names you can find in this scene:

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I have to ask some of you, knowing this was a commercial, and don't tell me you didn't, and not liking that idea, why did you watch it?

Curiosity. It got lots of attention and as a fan of the movie, I was intrigued to see it.

E.T. commercials are not a new thing, by the way. I just searched on youtube and there's a playlist of 28 of them. (Some have been deleted.)

Didn't say this was the first one. I know it's not.

Might be the first that tries to play as a mini-sequel, though...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Tomato, tomahto.

Nothing in this commercial actually alters the audio and video content of the original. Nothing. How is this as bad or worse than altering the actual film? That, to me, is a far greater insult to the film than a commercial such as this because it involves a change to the actual film itself. It is no longer the same film the world fell in love with.

Yet another straw man. Where did I discuss alterations to the film itself? You're making weird arguments with yourself at this point...

And as for post-1982 technology, how would E.T. even know about any of this if he had not come back to Earth anyway? Everything he learned about Earth, he learned about the Earth of 1982. How else would he have learned about technologies that came into existence since then?

Who cares? Why do we need a story in which ET learns about 21st century tech?

If the original film didn't want to sell product, they wouldn't have gone to a company for permission to use it. That may not have been the intent, but it sure was the effect and the sales prove it. If Spielberg had just wanted to use generic unbranded candy, he would have. It made a difference enough for him to go to the candy company personally.

"Product placement" means the manufacturer pays to have the product used in a movie. "ET" used RP for a sense of realism vs. some made-up or generic. Spielberg wasn't concerned with selling candy.

And they didn't just promote Reese's Pieces. Elliott showing Star Wars toys to E.T. was no less of a product placement, even if it was to acknowledge the special relationship between Lucas and Spielberg.

Again, that's not product placement anymore than the scene from "Quiet Man" was. It was a tip of the hat and not there to move toys.

I think it's a tacky ad. You disagree. Awesome, but stop trying to argue with me about points I never made...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

SIDEBAR:

In one case it worked in reverse, too. The local Market Basket grocery chain in SoCal, sold a store brand of potato salad in a small plastic tub, which I bought on occasion. I still remember one day watching a local newscaster report that the store was discontinuing the item due to slumping sales. Reportedly due to the fact it's the item E.T. pulls out of the refrigerator and sticks his tongue in and doesn't like it and tosses it aside. Kids didn't want it because E.T. didn't like it.

Still, how kids could really tell that was Market Basket Potato Salad is beyond me. But I do remember hearing that on the news back then and probably because it was a product I bought.

When was potato salad ever popular with kids?

 

[John Sparks]

Not all products in movies are product placement as has been discussed. Was on a movie once and mentioned to one of the grips if that can of Bud was a real can of beer. Yes it was, but only in the sense that it was full, but the name was spelled incorrectly, everything else on the can was identical to a real can of Bud. From a few feet away it was a can of Bud with the correct spelling until you held it and could see that one letter was wrong.

 

[MatthewA]

"Who cares?" is yet another dodge like the dodging of my question of how this is worse than actually altering the film. If The Karate Kid can get a whole TV series made a quarter century after the original franchise came to an end, E.T.'s legacy can and will survive a 3-minute commercial epilogue. By the standard of that non-argument, why do we need movies at all since you can't eat them, live in them, or wear them as clothes? I addressed your points, you rejected them outright. This sense of outrage is overblown.

And it's not like this is the most egregious reboot committed by any division of this company. Not by a long shot. This isn't even in the vicinity of that distinction.

Goalposts? What goalposts?

Not all products in movies are product placement as has been discussed. Was on a movie once and mentioned to one of the grips if that can of Bud was a real can of beer. Yes it was, but only in the sense that it was full, but the name was spelled incorrectly, everything else on the can was identical to a real can of Bud. From a few feet away it was a can of Bud with the correct spelling until you held it and could see that one letter was wrong.

Spielberg used real brands to create a sense of atmosphere, to create the feeling that these were everyday people just like you and me. If he didn't care, he would have just used generic non-branded products. There is nothing wrong with this ad that isn't also wrong with advertising in and of itself. As an ad for the actual film E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial, it is effective enough that I don't think it merits the kind of hostility some have shown to it.

 

[John Sparks]

"Who cares?" is yet another dodge like the dodging of my question of how this is worse than actually altering the film. If The Karate Kid can get a whole TV series made a quarter century after the original franchise came to an end, E.T.'s legacy can and will survive a 3-minute commercial epilogue. By the standard of that non-argument, why do we need movies at all since you can't eat them, live in them, or wear them as clothes? I addressed your points, you rejected them outright. This sense of outrage is overblown.

And it's not like this is the most egregious reboot committed by any division of this company. Not by a long shot. This isn't even in the vicinity of that distinction.

Goalposts? What goalposts?



Spielberg used real brands to create a sense of atmosphere, to create the feeling that these were everyday people just like you and me. If he didn't care, he would have just used generic non-branded products. There is nothing wrong with this ad that isn't also wrong with advertising in and of itself. As an ad for the actual film E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial, it is effective enough that I don't think it merits the kind of hostility some have shown to it.

My post was only an anecdote, nothing more.

 

[MatthewA]

But it was a useful anecdote nonetheless. Even if it the intent of including branded products isn't to advertise them, it still feels that way. If that's the way you want to go, then do it right.

 

[Osato]

Loved seeing the ad! They showed the full version during the Macy’s parade.

 

[Tommy R]

Very nice little short! Though Henry Thomas was recently arrested not far from where I work for a DUI, so that was on my mind while watching it, lol!