Blue Velvet : Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

The amount of time that they say the word "HEINEKEN" in this movie, as well as show off logos of the beer bottle, is ridiculous. Just look at this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah1ijGvurVA

Obviously Lynch must have gotten a buttload of money for product placement in this movie. What do you think? I doubt that he is such a huge fan of Heineken that he would do something like this otherwise.

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

Zero dollars.

Lynch does NOT place products in his films for compensation.

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

Are you KIDDING ME? Then what is that!? Not only do they SAY Heineken five times but you also get to SEE the beer being comfortable placed in front of the camera on several occasions.

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

A joke? A funny way of emphasizing the different worlds Jeffery and Frank Booth were living in, Pabst Blue Ribbon being this cheap, trashy "blue collar beer" and all. And do you seriously think Heineken would have paid Lynch any money, knowing he´s giving the same treatment to another brand of beer?



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

Perhaps the OP is too young to understand the world and motivations of an older guy like David Lynch.

Can anyone here seriously picture David Lynch going around to Heinekin, Bock, Amstel and Molson and saying, "hey, I'm making a movie about a confused young guy who is trying to define himself by his beer choice, mystery investigation and twisted sexual deviance. Give me a million and Jeffrey will say YOUR beer name in my movie".

I can't see a beer label champing at the bit to be a part of a movie in the vein of Eraserhead, Dune and Elephant Man.

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

Perhaps you are too much of a fanboy/jackass to consider the possibility that a movie director whom you have never met and don't personally know whatsover - Could do something for the money.

Claiming that this is yet another "artistic brilliance" of David Lynch pretty much shows that it is the fans alone who make him into some kind of genius - Not the reality itself, and not his actions themselves. I see what you're saying, believe me, I just think it's completely ridiculous to take it for granted that it isn't product placement.

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

Lynch on product placement in films:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4wh_mc8hRE

He answers the question himself.

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

If it is *beep* then why do they mention the word "Heineken" 7 times in this movie and flash the logo a few times?

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

Product placement implies some sort of compensation. Why is it such a stretch that Lynch might use actual brands in his films for reasons other than a pay day? You might want to think about why Lynch chose those brands and what it says about the characters who prefer them. If he chose a fictitious name, he wouldn't be able to communicate that kind of subtle detail.

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

That's interesting. Although sorry but Im not a big beer drinker, you're welcome to explain how a brand of beer could possibly say anything about anybody's personality?

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

It has already been explained to you, but you´re obviously too much in love with listening to yourself drone to take notice of it or any other disagreeing arguments.

And, yes, "Heineken? F-ck that sh-t!" does indeed sound like one helluva slogan, guaranteed to double the sales.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

Blue Ribbon is a trashy cheap beer to illustrate that Frank is a working class man.. While Heineken is... fancy?

You do realize that what you tried to explain to me sounds far-fetched and ridiculous? So I would like to hear it be explained more in-depth or in a different light to understand how it is some form of artistic brilliance. If you think that you have a point then you should elaborate on it instead of making pathetic insults hoping that your penis is going to get bigger, you jackass. If Im genuinely asking for an explanation you should want to discuss instead of acting like a child.

Now, as I said before, it is too far-fetched and nonsensical to make sense. There wasn't any indication towards Frank being working class, he was a CRIMINAL and a gangster. That's not working class. In fact, Frank looked quite well off in his suits. In comparison to the other guy.

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

"In-depth"... lol.

But, either way, none of that is "far fetched". On the other hand, what IS far fetched, is your irrational contention that Heineken would pay money for their product being advertised with lines like "Heineken - f-ck that sh-t" in a film about sexual perversion which also simultaneously "advertises" another brand of beer. And that David Lynch, with his well known negative attitude towards product placement, would go for such a deal. In fact, that´s not only far fetched, but downright nonsensical.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

I see you refuse to elaborate on your schizophrenic claim and instead can't stop masturbating to irrelevant personal attacks. Fine. We can play that game.

What you just said is downright dumb and lacking of any sense. Any advertisement mogul knows that all publicity is good publicity. Yes, they say "F Heineken" ONCE, but the other FIVE TIMES it's not anything negative. And the ONE time that Heineken is mentioned in a negative context it is by the rapist villain of the film, which hardly puts it in a negative light anyways right?

It is in fact pathetic that you would focus on ONE time out of FIVE to try and make some kind of point about how "oh it's all just negative publicity they're getting". Please, kid, do you seriously think that the advertisement companies give a *beep* about what kind of moral content that is in the movie? All they care about is whether it's gonna be a big seller or not and considering that David Lynch has his name on this, it is.

A film about sexual perversion? Hardly. It's a drawn out drama with a few sex scenes. There isn't anything extreme about this movie at all, once again - Advertisement companies hardly care about anything but money. If this was "A Serbian Film" or "Salo" that we are talking about, you MIGHT have had a point.

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

I think there´s something wrong with you.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

Then you should feel ashamed that a "freak" was able to convey their arguments in a more solid way then you could ever try to attempt yourself. This entire conversation has been nothing but you hiding beneath wittyness instead of addressing the subject matter.

Safe to say were done here.

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

Lynch must have made a killing off this movie.

Don't forget that it was also discussed that Sandy's father drank Bud, "the king of beers."

Remember in the late 80s all the college kids going as Frank Booth for Halloween? "F!ck that sh!t Pabst Blue Ribbon!" That was all the rage back then. People often went in pairs - preppy Jeffrey Beaumont, with a bloody face, drinking Heineken, and Frank Booth with the gas mask and PBR. I remember seeing those costumes at Walmart. You do too I'm sure. Don't think for a second that Lynch wasn't compensated, generously.

Rumor also has it that Lynch demanded compensation in advance from all 3 beer companies (which wasn't a problem given his power status in the industry), but he kept the actual script of the movie secret until its release. Each company assumed their beer would be featured exclusively in the movie. Imagine the shock at the premiere!! Lynch was a cunning businessman, of course, and his lawyers were well prepared and well compensated.

There are no secrets about all of this. I'm surprised its being debated at all.

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

It's weird that everyone ignored your message.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?


do you seriously think that the advertisement companies give a *beep* about what kind of moral content that is in the movie?

Yes, yes they do. No company is going to pay to have their product associated with murdering rapists. This is why horror films almost never have product placement. Don't remember seeing Jigsaw chugging down a coke while his victims die horribly, do you?
All publicity isn't good publicity if it makes potential buyers think of disturbing sexual assault scenes when they hear your product name. Any advertisement mogul knows that.

No company is going to pay for their product to be advertised alongside their competitors either, unless the message is that their product is superior. This was not the case in Blue Velvet.

And to go back to an earlier point, it's not at all ridiculous that beer is an identity commodity. Have you been to college? Notice how the different types of students drink different beer from eachother and make faces at the wrong type? It's not just a taste thing. Heineken is imported and way more expensive. Jeffrey might think that it makes him classy or cultured or cool, but Frank's crew probably think it makes him prissy. Pabst is cheap and blue collar, and currently associated with hipsters (though it wouldn't have been when this was made). There's all kinds of bullcrap perceptions about what your beer brand says about you.
It seems to me he was making a point both about that, and product placement itself. Note how they even throw out the budweiser slogan verbatim.

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?


by franzkabuki» On the other hand, what IS far fetched, is your irrational contention that Heineken would pay money for their product being advertised with lines like "Heineken - f-ck that sh-t" in a film about sexual perversion which also simultaneously "advertises" another brand of beer.


I think it would be pretty smart for Heineken to pay for placement in a situation that says their beer is for the 'better thought of guy' and simultaneously stating a major competitor is for those less educated and maybe less likely to enjoy a movie that isn't for everyone. Paid or not, the idea is far from nonsensical.

Life is like Wikipedia: There are no Facts, Just Popular Opinion

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

Hey teryolawwashere, maybe I can make some sense of it.

Heineken is imported (speaking from an American perspective, as is that of the film), and is considered by most beer enthusiasts to be subpar when it comes to top shelf brews. Frankly, it's the beer that high school and college kids begin drinking when they want to break out of the Bud/Coors/Miller/etc mold and into the world of quality beer that isn't made for pure 'drinkability,' i.e., made to taste watered down so that's it's easier to drink large quantities of it. Jefferey was in the middle of exploring this as a college kid, showing that even though he moves further down the beer aisle (though not yet all the way), he passes by the lowest common denominator beers such as Bud, which he admits is the 'King of Beers' probably because it sells the most (at least probably then), rather than because it actually is the king as its advertisements once proclaimed. It's like when people say such-and-such Hollywood blockbuster is better than a David Lynch/Coen Bros./et al movie because it made a ton of cash by, once again, appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Bud is the flashiest and most advertised (at least in the 80s) of the cheap beers, yet Frank has found PBR to be his brand. The fact that Det. Williams drinks Bud is hinting at the fact that he's the all-American cop dad who unwinds with the 'King of Beers' and no less. PBR may be geared toward the tastes of the working class, but it is also the type of brand that hipster types go for. I'm not saying that Frank is a hipster; like you said, he's a criminal, but there is something to having Frank go for PBR, Williams for Bud, and Jefferey for Heineken. Each choice is in fact appropriate to the respective characters.

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

Frank Booth: devil.gif What kind of beer do you like?
Jeffrey Beaumont: cry.gif Heineken.
Frank Booth: angry10.gif [shouting] Heineken? F@#* that s#&@ Pabst Blue Ribbon!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090756/trivia?tab=qt&ref_=tt_trv_qu

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

Maybe....just maybe, Lynch doesn't like Heineken and likes Pabst Blue Ribbon. haha. Is that so hard to comprehend?

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

Kind of counter productive to advertise TWO brands of beer in the same movie, don´t you think?



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

Agreed.

Heineken? *beep* that s****! PABST. BLUE. RIBBON!

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

OP you dont get it do you ?
He is using the beer names as a satire to product placement and how full of shet it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4wh_mc8hRE

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

Strange that Heineken would want a character in the movie to completely trash their product in favor of PBR. But, hell, those lines in the movie are the finest. Because....SO TRUE!!!!

We'll take a PBR (old recipe - not the new trash) any day over Heineken.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

It's pretty obvious from reading this thread that you really just came here to knock the movie and it's fans, but I will take the bait just to put this to bed.

First off, you don't have to be a beer connoisseur to know that Heineken promotes their product as being a "classy" beer, and that PBR is one of the cheapest beers out there. This is one of the many ways he frames the two characters. Not everything has to be "genius". I think this is pretty clear cut.

I also thinks he uses the beers as a slap in the face to product placement. It almost appears as though he wants his viewers to think that Heineken is being showcased, before Hopper's character trashes it. From the video that was posted it is obvious he has an opinion on the subject. It also goes along with one of the general themes to the movie that not everything is as it seems.

If David Lynch was worried about making more money, I'm sure his career would have gone a lot differently. Regardless of whether you think his movies are complete crap or genuine masterpieces, it is obvious that he cares deeply for his artistic integrity, and makes movies that he wants to do.

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

^ This.

I’d also add:

BV satirizes idyllic suburban hometown USA, more specifically the effects alcohol has on society.
Not only do the brands of beer represent the difference between the blue collar
Democrat (a domestic beer) and the outsourcing Republican (an imported beer).
But the product recognition trademarks of Heineken* and Papst’ blue ribbon
is a reversal of the colors to American's Stars and Stripes.


Budweiser: “The King of Beers”, may have been mentioned to mock the choice
of a free society to allow the tyranny of alcohol to control them.


^ Simply my interpretation.

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

"between the blue collar
Democrat (a domestic beer) and the outsourcing Republican (an imported beer)."

Now that Trump is winning the Republican party primary I wonder if you would still associate Republicans with importing.

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

The beer that Jeffrey Beaumont drinks is used to show how different he is from the rest of the town. Everyone in the town drinks classic American beers, (Budweiser, PBR...) but he doesn't care and drinks the beer that he wants.

This is the reason why he is the only one that is determined to find out about the criminal underworld in his town. Everyone else is fine turning their heads away, but he wants to pay attention to it.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

i have worked with brands like Heinekin and there is not a hope in Hell that they would be party to a film which includes the line "Heinekin, *beep* that *beep* as vigorously asserted by Dennis Hopper/Frank...

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

To me, it's obvious that the choice to include so many name brand products is directly correlated with Lynch's portrayal of corny, superficial, Leave it to Beaver, small-town American suburbia. For instance, Budweiser's catch phrase, "The king of beers", is lifted straight out of a television commercial. I think Lynch's intent was to portray Lumbertown exactly like a 1950's television show - happy endings, corny sayings, product placements and all - similar to the satire in The Truman Show. I think David Lynch places a lot of faith in his audience's ability to pick up on his witty subtext - sometimes moviegoers have trouble with this. I can understand how one would think that this is product placement - it's meant to emulate product placement, like, to the Nth degree. This movie needs to be viewed with the proper mental lens/filter.

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

exactly....

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

Yeah, show me Lynch's contract with heineken or similar hard evidence and we'll talk. Until then you're obviously just completely pulling this out of you're a**

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

Jesus christ, are you people still arguing about this *beep* I forgot about this topic long ago.

Look, you all make compelling points. Im open to the notion that it wasn't product placement.

Though there is one thing Im surprised EVERYONE in this damn thread managed to conveniently ignore. What this guy is saying: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090756/board/thread/203716284?d=204777848#204777848

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

I think we all ignored it because it was a joke.

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

Well, that is what it is... but douchebag hipsters wouldn't even give a *beep* about Pabst if it hadn't been for this movie.

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?


douchebag hipsters wouldn't even give a *beep* about Pabst if it hadn't been for this movie.
^This.


I’m surrounded by a cesspool of activity.

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

"HEINEKEN?"

*beep* That SH*t, Pabst Blue Ribbon!"


Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

I doubt any respected company would want their name associated with a movie as deranged as this.

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

Well, they did reeeeeeeally want to use the Vinton song...

From the trivia:

"The producers did not want to pay the rights for including the original recording of Bobby Vinton's song "Blue Velvet". So Angelo Badalamenti was brought in to record a new version that sounded exactly like the old one. After Badalamenti delivered, the filmmakers invited Vinton into a studio to re-record vocals for his famous song. It had to be arranged two and a half keys lower because of Bobby's changed vocal range. David Lynch heard the new recording, liked it, but thought that it would not work as well as the original version and finally convinced the producers to shell out the extra money for using it."

Just saying! :P

On a serious note though, it's amazing how nobody in this thread actually knows the truth (including myself), but how far people go with their explanations in order to protect Lynch's genius. I think he's great, but am completely open to both sides of the story, whether it was done for money, or for artistic choice. We just don't know!

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

I fail to see any analogy between the Vinton anecdote, serious or not serious, and the product placement debate.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

You must have missed the last 13 words then.

Anyway, it was a lighthearted comment, and my following statement still stands!

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

There is a none too subtle difference between giving out money in order to secure something deemed necessary by the director for aesthetic purposes on one hand and whoring your film out to breweries in order to 'make' money on the other.

As for the statements that stand... this one doesn't seem to do so too well because common sense would dictate that a) it's a considerable stretch to imagine any beer brand would be terribly interested in being associated with a rather deranged film about mutilation and sexual perversion and b) it is blatantly absurd to postulate that two competing beer brands would pay for their simultaneous exposure within the same film.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

Re: Product placement. How much do you think Lynch got paid?

I don't know the real reason Heineken is mentioned in the movie several times, but what David Lynch has indirectly taught me through his films is all about "symbolism and art and stuff." Having a real brand of beer ads a sense of reality to the story, creates a contrasting stereotype between Jeffrey and Frank, and it certainly isn't unheard of (especially from such an artistic director) to make Pop Art, like Andy Warhol painting a bunch of Soup Cans. "What do you think? He probably got paid about 1000 bucks a can?" "No way! They paid Richard Sherman 2 million to sip on some soup without gagging and look like an idiot for 45 seconds."
I just don't see it from Lynch, not that I know him or anything, just saying.
Top