Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by SCCutler, Jun 1, 2009.
Has that ever happened?
Not quite the same thing. The Sky Queen was a flying boat. She ditched next to a Coast Guard cutter and the crew on the cutter saw her ditch and were prepared for her. Not quite the same thing as searching the Atlantic for some rafts. However, much time has passed now and we know there were no survivors of the Air France flight. Tragic.
Finding survivors in life rafts? Sure, boat and plane catastrophes at sea in relatively warm (>68*F 20C) water will typically have survivors for at least several hours if not weeks and months. Remember the movie with Tom Hanks and his buddy Wilson; Cast Away, IIRC? That was a true story.
The Navtex receiver, a small 2.5" paper tape initial alerting unit for the GMDSS system, if left for world wide mode (which only a few companies do due to the serious paper requirements, but companies like Crowley did because we had fleet everywhere) goes off with an EPIRB/ELT/PLB in the ocean on average I'd say 4 times a day. I'd hazard to guess that 2 of those a week are typically small spotter and inter island aircraft & helicopters operating offshore jobs. Most of them will have survivors in rafts for awhile.
Really? When did FedEx crash a plane in the Pacific???
Not says "the internet"
Oh, I thought it was, okay, but there are still planes that have gone into the ocean with survivors like the Ethiopian Air that was hijacked and ditched out of fuel and crashed it fighting with the hijackers at the bottom.
Hmmm, if that story is fake, I wonder who paid whom how much to use FedEx's name in the movie...
FedEx received a lot of free advertising from that movie. It's a win win for the movie producers and the company.
The advertising isn't free. FedEx paid to have their name in the movie. It happens all the time in modern movies and the line of business is called "product placement". Advertisers know that viewers time shift, e.g. TiVo, past TV advertising. Product placement in Hollywood films is a way to get back in front of consumers.
If you look at old movies you will notice that they have few if any product placements.
Compare with some modern movies such as the Austin Powers film trio. Those movies go so far as to make a mockery of product placement but the companies still pay for the spots whether they are put in good light or bad. The advertisers have a say in the script.
The same thing happens in video games. You would be surprised to see what goes on behind the scene if, god forbid, someone makes a video game where vehicle brand A can go faster than vehicle brand B. The marketing folks get their underwear in wads and the letters start flying from their lawyers.
While I agree with that in economic principle and moral imperative, having spent nearly a decade around Hollywood sets providing and operating equipment, I can promise you, that's not how those people think lol. Fair and equitable win win means you left money on the table. Fed Ex gained nothing in reality since the exposure is all reinforcing exposure (nobody was initially exposed to FedEx as a company by the movie) and it is showing a huge loss of customer merchandise, some of it irreplaceable; not exactly a positive image especially when some audience members are left with the impression of it being a true story.
No no, I will guaranty there was a lot of dealing and a large sum of money changed hands, I'm just wondering who was top and who was bottom at the end of the f- fest...
When it comes to using the Fed-Ex trademark, Fed-Ex was on top and controlled its image. While there was lost merchandise the advertising moral of the story was that Fed-Ex employees don't forget the customer. That was the point of Tom Hanks hand delivering the surviving package.
There was another big product placement by Wilson sporting goods.
Every trademark that shows up in movies is there on purpose and via a product placement contract. Every single one without exception. The movie makers would not risk filming a movie only to have it shut down by a trademark owner over a beer can or cigarette pack or magazine cover or . . . anything no matter how inconsequential it might seem to a layman.
Here is an example of the hardball that the entertainment industry plays. A friend helped finance the following movie. It was shut down for using an unlicensed song. A layman might think that using the song was free advertising but that's not how it works. For these amateur film makers it was live and learn. Hollywood execs are beyond live and learn, they have exotic cars to pay for and can't afford mistakes.
I'm done. I'm guilty of drifting this thread too far from the tragedy that it tries to prevent. Sorry.
From one of the biggest airline disasters in history to movie product placement. The award for biggest thread creep has a new winner.
Meh. They are called threads for a reason.
HAH! You think it is digression and creep but before this thread ends Hollywood will be mentioned again after the movies start coming out and how the story will alter to fit the sponsor's wants will be the topic then.... It's all related baby.
Any bets if the movie version of the drinks and displayed products will be accurate to an AF flight originating in Rio or what they get from highest bidder in a market?
What's missing from those stories is the rest of the story. Fed-Ex controlled the script with respect to their brand. Control can happen at least two ways. 1) A writer had a feel for the industry and wrote stuff that Fed-Ex approved or, 2) A clueless writer got schooled by his superiors after Fed-Ex's brand managers complained.
The hokey story about Fed-Ex's CEO saying golly gee willakers, Hollywood did a good job, let's leave them alone, simply doesn't hold water. If that is his perception then fine. He's clueless. The fact is that his brand managers tweaked the story before he saw it.
I wasn't there but I know how these turds get polished.
I'll watch and report. We always try to get on AF when going to Europe. Real food, real silverware and half bottles of wine.
Trick is, if they are accurate to the AF placements, I don't think they have to pay for the use.
A trip on The Big One is coming up next week...
The movie makers will have to make decision. If they take the angle that the movie is a documentary, i.e. fact, then they have some liberty with respect to fair use. The tradeoff is that they will enjoy lesser protection in copyright law.
One can bet that Air France wants nothing to do with movie. I have a hard time imagining anyone that would want their brand on the airplane with maybe the exception of the black box manufacturer.
My guess is that it will end up being a made for TV piece of garbage. The movie makers will have a blurb at the beginning saying that the movie is "based on" fact to try and give them some credibility. Then they will add some love story plot to nudge the film into the fiction realm and enjoy greater copyright protection. The depicted airline won't resemble any existing airline. There might be some brands associated with the love story. Maybe a booze company or Hallmark e-cards or some crap.
Just my guess.
Nothing they can do about that though...
You're most likely correct WRT the movie outcome.
I'm having trouble imagining the movie. There are no survivors. Who is the hero?
There might be more of a story from the perspective of the airplane hunters that found the wreck.
I doubt a movie either except for a documentary showing how all the small deficiencies in design, selection, training combined into this situation where a small single point electronic failure could cascade into a complete loss.
Report out today-ish.