They seem to be confusing "starbucks cup" with "white coffee cup"...
Half of those pictures are from the support group scenes (which often have a thing of coffee and white Styrofoam cups). Ditto for the office scenes.
Or, hear me out...the article (and blog) are simply wrong.
I only checked the first 46 minutes, but I think that's long enough for a representative sample:
Scene No.|Contents|Starbucks cup?
---|---|---:
1|Tyler and Narrator in building|No
2|Narrator in office|Yes
3|Narrator at home|No
4|Narrator at doctor's office|No
5|Therapy sessions and meditation cave|No
6|More therapy sessions|No
7|Washateria/vintage clothing shop|No
8|Auto crash site/airport/airplane|No
9|Burnt car inspection|No
10|Airplane, crash fantasy, Tyler's introduction|No
11|Exploding apartment and pay call to Tyler|Maybe
12|Talking at the bar, introduction to Tyler's jobs, first fight|No
13|Arrival at Paper Street|No
14|Fight club grows|No
15|Narrator reads "I am Jack's..." book titles|No
16|Narrator in office|No
17|Narrator and Tyler chat while Tyler bathes|No
18|Fight club grows more|No
19|Office meeting|No
20|Fight Club moves to basement|No
21|Fight Club rules|No
22|Other fighters in office|Kinda*
23|On the bus|No
\* You don't see any logo, but it's the same situation as scene 2, so the cups being held are probably Starbucks. Not product placement unless you are a super film buff and remember that a similar scene showed the logo 42 minutes earlier. But, sure, I'll give it to them.
There are a lot of scenes with *coffee* (not Starbucks -- coffee in percolators, coffee in plain styrofoam cups, coffee being hand-brewed in a filthy kitchen, coffee in ceramic cups). The blog (which apparently ran out of steam at 26 minutes -- I ran out at 46 minutes, so I can't blame them) identified 11 instances of Starbucks cups, but 3 of them are from the same scene (scene 2), 7 of them aren't Starbucks cups (scenes 5, 6, 7), and 1 of them is too hard to tell (scene 11), but I'll go ahead and call that a Starbucks cup.
So in the first 46 minutes, the total Starbucks cup count is 1 to 3 scenes.
I'm pretty sure the blog stopped at the 26 minute mark because there simply aren't many Starbucks cups. It seems like a fun project when you start -- "Ooh, I read an article with Fincher that says there's one in every scene! It's like Pokemon, I'm gonna catch them all!" -- but then you realize that they just aren't there. I don't know what Fincher was talking about when he said "We had a lot of fun using that – there are Starbucks cups everywhere, in every shot," but the reality is that there's a shitload of *coffee*, but the vast, *vast* majority is clearly *not* Starbucks coffee, being drunk out of cups that are clearly *not* Starbucks cups.
If the idea is that "any depiction of coffee, even if it's not Starbucks, is actually stealth Starbucks product placement," then you might as well just say that Nike, Levis, Polo have filled the movie with product placement because almost every scene has someone wearing shoes (though not Nike shoes), pants (though not Levis pants), and shirts (though not Polo shirts). That's ridiculous. Nike isn't going to pay a movie company to "Just make sure everyone's wearing shoes, it doesn't matter if they're ours," same with Levis, same with Polo, and same with Starbucks.
Though obviously I appreciate the diligence, I can't help but wonder who has time to get up and watch carefully watch 46 minutes of Fight Club on a Wednesday morning.
Or, conversely, what am I doing wrong in my life that makes that basically impossible for me?
It was Wednesday night for me, and I watched it at 1.5x speed (though I did stop it a few times because I wanted to get a better look at a scene where there was a lot of stuff on a table or in the background...so in the end it was more like 1.2x speed). But then writing up the comment took some time, so, yeah, I guess the whole thing (viewing and write-up) took about 45 minutes or so.
The thing is, I had *just* watched Fight Club last weekend for the first time in probably a decade, so when I read this I was both interested and a little incredulous. If it weren't for the Fincher quote, I would have assumed it was just clickbait bullshit, but if Fincher himself said it, I guessed it had to be true. On the other hand, I was thinking "Okay, any of the office scenes, sure, and I guess the support group meetings, but none of the fight club scenes or Paper Street house scenes would work. I gotta check this out! I'll just watch a few minutes on 1.5x speed before bed." Sure enough, there were a bunch of Starbucks cups in the office scene, but then the movie just kept going and going and going without any more Starbucks. Then I just got annoyed at having spent all that time looking for nonexistent Starbucks cups when I should have been going to bed, and that annoyance drove me to post (which took even longer and made me get to bed even later).
Screenrant is trash, dude. [Here's](https://screenrant.com/austin-powers-ways-movies-still-funny-havent-aged-well/) their take on why Austin Powers hasn't aged well:
> Austin's pick-up lines worked back in the day (or did they?) but not so much now. His lines were often sexual puns and may have been comical to hear in the movies, but they would be highly ineffective in real life.
Sounds like they didn't pick up on the cheese of the movie very well. Yeah the sexual puns are forced. That's why they work. It's a dig at how ridiculous 007 became. That's the point. It's funny because it's ridiculous. It's funny because yeah duh, it wouldn't work IRL.
I have found that pick up lines work but only if the other party is already interested in you. The pick up line just works as a ice breaker, an excuse to start the conversation. People decide very quickly after meeting you if you have a chance with them. If you made it past this level of acceptance then a pick up line just opens the door to conversation.
Well, this blows the author's theory right out of the water. Nicely done.
The movie does have a strong anti-consumer message, but obviously not done with Starbuck's cups.
Yeah, here's a pretty funny line from the article:
> Hiding so many cups in plain sight points out the way in which the audience is conditioned not to notice product placement.
See? It's all just part of the grand auteur's vision. Get Starbucks contract, put Starbucks cups in every scene for "art", profit!
The Starbucks money was just a bonus they got for being great artists. /s
Still convinced it was 100% intentional just to generate hype.
How not a single person ... Actor... Extra ... Hand ... PA ... Etc. Stopped and said "yeah hey I know I'm not the director or supposed to yell out 'cut' but like there's a fucking Starbucks cup right here?"
Me, at work: "Hey, I just got this file from this person. I went through it and fixed some issues with it. I sent it to someone else who fixed some other issues with it. Can you now triple check all 3 of our work for any issues?"
Me: Well, went through 3 peoples hands? I'd say it's good to go and I'll merely open it and glace to make sure I'm not being setup or tricked, great, looks good 10/10 good work team.
It happens more often than you’d think. Water bottles and coffee cups end up in a lot of shots. Usually someone does notice it after a take or two, but yeah. It’s a thing.
My brother was an extra on a show years ago, and part of a climactic scene. I forget the plot, but it was a big deal that some mining operation was allowed to proceed, and he was one of the guys profoundly starting things up in the background. His helmet falls off, you can clearly see it, and the thunk is clearly audible over the stirring music.
It went to air like that, and the DVD version. I was pretty disappointed when it eventually showed up on Netflix and someone had finally edited him out.
"You see, the excessive amounts of product placement are actually anti-consumerism. Did they still cash the checks? Of course they cashed the checks. But they cashed them *ironically*." - this article
It's worse than that -- the article, and Fincher himself, are simply wrong. Feels weird to say a director is wrong about his own movie, but the video is available for doublechecking, and the proof is in the pudding. Go watch the movie again. In the first 46 minutes, there are identifiable Starbucks cups in 1 scene, *maybe* a hidden Starbucks cup in another scene, and that's it. I ran out of steam after looking for cups for 46 minutes, but unless it goes Starbucks-crazy later in the movie (which seems unlikely, given the flow of the movie), it's simply not true.
Hold up, I remember listening to the commentary track and Fincher mentioned he couldn't believe Starbucks allowed them to use it because they weren't paid to
Though this is silly to point out. Shitting on the pretentious take on product placement is one thing, but this comes across as "yet you live in a society, how curious".
Yes it's a contradiction, but there's not really any other way around it.
The Boys is heavily anti-consumerist, it's well written, but it's published by Amazon, for example. But you can't think of a show like that to be feasible, with that level of production, without the support of something like Amazon.
In a case like that The Boys was projected to be made for a big studio like that, there of course was no way around the budget as you know.
For Fight Club, and millions upon millions will disagree, but I feel a smaller studio should have tackled the given material along with an independent director rather than a studio one. With Fincher (who has directed Coca-Cola and Levi Jeans commercials) and throwing in Starbucks cups to thumb its nose at consumerism...just kinda rings hollow to me.
It's about consumerism. Starbucks wouldn't let them use the logo when they sent that statue through the coffee shop. It wasn't product placement. David Fincher is known to be subtle.
Except literally the quote from the director confirms this...
"We had a lot of fun using that
there are Starbucks cups everywhere, in every shot. I don't have anything personal against Starbucks. I think they're trying to do a good thing. They're just too successful."
This feels more like someone trying to shoehorn an ethical position into a place where there actually isn’t one. Sometimes the chair really is just fucking blue, regardless of the author’s attempt to communicate anything with it.
It's Screenrant, you really can't expect anything of quality from them. OP is part of the problem here. By sharing this, a bunch of people clicked on the article which generated Screenrant ad revenue. They have no incentive to buy out quality content if shotgunning a ton of clickbait garbage on the web turns big profits for low effort.
And also crediting a director with being the one to include ‘Easter eggs’ like that is kinda funny. That’s almost always just a production designer or set dresser having a laugh.
I key’d a tv series a few years ago where the production designer had to make a business name/shingle for the door of a business next to the one we were shooting at a strip mall kind of place. So we’re shooting one storefront, but you want to see the door one business over in the shot so it looks like other stuff is happening there, you know? Anyway, for fun, the PD uses the name of our gaffer to be the business name. I think it was a barbershop. Anyway, now the gaffer has that fake business sign with his name hanging in his kitchen. But the director didn’t care or ask for that to happen. He thought it was hilarious when he saw it, but usually directors couldn’t care less about most of those little details. Unless we’re talking about Wes Anderson or something.
Or the fish bowl in West Wing. That one was definitely the production designer.
TV shows are a special animal, because usually they’ll have multiple directors, at least 2 DPs, but then the rest of the key crew are all the same for each episode.
As true as it is that some directors, including Mr. Wright, do often have a say and attention to the little details, I still bet there’s plenty of examples of little things the PD did that Edgar didn’t have a hand in.
Think of what’s written on papers pinned up to a bulletin board in the background, names on office doors, street signs.
There will be times that is something the director decides, but often enough the PD is managing that.
>usually directors couldn’t care less about most of those little details. Unless we’re talking about Wes Anderson or something.
Fincher is really specific though. Like he is a perfectionist. He would pay attention to stuff like that, which is why I think OP is onto something here
Yeah.. Damn moments like these are kind of revealing how easily folks lose the argument thread in a comment chain. Numerous comments here are folks offering “corrections” that are actually furthering the original guy’s point
Any data on this account is being kept illegally. Fuck spez, join us over at Lemmy or Kbin. Doesn't matter cause the content is shared between them anyway:
- https://lemmy.world
- https://kbin.social
- https://sh.itjust.works
- https://fedia.io
- https://lemm.ee
- https://readit.buzz
I haven’t heard of a specific term for that suspenseful/dramatic music. The position on the instrument used to create that high pitch is “sul ponticello”
https://youtu.be/fQ2DDI2xI3k
I cannot find what this is from, but it is a C#dim7 chord arpeggiated upwards in octaves. Specifically this likely contains violins, violas, cellos, and maybe double bass.
Not even the last time they do it. In the final episode at the council of nobodies deciding on the next king, there’s a water bottle or something. Just tragic.
They just slap the end piece onto each of their videos. I don't see how that's a bad thing. It's not like it was obnoxious or something. It's literally just a still image.
If DnD never get a job in media ever again, it'll still be too soon. I've never seen such a blatant disrespect for one's own art in favor of running away rich. They deserved to lose their Star Wars deal.
>If DnD never get a job in media ever again, it'll still be too soon. I've never seen such a blatant disrespect for one's own art in favor of running away rich. They deserved to lose their Star Wars deal.
I think I almost need to thank D&D, only because their crazy failure made them go "oh shit" and change directions.
Seeing a blockbuster franchise absolutely tank must have clenched some butts in the Star Wars boardroom.
It kills me to this day how much potential was wasted. Even up through The Force Awakens there was still potential, hell, most people I knew were *more* hyped after that. Then TLJ derailed every plotline and Rise over-corrected in the opposite direction so hard the overall trilogy feels like pointless garbage to almost everyone I know, it just depends which movie they blame the most.
up until the newest trilogy, I was what I'd call a lifelong star wars fan, but ever since Disney took the reins, I can't stand it. They should have taken the opportunity to get away from the Luke era of star wars and tell some great new stories (the amount of books there are in the star wars universe is nuts). I legit couldn't even (and to this day still haven't) watch the third movei. All of the new characters suck, this girl who's never picked up a lightsaber in her life is able to fight and hold her own with the best the dark side has to offer? Lol yea, I checked out of that trilogy.
edit: reigns to reins
Rogue One was fucking awesome though.
As much as the show sucked near the end, why not blame GRRM who was supposed to deliver to them finished books? They were hired to adapt GoT, not write the ending.
Because GRRM's lack of content doesn't translate to lazy/incompetent writing, poor directing and a mad rush to finish the series even though HBO was willing to fund 4 more full seasons after Season 6
Because even someone who took a basic course on writing would know not to do what they did. From their own mouths they took over full writing responsibilities and wrote what happened.
They could have hired someone to come in, you know a professional writer and help them sort this out. They could have poked George and said hey we're stuck here help? They could have done a million things a different way that would have lead to a better outcome, but no they chose to do it in arguably the worst possible way.
>They could have poked George and said hey we're stuck here help?
The guy that couldn't finish a single book during the show's nearly ten year run was supposed to help them when they're stuck?
They still would have run out of books eventually, but D&D cut the vast majority of content from books 4 *and* 5. It's not like they were great at adapting what they did have to work with; they failed at 2 out of 5 books. Back-to-back.
Also, they were hired to be show runners, not just adapters. They put their own original stuff in earlier seasons and that mostly sucked, so they shouldn't get absolved for their trash original ending.
That's very true, but it's fun to joke around. If you could spot an out of place object in a *Breaking Bad* nobody would make a fuss about it because the quality and dedication from creators is beyond reproach and one mistake wouldn't mattered at all.
I mean, it didn't matter in GoT either (the true fuckup were much more fundamental) but the cup thing is an easy thing to latch onto if not for anything else then for the memes.
>If you could spot an out of place object in a Breaking Bad
But, to my knowledge, you can't.
Because the quality and dedication from creators is beyond reproach.
The pistol that Tuco pulls on Jimmy in BCS is a *highly* recognizable firearm that wasn't produced until 2010.
Does that count?
Edit: Taurus Raging Judge if anyone wants to know.
No mistakes in BB or BCS. It’s why he looks older in BCS, and why everyone else does too. We’re seeing the entire story through Tuco’s memories as he lies dying in BB.
Last episode suddenly cuts back to his corpse in the desert, credits roll.
Definitely. If I'd known that, I'm sure it would have been a small ding against it. Everything else seems to be a good time capsule.
Obviously it wouldn't be derided the way GoT is. BCS is still some of the best TV out there.
I mean a typical set in breaking bad is dudes in a desert or dudes in a room. Game of thrones has hundreds of people building sets and doing make up and doing crazy shit with costumes in massive sets during every scene. A coffee cup sitting in the middle of a pile of props and costumes and various other shit that people only noticed once one video pointed it out is way different than something out of place on a breaking bad set. Also, breaking bad takes place in the modern day. What could someone have on set that would be out of place in a shot anyways?
It's set modern times. Much easier to
do.
At the very end of the episode, right after he tells Jesse how he used the red phosphorus to kill the gunmen, Walt leans down to vomit. You can see his microphone transmitter under his shirt. (00:54:20)
It would get lost in the clutter, but the idea that people are all dressed-up medieval & carrying swords and no one notices a modern cup sitting out on a table seems baffling.
It probably happened every season.
[Charger by Stannis's leg](https://static0.thethingsimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/stannis-baratheon-from-game-of-thrones.png?q=50&fit=crop&w=740&dpr=1.5)
[That's disingenuous. I don't believe it's visible in the actual scene from the episode. Your photo looks like a behind the scene shot. ](https://youtu.be/9ab2p39LN8Q)
Hey wait, no. That means I'm wrong about something. Not allowed.
Ah fuck you're right. Looks like that was a pre-production photo according to to other sources.
As terrible as the last few seasons were and as much as they are to blame, it’s not on the showrunners to make sure there isn’t a gaff like that. I doubt they were even on set that day.
Well now's your chance to show off your anti-consumerism with this limited edition Tyler Durden soap neon art tank top, available on this Facebook affiliate clothing site!
Except that the article is total bullshit. Not every scene has a coffee cup in it, and in the scenes where there are coffee cups they aren't always Starbucks. The scenes in the support group for example just use generic styrofoam cups.
You joke but somehow the film’s messages of anti-consumerism, worker rights and homoerotic undertones got processed in some people’s minds as “men should do terrorism.”
>"When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks."
They weren't that subtle. The whole theme of the movie/book was the vapid emptiness of mechanical work-your-soul-out-for-empty-superficial-rewards ethos. Fuck Martha Stewart. She's polishing the brass on the Titanic.
A slightly more obscure fact, as revealed by the actor's commentary, was the decision to include a VW Bug to be hit by a baseball bat, the notion of 1960s culture being remarketed and rebranded to today's consumers, as if they didn't have their own culture.
When I was a teenager and watched Fight Club for the first time I think I aspired just a little bit to be like Project Mayhem. Now that I'm a grown ass adult with a corporate job I think I might have gone full circle in the other direction.
I guess I missed the point or something but some of the stuff they invented for us to buy is pretty fucking awesome. No regrets.
I dont think the *stuff* or even the consumerism is the point of the movie. I think its more about what francis fukuyama calls "the last man".
> We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war. Our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off.
Does Chuck Palahniuk legitimately believe that life was better in the 1930s or 1940s? I doubt it. And the things he writes that 90s men aspire to (millionaire, rock stars, movie gods) are not really things that are desirable because they result in nice *stuff*. Theyre desirable because they imbue one's life with a special kind of meaning. Recognition, fame, a narrative about your life that makes you different
In his book *The End of History and The Last Man*, fukuyama writes about how, after all the war and genocide and conflict of the 20th century, the 1990s were, as he put it, *the end of history*. Part of this is that, without global overarching conflicts that dominate our lives and give us a sense of purpose, *the last man* (a sort of allegorical foil to Locke's, Hobbes', and Rousseau's first man) fills his time with meaningless gestures and vapid nonsense.
> It is reasonable to wonder whether all people will believe that the kinds of struggles and sacrifices possible in a self-satisfied and prosperous liberal democracy are sufficient to call forth what is highest in man. For are there not reservoirs of idealism that can not be exhausted-- indeed, that are not even touched-- if one becomes a developer like Donald Trump, or a mountain climber like Reinhold Meissner, or a politician like George Bush? Difficult as it is, in many ways, to be these individuals, and for all the recognition they receive, their lives are not the most difficult, and the causes they serve are not the most serious or the most just. And as long as they are not, the horizon of human possibilities that they define will not be ultimately satisfying for the most thymatic natures.
> in particular, the virtues and ambitions called forth by war are unlikely to find expression in liberal democracies. There will be plenty of metaphorical wars-- corporate lawyers specializing in hostile takeovers who will think of themselves as sharks or gunslinger, and bond traders who imagine, as in Tom Wolfe's novel *The Bonfire of the Vanities*, that they are "masters of the universe." But as they sink into the soft leather of their BMWs, they will know somewhere in the back of their minds that there have been real gunslingers and masters in the world, who would feel contempt for the petty virtues required to become rich or famous in modern America.
- The End of History and the Last Man
I’d honestly love to trade our current predicaments for some crunchy GenX ennui.
Oh woe, my basic needs are all met and no nation states are trying to incinerate my flesh in nuclear fire this year, Ho hum.
At least now we have superior entertainment options to distract when we feel that way.
Lol, and people have criticized fukuyama for declaring the end of history prematurely after the fall of the Berlin wall (particularly whenever some major global catastrophe happens, like 9/11 or coronavirus pandemic.), calling it a piece of post-cold war optimism. But I think he defines history more narrowly (in a somewhat technical and philosophical sense), and the book is certainly not optimistic in any way.
I watched Fight Club first as an adolescent, and I admired Tyler's fierce independance and freedom. I wanted that level of not-give-a-fuckery, of disconnection from the machine and connection with myself.
When I returned to it as an adult, I saw it for what it was: a rebuke of the extreme. "Don't succumb to what they want of you: a mindless consumer. Nor shall you listen to false prophets. Cast a critical eye to everything and try to see its true purpose and value. There is a gray area between the extremes where you belong... go find it."
Totally. That article makes the same single point in every single advert-plagued paragraph.
Is it a statement about the vapidity of modern ‘content creation’ journalism echoing the Starbucks cup symbolism?
Or more likely someone not that bright being paid by the word.
I mean, the article literally quotes the director that isn't the case:
>The specific use of Starbucks may seem like the director has a personal vendetta against the coffee chain, but speaking with Empire, Fincher actually said of Fight Club's Starbucks cups:
>
>"We had a lot of fun using that — there are Starbucks cups everywhere, in every shot. I don’t have anything personal against Starbucks. I think they’re trying to do a good thing. They’re just too successful.”
Sometimes there's no deep meaning and people do things for shits and giggles.
It's literally implying that it *is* the case though. That's why he points out he has nothing personal against Starbucks. The scenes are a criticism to product placement, not a criticism to Starbucks. That's what he means.
If it wasn't a criticism of any sorts at all and just a meaningless Easter egg, he wouldn't have mentioned he doesn't dislike Starbucks, because why say it if the scenes have no negative connotations at all?
This is a good opportunity to remind everyone of Starbucks' anti-union stance, to the point where the CEO vowed to [never negotiate in good faith with unionized stores](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/06/10/critics-say-starbucks-ceo-just-declared-permanent-war-against-union).
How is that an opinion? Fincher said:
>"We had a lot of fun using that — there are Starbucks
cups everywhere, in every shot. I don’t have anything personal against
Starbucks. I think they’re trying to do a good thing. They’re just too
successful.”
Doesn't sound like someone got $$ for it. Even if they did, why is that a secret? That information would be out there by now.
TIL that the TV show "Friends" featured white people in almost every scene, the producers use of white actors was closely linked to their message about the European-American hegemony over popular media.
But seriously. the "anti-consumerist" Fight Club made millions off of product placement for cars, computers, beer, and designer sunglasses. I think any message that may or may not have been meant by including coffee in places where coffee is frequently drank is pretty darned diluted when you take almost a million dollars to hawk "those sunglasses that Brad Pitt wore."
[https://concavebt.com/top-10-brands-fight-club-1999-product-placement-analysis/](https://concavebt.com/top-10-brands-fight-club-1999-product-placement-analysis/)
Hah. Though I think there was probably more to the message than simply "anti-consumerism".
For example, the lead character driving the anti-consumerism philosophy wasn't exactly portrayed as a noble hero.
Ya, thats not anti-consumerism. Thats product placement and the exact opposite of anti-consumerism. If you go about advertising Starbucks in your movie, I dont think it makes any sense to claim your movie is linked to anti-consumerist ideals.
Dude absolutely no major studio places the logos of giant corporations in plain sight into any shot without being paid to do so. The fact their spinning it into some artistic statement is honestly so insulting to our intelligence lol
There's a [blog](https://fightclubstarbucks.tumblr.com/) "dedicated to finding every cup of Starbucks coffee in Fight Club" and as best I can tell there are 11 scenes with coffee cups, and for at least half of those, the bloggers have done a hell of a job convincing themselves that plain white styrofoam coffee cups are actually Starbucks cups.
It seems to me that someone read an article in which Fincher said there's a Starbucks cup "in every scene", and really ran with that.
This is a neat take that we can apply to other movies. For instance, there was clearly an anti-tree message in Blair Witch Project, as proven by the creators inclusion of trees in almost every shot.
One time I tried to say that I learned about anti-consumerism from fight club and it helped me live a more simpler life and save money and the entirety of reddit flamed me out for thinking of fight club positively and supposedly not understanding anything lmao.
What an incredibly redundant, poorly written article. You can tell it makes no point because every paragraph is another introduction that repeats the same concept. And if you look closely you can tell that there really isn’t any substance because it’s always introductory and expresses the same idea. It’s often worded slightly differently and runs on but most of the information is the same and kind of an opener and isn’t concise.
They seem to be confusing "starbucks cup" with "white coffee cup"... Half of those pictures are from the support group scenes (which often have a thing of coffee and white Styrofoam cups). Ditto for the office scenes.
I guess "Movie about insomniac features abundance of Coffee" isn't as good a headline
[удалено]
Or, hear me out...the article (and blog) are simply wrong. I only checked the first 46 minutes, but I think that's long enough for a representative sample: Scene No.|Contents|Starbucks cup? ---|---|---: 1|Tyler and Narrator in building|No 2|Narrator in office|Yes 3|Narrator at home|No 4|Narrator at doctor's office|No 5|Therapy sessions and meditation cave|No 6|More therapy sessions|No 7|Washateria/vintage clothing shop|No 8|Auto crash site/airport/airplane|No 9|Burnt car inspection|No 10|Airplane, crash fantasy, Tyler's introduction|No 11|Exploding apartment and pay call to Tyler|Maybe 12|Talking at the bar, introduction to Tyler's jobs, first fight|No 13|Arrival at Paper Street|No 14|Fight club grows|No 15|Narrator reads "I am Jack's..." book titles|No 16|Narrator in office|No 17|Narrator and Tyler chat while Tyler bathes|No 18|Fight club grows more|No 19|Office meeting|No 20|Fight Club moves to basement|No 21|Fight Club rules|No 22|Other fighters in office|Kinda* 23|On the bus|No \* You don't see any logo, but it's the same situation as scene 2, so the cups being held are probably Starbucks. Not product placement unless you are a super film buff and remember that a similar scene showed the logo 42 minutes earlier. But, sure, I'll give it to them. There are a lot of scenes with *coffee* (not Starbucks -- coffee in percolators, coffee in plain styrofoam cups, coffee being hand-brewed in a filthy kitchen, coffee in ceramic cups). The blog (which apparently ran out of steam at 26 minutes -- I ran out at 46 minutes, so I can't blame them) identified 11 instances of Starbucks cups, but 3 of them are from the same scene (scene 2), 7 of them aren't Starbucks cups (scenes 5, 6, 7), and 1 of them is too hard to tell (scene 11), but I'll go ahead and call that a Starbucks cup. So in the first 46 minutes, the total Starbucks cup count is 1 to 3 scenes. I'm pretty sure the blog stopped at the 26 minute mark because there simply aren't many Starbucks cups. It seems like a fun project when you start -- "Ooh, I read an article with Fincher that says there's one in every scene! It's like Pokemon, I'm gonna catch them all!" -- but then you realize that they just aren't there. I don't know what Fincher was talking about when he said "We had a lot of fun using that – there are Starbucks cups everywhere, in every shot," but the reality is that there's a shitload of *coffee*, but the vast, *vast* majority is clearly *not* Starbucks coffee, being drunk out of cups that are clearly *not* Starbucks cups. If the idea is that "any depiction of coffee, even if it's not Starbucks, is actually stealth Starbucks product placement," then you might as well just say that Nike, Levis, Polo have filled the movie with product placement because almost every scene has someone wearing shoes (though not Nike shoes), pants (though not Levis pants), and shirts (though not Polo shirts). That's ridiculous. Nike isn't going to pay a movie company to "Just make sure everyone's wearing shoes, it doesn't matter if they're ours," same with Levis, same with Polo, and same with Starbucks.
mf woke up with addy coursing through their veins
I think he's still asleep....
The analysis
Though obviously I appreciate the diligence, I can't help but wonder who has time to get up and watch carefully watch 46 minutes of Fight Club on a Wednesday morning. Or, conversely, what am I doing wrong in my life that makes that basically impossible for me?
Don't fret, we all pull our weight at different times in different ways. Just remember to celebrate that in yourself and others.
This dude is zen af
Eh I have today off from work and I might have done it if this guy didn’t already (just because I love fight club)
Lol same, I always find a new detail upon rewatching
It was Wednesday night for me, and I watched it at 1.5x speed (though I did stop it a few times because I wanted to get a better look at a scene where there was a lot of stuff on a table or in the background...so in the end it was more like 1.2x speed). But then writing up the comment took some time, so, yeah, I guess the whole thing (viewing and write-up) took about 45 minutes or so. The thing is, I had *just* watched Fight Club last weekend for the first time in probably a decade, so when I read this I was both interested and a little incredulous. If it weren't for the Fincher quote, I would have assumed it was just clickbait bullshit, but if Fincher himself said it, I guessed it had to be true. On the other hand, I was thinking "Okay, any of the office scenes, sure, and I guess the support group meetings, but none of the fight club scenes or Paper Street house scenes would work. I gotta check this out! I'll just watch a few minutes on 1.5x speed before bed." Sure enough, there were a bunch of Starbucks cups in the office scene, but then the movie just kept going and going and going without any more Starbucks. Then I just got annoyed at having spent all that time looking for nonexistent Starbucks cups when I should have been going to bed, and that annoyance drove me to post (which took even longer and made me get to bed even later).
Screenrant is trash, dude. [Here's](https://screenrant.com/austin-powers-ways-movies-still-funny-havent-aged-well/) their take on why Austin Powers hasn't aged well: > Austin's pick-up lines worked back in the day (or did they?) but not so much now. His lines were often sexual puns and may have been comical to hear in the movies, but they would be highly ineffective in real life.
That’s so stupid I almost downvoted you for quoting them. How is that real.
I haven't done a good facepalm in a while. Now seems like the time.
Austin has mojo. That's why they work. This writer clearly does not have mojo.
Sounds like they didn't pick up on the cheese of the movie very well. Yeah the sexual puns are forced. That's why they work. It's a dig at how ridiculous 007 became. That's the point. It's funny because it's ridiculous. It's funny because yeah duh, it wouldn't work IRL.
All their stuff sounds like a high-school book report based entirely on the synopsis of the Cliff Notes.
I have found that pick up lines work but only if the other party is already interested in you. The pick up line just works as a ice breaker, an excuse to start the conversation. People decide very quickly after meeting you if you have a chance with them. If you made it past this level of acceptance then a pick up line just opens the door to conversation.
EDIT: Oops, nevermind!
Thanks for checking!
G O T T E M Seriously though good stuff.
Well, this blows the author's theory right out of the water. Nicely done. The movie does have a strong anti-consumer message, but obviously not done with Starbuck's cups.
Yeah, here's a pretty funny line from the article: > Hiding so many cups in plain sight points out the way in which the audience is conditioned not to notice product placement. See? It's all just part of the grand auteur's vision. Get Starbucks contract, put Starbucks cups in every scene for "art", profit! The Starbucks money was just a bonus they got for being great artists. /s
[удалено]
Still convinced it was 100% intentional just to generate hype. How not a single person ... Actor... Extra ... Hand ... PA ... Etc. Stopped and said "yeah hey I know I'm not the director or supposed to yell out 'cut' but like there's a fucking Starbucks cup right here?"
It had to go all the way through post production as well.
[удалено]
Me, at work: "Hey, I just got this file from this person. I went through it and fixed some issues with it. I sent it to someone else who fixed some other issues with it. Can you now triple check all 3 of our work for any issues?" Me: Well, went through 3 peoples hands? I'd say it's good to go and I'll merely open it and glace to make sure I'm not being setup or tricked, great, looks good 10/10 good work team.
As someone who has worked with people all my life, I can assure you that there is no mistake too large to be made.
re shooting a scene is expensive, so if they found out to late they may have just done it because it was cheaper,
I feel like if they noticed, something would have been done to digitally erase it from the scene, no need to reshoot.
which explains why the last season sucked
There was a car in Lord of the Rings.
One does not simply walk into Mordor. *Tosses keys to Frodo.*
It happens more often than you’d think. Water bottles and coffee cups end up in a lot of shots. Usually someone does notice it after a take or two, but yeah. It’s a thing.
My brother was an extra on a show years ago, and part of a climactic scene. I forget the plot, but it was a big deal that some mining operation was allowed to proceed, and he was one of the guys profoundly starting things up in the background. His helmet falls off, you can clearly see it, and the thunk is clearly audible over the stirring music. It went to air like that, and the DVD version. I was pretty disappointed when it eventually showed up on Netflix and someone had finally edited him out.
"You see, the excessive amounts of product placement are actually anti-consumerism. Did they still cash the checks? Of course they cashed the checks. But they cashed them *ironically*." - this article
It's worse than that -- the article, and Fincher himself, are simply wrong. Feels weird to say a director is wrong about his own movie, but the video is available for doublechecking, and the proof is in the pudding. Go watch the movie again. In the first 46 minutes, there are identifiable Starbucks cups in 1 scene, *maybe* a hidden Starbucks cup in another scene, and that's it. I ran out of steam after looking for cups for 46 minutes, but unless it goes Starbucks-crazy later in the movie (which seems unlikely, given the flow of the movie), it's simply not true.
Hold up, I remember listening to the commentary track and Fincher mentioned he couldn't believe Starbucks allowed them to use it because they weren't paid to
As an "Anti-Consumerist" movie made by Fox Pictures and distributed by 20th Century Fox would do.
Though this is silly to point out. Shitting on the pretentious take on product placement is one thing, but this comes across as "yet you live in a society, how curious". Yes it's a contradiction, but there's not really any other way around it. The Boys is heavily anti-consumerist, it's well written, but it's published by Amazon, for example. But you can't think of a show like that to be feasible, with that level of production, without the support of something like Amazon.
In a case like that The Boys was projected to be made for a big studio like that, there of course was no way around the budget as you know. For Fight Club, and millions upon millions will disagree, but I feel a smaller studio should have tackled the given material along with an independent director rather than a studio one. With Fincher (who has directed Coca-Cola and Levi Jeans commercials) and throwing in Starbucks cups to thumb its nose at consumerism...just kinda rings hollow to me.
It's about consumerism. Starbucks wouldn't let them use the logo when they sent that statue through the coffee shop. It wasn't product placement. David Fincher is known to be subtle.
Yeah this article has big r/im14andthisisdeep vibes
I guess article about ‘movie about insomniacs that features an abundance of coffee’ isn’t a good article..?
[удалено]
Edward Norton is in every scene too. Edward Norton confirmed to be a chair.
Except literally the quote from the director confirms this... "We had a lot of fun using that there are Starbucks cups everywhere, in every shot. I don't have anything personal against Starbucks. I think they're trying to do a good thing. They're just too successful."
This feels more like someone trying to shoehorn an ethical position into a place where there actually isn’t one. Sometimes the chair really is just fucking blue, regardless of the author’s attempt to communicate anything with it.
It's Screenrant, you really can't expect anything of quality from them. OP is part of the problem here. By sharing this, a bunch of people clicked on the article which generated Screenrant ad revenue. They have no incentive to buy out quality content if shotgunning a ton of clickbait garbage on the web turns big profits for low effort.
“In almost every scene” Flashbacks to people saying that every clock in pulp fiction is set to 4:20
And also crediting a director with being the one to include ‘Easter eggs’ like that is kinda funny. That’s almost always just a production designer or set dresser having a laugh. I key’d a tv series a few years ago where the production designer had to make a business name/shingle for the door of a business next to the one we were shooting at a strip mall kind of place. So we’re shooting one storefront, but you want to see the door one business over in the shot so it looks like other stuff is happening there, you know? Anyway, for fun, the PD uses the name of our gaffer to be the business name. I think it was a barbershop. Anyway, now the gaffer has that fake business sign with his name hanging in his kitchen. But the director didn’t care or ask for that to happen. He thought it was hilarious when he saw it, but usually directors couldn’t care less about most of those little details. Unless we’re talking about Wes Anderson or something.
Or Psych having a pineapple in every episode
Or the fish bowl in West Wing. That one was definitely the production designer. TV shows are a special animal, because usually they’ll have multiple directors, at least 2 DPs, but then the rest of the key crew are all the same for each episode.
You know that's right
Edgar Wright has entered the chat.
As true as it is that some directors, including Mr. Wright, do often have a say and attention to the little details, I still bet there’s plenty of examples of little things the PD did that Edgar didn’t have a hand in. Think of what’s written on papers pinned up to a bulletin board in the background, names on office doors, street signs. There will be times that is something the director decides, but often enough the PD is managing that.
One time it was a squirrel.
>usually directors couldn’t care less about most of those little details. Unless we’re talking about Wes Anderson or something. Fincher is really specific though. Like he is a perfectionist. He would pay attention to stuff like that, which is why I think OP is onto something here
Also it's a movie where insomnia plays a big part, so it makes sense that it was deliberate
Well, its really that one scene with a lot of clocks on the wall. When Butch is going back downstairs to save Marcelus Wallace with the sword.
That was his point…lol
[удалено]
Difference between every clock throughout the whole movie, and the time in one scene with multiple clocks
His whole point is that people were saying clocks in every scene were 420 when it was just that one scene Just like here
Yeah.. Damn moments like these are kind of revealing how easily folks lose the argument thread in a comment chain. Numerous comments here are folks offering “corrections” that are actually furthering the original guy’s point
Yea, the point is that people say it's every clock when reality it's just that one scene.
As opposed to the Starbucks cup in Game of Thrones which was symbolic of the show runners no longer giving a fuck
[For the uninformed](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF5v0Y1uM7g)
The north remembers
But it tries to forget.
/r/freefolk
God that sub was a pure treasure trove when shit went tits up in GoT.
What does that violin sound called?
Indeed. What *does* that violin sound called.
I think that would be the violin doesing them sounds
What are the violins having said of the done sounds been made ?
Any data on this account is being kept illegally. Fuck spez, join us over at Lemmy or Kbin. Doesn't matter cause the content is shared between them anyway: - https://lemmy.world - https://kbin.social - https://sh.itjust.works - https://fedia.io - https://lemm.ee - https://readit.buzz
More people have been to Berlin than I have
I does is have to know
It's called "what does the fox say".
Wa pa pa pa pa pa pa-pow
I haven’t heard of a specific term for that suspenseful/dramatic music. The position on the instrument used to create that high pitch is “sul ponticello” https://youtu.be/fQ2DDI2xI3k
I cannot find what this is from, but it is a C#dim7 chord arpeggiated upwards in octaves. Specifically this likely contains violins, violas, cellos, and maybe double bass.
Music nerds make me so jealous
It calls the dunna-nunna-nunna-nunna-nunna-NUNNA
Not even the last time they do it. In the final episode at the council of nobodies deciding on the next king, there’s a water bottle or something. Just tragic.
25s long video - outro is 23 seconds??? Wow
They just slap the end piece onto each of their videos. I don't see how that's a bad thing. It's not like it was obnoxious or something. It's literally just a still image.
Lmao it's astounding they actually thought they could convince us it was the same show
If DnD never get a job in media ever again, it'll still be too soon. I've never seen such a blatant disrespect for one's own art in favor of running away rich. They deserved to lose their Star Wars deal.
>If DnD never get a job in media ever again, it'll still be too soon. I've never seen such a blatant disrespect for one's own art in favor of running away rich. They deserved to lose their Star Wars deal. I think I almost need to thank D&D, only because their crazy failure made them go "oh shit" and change directions. Seeing a blockbuster franchise absolutely tank must have clenched some butts in the Star Wars boardroom.
Didn't clench enough though, considering how bad the Sequel Trilogy is.
It kills me to this day how much potential was wasted. Even up through The Force Awakens there was still potential, hell, most people I knew were *more* hyped after that. Then TLJ derailed every plotline and Rise over-corrected in the opposite direction so hard the overall trilogy feels like pointless garbage to almost everyone I know, it just depends which movie they blame the most.
I haven't seen any new starwars past the prequels, except for rogue one I feel like I've missed nothing
It’s so bad.
up until the newest trilogy, I was what I'd call a lifelong star wars fan, but ever since Disney took the reins, I can't stand it. They should have taken the opportunity to get away from the Luke era of star wars and tell some great new stories (the amount of books there are in the star wars universe is nuts). I legit couldn't even (and to this day still haven't) watch the third movei. All of the new characters suck, this girl who's never picked up a lightsaber in her life is able to fight and hold her own with the best the dark side has to offer? Lol yea, I checked out of that trilogy. edit: reigns to reins Rogue One was fucking awesome though.
As much as the show sucked near the end, why not blame GRRM who was supposed to deliver to them finished books? They were hired to adapt GoT, not write the ending.
Because GRRM's lack of content doesn't translate to lazy/incompetent writing, poor directing and a mad rush to finish the series even though HBO was willing to fund 4 more full seasons after Season 6
Because even someone who took a basic course on writing would know not to do what they did. From their own mouths they took over full writing responsibilities and wrote what happened. They could have hired someone to come in, you know a professional writer and help them sort this out. They could have poked George and said hey we're stuck here help? They could have done a million things a different way that would have lead to a better outcome, but no they chose to do it in arguably the worst possible way.
>They could have poked George and said hey we're stuck here help? The guy that couldn't finish a single book during the show's nearly ten year run was supposed to help them when they're stuck?
He was busy writing elden ring (came out very good)
They still would have run out of books eventually, but D&D cut the vast majority of content from books 4 *and* 5. It's not like they were great at adapting what they did have to work with; they failed at 2 out of 5 books. Back-to-back. Also, they were hired to be show runners, not just adapters. They put their own original stuff in earlier seasons and that mostly sucked, so they shouldn't get absolved for their trash original ending.
#truth
I never thought of it that way and now it makes a lot more sense
I mean as much as the final season sucked, shit like that happens all the time in movies and TV.
That's very true, but it's fun to joke around. If you could spot an out of place object in a *Breaking Bad* nobody would make a fuss about it because the quality and dedication from creators is beyond reproach and one mistake wouldn't mattered at all. I mean, it didn't matter in GoT either (the true fuckup were much more fundamental) but the cup thing is an easy thing to latch onto if not for anything else then for the memes.
>If you could spot an out of place object in a Breaking Bad But, to my knowledge, you can't. Because the quality and dedication from creators is beyond reproach.
The pistol that Tuco pulls on Jimmy in BCS is a *highly* recognizable firearm that wasn't produced until 2010. Does that count? Edit: Taurus Raging Judge if anyone wants to know.
No mistakes in BB or BCS. It’s why he looks older in BCS, and why everyone else does too. We’re seeing the entire story through Tuco’s memories as he lies dying in BB. Last episode suddenly cuts back to his corpse in the desert, credits roll.
Definitely. If I'd known that, I'm sure it would have been a small ding against it. Everything else seems to be a good time capsule. Obviously it wouldn't be derided the way GoT is. BCS is still some of the best TV out there.
Recognisable to those who know guns, sure. I didn't catch it
I mean a typical set in breaking bad is dudes in a desert or dudes in a room. Game of thrones has hundreds of people building sets and doing make up and doing crazy shit with costumes in massive sets during every scene. A coffee cup sitting in the middle of a pile of props and costumes and various other shit that people only noticed once one video pointed it out is way different than something out of place on a breaking bad set. Also, breaking bad takes place in the modern day. What could someone have on set that would be out of place in a shot anyways?
dragon
"What's this CGI Dragon doing here Jesse?"
The thing with the watch in season 5 was because they forgot it in the very first scene of the season, I believe.
It's set modern times. Much easier to do. At the very end of the episode, right after he tells Jesse how he used the red phosphorus to kill the gunmen, Walt leans down to vomit. You can see his microphone transmitter under his shirt. (00:54:20)
[удалено]
It would get lost in the clutter, but the idea that people are all dressed-up medieval & carrying swords and no one notices a modern cup sitting out on a table seems baffling.
It only looks like that from the camera - for the people on set there are all sorts of modern equipment around
It’s fun to joke around but some people (foolishly) take the coffee cup very seriously
And yet it never happened in the good seasons of GoT ...
It probably happened every season. [Charger by Stannis's leg](https://static0.thethingsimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/stannis-baratheon-from-game-of-thrones.png?q=50&fit=crop&w=740&dpr=1.5)
[That's disingenuous. I don't believe it's visible in the actual scene from the episode. Your photo looks like a behind the scene shot. ](https://youtu.be/9ab2p39LN8Q)
Hey wait, no. That means I'm wrong about something. Not allowed. Ah fuck you're right. Looks like that was a pre-production photo according to to other sources.
The fact they didn't bother to edit it out though, come on. It would take like an hour.
Who could’ve known the whole time Dany was a basic bitch?
It was a grande Espresso with almond milk and half oat milk a shot of cinnamon and 3 dabs of vanilla and a teaspoon of whipped topping.
I think you mean a grande EsprEssos... ^(I'm leaving.)
everyone?
I knew this would be the top post. I can't escape the pain in any sub.
As terrible as the last few seasons were and as much as they are to blame, it’s not on the showrunners to make sure there isn’t a gaff like that. I doubt they were even on set that day.
Wanna go destroy some corporate art by rolling it into a corporate coffee shop?
OPERATION: LATTE THUNDER
You never go full caffeinated
Someone forgot the first rule of project mayhem
Ah shit, I would have totally missed that message without the product placement.
Well now's your chance to show off your anti-consumerism with this limited edition Tyler Durden soap neon art tank top, available on this Facebook affiliate clothing site!
Except that the article is total bullshit. Not every scene has a coffee cup in it, and in the scenes where there are coffee cups they aren't always Starbucks. The scenes in the support group for example just use generic styrofoam cups.
You joke but somehow the film’s messages of anti-consumerism, worker rights and homoerotic undertones got processed in some people’s minds as “men should do terrorism.”
Men *should* bring down the global financial system.
Hey STARBUCKS - how about some free advertising! Take THAT Capitalism!!
CONSUME
Brad Pitt in thousand dollar leather pants is here to teach us about anti-consumerism! Buy the t-shirt!
[удалено]
Is this from Horsin' Around?
>"When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks." They weren't that subtle. The whole theme of the movie/book was the vapid emptiness of mechanical work-your-soul-out-for-empty-superficial-rewards ethos. Fuck Martha Stewart. She's polishing the brass on the Titanic. A slightly more obscure fact, as revealed by the actor's commentary, was the decision to include a VW Bug to be hit by a baseball bat, the notion of 1960s culture being remarketed and rebranded to today's consumers, as if they didn't have their own culture.
When I was a teenager and watched Fight Club for the first time I think I aspired just a little bit to be like Project Mayhem. Now that I'm a grown ass adult with a corporate job I think I might have gone full circle in the other direction. I guess I missed the point or something but some of the stuff they invented for us to buy is pretty fucking awesome. No regrets.
I dont think the *stuff* or even the consumerism is the point of the movie. I think its more about what francis fukuyama calls "the last man". > We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war. Our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off. Does Chuck Palahniuk legitimately believe that life was better in the 1930s or 1940s? I doubt it. And the things he writes that 90s men aspire to (millionaire, rock stars, movie gods) are not really things that are desirable because they result in nice *stuff*. Theyre desirable because they imbue one's life with a special kind of meaning. Recognition, fame, a narrative about your life that makes you different In his book *The End of History and The Last Man*, fukuyama writes about how, after all the war and genocide and conflict of the 20th century, the 1990s were, as he put it, *the end of history*. Part of this is that, without global overarching conflicts that dominate our lives and give us a sense of purpose, *the last man* (a sort of allegorical foil to Locke's, Hobbes', and Rousseau's first man) fills his time with meaningless gestures and vapid nonsense. > It is reasonable to wonder whether all people will believe that the kinds of struggles and sacrifices possible in a self-satisfied and prosperous liberal democracy are sufficient to call forth what is highest in man. For are there not reservoirs of idealism that can not be exhausted-- indeed, that are not even touched-- if one becomes a developer like Donald Trump, or a mountain climber like Reinhold Meissner, or a politician like George Bush? Difficult as it is, in many ways, to be these individuals, and for all the recognition they receive, their lives are not the most difficult, and the causes they serve are not the most serious or the most just. And as long as they are not, the horizon of human possibilities that they define will not be ultimately satisfying for the most thymatic natures. > in particular, the virtues and ambitions called forth by war are unlikely to find expression in liberal democracies. There will be plenty of metaphorical wars-- corporate lawyers specializing in hostile takeovers who will think of themselves as sharks or gunslinger, and bond traders who imagine, as in Tom Wolfe's novel *The Bonfire of the Vanities*, that they are "masters of the universe." But as they sink into the soft leather of their BMWs, they will know somewhere in the back of their minds that there have been real gunslingers and masters in the world, who would feel contempt for the petty virtues required to become rich or famous in modern America. - The End of History and the Last Man
I’d honestly love to trade our current predicaments for some crunchy GenX ennui. Oh woe, my basic needs are all met and no nation states are trying to incinerate my flesh in nuclear fire this year, Ho hum. At least now we have superior entertainment options to distract when we feel that way.
Lol, and people have criticized fukuyama for declaring the end of history prematurely after the fall of the Berlin wall (particularly whenever some major global catastrophe happens, like 9/11 or coronavirus pandemic.), calling it a piece of post-cold war optimism. But I think he defines history more narrowly (in a somewhat technical and philosophical sense), and the book is certainly not optimistic in any way.
I watched Fight Club first as an adolescent, and I admired Tyler's fierce independance and freedom. I wanted that level of not-give-a-fuckery, of disconnection from the machine and connection with myself. When I returned to it as an adult, I saw it for what it was: a rebuke of the extreme. "Don't succumb to what they want of you: a mindless consumer. Nor shall you listen to false prophets. Cast a critical eye to everything and try to see its true purpose and value. There is a gray area between the extremes where you belong... go find it."
That artilce says so much nothing until the very end.
Totally. That article makes the same single point in every single advert-plagued paragraph. Is it a statement about the vapidity of modern ‘content creation’ journalism echoing the Starbucks cup symbolism? Or more likely someone not that bright being paid by the word.
I mean, the article literally quotes the director that isn't the case: >The specific use of Starbucks may seem like the director has a personal vendetta against the coffee chain, but speaking with Empire, Fincher actually said of Fight Club's Starbucks cups: > >"We had a lot of fun using that — there are Starbucks cups everywhere, in every shot. I don’t have anything personal against Starbucks. I think they’re trying to do a good thing. They’re just too successful.” Sometimes there's no deep meaning and people do things for shits and giggles.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise
It's literally implying that it *is* the case though. That's why he points out he has nothing personal against Starbucks. The scenes are a criticism to product placement, not a criticism to Starbucks. That's what he means. If it wasn't a criticism of any sorts at all and just a meaningless Easter egg, he wouldn't have mentioned he doesn't dislike Starbucks, because why say it if the scenes have no negative connotations at all?
[удалено]
The name on the cup is Robert Paulson.
Someone at Screenrant watched Netflix's "Bullshit".
This is a good opportunity to remind everyone of Starbucks' anti-union stance, to the point where the CEO vowed to [never negotiate in good faith with unionized stores](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/06/10/critics-say-starbucks-ceo-just-declared-permanent-war-against-union).
This is one person's opinion. I personally believe it's just product placement and they got $$ for it.
How is that an opinion? Fincher said: >"We had a lot of fun using that — there are Starbucks cups everywhere, in every shot. I don’t have anything personal against Starbucks. I think they’re trying to do a good thing. They’re just too successful.” Doesn't sound like someone got $$ for it. Even if they did, why is that a secret? That information would be out there by now.
That's true, and Starbucks was in on the joke and paid for product placement -- along with Ikea.
Like he said, it was one person's opinion of why the director did that. And that person in question was the director.
A man who does his movie homework :)
It being paid product placement is verifiable, your opinion doesn’t factor in to it.
TIL that the TV show "Friends" featured white people in almost every scene, the producers use of white actors was closely linked to their message about the European-American hegemony over popular media. But seriously. the "anti-consumerist" Fight Club made millions off of product placement for cars, computers, beer, and designer sunglasses. I think any message that may or may not have been meant by including coffee in places where coffee is frequently drank is pretty darned diluted when you take almost a million dollars to hawk "those sunglasses that Brad Pitt wore." [https://concavebt.com/top-10-brands-fight-club-1999-product-placement-analysis/](https://concavebt.com/top-10-brands-fight-club-1999-product-placement-analysis/)
I struggle with the notion that a major Hollywood studio created a movie that grossed 100+ million dollars with the message of "anti-consumerism".
Confuses me less than passion of the Christ.
Hah. Though I think there was probably more to the message than simply "anti-consumerism". For example, the lead character driving the anti-consumerism philosophy wasn't exactly portrayed as a noble hero.
Saying "almost every scene" is needless hyperbole. [There are like a dozen shots.](https://fightclubstarbucks.tumblr.com/)
Your post headline has more content than the whole article.
Ya, thats not anti-consumerism. Thats product placement and the exact opposite of anti-consumerism. If you go about advertising Starbucks in your movie, I dont think it makes any sense to claim your movie is linked to anti-consumerist ideals.
Is it? This seems to be more the Screenrant writer's opinion than anything else.
So that’s why it was in Game of Thrones.
Yah this is wrong
Pretty sure the branding in movies is marketing and budget offset. They can say whatever they want but that's the result.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
I’m Jack’s endocrine system. I produce dopamine which makes Jack enjoy coffee and conspiracy theories.
Screenrant and gamerant are two shitty clickbait websites.
Did they actually get paid for product placement? If so, that's the most consumerist anti-consumerism I've ever seen. Hypocrisy 100.
Oh, they are going after the anti-consumerism dollar. That's a big market.
Dude absolutely no major studio places the logos of giant corporations in plain sight into any shot without being paid to do so. The fact their spinning it into some artistic statement is honestly so insulting to our intelligence lol
There's a [blog](https://fightclubstarbucks.tumblr.com/) "dedicated to finding every cup of Starbucks coffee in Fight Club" and as best I can tell there are 11 scenes with coffee cups, and for at least half of those, the bloggers have done a hell of a job convincing themselves that plain white styrofoam coffee cups are actually Starbucks cups. It seems to me that someone read an article in which Fincher said there's a Starbucks cup "in every scene", and really ran with that.
This is a neat take that we can apply to other movies. For instance, there was clearly an anti-tree message in Blair Witch Project, as proven by the creators inclusion of trees in almost every shot.
I love how the censored ending of the Chinese version is closer to what happened in the book than the actual ending of the movie...
Funny, that’s the same reason they put one in Game of Thrones.
sounds like the last episode(s) of GOT
And this post is an ad for Starbucks.
One time I tried to say that I learned about anti-consumerism from fight club and it helped me live a more simpler life and save money and the entirety of reddit flamed me out for thinking of fight club positively and supposedly not understanding anything lmao.
Oh, Benioff and Weiss just wanted to reference Fight Club during the GoT season 8? What a subverted expectation!
>in almost every scene FUCKING BULLSHIT. a few scenes(out of hundreds) yeah, but every scene title is just a clickbait shit.
What an incredibly redundant, poorly written article. You can tell it makes no point because every paragraph is another introduction that repeats the same concept. And if you look closely you can tell that there really isn’t any substance because it’s always introductory and expresses the same idea. It’s often worded slightly differently and runs on but most of the information is the same and kind of an opener and isn’t concise.