Spiderman using a Canon F1!

[keith_smith2]

Spending some quality bonding time with my son, I saw the movie

Spiderman. I noticed what I thought was the main character, Peter,

using a Canon F1, but the namebrand "Canon" was somehow removed or

covered up.

What is this all about? Does Canon still have the F1 copyright and

if so wouldn't it make sense to have the Canon name thrown all over

on what was a hit movie. I can't imagine what the response to the

slughish FD market would have been. (Low prices are still to my

benefit.) Especially, since there is a big "retro" style move taking

place.

 

Was I seeing things right, Spiderman using a Canon F1 or was it some

other camera and what is wrong with Canon, the company, for not

embracing this?

[gregory_nicholson]

Yes, it is a heavily used F-1N. I personally thought they used a stunt camera and "Canon" and "F-1" was blacked out so they didn't have to pay Canon for using the product.

 

I'm not trying to be a jerk but your statement "I can't imagine what the response to the slughish FD market would have been." has me puzzled. Are you thinking that if Canon re-advertised a camera line-up they don't sell/service anymore that they might sell more EOS or digi cameras? Or, are you thinking that if Canon would showcase more FD cameras third party manufacturers would make more accessories? Can you elaborate on your thoughts.

 

Finally, what is to embrace? What does Canon have to gain by letting people know their old camera was in a movie? later

[dave_s]

Yeah, it's weird. I would have thought Canon would be fallin' all over themselves just wanting to get their brand name in front of the public.

<p>

Then when Joe/Jane Consumer goes to their local photo shop, and asks for a camera "just like Spiderman has", the salesguy could explain, "Well, they haven't made that exact one since 1992, but they still make something <i>almost</i> as good."

[keith_smith2]

Gregory,

 

First of all, I'm sure your not a jerk and I'll be happy to share my thoughts.

 

My statement "I can't imagine what the response to the slugish FD market would have been" is pretty straight and forward. If the movie would have shown a F1 camera with nice bright, white letters reading "Canon" and "F1" how many high school aged students would be getting mommy and daddys money and going on Ebay, buying the FD equipment. How many adults that have these old digital cameras, that they don't use, and bought when they first came out would say to themselves "hey I have an old Canon in the attic maybe I'll take it out for a run" and then get back into it and start shopping for more FD equipment? Would the price on everything go up a little or skyrocket? --My statement was just a thought, that's all, just a big what if... Just to see what the response is from other FD users.

 

Now for your second question, "What is there to embrace?"

 

In Jan 02, the stock for Marvel, the company that ownes Spiderman, was trading at just under $4.00 per share. On Friday, 24 Oct 2003, the stock closed at $27.32. I don't know how much money the movie made, or is still making, but I do know that in the second week of May 02, the movie had just finished it's second week in the #1 spot with a total of $223Million. As Dave posted, think of how many Joe/Janes would walk into the camera store and say "I want one like Sipderman." In my opinion, which with a $1.54 gets me a large cup of coffee at Dunkin Donuts, Canon missed a prime synergy opportunity to have there name thrown around in a mega-blockbuster, which I think was geared to 12-30 age group. Canon, Canon, Canon, Canon "what kind of a camera would you like Joey? ...Humm

 

Now your last question "What does Canon have to gain by letting people know there old camera was in a movie?

 

One word: MONEY!

 

The way I see it is that somebody dropped the ball on big time exposure, no pun intended. These are my thoughts. You asked, I gave. Later.

[william_vickers1]

C'mon guys! I have seen plenty of films where the logos on cameras were covered up or blacked out, most commonly on Nikons. This is a decision of the film maker. It doesn't have anything to do with the current trend towards "product placement" in films, paying or not paying fees, etc. Some photojournalists put black tape over camera logos too. Ostensibly, this is to make them "less conspicuous."

[gregory_nicholson]

Hi Keith, Thanks for explaining your original post to me. I read your first statement as "would Canon benefit". Now I understand it as "would the used market respond". With that, I agree it would and possibly new sales too. Of course any publicity is good publicity.

 

Why do you think the F-1 and Canon letters were painted black? Maybe the character called for an older camera. If so, Canon may have recognized that might be a bad idea if some unknowing people found out they simply dumped their last line of cameras. Blackening out the camera�s designation might have been done at Canon�s request. It would have been more appropriate for them to supply a new 7E or 10D with a 28-135 IS lens but that might not have been what the director wanted.

[casualcollector]

A beat up old camera is probably all this slightly impoverished, aspiring photojournalist could afford. One could even imagine it being a gift from one of his mentors. Director, Sam Raimi, probably didn't want viewers distracted by a bright white nameplate. The condition definitely says to me "this is a camera that has taken a LOT of pictures". Neither of my F-1s looks this used. I guess that doesn't say much for me!!

[bill_g2]

<p>The camera was a pretty central prop. I would guess that it is simply a matter of Canon not paying the product placement fees, so the movie didn't give away the advertising.

 

<p>Probably a pretty simple decision for Canon by balancing the cost of doing the placement with their brand marketing strategy. I am surprised that the movie people didn't shop that placement around until one the camera companies snapped it up. As a marketing tool, being the camera of Spiderman would have some value.

 

<p>The whole issue of product placements in movies (and TV) is a big business and there are agencies that help do product placements.

 

<p>See this link: <A href="http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/product-placement.htm">howstuffworks.com on Product Placement</A>

[bill_g2]

<p>Of course, I did find the scene amusing where the camera was set up by itself to take photos of Spiderman doing in the bad guys.

 

<p> Hmmm. Don't think that would have been too easy with the old F-1, but such is the nature of Hollywood.