The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, New Frontiers in film financing.

The Greatest Movie Ever Sold directed by Morgan Spurlock.

Where and When: Thursday 29th September at BFI Southbank

On Thursday I saw Morgan Spurlock’s new documentary about branding, advertising and product placement, which is entirely funded by branding, advertising and product placement.

Afterward, a panel of experts from film and advertising discussed how producers can create new synergies and forms of production finance without losing their artistic integrity. The panel included; Pippa Cross, Producer of Chalet Girl, Duncan Forrester, Head of Public Affairs, Volvo, Darryl Collis, Director of Seesaw Media, Pete Buckingham, Head of Distribution and Exhibition at the BFI

“Nothing like a cold call to let you know how little power you have.” Morgan Spurlock.

What I learned:

1) The Greatest Movie Ever Sold was the first film to be in profit before it hit theatres

2) Spurlock ‘didn’t negotiate for success’ so the brands didn’t have to pay him any more money when the movie became a runaway success.

3) In the first few months, The Greatest Movie Ever Sold had over 900 million media impressions.

4) Spurlock called over 100 ad agencies and 650 companies to contribute to the documentary, only 15 companies said yes. A success rate of only 2%.

5) Pom juice is 40% as effective as Viagra for helping a man sustain an erection.

6) Volvo did not pay to be in Twilight, the filmmakers stayed true to the fact that Edward drives a Volvo in the book. But they have people come in and buy the car Edward drives after seeing the movies, even though it’s a £35-50,000 investment.

7) A big champagne company turned down the opportunity to be in The King’s Speech because they ‘didn’t do period films’.

8) Morgan Spurlock could not legally disparage the entire country of Germany in or around the Mini that he was given for the film. Most of the contracts had a non-disparagement clause.

9) Spurlock said all of the brands asked for ROI (return on investment) but not of them got it.

10) Ditto for the final cut, Spurlock says: ‘Retain final cut or it’s not your film”. However, if your film costs more than $40-50 million, you will not get final cut.

11) Spurlock’s advice to filmmakers when negotiating with brands and advertisers is: Always know what you are willing to give up. Integrity is valuable.

12) Fed ex did not pay to be in Castaway.

13) The film uses all of the things it criticise in the beginning to sell the film to you later

14) Old Navy gave Spurlock a cheque for £200,000 after seeing the documentary at the Sundance Premiere.

15) The brands have bigger lawyer than you.

16) Pippa Cross had to spend 2K on CGI to get ride of a beer bottle on Shooting Dogs because the beer brand did not want to be associated with the genocide.

17) The Social Network has Mark Zuckerberg and the rest of the cast using Sony laptops, but, factually, the real people the film is based on would have been using Apple Macs.

18) Pippa Cross got Tesco vouchers for Chalet Girl, and the best Ski brands on board.

19) Morgan Spurlock made a deal with a tri-state pet discount store; you could get a goldfish and after the first one died, use a voucher to get another one. Like Spurlock does in the film.

20) Spurlock tried to get a gun company onboard, but they all said no.

21) The lawyer Morgan interviews in his documentary tells of of the term ‘Faction’. Where fact and fiction meet, and what advertisers use to confuse you and integrate their products into your favourite TV shows and Films.

The documentary is essential viewing for anyone interested in film, or raising finance.

Richard Wright is On Tanget

As the great Willie Nelson once told us “on the road again, just can’t wait to get on the road again”. That man spoke a lot of sense in that song but he also smoked a lot of cannabis apparently, so take anything he says with a slight pinch of salt. I know I do. Why am I quoting him? This makes no sense. Which would be fine if I was high but I don’t smoke weed. So anyway the confusion is back at Frost Magazine. For those of you who don’t know, cause let’s face it as Staind said; it has, in fact, been a while, I used to write a lot of nonsense on various things right here at Frost Magazine. And now due an underwhelming lack of public interest in those articles I am back to do some more. No need to thank me I know you didn’t ask me too. So let’s get down do it and do something America can’t do and raise the ceiling! That joke works better if it’s raise the roof but it’s not called the Debt Roof. If it was then the debt roof really is on fire. The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire. Anywho….

Let me introduce this little idea of mine. It’s called “on tangent” and basically I like to wander aimlessly wherever my mind takes me at that moment. There is never a moment when I can truly stay on topic. For example writing this now I have had to avoid slipping into a few lines on the topic chocolate bar. You see I will never be on topic and don’t go looking for a topic because there’s isn’t one. However I can promise that I can stay on tangent. There is to the best of my knowledge no chocolate bar called tangent. There is one in Sweden called Plop but none called Tangent. Plop is actually quite a tasty bit of confectionary. You see my issue. So here I present the first ever on tangent – I’ll keep these brief there is only so long you can read them before they become intolerable.

I thought we could start with something deep. The greatest thing you’ll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return. Unless, of course, you’re a surgeon in which case that’s just not true at all. What I would like to talk with you about today is something that I believe is an important topic that deserves deep consideration. Why does Alexander Armstrong look quite so much like a Toby Jug? That’s not it but it just struck me, and I felt I should share.

Admittedly saying that was a tad pointless. Oh yes that’s right he shoots and he scores. Thank you thank you no need to applaud. I do quite like that quiz though it’s quite a good tea time watch. I wouldn’t mind going on pointless because I wouldn’t win and it would be pointless. I think we can all see the circularity in that. It would be the purest form of the quiz and I would have embraced the totality of the nature of naming the quiz pointless. Because my being on the show would be pointless and therefore that would surely make the lords of quiz naming happy. Although I have a feeling the name was initially rejected as the title for a Katie Price reality show. Or even just as the tagline to her life. I mean that would be a more honest title for one of those shows. Speaking of honest advertising here is a few potential company slogans if the companies involved decided to be a bit more honest about themselves:

1.We’re not ethical but you knew that – NewsCorp
2.We do terrible things but aren’t your trainers comfortable? – Nike
3.Evil vs tasty? Tasty wins – Nestle
4. Want to look like you care without trying too hard? Cadburys Dairy Milk
5. At this point we could probably sell you anything – Apple
6. Come on you don’t even watch Panorama – Primark
7.You don’t really understand it but everyone is else is doing it – Twitter

Speaking of advertising one of the adverts I saw for the new Alpha Romeo Mito made me angrily confused. Now car adverts is one of the places were rhetoric and the use of over the top language is common place and I can accept that for what it is. A ford focus won’t give you more focus. But this? Sorry Alpha this is lying! It runs on Adrenaline? It clearly won’t that’s so over the top stupid I can’t wrap my head around who said that was OK! It’s beyond my tiny mind and maybe that’s why I don’t understand it. But as the weeks role by here at Frost Magazine you’ll soon discover there are many things I don’t understand. And that’s ok. There is nothing wrong with saying I don’t understand. Nick Clegg says it every day when he looks in the mirror. And I can help Nick it’s called standing by your beliefs. Talk to Paddy Ashdown about it he might be able to help you out. You remember him right Nick?

So that’s all for this particular peculiar but always molecular edition of On tangent. I am aware that last sentence makes about as much sense as going to Lycos to do a search for Google but, you know, when you’re the type of person who does go to Lycos and type in Google you run with whatever you can think of. When I went to Lycos and typed in Google I just wanted it to link to a picture of a dog crying with the text “why do you mock me like this? It’s not right. You know where Google is. Why do you have to remind me things aren’t as good as we planned? I hate Google!” Thanks for reading until next time please occasionally use Lycos it will make its little tail wag.

PS – If Lycos had become the world powerhouse instead of Google would the popular phrase for doing an internet search have been “fetching”? It would have been better then “dogging it”