Sign in to follow this  
wildcat

GM paid $2 million to have a Solstice blown up

49 posts in this topic

Did you see what Peter DeLorenzo wrote in his March 22nd AutoExtremist?

He gave a "negative arrow" to Pontiac and GM, stating "Word on the studio lots in Hollywood is that GM paid the producers of 'Mission Impossible III' $2 million for the 'privilege' of having a Pontiac Solstice blown to smithereens in a scene in the upcoming summer blockbuster - this after every other car maker turned them down cold. Now, that's what we call March Madness."

Please tell me GM didn't waste $2 million on this. (Especially when Toyota would gladly blow up a Pontiac for free - ha-ha!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't Mission Impossible III be paying Pontiac $20,490 to blow up a Solstice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blowing up a GM vehicle is no easy task though. Lol.

Maybe it'll just take 2 million dollars worth of TNT.

In reality, maybe the car will get some awesome publicity in the film, maybe the main car that gets driven around in a chase of some sort. I just hope it doesn't end up being some random, barely even in the movie, side of the road, exploding car.

Edited by SilvaChris1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Josh

Blowing up a GM vehicle is no easy task though. Lol.

Maybe it'll just take 2 million dollars worth

In reality, maybe the car will get some awesome publicity in the film, maybe the main car that gets driven around in a chase of some sort. I just hope it doesn't end up being some random, barely even in the movie, side of the road, exploding car.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The car is already selling at a loss to the General. Why sink another $2,000,000 into it for the simple act of "publicity."

Speaking as an owner of the Solstice. The car has enough going for it that it does not need a spot in a "B" rated over featured Tom Cruise movie.

It's a waste of money. They should have spent the $2,000,000 on something more constructive.

How much did GM spend on the Matrix "placements?" I feel that investment (obviously) was far more important than a vehicle that is lucky to see 30,000 units produced annually.

Just stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, in the Matrix: Reloaded, wasn't nearly every single vehicle on the freeway chase scene (minus the CV's, semi's and Ducati's and a few scattered cars perhaps) a GM vehicle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Josh

It was the primary placement of the CTS and Escalade that I'm referring to.

I'm sorry but I help manage a store. When I see somebody come to me and say "can we sell this phone, and this case, at this price" I can't help but sit back and see what the benefits are.

People will say it's different from an auto company to a major telecomm business but I don't think it is.

You either know good business sense or you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was the primary placement of the CTS and Escalade that I'm referring to.

Oh yea, those were the obvious ones anyways (and can't forget the firebird either, of course, I guess that doesn't really count). But I just happened to notice, most of the cars you see on the freeway are primarily GM. I remember seeing GM vehicles (like an olds and a tahoe for example) getting creamed in the movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yea, those were the obvious ones anyways (and can't forget the firebird either, of course, I guess that doesn't really count). But I just happened to notice, most of the cars you see on the freeway are primarily GM. I remember seeing GM vehicles (like an olds and a tahoe for example) getting creamed in the movie.

I believe the entire freeway was built for the sole purpose of that chase. And, yes, every car on that freeway was a GM car, including the Aurora that ____ landed on. Off the freeway, there was a E32 7-series that split in half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's obvious that a lot of you don't know how the movie business works.

Guys, companies do this all the time. You just don't hear about it as much.

Whenever you see product placement or some sort of brand name item in a movie,television show, or a music video, it's not because the producers paid to have it shown in the movie, it's the other way around.

Companies like Motorola, Apple, GM, and Toyota (to name a few) pay movie studios to have their products showcased especially in huge blockbusters like the new Mission Impossible movie.

The reason: guaranteed viewership

Would you rather have GM waste billions of dollars on television commercials in a time when things like TiVO, DVDs, and internet file sharing are allowing people to completely skip the commercial break?

Or would you rather have GM spend a cool 2 million to showcase a hot vehicle that is guaranteed to be seen by hundreds of millions of people in a big summer movie?

Hmm... tough decision there.

Even though Tom Cruise is nut-job and everyone knows it, he still draws in a huge audience. Mission Impossible III will be one of the biggest movies of the year and you don't think GM should spend a little money (yes 2 million is a small amount for advertising) for some airtime?

Maybe that's why you guys aren't in the advertising biz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when you consider that a years worth of car shows cost the general close to $50 Million just for the booth space, electricity and carpeting - not the cars folks - just the space for the privilidge of showing the cars! Then they have to sell the cars at a deep discount due to the damage attained by the discerning public ( anyone here ever see somebody pull a piece of plastic trim off of a car at a car show? ) So $2 Million to showcase a product in a movie - not at all that bad. Seems a shame to me to waste a good car on something as stupid as a Tom Cruise movie - let's just hope it was a preproduction car or a Captured Fleet car that was already ready to be disposed of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's obvious that a lot of you don't know how the movie business works.

Guys, companies do this all the time.  You just don't hear about it as much.

Whenever you see product placement or some sort of brand name item in a movie,television show, or a music video, it's not because the producers paid to have it shown in the movie, it's the other way around.

Companies like Motorola, Apple, GM, and Toyota (to name a few) pay movie studios to have their products showcased especially in huge blockbusters like the new Mission Impossible movie.

The reason: guaranteed viewership

Would you rather have GM waste billions of dollars on television commercials in a time when things like TiVO, DVDs, and internet file sharing are allowing people to completely skip the commercial break?

Or would you rather have GM spend a cool 2 million to showcase a hot vehicle that is guaranteed to be seen by hundreds of millions of people in a big summer movie?

Hmm... tough decision there.

Even though Tom Cruise is nut-job and everyone knows it, he still draws in a huge audience.  Mission Impossible III will be one of the biggest movies of the year and you don't think GM should spend a little money (yes 2 million is a small amount for advertising) for some airtime?

Maybe that's why you guys aren't in the advertising biz.

Thank you. Now I don't have to type this. Also, Chrysler paid nearly $20M for it's placements in The Island. (cool movie. too bad for chrysler, the "must-have" vehicle in the film was a Caddy, not a dodge....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

......fleet Solstice? Who rent's a Solstice? :blink:

And I agree with zbad1, this is a smart move actually. Think of it like BMW or Aston putting their vehicles in a Bond movie. And so what if it gets blown up? People are going to remember an explosion more than if we just saw a Solstice parked on the street in a movie, like an "extra," or a background prop.

Mazda used the RX-8 in X-Men 2, and I'm sure they paid for that, not the studio.

Chrysler HEAVILY promoted the 300C and the fact that appeared latest Harrison Ford movie Firewall. I saw more commericals for the car being in the movie than I did for Harrison Ford being it.

So let's not jump the gun on GM because they did this.

Now, if they decide to blow up a fleet of Solstices........then we'll talk. :AH-HA_wink:

Edited by azulSKY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the entire freeway was built for the sole purpose of that chase. And, yes, every car on that freeway was a GM car, including the Aurora that ____ landed on. Off the freeway, there was a E32 7-series that split in half.

Kind of a "watch out bmw, escalade will cut you in half" moment. haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long is the Solstice shown? 2 minutes? 2 seconds? If a "bad guy" drove it around the entire movie and it gets blown up at the end, I am fine with it. However, if it just gets blown up randomly, then no. The $2 million could have gone into investing in a better interior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the entire freeway was built for the sole purpose of that chase. And, yes, every car on that freeway was a GM car, including the Aurora that ____ landed on. Off the freeway, there was a E32 7-series that split in half.

It was, and they weren't. If you look closely (I did because I noticed they were nearly all GMs), you'll find at least one early-90s Taurus, and of course the Bimmer. Maybe a couple more, too, but the point is there were a ton of GMs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad Boys II was also mostly GM... and also mostly crap. Coincidence?  :lol2:

MI:3 will be mostly crap too, what does that say about the Solstice? Edited by turbo200

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this