XOMuggins wrote:

It will be forever a point of pride with me that I helped launch the love of Goldblum...  Now, I am going to watch True Detective, Season One, which would be very high up my list for favourite TV shows. Noir as fuck.

That was a great show. probably overdue a re-watch myself. Enjoy!

Just finished the biker episode of True Detective with that looooooong chaotic scene and escape. Such a great show.

I read a review of the Netflix doc on Gloop, the Gwyneth Paltrow thing.

I read it for lols but it highlighted quite a worrying point.
"Movements" like Paltrow's Gloop amongst copious amounts of other pseudo science nonsense exist as an almost religious belief system or cult and similarly serve to line the pockets of their leaders. Goop is basically a product pusher from lifestyle products and treatments to fanny candles.

The Goop doc along with other Netflix docs covering similar subjects rarely if ever approach these movements from a critical point of view. They are effectively adverts for the lifestyle which are in turn adverts for the product. Which makes me wonder who is paying who for these docs to appear on the subscription service.

Now I am sitting here quite enjoying another Netflix original called Next in Fashion.
A high fashion, cat walk reality show that is actually quite good but back to the point.
Midway through episode two the two presenters comment on each other's outfits. Fine, it is a fashion programme and presenter banter is at the heart of many reality competitiion shows. However it happens that one presenter is wearing something from the people supplying the prize money and the other is wearing her own collection. How convenient. Fairly innocent of course compared to the quite troubling pseudo science of Goop but there none the less.

Wondering if anyone else has spotted anything that goes that bit beyond passive product placement on Netflix originals.

Given that the company is deep in debt I wouldn't be suprised at all if this is a route Netflix originals continue to follow especially considering how much they can get away with compared to the more regulated broadcast TV.

I've seen a product placement notification at the beginning of a few things I think. Queer Eye has some kind of product placement I believe.

I know Terrace House has product placement in terms of the things provided in the house and apparently the housemates are encouraged to wear T-shirts for a fashion brand that sponsors the show but I think that's for the benefit of Fuji TV rather than Netflix.

EvilRedEye wrote:

I've seen a product placement notification at the beginning of a few things I think. Queer Eye has some kind of product placement I believe.

I know Terrace House has product placement in terms of the things provided in the house and apparently the housemates are encouraged to wear T-shirts for a fashion brand that sponsors the show but I think that's for the benefit of Fuji TV rather than Netflix.

Yeah wouldnt be suprised if Queer Eye had plenty of it. They are largely picking basics that fit and work for the person. I'm ok with that, it funds the show and can actually help in informing the viewer. I feel all parties gain there.

I generally dont mind subtle product placement. I know one of the first to do it after it was deemed passable here was Hollyoaks. Their cast was dressed in Topman/TopShop. I am ok with that, it fits, they would have been wearing that kind of thing anyway and it is fluff programming.

I worry there might be a deeper, darker form of it brewing.

Haha.
Brilliant. I dont think I saw that episode, I only watched a few seasons and my memory of them is vague.

American regs seem to be a lot slacker, I wouldnt be suprised if the suitcase logo was blurred when it aired here.

g.man wrote:

Fanny candles?

Yeah, handles... For Fanny's.

Finished season two of Sex Education

Still very good, Introduced some new characters including scheming wheel chair guy and continued to be very watchable and funny and heart warming. Interested to see season three. Gillian Anderson still excellent. 8 out of 10.

@LivDiv After watching things like You’ve Been Trumped, or Making a Murderer, I find myself watching all documentaries with increasing skepticism. While the <5 second snippet I saw of the Gloop thing was more obvious in its mawkishness, I think it’s increasingly rare for documentaries to be made without heavy authorial bias. I know that Reg would step in with his media studies hat on and point out that any documentary will have bias, as someone has to choose what information to include, but I think it’s increasingly the case that documentary makers are withholding exculpatory evidence, and presenting contentious, potentially incorrect information as solid fact, in order to tell what they want the story to be, and not what it is. Fundamentally dishonest intent.

LivDiv wrote:

g.man wrote:

Fanny candles?

Gwyneth Paltrow is selling a candle through Gloop that I shit you not is scented "This smells like my vagina". And they sold out.

g.man wrote:

LivDiv wrote:

g.man wrote:

Fanny candles?

Gwyneth Paltrow is selling a candle through Gloop that I shit you not is scented "This smells like my vagina". And they sold out.

Fucking hell lighten up.

Given that she is selling a candle that "Smells like my vagina" then apparently there is something unique about it.

Do they do the healing crystals too?

And now they’ve successfully pitched an entire TV series of advertorials to Netflix. Probably only on the back of Paltrow’s Hollywood star power, but it’s still a worrying precedent for brand-led programming.

I suppose it’s not all that different to Amazon Prime having the Ken Block / Monster Energy stuff already. At least that’s just Monster as a sponsor though, rather than a whole series about their product.

I would normally agree but she did invite it.