Film Theory: Is The Emoji Movie ILLEGAL? (feat. Jacksfilms)

"The Emoji Movie"... "A work so devoid of wit, style, intelligence, or basic entertainment value that it makes that

movie

based on the Angry Birds app look like a pure artistic statement by comparison." - Roger Ebert.com "'The Emoji Movie' is so bad it makes us want to scream at strangers in the street..." "I don't think I can say anything funny about this, because it makes me want to die." - The Verge "Make no mistake, 'The Emoji Movie' is very, very, very bad." - IndieWire Too bad, it should be

illegal

. Oh wait, it actually IS

illegal

. That quote is mine and today I will show you why.

Hello Internet! Welcome to Film Theory! A spectacle best represented by the sad clown

emoji

. You will see? He is sad because he lost custody of his children. That's how this show makes you feel. Like a lonely clown, lonely and crying. Speaking of things that will depress you, "The Emoji Movie"! The worst reviewed

movie

of 2017 and the 30th most successful movie of 2017 at the box office this year. Raising over $85 million so far... Cue the 'Make It Rain'

emoji

. It just goes to show you that if you talk about something enough, it just gets stronger. Is there any Trump emoji I can show here?

Seems pertinent... Anyway, there's no denying that this story of an emoji that just can't fit was a bad movie: boring, lazy, formulaic... That's *CLEAR* But the question I have What today Our question is whether "The Emoji Movie" should have been considered illegal. And I'm not baiting clicks or anything, I'm legitimately asking the question: Does "The Emoji Movie" violate the legal requirements put in place by the government to protect viewers from the evil scourge that is savagely deflowering the good old United States? : Sponsored content, or, to use the official term, embedded advertising. Now, obviously, over my six years on YouTube, I've made my fair share of sponsored videos.

Whether it's a final list promoting a product like Dollar Shave Club, or an entire episode dedicated to a

theory

I've put together for a specific movie, TV show, or game; Like the recent episode of DuckTales here on Film Theory. And here's the thing: sponsorships are essential to help supplement channels' revenue. And for me, it ensures that I can help pay the team of researchers and editors who help me produce game

theory

and movie theory every week, since at this point, that's what Youtube requires for the channels to remain relevant, but independently. In the process of making those promotional segments, I had to become intimately familiar with the proper way to reveal different styles of brand associations, because there are very strict guidelines on how to make the audience realize that these are ads.

You see, in the US we have the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, and the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, who set the rules that anyone who produces content must follow to ensure that the audience can tell that the brand He paid to be there. And it doesn't even have to be a payment. Even if they provided free products or some other consideration like cross-promotion, you still have to educate audience members about that kind of thing. The underlying reason here is that if I take a sip of a Diet Coke and say, "Mmmmm, man, that's a clean, fresh taste!" But Coca-Cola Diet paid for that placement.

Maybe I'm just saying it because I was told so. But if I say it and promote it over six years of videos, and they didn't pay for any of it, well, you can take it. that I'm an addict, because I am. Me revealing that they partnered with me before running the ad allows you, as the audience, to be a little more critical of the promotion, and there are government protections to ensure that you, as viewers, aren't being misled or misled. But then I went to see "The Emoji Movie" and, let me be clear, it was for research purposes only!

And I quickly saw puppies playing with kittens to later serve as eye whitener. Watching the movie, I couldn't help but be dumbfounded by the number of blatant product integrations that were happening without any disclosure! If I did, my video would immediately be flagged and fined by the FTC, prompting a swarm of "angry judge emoji", followed by " "jail years emoji" and "tons of money flying emoji." So today, I'm analyzing product integrations in the movie to prove that they are actually violating the FTC and FCC's requirements for determining whether a movie that It is as bad as it is from a legal point of view.

Any time you see a brand appear anywhere, like when everyone in "Twilight" mysteriously drives a Volvo, or how James Bond sold his change to martinis in exchange for a bottle of bright green Heineken, it falls under the classification of integrated advertising. The term integrated advertising basically covers two things: product placement and product integrations. In product placement, the product pays a fee or offers some other consideration and includes their brand or product logo in the

film

. So your product basically becomes a prop like the Reese's Pieces in "ET" or those perfectly integrated Dunkin' Donuts cups in America's Got Talent or literally once every 10 frames in any Transformers movie.

It should seem like an accident, like "oh look, these things exist in the real world and they just happen to show up in the scene." Do you like music? the pill But, of course, it's no accident. In fact, Reese paid for each of those pieces. He spent $1 million to help promote the movie so it would be included in that iconic ET scene. So that's option 1: product placement. Option 2 is product integration: where the brand is actively incorporated into the story or dialogue. Take, for example, one of my favorite examples: Snapple appears on 30 Rock where they talk directly about the benefits of Snapple.

We are not doing that. We are not compromising the integrity of the program to sell. Oh, this is Diet Snapple. I only hang out with guys who drink Snapple. Everyone loves Snapple, but God knows I do or little Nicky using Popeye's chicken to save the earth from demons or this. iconic moment that is close to many of our hearts. I love the power glove. It's so big and again, if the brand doesn't pay to be there, it doesn't count. As if to say how much I still love drinking Diet Coke, alone, unsponsored, rejected by the sweet, sweet Cola company of my dreams, Diet Coke.

So now we return to "The Emoji Movie" and one of the biggest and most obvious examples of advertising embedded in the

film

: everyone's grandmother's favorite mobile game, Candy Crush. Let's look at the scene a little closer to see what the FTC and FCC have to say if this warrants a sponsorship disclosure. At the beginning you can clearly see the Candy Crush logo, which means we've definitely crossed over into product placement territory. But then the movie directly says the name of the Candy Crush app and the characters directly talk about the functionality of the game. I can't match it with any yellow or else *popping noise* *screams* Don't do that Then after that, the emoji character literally has to win the game to advance the plot of the movie.

This clearly falls into category two: product integration We also know that none of this was an accident. King (the company that owns Candy Crush) publicly teamed up with "The Emoji Movie" to do one of the biggest cross-promotions in gaming history, even creating special in-game Emoji Movie levels to promote the movie So? What do the FTC guidelines have to say about integrations like this? First, you must disclose everything up front. To directly quote the FTC guidelines, "FTC law would cover an endorsement if an advertiser or someone who works for an advertiser pays you or gives you something of value for mentioning a product." If you receive free products or other benefits with the If you expect to promote or discuss the advertiser's products, you must disclose this.

This is literally on the front page of the FTC disclosure site. So how did "The Emoji Movie" miss this? Remember, it doesn't even say they have to like the product. If it appears, if you mention it, it counts and needs disclosure. But who knows, maybe they did disclose it, maybe they did it in the film's credits; Those things go on forever. So it must be there somewhere, right? Good? Oh look, there it is: in that giant block of text five minutes into the credits. But that won't be enough in the eyes of the FTC. They emphasize again and again in their rules and FAQs that disclosures must be clear, difficult to miss, and accurately represent the relationship between the video and the brand; must be cited "in unambiguous language." And whoever makes the video should make it stand out.

The font needs to be legible, it needs to stand out from the background, and it shouldn't be hidden in footnotes or blocks of text or placed in places people aren't likely to read. Say, for example, the end credits of a movie. They even explicitly say to avoid the end of content again, another quote from the FTC guidelines. Quote "you're more likely to miss a reveal at the end of a video, especially if someone doesn't watch it in its entirety." at the beginning it would be better to have multiple reveals during the video, it would be even better" No, sorry FTC, you just get a bunch of "courtesy of" mixed into a wall of text an hour after the embedded ad appeared and remember that?

Everything "accurately represents the relationship between the video and the brand bit"? Yes, well, something tells me that the relationship between King and Sony Pictures was very different than the relationship between Rosanna Pansino and Sony Pictures. But apparently everything is the. same "courtesy of." That doesn't even imply that any kind of payment or promotional consideration changed hands, but we all know that it did. just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to integrations in this movie. THE ENTIRE MOVIE jumps from one embedded ad to another: from Twitter to YouTube to Spotify to Instagram to Facebook Millions of moviegoers were literally tricked into paying money to watch. one hour and 31 minutes of commercials.

I wish I was joking. And the exact same disclosure rule should apply to each of them, but especially to the other two biggest product integrations in this movie: Dropbox and Just Dance. And if you thought Candy Crush was bad, these two are even worse. In the current Just Dance scene, it's not just that the characters are Just Dancing, they are actually promoting the product. They start by literally explaining the rules of the game: "Follow my moves," and you can move on! Make the wrong moves and you'll get an X." - then sell the product as an app made for everyone - "Come on, everyone can dance!" - then make positive comments about using the app for the rest of this excruciatingly long scene.

Oh, you really love it, only language like that matters to the FTC. Oh, you bet so. There's a line from the FTC guidelines specifically on implied product endorsements here: Simply posting a picture of a product or a video of you using it could convey that you like and approve of the Product, if so, it's an endorsement that doesn't hurt you. like. You necessarily have to use words to convey a positive message. Yes, you can do things like smile, use non-verbal sounds like whoa, or show that you can use the product. Well, if you do any of those things, the FTC expects you to make some disclosure.

It's even more blatant for Dropbox and let's be honest. Dropbox. I can see six-year-old Timmy sitting in the theater saying, "Oh, thank God." There is finally a secure solution for my file transfer needs and then a snot out of the box. his nose and uses it to decorate his snow cape, but for Dropbox in this movie it's really bad, literally. They marvel at Dropbox's gorgeous firewall and then demonstrate the app's password. And how strong is your security? So of course they believe it? It's explicitly clear that the evil malware emoji can't get through because you know it's malware and malware can't get into the great secure Dropbox app.

This isn't just product integration, it's a direct demo and endorsement, basically the pinnacle of everything hashtag-driven. Bottom line, legal mumbo-jumbo be damned, the results are definitely clear, the emoji movie is totally off the mark, look no further than the FTC. guidelines It violates the rules that I and literally millions of other YouTubers are bound by every day Turn it off, everyone call the feds, let them know these violators should get as many Frown Face Emojis as they get from the FTC. Not only is this movie a huge steaming poop emoji? But it's also a poop behind bars emoji because what they're doing is literallyillegal.

You will no longer desecrate the emoji movie. Oh no, your dab is too strong, it blinds me! Get a good enemy. Emoji Movie's ability to educate impressionable young minds about quality malware-free file-sharing services like Dropbox and the endless hours of fun they can get from the incredible Just Dance that, with its selection of 283 of today's most popular dance, is protected by section three. One seven of the FCC Communications Act that states that any film produced to appear in theaters does not have to disclose its brand associations? Damn Jack's movies and his solid knowledge of arcane legal jargon.

But seriously, is that really true? Would the emoji movie lie? I mean, have you ever had so much fun playing just dancing now? yes, Jack's movies are far away! Wait wait wait! I didn't make up all those other disclosure rules though... They're all in the FTC and FCC guidelines... So if movies are exempt from having to disclose that they're getting paid millions of dollars for these products... .For some reason... and then what? Do these rules only apply to television newspapers and digital videos? Digital only. Television is judged by other standards as long as the Milton Bradley promo appears in the end credits of that episode of Big Theory, you're all good, fam! (Audience laughs at the scene) Why is the audience laughing at this?

They're just playing tornado, they're not even in fun positions. Because it's hilarious, Mat. Oh wow, between this and the emoji movie, this year has been a comedic powerhouse. But in the best of cases, no one shows the credits of television shows anymore. They're in a little corner as the next show starts playing! Yes, in the meantime, YouTubers and other digital video creators must run an ad in the first few seconds of the video and then again when the actual integration begins. so that viewers don't miss it, yes. And movies don't have to do any of this?

You bet WHY? Let's be honest, people probably received money. Add to this the fact that money rarely changes hands directly. You even said it yourself to get Reese's Pieces to ET, Hershey's spent $1 million PROMOTING the movie. The films found a loophole and also cites their First Amendment rights to reveal at the beginning. In the middle of the film they would take away their right to tell the artistic story they want to tell. I don't know, if James Bond is willing to trade his iconic martinis for a cheap beer for forty-five million dollars, something tells me that the arts and freedom of expression may not be the determining factors in that creative decision.

Oooh, talking about pushing? I hope in the emoji movie 2 they go to the eBay app! Oh, what I wouldn't do if Gene had a bidding war with Jailbreak. oh boy, what a mischief So what you're telling me is that if the emoji movie was a YouTube video or a movie made for Facebook or whatever, it would be illegal because it doesn't reveal brand endorsements, but because it's a

feat

ure. movie in theaters. It's perfectly fine. Yes, even if it is aimed directly at children. Yeah, doesn't it seem hypocritical and unfair that laws require YouTubers to disclose brand agreements multiple times to make sure audiences know the relationship between branding and creativity, while movies get tens of millions of dollars for having them?

Emoji learns how to play Candy Crush in an effort to get kids to play and none of that has to be revealed. In some place?!? it does. And that's what makes the brilliant creative minds of Sony Pictures animation so brilliant and creative. But my work here is done JacksFilms, Away! The FTC guidelines covering online bloggers and things like YouTube videos are over 10,000 words, which is longer than the entire emoji movie script, which is 7,426 words. Oh yes, I counted it! Expectations about reveals and movies are covered in 30 words, but can be summed up in four: "No need." And let me make it clear.

I am not opposed to disclosure. I think it's important, but I think it should be fair to movies, TV, and bloggers. I'm going to now quote question one of the FTC guidelines (quote) "Do the backup guidelines apply to social media?" your answer? "Yes, truth and publicity are important in all media, whether they have been around for decades (like television and magazines) or are relatively new (like blogs and social media)." Notice the kind of media that's conspicuously absent there? Films! The FTC states that the goals of these regulations are to help consumers distinguish ads from content. But perhaps the worst part of all this is that the emoji movie is clearly aimed at children, children who, according to studies by the Association for Consumer Research, do not even understand that commercials exist to sell a product.

If these government agencies are really invested in protecting viewers, they should spend a little less time sending notices to Instagrammers and spend a little more time telling these 90-minute commercials to get in shape... in shape , wait, no, that's an app too! non-sponsor hashtag! HASHTAG NO SPON! And I'll probably never patronize again, get ready for a lot more YouTube theories my friends, but hey, that's just a theory, a movie theory, and a special thanks to Jacksfilms, the quote-unquote biggest Emoji Movie fan, for helping me out with today's episode if you missed his fun review. of the movie, then BAM.

There's the link on the screen right now. Just uh, Jack makes sure to put a #SPON on that poop emoji. Chest hair you have at the end, and on a more serious note. Please help support independent creators like Jacksfilms and us here. in film theory they're trying to do a good job in a system that's obviously rigged against us, how can you do that? Well, are there many ways? But the easiest answer is to subscribe and then see our video links on your screen now. So please click on them now, if you'll excuse me. I need to hide.

I was on some government watch lists before, but I called. I'm sure the unfair relations between the government and the entertainment industry make me no friends, so let's keep our fingers crossed that all our videos don't get flagged.