[LaurenOE]

I just got back from seeing the film Rush, about Niki Lauda and James Hunt.
While I am too young to fully appreciate the film purely on memory alone, I will say that I do remember the 1970's and I remember Pentax being a little more common as a choice of professional photographers.

If not Pentax, then certainly the Nikon F1.

As I was watching the film, I couldn't help but notice how almost all the cameras had black tape over the pentaprisms.
Usually this is a bit odd in a movie that is going for historical context, especially since this film was chock full of 1970's sponsors.
Heck, they even got Hesketh's logos right!

Logos were everywhere, on the cars, on banners, on people, but the only camera logos I saw, seemed to be Canon.

Even James Hunt's/Chris Helmsworth's right shoulder had a Canon logo in the movie!

It was so obvious that I was taken out of the movie for a moment to stop a second and think about Canon.

When I got home, I did a little Wikipedia research.

Ron Howard directed the film - he's a BIG Canon guy.

McLaren - in the 1970s Canon does not show as a sponsor -

Formula One sponsorship liveries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nor Ferrari -

Formula One sponsorship liveries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It appears that Canon became a major sponsor with the Williams team in 1985 as their first "major" sponsorship.

Formula One sponsorship liveries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So correct me if I'm wrong, but here is a case of world class brand management.
Canon, was NOT involved in 1970s F1 racing, and only came on the F1 scene as a major sponsor well into the 80's.

When did Canon come on the scene?

1980 was their first foray - Richard Lloyd Racing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What *is* REALLY crazy is that James Hunt finished his F1 racing career in an OLYMPUS sponsored car!



James Hunt (GB)'s cars - Photo Gallery (page 2) - Racing Sports Cars

When folks get mad at those of us that complain about the missteps that Ricoh/Pentax makes, all they need to do is look how a company like Canon, managed to pull a coup like Rush off.

Amazing in that James Hunt had NOTHING to do with Canon during his F1 career and around what this film is based on.

Real Life.



Movie

---

Last edited by LaurenOE; 09-27-2013 at 03:53 PM.

[jbinpg]

I believe it is older brother Chris Hemsworth (Thor) that plays James Hunt, not Liam (Hunger Games), Lauren. Nicki Lauda says Chris did a fine job portraying the late Hunt.

Jack

[LaurenOE]

I believe it is older brother Chris Hemsworth (Thor) that plays James Hunt, not Liam (Hunger Games), Lauren. Nicki Lauda says Chris did a fine job portraying the late Hunt.

Jack

Fixed it! Thanks!
I thought it was a great film, except for it being a Canon shill - when they had nothing to do with it!

I'd recommend the movie, sure, just ignore the Canon placement.

[Tanzer]

I guess history can be rewritten by the victor.

[LowVoltage]

I agree, it's a shame a movie about a particular person at a specific time in history can't be more accurate with the finer details.

I recently watched The Killing Fields in which one of the characters, played by John Malkovich, was a war photographer. I remember remarking to myself how they got the cameras right for the time - very chunky, lots of would-be shiny metal (if not for the carnage of Vietnam and Cambodia). Pretty sure they were Nikons, and as I recall, the same cameras showed up in Full Metal Jacket (only briefly, however).

On the other hand, with a film like Rush, with the numerous sponsorships intrinsically linked to the subject matter, I would not envy the individuals responsible for securing the rights to display branding, logos, and the like.

[fb_penpho]

Lauren a bit off subject. I saw a few minutes on the TV of an english premiership equivalent football game from the (guess) late 70's early 80's. I think it was at Tottenham, but what was interesting were the advertising boards around the edge of the pitch. They nearly all were saying PENTAX. These boards would be the main advertising statement of the day. I was taken back as to how prominent the Pentax brand had been.

[jogiba]

Camera Arri Alexa Plus, Bausch & Lomb Super Baltar Lenses
Arri Alexa Studio, Bausch & Lomb Super Baltar Lenses
Canon EOS C300 (some scenes)

Rush (2013) - Technical Specifications - IMDb

In 1972 Canon launched a Highspeed model with a fixed pellicle mirror that allowed the user to see the subject at all times. Equipped with a motor drive the camera was able to shoot up to 9 frames per second, the highest speed of any motor driven camera at the time.

The Canon F-1 had one of the largest set of accessories of any 35mm SLR ever produced. The viewfinder was removable (interchangeable with four other viewfinders); The focusing screen could be changed out with 4 (later 9) types; the mirror could be locked up to allow deep seated lenses or for high magnification work, the back was interchangeable with a data and bulk film back (250 exposures), The bottom plate was removable and there were 4 Motor Drives and / or Power Winders that could be used (one was a special order 9 frames per second high speed motor drive); three different flash couplers allowed a wide variety of flashes; the eyepiece could take threaded diopter adjustment lenses, magnifiers or angle finders; and the lens collection numbered over 50 FD (and a few special purpose) lenses from 7.5 mm fisheye to 1200 mm super telephoto, and included the world's fastest 300 mm at the time (the 300 mm F2.8L) and the world's fastest 400 mm lens (the New FD 400 mm F2.8L) both of which incorporated special fluorite and ultra low dispersion glass elements for superb optical quality at the widest lens opening.

Canon F-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Last edited by jogiba; 09-28-2013 at 02:55 PM.

[LaurenOE]

Rush (2013) - Technical Specifications - IMDb



Canon F-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You do realize we are talking about F1 car racing? Right?

[Not a Number]

I saw this movie Tuesday evening. A friend of mine works for Universal and they had a screening for employees and guests. I did notice the logos were taped over however I missed the Canon logos. I suppose I subconsciously blocked them out. If an EOS was used for some of the "filming" as suggested by the credits linked above that would explain the "product placement" in the movie.

As I recall Canon was the preferred brand by sports photographers for various reasons one of them being the F-1 as mentioned above.

[jogiba]

You do realize we are talking about F1 car racing? Right?

I thought you were all bent out of shape about the use of the Canon logo in the film and you made it sound like Canon did not have a camera good enough to shoot F1 back in 1976.

[LaurenOE]

I saw this movie Tuesday evening. A friend of mine works for Universal and they had a screening for employees and guests. I did notice the logos were taped over however I missed the Canon logos. I suppose I subconsciously blocked them out. If an EOS was used for some of the "filming" as suggested by the credits linked above that would explain the "product placement" in the movie.

As I recall Canon was the preferred brand by sports photographers for various reasons one of them being the F-1 as mentioned above.

I thought you were all bent out of shape about the use of the Canon logo in the film and you made it sound like Canon did not have a camera good enough to shoot F1 back in 1976.

The film was about Jim Hunt / Niki Lauda, racing F1 cars in the 70s.
Canon had nothing to do with either in that time frame.
Since the film was "semi-historic", Canon had no place putting their brand so prominently.

Imagine if Ricoh could afford to sponsor a movie about the Space Station, and we saw astronauts holding Pentaxes just because Ricoh made the movie.

Same thing here.

[jogiba]

The film was about Jim Hunt / Niki Lauda, racing F1 cars in the 70s.
Canon had nothing to do with either in that time frame.
Since the film was "semi-historic", Canon had no place putting their brand so prominently.

Imagine if Ricoh could afford to sponsor a movie about the Space Station, and we saw astronauts holding Pentaxes just because Ricoh made the movie.

Same thing here.

You are the only person on the internet that has a problem with Rush because of the use of a Canon logo, it's a movie like Days of Thunder.
Rush Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

[Not a Number]

The film was about Jim Hunt / Niki Lauda, racing F1 cars in the 70s.
Canon had nothing to do with either in that time frame.
Since the film was "semi-historic", Canon had no place putting their brand so prominently.

Imagine if Ricoh could afford to sponsor a movie about the Space Station, and we saw astronauts holding Pentaxes just because Ricoh made the movie.

Same thing here.

The film is a docu-drama, not a straight documentary. While accurate in the broad details such as times and dates, the outcomes of the races and other major events it takes great liberties in the smaller details. The accounts regarding the Berlin and Tokyo races are big examples. It's called artistic license.

If Ron Howard and his art director, production designers and producers want to take a few liberties and do some product placement it is their choice to be able to do so. And for all we know Canon may have been one of the backers behind the production. I'm sure if you go over the movie frame by frame you will find all sorts of inaccuracies and anachronisms. It doesn't matter as long as it doesn't affect the telling of the story.

[Tanzer]

Artistic license and product placement are very different things. Artistic license is how Sally, from the movie Cars, was based on a Porsche 911, It pays tribute without blasting the logo everywhere. And Pixar probably would not have sought any payment for this, or for any of the other metaphors in the movie.

Even if you believe Ron Howard likes Canon so much he just wanted to include them as a shout-out, and that Canon didn't pay for product placement, there isn't any production studio that would dare to use a company's logo without that company's permission, for liability reasons. And as part of the permission, Canon most certainly required that the production studio refrain from using any other camera manufacturer's logo in juxtaposition, let alone in a larger style. That might have sent a message that Canon is "smaller" or "lesser" than Nikon, etc.

If we are comparing this to Days of Thunder, then Rush must have been a truly awful film. There isn't anything purportedly historical about Days of Thunder. That's like saying Top Gun was a documentary about the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[jogiba]

Artistic license and product placement are very different things. Artistic license is how Sally, from the movie Cars, was based on a Porsche 911, It pays tribute without blasting the logo everywhere. And Pixar probably would not have sought any payment for this, or for any of the other metaphors in the movie.

Even if you believe Ron Howard likes Canon so much he just wanted to include them as a shout-out, and that Canon didn't pay for product placement, there isn't any production studio that would dare to use a company's logo without that company's permission, for liability reasons. And as part of the permission, Canon most certainly required that the production studio refrain from using any other camera manufacturer's logo in juxtaposition, let alone in a larger style. That might have sent a message that Canon is "smaller" or "lesser" than Nikon, etc.

If we are comparing this to Days of Thunder, then Rush must have been a truly awful film. There isn't anything purportedly historical about Days of Thunder. That's like saying Top Gun was a documentary about the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The character was largely based on Dale Earnhardt, and Cruise’s Cole Trickle was a sketch of Tim Richmond. Randy Quaid was a slicker version of the team owner Rick Hendrick, and Robert Duvall’s crew chief Hogge was, as Hendrick said, “a better Harry Hyde than Harry Hyde ever was. That just blew me away.”

Fred Dalton Thompson played Big John, obviously a takeoff on the Nascar chairman Bill France Jr., and the scene where Cruise’s Trickle and Michael Rooker’s Burns are summoned to Daytona Beach, Fla., for a tongue-lashing by the boss was a recreation of an actual meeting France called for Earnhardt and Geoff Bodine.

“So many of the things really did happen,” Hendrick said. “They took bits and pieces, they took the characters, they took how I got started — when Randy Quaid went out to talk to Harry about getting back into racing, the car he was driving was my white Caprice. But it didn’t really happen that way; Harry was always after me. So some of the stuff had been changed for Hollywood.”

Even some of the dialogue was lifted from real-life situations.

“You build me a car, I’ll win you Daytona,” Trickle tells Hogge in trying to persuade the crew chief to come out of retirement to work with the hotshot driver.

In reality, it was Hyde who told Hendrick, “Let me build a car, and I’ll win you Charlotte,” Hendrick recalled with a smile. “And I was stupid enough to believe him.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/sports/autoracing/27nascar.html?_r=0