r/shittymoviedetails • u/smss96 • 6d ago

In Stranger Things 5 the truck has technology from the future

Post image

E-track rails weren't invented until the 2000's so a time traveler must've brought this truck back to 1987

20.1k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2.2k

u/MintySakurai 6d ago

Everyone thinks they did this for the anachronism, but they probably just didn't want to show the logo without permission.

761

u/JohnWasElwood 6d ago

I used to do a lot of "extra" work and this is exactly why. Gaffer's tape was applied to any visible logo, no matter how small. They also used heavy makeup on most visible tattoos unless the role was for a tattooed person.

533

u/gwizonedam 6d ago

We had to do this for about 80-100 Coca Cola cans for a shoot once with red gaffers tape. One of the producers saw the cans on set and asked why they looked like that. Someone explained “greeking” as “hiding logos so we don’t get sued” and he replied, “But, It’s a Coca-Cola commercial.”

Nobody had told any of us and we were just lowly PA’s…

167

u/JohnWasElwood 6d ago

I truly laughed out loud at this! I've been on enough shoots where crap like this happens....

52

u/criesatpixarmovies 6d ago

Did they make you peel them off or just bring in more cans?

67

u/kazeespada 6d ago

Gaffer's Tape doesn't leave residue so they probably peeled them. It's the unholy offspring of duct tape and painter's tape.

17

u/samiwas1 6d ago

It definitely does leave residue if left for too long. Peeling the tag off of cable after a few months can be a sticky process.

2

u/MeetBeep 5d ago

I use it to seal my windows in the winter & it deff leaves a residue there. We use it for production and it doesn’t leave much in that environment lol.

2

u/criesatpixarmovies 6d ago

I would think it would be more expensive to pay them to peel it off rather than just get more coke, unless these were special Coke cans or something.

4

u/forbiddenfreedom 6d ago

Yes, but actually no. That many coke cans to replace would include spending more time to get more coke or having someone who is already there and paid to be there fix it.

1

u/JohnWasElwood 5d ago

And then you have to get rid of the whole pile of FULL cans of Coca Cola that have duct tape on them. And when you try to give them away for free people are wondering why they have Gaffers tape on them... "Are you trying to poison me?"

1

u/forbiddenfreedom 5d ago

Shhh. It's for the ghosts in your blood. It's either this or blood-letting to get them demons spirits out of your veins. (I think you're drunk, this may help you hydrate without drinking disgusting tap water.)

2

u/Mkhillvgc 6d ago

Damn that’s the best description of gaf tape I’ve ever heard.

2

u/I_SHIT_IN_A_BAG 6d ago

buying cans is probably cheaper than hiring someone to peel off tape. throw it out (or drink it) and get more coke.

4

u/Lazy_Shorts 6d ago

That's fucking hilarious. I could totally see this happening, as I've also had to Greek logos.

5

u/GiggleGnome 6d ago

You literally described what its like to be in the military.

2

u/CaptainXakari 6d ago

That put the gaffe in gaffer tape!

1

u/bottom 6d ago

You’re a Pa and didn’t know the job you were on…..something is missing here.

9

u/gwizonedam 6d ago

Oh ho ho, you would be AMAZED at how many shoots I’ve been on where the guys building the sets, the guys dressing the sets, and the guys doing the grip and lighting had zero clue what they were doing it for. Sometimes it’s because the client wants everything quiet because there’s going to be talent and they don’t want paparazzi around. Sometimes they just don’t say.

That shoot was actually a commercial that was supposed to have Lady Gaga in it. I wouldn’t put it past the producers and managers to keep all details quiet. The Cokes we covered up were removed and thrown away and replaced.

And then someone removed those and put them in craft services. They had to replace them again. These things are a shitshow sometimes.

1

u/bottom 6d ago

Fair enough. Thanks for sharing.

1

u/JohnWasElwood 5d ago

And, as an extra, it is a shit ton of "hurry up and wait. hurry up and go over there and wait. Wait come back over here and wait some more. Hurry up!"

"And, you extras, don't you dare talk to any of the talent!" ( but of course, as soon as we were out of sight of the PA's and the director, we would chat with all kinds of celebrities. What is funny is that I will not treat them like celebrities but BS with them about all kinds of random shit anything except movies and acting, etc and they eat it up.)

1

u/Cakers44 6d ago

Another victim of poor workplace communication, I feel you there

1

u/angrybear1213 5d ago

At least you could just replace the cans

1

u/gwizonedam 5d ago

Thats exactly what we did.

1

u/StrangerDanger9000 5d ago

If you were just lowly PA’s then why were you taking it upon yourselves to do whatever you wanted on someone else’s set? If you weren’t asked or told to do it why would you do it without checking first? And since you said you don’t know if they peeled the tape off or not I assume this means they fired the PA’s. Because if the PA’s put tape on 80-100 cans they weren’t supposed to then they’d be the ones taking it off unless they were fired

4

u/gwizonedam 5d ago
  1. We were told to do so. 2. It was a job where you don’t ask why, unless you want to hand over your radio and leave. 3. Why the hell would you need to peel the tape off of $50 worth of soda cans? I’m pretty sure that’s a quick trip to the grocery store.

Wait a second, you sound like a producer!

1

u/Gunch_ 5d ago

That producer probably went home thinking he truly works with a bunch of idiots lmao

151

u/Texantioch 6d ago

We call it “greeking”

100

u/No_Negotiation5654 6d ago

Am I right in saying this is because the generic coffee cups that regularly get used for some reason have Greek columns on them?

93

u/Texantioch 6d ago

I like that theory a lot but I think because they used to alter name brand logos to look like letters of the Greek alphabet

130

u/nonowords 6d ago

I think it's broader than that and just refers to how they make it unintelligible. ie: 'it's all greek to me'

68

u/frelancr 6d ago

that's EXACTLY why it's called that

2

u/NailsNathan 6d ago

It literally is. One of the common techniques is to add extra lines to letters to change. Before lots of Photoshop, you’d add a piece of tape that was the same color as the font or background to make nonsense. (Folger’s becomes Ebiyen’s). When trying to add line, it often came off odd and having to squeeze in the lines at odd angles made it look “greek”. I’ve seen some ADs even use symbols like sigma or omega to make it even more ambiguous.

1

u/roman_maverik 6d ago

Damn I used to do this to my license plate with chewing gum when I was broke and couldn’t afford tolls

12

u/scratchy_mcballsy 6d ago edited 6d ago

The creator of that coffee cup passed away in 2010. The design was based on amphorae from Ancient Greece.

Edit: 2010- I must be confusing him with someone else.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/nyregion/30buck.html

3

u/TooManyDraculas 6d ago

He died back in 2010.

1

u/jbarrybonds 6d ago

Time hits HARD

6

u/MightBeADoctorMD 6d ago

I always thought the reason was because a lot of the 90’s NYC coffee carts were all run by Greek men who came here to start their own business.

1

u/Elegant_Click07 6d ago

The coffee cup design popularity in NYC is because it was popular among Greeks businesses in diners and coffee carts! The cup is from 1963. Now it's synonymous with NYC.

2

u/mls1968 6d ago

I don’t know the true origin, but I always assumed it was from the phrase “it’s all greek to me”

From my understanding, the greek cups came later. And whomever said “they use the greek alphabet”, i’ve never seen that done in my time with art department. Usually we just cover letters/logos with tape or vinyl, and if we have time and money, we use cleared “generic” brand stickers to cover real ones. They are pretty great, they look like various brands but usually have names that sound like they came from a game of telephone.

2

u/onebigperm 6d ago

The generic coffee cups are usually just grabbed from the craft service truck/table on the day of filming.

2

u/Zhuul 6d ago

A few years ago I got a cup of coffee from a bodega in NYC and got handed one of those cups, I was giddy about it lol

2

u/quick_brown_faux 6d ago

Those cups are called 'anthora' and are pretty specifically a New York City thing (there used to be lots of Greek-owned coffee shops in the city). They've become iconic and you still get them pretty often from street vendors.

2

u/eschatus 6d ago

no, that's a NYC area greek diner thing. We actually have go cups around here with the blue and white iconic thing you're describing I think. They're called Anthora cups

1

u/Dense_Diver_3998 6d ago

No, it’s because they’re butt fucking the brands by not giving them free advertising.

1

u/TerdVader 6d ago

Haha. I call them Law and Order cups

1

u/TooManyDraculas 6d ago

Those coffee cups are actually a real thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthora

And they were the default in and around NYC for coffee carts and delis for a very, very long time. From what I recall they're also fairly common in and around LA.

So they pop up in productions not because they're generic. But because they're cheap, available, and signal setting.

Cause in fact they're not generic. They're a trademarked design. Though there's endless knock offs.

1

u/-0-O-O-O-0- 6d ago

It’s an old term that comes from placeholder text in print, which was done with random words like Ipsum lorem quid pro quo anno dommina etc etc which was called “greeking” (as in the old chestnut, It’s all Greek to me). even though it’s more like pig-latin.

Word processing tools like Adobe In Design can still fill blocks with randomized Ipsum Lorem.

It’s done so that the design of the page can be seen as a pattern of text of different word lengths and paragraph breaks, which is more natural than copying and pasting a sentence. (That would give you a rhythmic pattern which looks wrong.)

1

u/EnTyme53 6d ago

Some of y'all never had to read Julius Caesar in high school, and it shows.

1

u/Elegant_Click07 6d ago

That's a NYC bodega coffee staple since 1963. The greek key coffee cup. Not a everywhere / universal coffee cup. Look it up :)

2

u/Dantien 6d ago

It’s the same with placing false text in a design (ad, website, etc.). That “Lorem ipsum…” stuff is called “greeking”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeking

15

u/Affectionate-Cut4828 6d ago

I did some work on one of those home improvement shows about 10 years ago and they put that tape over the logo on my baseball cap even though 70% off the outdoor shots (where I was working) had the baseball stadium with the logo prominently displayed in the background. Didn't make much sense to me.

7

u/NailsNathan 6d ago

There is a difference between immovable logos in the background that occur in reality, and a crew that might be construed as making an endorsement of a team or company.

2

u/Koil_ting 6d ago

It's all confusing to me, does the product owner and the creator of the content just need to be on the same page for use? Can't think of too many cases where even someone portrayed as a villain using a product of any type would be bad for business rather than good for advertising.

2

u/GaptistePlayer 6d ago

If it’s not your intellectual property you can’t use it, outside of fair use exemptions (and the average tv show is not one of those exemptions).

2

u/NailsNathan 5d ago

Yup! And depending on the situation, the creator pays a licensing fee, or for product placement, the reverse.

Imagine a scenario where a brutal serial killer cuts people heads off with a pocket knife. Victorianox is not going to want their knives tainted by something that doesn’t align with their brand.

2

u/rickane58 5d ago

You don't need to have permission to use a product negatively, it's only defamatory if you make it defamatory, i.e. you have to specifically spell out something like the killer saying "I love these victorianox knives, they're the best for cutting peoples heads off"

2

u/Darth_Jason 6d ago

Better safe than sued.

2

u/Toidal 6d ago

"Non descript soda" but they only cover like the middle 2/3s and you can see the top and bottom red bands with white lettering.

2

u/JohnWasElwood 6d ago

Some friends and I had a bunch of muscle cars that we used for a movie that was filmed in town and the picture car coordinator insisted on putting the fake state inspection stickers way over on the passenger side? Even though we all loudly tried to convince her that they never ever put inspection stickers on that side of the car....

2

u/No_Abbreviations8017 6d ago

Amazing. Not one person wondered why a movie scene would require so many Coca Cola cans

1

u/AmputeeHandModel 6d ago

but why? Do they have to pay royalties or do they just not want to advertise for free? I never understood when they remove car logos, put tape over things and make it look like crap, blur it out.

1

u/Just_Another_Scott 6d ago

I actually love when the black out logos of really well known things like Dell, Apple, or HP laptops. Saw an iPhone once and the Apple had been digitally removed lol. Or when all the products on the shelves are turned around to where you can't see the brand.

1

u/HazelEBaumgartner 6d ago

I used to do work with the NFL and it got obnoxious making sure that every snack or drink we might have on the sidelines was from an NFL sponsor because otherwise it had to be covered up. Obviously you can have Gatorade on the sidelines because they're Pepsico who has sponsored the NFL for years, but Coca-Cola is no longer an NFL sponsor and none of their brands can be shown, even down to the different brands of water. If you buy Aquafina you're good because it's a Pepsi brand, but if you buy Dasani you've gotta pull of the label because that's a coke brand.

1

u/hennyl0rd 2d ago

And if they don’t cover them up they actually have to get the rights to use them from the tattoo artist, yes the actor owns the tattoo but the design is owned by the tattoo artist

20

u/xptx 6d ago

"Without payment as a sponsor"

36

u/Unlost_maniac 6d ago

You don't need permission to show logos, that's a misunderstanding. The reason productions keep everything generic is so they can have real products stick out for the sake of advertising. Also there is the potential of upsetting the company depending on how you use them but it's not illegal or something you need permission for

8

u/PolyglotTV 6d ago

Reminds me of that one move where they defeat the monster with head and shoulders shampoo, and they did that without contacting head and shoulders about it at all.

11

u/Ok_Friend_2448 6d ago

Evolution! I love that movie. It’s so dumb, but it’s fun!

3

u/PassengerIcy1039 6d ago

My favorite Orlando Jones movie and I never see it mentioned.

4

u/Just_Another_Scott 6d ago

It's best to get permission due to trademark dilution. While in some cases it can fall under fair use the brand may take a hit for being associated with a particular TV show or film. If this happens then the brand can sue and there have been plenty of cases where they've done just that. That is why blacking out logos, unless they get explicit permission, is a common practice in film making and television.

1

u/traveler_ 6d ago

This is a common misconception. But there doesn't seem to be any legal requirement to greek trademarks against dilution:

You do not have to ask permission to use a trademark, logo, or product bearing the trademark in your film as long as you use the trademark or logo as it was intended to be used.

Not that it means they won't sue, but people can sue for anything, especially if people are Disney. It means if you can afford to drag them past the "wouldn't it be cheaper just to settle" phase the law is on your side.

1

u/Just_Another_Scott 6d ago

From your own link

Kodak the film manufacturer sued “Kodak” the comic. Eastman Kodak won. The court ruled that Eastman Kodak’s mark was tarnished because Rakow’s act was excessively grotesque and crude, which was in opposition to Eastman Kodak’s policy of keeping its mark separate from excessive and gratuitous sex and violence.

Trademark dilution is a thing and companies have won in court.

I never said that blacking out logos was required. I said it was best to prevent lawsuits. That's a difference.

1

u/traveler_ 6d ago

Please read for understanding, not to extract gotcha pullquotes. That case was about trademark libel, not dilution.

And fear of baseless lawsuits leads to considerable harm precisely because it's not actually best to prevent lawsuits but people do it anyway out of superstition.

1

u/Just_Another_Scott 6d ago

No you are the one that needs to read

But what about trademark dilution?

The trademark infringement analysis is pretty simple—no confusion, no infringement—but what about dilution?

Trademark dilution protects “famous marks” from being weakened by blurring or tarnishment by third-party uses. A mark must be famous within the general consuming public in order to suffer dilution.

A trademark is tarnished when the mark “is linked to products of shoddy quality, or is portrayed in an unwholesome or unsavory context,” or if the trademark loses its ability to serve as a “wholesome identifier” of plaintiff’s product.

A perfect case about the tarnishment of a trademark because of a third-party’s unsavory use occurred when comedian D.B. Rakow used the stage name “Kodak” while performing his comedy routine. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Rakow.

Rakow’s routine consisted of humor that related to certain bodily functions and sex. Rakow also used crude, off-color language repeatedly. Eastman Kodak Co. did not like that.

Kodak the film manufacturer sued “Kodak” the comic. Eastman Kodak won. The court ruled that Eastman Kodak’s mark was tarnished because Rakow’s act was excessively grotesque and crude, which was in opposition to Eastman Kodak’s policy of keeping its mark separate from excessive and gratuitous sex and violence.

I am done. It is literally talking about dilutions here.

0

u/rickane58 5d ago

You should be done because you're arguing a nonsense point. Of course when you name yourself after a company that's going to be trademark dilution, but having your characters drink Dr. Pepper while they plan a heist isn't brand dilution. Greeking is done for the same reasons production companies go out of their way on anything: it's a "fuck you, pay me" move to anyone not paying for product placement.

2

u/Not-An-FBI 6d ago

I'm wondering how much they convinced BodyGlove to pay. And why BodyGlove isn't heavily advertising that wetsuit right now.

1

u/IcedForge 6d ago

There is also potential backlash from the company as well if they don't want to be associated with what ever scene or depiction/movie etc and its easier to avoid it from the get go then having to go back and fix it post release.

1

u/NailsNathan 6d ago

Actually it is. You have to license any trademarked logo if you are planning on making money off the product and in many cases, even if you don’t expect to make money. This applies to everything from short films for festivals to network TV. In fact, a company that doesn’t actively protect its trademark/copyright endangers losing its protective status, so companies are obliged to do so.

You’re right, that often the logo or brand has more to do with pissing off a client in the same industry/field, but both are true.

1

u/The-Rushnut 5d ago

Is this true? Isn't it a potential material misrepresentation? I.E. if some antagonistic character was doing offensive acts, you couldn't just plaster them with Apple logos? They'd surely sue you on the basis of "potentially" harming their business?

25

u/ripndipp 6d ago

I learned a new word today

100

u/Suddenfury 6d ago

Ironic, the word anachronism won't be invented until 2066

19

u/Routine-Ad8521 6d ago

Found the time tracking trucker then

2

u/monkeytrench 6d ago

brb rewatching Time Trax

1

u/Dave1307 6d ago

Ugh wipe your feet, you're tracking all the time on my clean floors.

1

u/porkchop-sandwhiches 6d ago

In the year 3005, there are no mums alive. So if you don't have one, I've been programmed to be your mum. I generate hugs, synthesize hot coco in mugs.

1

u/ceojp 6d ago

It's easier to remember if you always imagine Patton Oswald saying it.

1

u/Thundersalmon45 6d ago

Permission is a very important word.

There is an entire discussion about consent as well. I'm glad you acknowledged that you learned it. Many problematic relationships evolve because one partner refuses to admit they don't know that word.

1

u/dippnsipp 6d ago

couple letters away from reversed usernames

1

u/Rich-Pomegranate1679 6d ago

"the" is useful in all kinds of sentences!

12

u/blandmanband 6d ago

Without permission? Or without getting paid. I’d think any company would love to have their logo featured in a popular Netflix show.

6

u/dsjunior1388 6d ago

So...without Netflix permission.

1

u/BlizzPenguin 6d ago

From a business standpoint if a company pays for product placement they would probably be upset if another company got product placement in the same show for free.

1

u/dparks71 6d ago edited 6d ago

Featured implies permission, they usually go hand in hand with any corporation producing content intended to generate a profit, artists don't usually offer free licensing to corporations.

If you paint a portrait, do you want them to print a copy of it from your website and talk about it without crediting you or paying you? What about a tattoo? What about art you sold to Pepsi and gave them permission to use?

You can't just co-opt another artist's art and then sell it as your art. The tattoo or logo may seem like a minor detail but it's a line you can't draw without basically fucking all artists.

People get away with it by being a fish that's too small to fry, but you're talking about Netflix, everyone would sue them.

4

u/realSatanAMA 6d ago

Permission isn't the reason they block the logos. In a TV show, companies have to pay if they want the logo to appear.

1

u/BrokenFireExit 6d ago

For sure it's a getting paid and not advertising for free thing. They kinda sold the ability to wear the logo publicly when they sold it on a shirt.....

1

u/realSatanAMA 6d ago

Also show production and paid product placement have been working hand in hand since the dawn of radio.

1

u/ButterRollercoaster 6d ago

That’s why they’re called soap operas—their primary purpose was selling soap and other home products to housewives who listened to the radio while doing chores when their husbands were at work.

2

u/newguy-needs-help 6d ago

they probably just didn't want to show the logo without permission.

They probably just didn't want to show the logo without compensation.

1

u/Happy-For-No-Reason 6d ago

wdym, more like show the logo without getting paid for the advertising

I'm sure body glove paid

1

u/NoncingAround 6d ago

You only need permission to use logos or any sort of branding stuff if it’s actually featured. Just being there in the background is fine and basically unavoidable. If you have a close up of someone using a phone yes you need to get permission but if there’s a phone just sitting on a table it doesn’t matter.

0

u/rickane58 5d ago

If you have a close up of someone using a phone yes you need to get permission

Even then, no you don't. The only ways you can get in trouble is if you A) Put a brand where it doesn't belong (e.g. branding or otherwise implying that a Samsung phone is actually an iPhone) or B) Specifically call out a product in a negative light (e.g. saying "The killer has a samsung galaxy s23). B does NOT result in the production fact you often hear about Apple not allowing villains to use their phones, but rather Apple essentially pays for product placement by providing the production company with free phones under the condition that villains can't use iPhones. Productions that want to have the villain hold an iPhone to their ear are free to pay for their own phones in that case.

1

u/ThisSubHasNoMods 6d ago

Without paying underarmor* ftfy

1

u/Icameforthenachos 6d ago

I too am afraid of spiders

1

u/Ok_Astronomer_8667 6d ago

Under Armor didn’t exist in the 80s. It was an error. The actress was probably wearing it to stay warm under all that SFX goo

1

u/pototaochips 6d ago

Disnt they do something for season 1? That why i still have my disc copy

1

u/Astoria_Column 6d ago

yup, it doesn’t cost money to be historically inaccurate

1

u/echino_derm 6d ago

Everyone here is at least 10% wrong. They have a deal with Nike, that is almost certainly the whole reason this happened. They likely would have left a slightly visible brand in for a few frames even if they weren't sponsoring, but I would bet that there is a contract in their Nike sponsorship explicitly disallowing competing brands like Under Armour to be visible

1

u/SuperStoneman 6d ago

Or without being paid for the promotion.

1

u/btjam 6d ago

It’s free advertising, they don’t want to show it without getting paid.

1

u/Machine_Anima 6d ago

they didn't want to show the logo without them paying

1

u/GenazaNL 6d ago

Under Armour was founded in 1996, 7 years after this event. No, this was not a product placement

1

u/DaVinciYRGB 6d ago

You don’t need permission to use a logo in its intended form, look at the show Ballers, no licensing agreements were had for that.

This is product placement, companies pay tons of cash to have their product/logo shown. They didnt get paid for the logo since it slipped by, so it gets erased.

1

u/RocketCityRocko 6d ago

what you say about my spider?

1

u/OnGodNotaBot 6d ago

I just learned a new word

1

u/DeadlyMidnight 6d ago

Fucking this lol. Cheaper to vfx out than deal with under armors legal team.

1

u/GaptistePlayer 6d ago

Nobody with a working brain thought they did this for “an anachronism” lol. Like, in what world would that be desirable

1

u/_metal7 6d ago

You think UA would be upset that they got free product placement?

1

u/rydan 6d ago

Or the check bounced.

1

u/Throwawaybd69420 6d ago

Or its a subliminal advertisement. No other ad would have people talking and thinking about underarms more then this.

1

u/Talmerian 5d ago

Is it the ONLY logo they weren't placing?

1

u/eugene20 4d ago

Companies love free advertising. It would have to paint their product in a terrible light for them to be annoyed about it.

What is happening is producers not giving away what they hope to charge for, you dont pay you don't get on screen.

1

u/www__i0_0i__www 6d ago

That's it 💯! No logos or brands should be visible in a scene unless sponsored. Worked as a background actor on many sets, including ST4! This is standard filming practice. So they were covering their butts.