RED's militaristic branding and marketing.

[Bruce Allen]

And also BTW if they want a "military / high-tech precision" look... it's totally do-able.

It's just the amateurishness of the branding that makes it have that "right wing gun nut who has never spent a day in actual combat" vibe.

Bruce Allen
www.bruceallen.tv

 

[Michael Hastings]

snip:
If we're talking about the effect of the militarization of 'everything' on society in general...

This isn't the place for that kind of discussion.

I find it laughable that a filmmaking site is "not the place for that kind of discussion". Filmmaking is all about giving/making some kind of impression or statement.

I don't like the level of violence in so much of modern filmmaking. I don't want to see censorship but there are choices to be made - be it the stories, the way they are told or the way the equipment used is marketed. If you don't think the violence and representations everywhere have an effect - you are oblivious.

As I said, not looking for censorship (except self-examination) but again choices are being made that have (possibly unintended) consequences.


-------

Now back to watching the fall of the American Empire.... :wink5: :wink5: :wink5: :wink5:

 

[Michael Tiemann]

Revising your work for artistic reasons is one thing. Doing it because you fear prosecution from society is another.

Imagine for a minute that Tarantino decided, way back, to put Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction scripts on the shelf and then decided to film them today. Do you think he would be remotely able to leave them untouched? They would have been altered beyond recognition. And we would have lost two icons of film history.

Not a good hypothetical. Childish Gambino shocked the senses with his aesthetic on "This is America" and people properly recognized it for the art that it was. If Mr Tarantino loses confidence in his ability to tell stories of grit, determination, betrayal, and general detachment, somebody will surely rise to the occasion. Perhaps even Mr. Tarantino himself!

 

[Amanda Griffin]

After seeing RED’s new Youtube videos touting “RED TECH | ARSENAL '' posted the day after Jan 6, I couldn’t stop thinking about how so much of RED’s branding throughout the years has always alluded to weaponry and how it plays right into America’s culture of violence. I don’t know about anyone else, but especially after the events last week here in the US, I’m pretty tired of seeing the glorification of guns and war overall, but I’m especially discouraged to keep seeing it featured so prominently by RED in our community of filmmaking.

Don’t get me wrong, I love RED cameras. I own a Gemini and have shot on many other models all the way back to the RED One. I’m specifically talking about the marketing here as a RED owner and cinematographer based in the US. I’m talking about the framing of these cameras as if they’re military assault rifles, branding them as Weapons, putting skulls on them, calling them Rangers, and using words like Arsenal and Magazine as if swapping out hard drives is akin to loading ammunition.

If you live in the US, you see this kind of toxic masculinity of glorifying violence everywhere. It’s an unfortunate part of our culture and you can draw a straight line between decades of marketing to make Americans, men specifically, feel weak without a gun in their hand to the domestic terrorism we’re seeing now. What I’m asking here is why RED continues to be a part of selling the juvenile fantasy of war when we’ve seen now for years where it leads? They’re great cameras for professional filmmakers, not guns for wannabe soldiers. Why keep branding them as such?

You don’t see RED’s competitors in Germany or Japan using that kind of language and marketing. Maybe that’s because a few generations ago, both countries witnessed the results of radicalized genocidal movements and since then, have worked to move away from normalizing violence in the exact way America has been moving towards it. Filmmaking should be used to inspire and create, why so much emphasis on destruction and killing?

So as a dedicated RED customer, I want to see a move away from the militant imagery in their marketing. They’re already halfway there. Komodo, Dragon, Gemini, Helium, these are all great names that embody creativity and adventure. You can invoke a sense of toughness with something like Monstro instead of referencing a literal weapon that has taken countless lives. But even these examples are then wrapped up in marketing language as 'arsenals' and branded with the Weapon skull logo.

I personally don’t want to be reminded every time I pull out my camera of death, assault rifles, and the white supremacist domestic terrorism that glorifies them. We’re not soldiers in a war shooting and killing people, but creators filming and capturing stories to entertain, grow, and inspire a better future. I would like my tools for doing so to reflect that aspiration.

Cinema Camera marketing might seem small to you, but every little thing adds up. Us Americans need to start taking responsibility to get this country on a better path whether that’s RED rethinking their marketing culture or filmmakers analyzing what we’re saying in the stories we tell.

Shit got real this week.

Couldn't agree more. It might seem like a small detail but it does mean so much as it defines what we stand up for.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Not a good hypothetical. Childish Gambino shocked the senses with his aesthetic on "This is America" and people properly recognized it for the art that it was. If Mr Tarantino loses confidence in his ability to tell stories of grit, determination, betrayal, and general detachment, somebody will surely rise to the occasion. Perhaps even Mr. Tarantino himself!

What about TV shows, Home Improvement, Seinfeld, According to Jim? They sure would not fly today with networks. These are just the recent ones, the further back you go the "worse" it gets...

 

[Les Hillis]

I find it laughable that a filmmaking site is "not the place for that kind of discussion". Filmmaking is all about giving/making some kind of impression or statement.

I don't like the level of violence in so much of modern filmmaking. I don't want to see censorship but there are choices to be made - be it the stories, the way they are told or the way the equipment used is marketed. If you don't think the violence and representations everywhere have an effect - you are oblivious.

As I said, not looking for censorship (except self-examination) but again choices are being made that have (possibly unintended) consequences.


-------

Now back to watching the fall of the American Empire.... :wink5: :wink5: :wink5: :wink5:

I say this isn't the place because these forums are more about the 'how' of film-making, not the 'why'.

And the 'why' is purely subjective and open to endless circular debate that almost inevitably ends up in people insulting each other, with people stating opinions like they're facts and making clever but false and flawed arguments that drag others in to engage with them under effectively false pretenses, along with a bunch of blatant trolling and flame-baiting, with a bit of venting of old grudges thrown in here and there, among other things.

Second-guessing RED is a grey area where a bit of leeway is given for constructive criticism and suggestions, but even in the first post of this thread it was clear things were going to go off the rails (check my edit of the first post I quoted).

Sex, religion, politics and why the fuck there's a skull logo on my camera, these are not subjects for polite discussion at the dinner table, or on a camera forum.

I'm not even at odds with a lot of the opinions I'm seeing and can understand where those I don't agree with are coming from, it's just not appropriate and messes up whatever constructive communication there might actually be in regards to some of the on-topic matters.

How 'you' perceive the world and what 'you' and RED can do to save it is off-topic at best, imo.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Sex, religion, politics and why the fuck there's a skull logo on my camera, these are not subjects for polite discussion at the dinner table, or on a camera forum.

I'm not even at odds with a lot of the opinions I'm seeing and can understand where those I don't agree with are coming from, it's just not appropriate and messes up whatever constructive communication there might actually be in regards to some of the on-topic matters.

How 'you' perceive the world and what 'you' and RED can do to save it is off-topic at best, imo.

You could use the exact same argument for why RED and GDU should NOT name or market their equipment in a way that steps into these areas and stirs the pot.

RED's camera names and marketing does actually materially affect the "how" of my work. Because I have to go through customs / security... I have actors and clients seeing the names and commenting on it, etc.

I agree that I would rather not be talking about sex / religion / politics / war on a technical camera forum.

But you can only do that if the camera company themselves doesn't do it in their products and marketing.

This isn't about censorship or saving the world... I just think that ESPECIALLY if you're doing content with dark weird edgy material, it's even more important to contrast that with a very professional, neutral and safe working environment.

Bruce Allen
www.bruceallen.tv

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Never bend the knee to the rage mob. Never, ever, ever. That never ends well. Give them an inch, and they will never let you forget it.

Hey Timothy, fuck off bro.

I don't recall anyone telling anyone else to fuck off on this site. I have never done it, and nobody has ever done it to me. I dare say it's grounds for suspension, or perhaps banning. You could say that telling people to fuck off is very toxic, childish, and uncalled for. When you don't have an argument, pound the table.

You will find patterns of good and bad behaviour across all ages, races, what have you. The FBI has stats on that. But, being a normal person, I see people as individual human beings, not representatives of their groups.

 

[Mark Phelan]

Militaristic naming and conventions can be criticized because it has nothing to do with cameras. The naming conventions in this style is closer to a juvenile war game, a style of screaming bear-can squeezing humvee kids-with-beards shooting guns in the middle of the desert. This is the mentality that comes to mind whenever I see a militaristic type of style for something that has nothing to do with the military, war games and war.

Sounds like you have more of an issue with the military in general than with RED.

 

[Timothy Jones]

Hey Jake, you got a beef, I’ll be happy to oblige.

Never bend the knee to the rage mob. Never, ever, ever. That never ends well. Give them an inch, and they will never let you forget it.


I don't recall anyone telling anyone else to fuck off on this site. I have never done it, and nobody has ever done it to me. I dare say it's grounds for suspension, or perhaps banning. You could say that telling people to fuck off is very toxic, childish, and uncalled for. When you don't have an argument, pound the table.

You will find patterns of good and bad behaviour across all ages, races, what have you. The FBI has stats on that. But, being a normal person, I see people as individual human beings, not representatives of their groups.

 

[Jake Wilganowski]

Hey guys. Tim I apologize for telling you to fuck off. I was caught at a bad moment and your comment pissed me off. It gets to me when I feel like people are making fun of or insulting someone for making a “sensitive” comment. Feels like a bully. So I wanted to trigger you just like you were saying the original poster was triggered. Apparently it worked. Anyway, it was childish and I apologize.

Please don’t call me again.

 

[Timothy Jones]

Hi Jake,
Fuck off.
Tim

 

[Phil Holland]

Hi all. I will have to put my moderator hat on at some point, which is common fair for threads discussing this particular topic.

But yeah. Personal attacks are not okay per forum policy.

At the moment I'll chalk this up to a friendly meeting of critters on two sides of the road.

 

[Timothy Jones]

I’m done .

 

[Tom S]

I don't care about political views, but for the love of God, keep the name DRAGON. You can get rid of every other damn name, but keep DRAGON!!!!!

 

[Alexander Sutton-Hough]

:frown2:

 

[Bérenger Brillante]

As a roleplayer, a metalhead, and a camera operator, I just like how Red sensors are branded.
Skulls, Komodo, Dragon, Gemini, Monstro are appealing to the mythology enthousiast I am. (Helium just sounds nice.)

I have to say though that Weapon and Bomb EVF were terrible choices that got me troubles in airport.
Well not troubles, but some remarks from borders employees.

But I never had any trouble because of the Skull logo.
I actually find that logo really good.

I want to Red to be able to name their technology the way they want.
Not everyone feels like a camera must have a woman name Alexa, Amira...
Not everyone like simple code numbers FX9, R5...

Let's keep the mythological imagery going on.
I love to master these kinds of beasts.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Sounds like you have more of an issue with the military in general than with RED.

Not at all, putting militaristic naming and styling on something completely unrelated to the military becomes that juvenile masculinity bragging style of military fetish that people who are nowhere near being in the actual military adhere to. I have respect for those who put their lives in danger to defend innocents, but military fetish has nothing to do with that. Having film equipment named according to war and military concepts is like doing the same with a Starbucks brand, having all different coffee's named after different assault rifles and guns; "get your AK47 and Desert Eagle! Josh, your Sig Sauer 9mm is ready, Karen, is there a Karen in here waiting for a Fat Boy!"

It's juvenile because war games are pretty juvenile and men boosting themselves up with military fetish is a kind of masculinity that has gone so out of fashion that it has become a sort of parody.

But I never had any trouble because of the Skull logo.

Seriously though, is skulls the best logo for a camera system? Of all the things in the world that relates to light, photography, images, art etc.
Maybe a rat's anus is better?

I want to Red to be able to name their technology the way they want.
Not everyone feels like a camera must have a woman name Alexa, Amira...
Not everyone like simple code numbers FX9, R5...

Sure, they can do whatever they want, but that doesn't mean the choices can't be criticized. And yeah, I don't like naming cameras with women names either, especially stripper names. It's almost like the entire camera industry is as stereotypically "male" as it can get: we either have a militaristic style with skulls and stuff, or we have stripper names and if nothing of that we get into the nerdy technical terms that feels like it came from some McCheesy hacker basement.

Can't anyone name according to something else that's more related to the art form of cinematography? Or at least anything else than the current norms?

The best names from Red so far is:
Red One
Mysterium-X
Dragon
Gemini (probably my favourite name because of it's relation to being special made for NASA)
Komodo (as a form of nod to the Dragon and being smaller)
Helium

The key thing here in my opinion is that maybe choose a theme for the cameras and stick with it. I really like the more sciency terms because it relates to knowledge and the mysterious unreachable. Gemini, Kepler etc.
Or fundamental elements, like when they named the phone Hydrogen and the sensor Helium.

But in general, move away from the juvenile and have a theme. Right now, marketing terms, naming and general style is all over the place, the opposite philosophy of companies like Apple, that ooze perfect design compared to any other PC build. Maybe name cameras after some of the greats in cinematography: Nykvist, Cronenweth, Storaro, Conrad, Deakins, Lubezski. Or maybe physics terms related to light, Lux, Photon, Spectrum etc.

There are so many better themes and styles that fit cinematography, filmmaking and the artform of photography much better than any military fetish, stripper names, skulls and esoteric tech terms.

 

[Mark Phelan]

Not at all, putting militaristic naming and styling on something completely unrelated to the military becomes that juvenile masculinity bragging style of military fetish that people who are nowhere near being in the actual military adhere to. I have respect for those who put their lives in danger to defend innocents, but military fetish has nothing to do with that. Having film equipment named according to war and military concepts is like doing the same with a Starbucks brand, having all different coffee's named after different assault rifles and guns; "get your AK47 and Desert Eagle! Josh, your Sig Sauer 9mm is ready, Karen, is there a Karen in here waiting for a Fat Boy!"

It's juvenile because war games are pretty juvenile and men boosting themselves up with military fetish is a kind of masculinity that has gone so out of fashion that it has become a sort of parody.

Fair enough. I respect your opinion.

But isn't that what everyone does with a product, name it something memorable? Car companies do it with reckless abandon. RED's tongue-in-cheek naming is silly on purpose. Nobody would ever mistake a Weapon for a weapon. Or a Bomb EVF for a bomb. Speaking of bombs, have you ever tried Da Bomb hot sauce?

I see it as playful fun, nothing more. I can easily differentiate between a company being creatively off-kilter and the real thing. That's all this is, Karens getting their panties in a wad because of semantics. When the rubber meets the road, a RED has to deliver the goods. Otherwise, all the goofy names won't matter. Fortunately for us, RED delivers, and does it with a smile.

 

[Andrew Reese]

In 2021, it's honestly not hard for me to believe that what RED names their products is a topic for such discussion.

If anything, I think this year has brought on more reactive irony and suppressive behavior from those who think they are not suppressive than ever before. I think it is also ironic that we as customers feel the need to police the naming convention of products we decide to purchase or not to purchase. If you don't like RED as a company or the nomenclature and branding of their products then simply don't purchase them.

Instead, to have the audacity to make a direct statement about a company on a public forum available to the entire internet, that it is too "brash" or "hyper-masculine" is stereotyping equally in its own right. Some prefer femininity in the products they purchase and some prefer masculinity, but who are we to point the finger at what is right and wrong and tell a designer their creation is politically incorrect because it has a skull logo or weapon nomenclature? It is stereotypical to consider a word like "weapon", "gun", "bomb" offensive or any word for that matter as they are just a "word" and figment of language and nomenclature, which is only offensive when applied in certain contexts or when accompanying assumptions, statements and or opinions which so far have only been generated by a "user".

RED has the constitutional right to brand their products however they see fit and if they like military nomenclature and symbolism, then more power to them and as a supporter of our constitution and our military, I fully stand behind that position. I personally like minimalistic design and I probably would be happier with less logos in general on all products (cough cough GDU), but I find it somewhat crazy to consider "Weapon" or "Skull Logos" as hyper-masculinity and offensive? To associate a logo or words as "masculine" or "feminine" goes against the whole gender identity movement to begin with, so the point you are trying to make is a little ironic and you might want to look more from above at what you are really trying to say.

If you guys have family in the military or have any experience using or owning more guns then maybe you wouldn't be so afraid of them or find words and logos associated with them as offensive or masculine. I know quite a few female gun owners, which is funny because they are beautiful, feminine, and many of which are published models who you would never expect to own firearms judging by their appearance. So is owning a gun really that masculine or is that really a judgmental assumption? I find to often, most people easily "hurt" by gun ownership, gun marketing, hunting, military and associated logos, etc. are those who have the least experience with them and are "judging" from afar.

I agree that companies providing products for established markets should focus their best interests on being as utilitarian and neutral as possible in order to spread their reach as far across that market as possible, but to call out RED over their naming conventions all because of some recent events is a little ridiculous, very narrow minded and quite honestly immature.