Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

The Dumbest Complaint About CASINO ROYALE...


45 replies to this topic

#1 yolt13

yolt13

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 259 posts

Posted 26 November 2006 - 06:14 PM

I haven't heard or read too many valid complaints against CR, but (with all due respect to those for whom this was an issue) by far the silliest is the preoccupation with product placement. Forgetting the financial realities of producing a $150 mil feature film which relies on corporate sponsorship and tie-ins for part of its promotion (and anyone who has raised the product placement complaint should think twice before they jump into the box-office threads to celebrate the film's profit margin!), the reality is that our world is saturated with corporate logos and symbols. You can't walk into a room or down a city street anywhere in the civilized world without being bombarded by ad icons and brand names, and it is wholly ridiculous to expect a James Bond movie (especially one that aspires to realism) to not reflect this. Even if the producers could remove every such symbol and logo from their locations, Bond would still have to drive a car, use a cell phone, etc. So he drove a Ford Mondeo, graciously provided by the good folks at the Ford Motor Company (and carrying with it a built-in advertising push)? You wouldn't have complained if he was driving the Aston Martin at that point, and that's a brand name product. So he uses a certain brand of cell phone? Would you have preferred they file the logo off and replace it with "Fred's Cellular Phones!"? Why wouldn't the British government issue mobile phones and laptops that are contracted from large manufacturers, in the same way every major government does?

The notion that product placement of the variety seen in CR somehow "cheapens" the film is just silly. Why are you looking for corporate logos in the first place, instead of simply enjoying the film? Frankly, I've seen it three times and never once bothered to look for a brand name on an item used in the movie, because that simply isn't important to the drama or action. In fact, the only such moniker that stood out for me was the Texron designation on the side of the fuel truck at the Miami airport. Why did I notice this one and not the others? Because Texron is not a real fuel company, and the presence of a phony corporate logo in a film so predicated on realism (in a place where one would expect to see a recognizable, real world company name) momentarily caught my eye. Didn't hurt the scene, really, but it was far more incongruous than any of the real product placement. Similarly, I watched the original ROCKY the other day and noticed that one of the clippings Rocky had taped next to his mirror was the cover of a very TIME-like magazine called TEMPO. It wasn't a real brand name that caught my eye and pulled me out of the drama for a second - it was a bogus one. Personally, I'll take the real product placement neatly integrated into the film over further reminders that I'm watching a movie any day.

Edited by yolt13, 26 November 2006 - 06:18 PM.


#2 annita

annita

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 77 posts
  • Location:some where is the good Old U S A

Posted 26 November 2006 - 06:47 PM

I had no problem what so ever with the product replacement. because the film was firing on all cylinders that it didn't matter. People complaining about the Ford, the Sony Vio, and the Omega should also complain about the Aston Martin and the Brioni suits. James Bond is a government agent, so I expect him to have government issued stuff.

The most absurd complaint IMO is some people's demand for the return of the gadgets, Q, and moneypenny.

#3 Monkeyfoahead

Monkeyfoahead

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1164 posts
  • Location:A hollowed-out volcano, a submarine, and a moon base.

Posted 26 November 2006 - 06:52 PM

The product placement would be fine if it didn't turn into a 2+ hour Sony commercial like it did. I understand that Sony and EON own the rights and probably get product placement for free, but it would be good to see Bond using a greater variety of brands

Edited by Monkeyfoahead, 26 November 2006 - 06:53 PM.


#4 stamper

stamper

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2994 posts
  • Location:Under the sea

Posted 26 November 2006 - 06:54 PM

You're mistaken, the Sony commercial can be seen on youtube and it's 4mn long, with many scenes deleted from the movie.

#5 Roebuck

Roebuck

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1870 posts

Posted 26 November 2006 - 07:00 PM

The only product placement that bugged me was an image of Vesper taking pictures with a Cyber-shot; Green appeared to be self-consciously posing with the camera rather than using it.

#6 yolt13

yolt13

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 259 posts

Posted 26 November 2006 - 07:05 PM

The product placement would be fine if it didn't turn into a 2+ hour Sony commercial like it did. I understand that Sony and EON own the rights and probably get product placement for free, but it would be good to see Bond using a greater variety of brands



But that's my point... I've seen the film three times and never once been distracted by the presence of Sony products in it. I suppose it would be good to see wider a variety of brand names, but did it actually make the film worse that the paraphernalia was all Sony? I've tried hard to understand this complaint, but I just don't get it. How was this intelligent, well-written, exciting, fast-paced, well-acted, faithful-to-the-half-century-old-novel, thoroughly satisfying movie a "2+ hour commercial"? How detached from the events occuring on-screen does one have to be to allow the presence of a Sony logo as opposed to some other corporate symbol to distract them from the action?

Besides, Sony doesn't own Ford, and that Mondeo sure has a lot of people griping for some inane reason. And Sony doesn't own Aston Martin, yet no one is upset about that being included in the film.

Bottom line is that there are only two reasons to be bothered by the product placement in CR - one doesn't like the film and is looking for more to complain about, or one simply has some issue with Sony.

#7 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 26 November 2006 - 07:07 PM

The only product placement that bugged me was an image of Vesper taking pictures with a Cyber-shot; Green appeared to be self-consciously posing with the camera rather than using it.


Yes, that part was particularly annoying. I also think that they could have done with a few less scenes involving that cellular phone that was in every other shot as well. I don't mind product placement (the Ford vehicle and the Aston Martin), but when it's as in your face as some of the Sony products were (such as the Blu-Ray Disc), then it becomes a little much.

#8 Vanish

Vanish

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 236 posts

Posted 26 November 2006 - 07:18 PM

I noticed all of the product placement, but it didn't really bother me - Ultimately, I'd rather the film showcase real stuff than fake and "cleverly named" products that wink at the real thing. That would take me out of the film.

The only issue I had with the product placement was the over-reliance on cellphones throughout the film - But it's not a big enough issue to harm the film significantly.

#9 yolt13

yolt13

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 259 posts

Posted 26 November 2006 - 07:19 PM

The only product placement that bugged me was an image of Vesper taking pictures with a Cyber-shot; Green appeared to be self-consciously posing with the camera rather than using it.


Honestly, I didn't notice this at all. I saw her taking pictures, which seemed a perfectly natural, "tourist" thing to do, but paid no mind to the brand of camera. Guess I just don't look for such things when I'm watching a movie, unless the brand is intrinsic to the plot. Silly me! :)

#10 bond 16.05.72

bond 16.05.72

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1068 posts
  • Location:Leeds, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom

Posted 27 November 2006 - 12:46 AM

This never distracted me from a great film,the product placement is important to the funding of the film, they'd said that they had cut back on it.

At least most of what's used is part of the story, would you prefer it it was like the BBC who do no advertising at all, (supposedly) they cover up the names and give them made up ones.

As someone walks down the street they are faced with product placement all the time, by taking brand names out of the film wouldn't that make it a bit unrealistic. If it really bothers you that much you really can't be concentrating on the movie that much, I've seen it 3 times now and the product placement didn't distract me at any time.

#11 Mr_Clark

Mr_Clark

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 118 posts

Posted 27 November 2006 - 12:51 AM

"What, no Moneypenny or Q? Not a Bond film!"


That's the dumbest complaint i've heard thus far...

#12 bill007

bill007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2072 posts
  • Location:I'm in my study, at the computer desk.

Posted 27 November 2006 - 04:41 AM

As far as I'm concerned, If Sony owns the movie, they can sell whatever they want. It is there money bringing me this film in the first place. I could give two hoots about what brand of laptop, camera, cellphone, or toilet paper Bond uses.

#13 Monkeyfoahead

Monkeyfoahead

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1164 posts
  • Location:A hollowed-out volcano, a submarine, and a moon base.

Posted 27 November 2006 - 04:54 AM

I don't have anything agains Sony and I loved Casino Royale, I thought that the product placement was fine once you got used to it, but the thing that bothers me is they had to hold the products so the Sony logo could be seen, when it is not always practical. One example is if you own an iPod, do you make sure the iPod logo is showing and concentrate on that, or do you concentrate on using it, and having people assume - probably correctly, that it is an iPod?

#14 bill007

bill007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2072 posts
  • Location:I'm in my study, at the computer desk.

Posted 27 November 2006 - 04:56 AM

Touche' MFaH. Touche'.

#15 yolt13

yolt13

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 259 posts

Posted 27 November 2006 - 04:58 AM

I don't have anything agains Sony and I loved Casino Royale, I thought that the product placement was fine once you got used to it, but the thing that bothers me is they had to hold the products so the Sony logo could be seen, when it is not always practical. One example is if you own an iPod, do you make sure the iPod logo is showing and concentrate on that, or do you concentrate on using it, and having people assume - probably correctly, that it is an iPod?


Again, I didn't notice anyone in the film holding any devices in a way that people wouldn't normally hold them to use them in real life. There are close-up shots of phones and such from the character's POV, but there was always text on them that was relevant to the story.

#16 Monkeyfoahead

Monkeyfoahead

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1164 posts
  • Location:A hollowed-out volcano, a submarine, and a moon base.

Posted 27 November 2006 - 05:04 AM

Alright then. :)

#17 yolt13

yolt13

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 259 posts

Posted 27 November 2006 - 05:10 AM

Alright then. :)


What's the confusion for? Did I miss something?

#18 Monkeyfoahead

Monkeyfoahead

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1164 posts
  • Location:A hollowed-out volcano, a submarine, and a moon base.

Posted 27 November 2006 - 05:18 AM

well, I was also watching it for the movie, not looking for brands, but Sony made it very obvious that the products in Casino Royale were theirs. I would have liked to see more inconspiuous product placement.

Edited by Monkeyfoahead, 27 November 2006 - 05:19 AM.


#19 yolt13

yolt13

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 259 posts

Posted 27 November 2006 - 05:29 AM

well, I was also watching it for the movie, not looking for brands, but Sony made it very obvious that the products in Casino Royale were theirs. I would have liked to see more inconspiuous product placement.


Then it wouldn't really be product placement, would it? I'm not saying the logos weren't deliberately shown, because they were. That's the whole point of the commercial practice of product placement - to give exposure to the product. My point is that I didn't find it distracting because the logos were visible in the same way they would be if those products were being used in real life.

#20 Monkeyfoahead

Monkeyfoahead

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1164 posts
  • Location:A hollowed-out volcano, a submarine, and a moon base.

Posted 27 November 2006 - 05:35 AM

Of course. So you are saying that the camera Vesper was using could not have had the logo covered slightly in normal use? I guess that thatr's how product placement works, like it or not...

Edited by Monkeyfoahead, 27 November 2006 - 05:36 AM.


#21 RazorBlade

RazorBlade

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1248 posts
  • Location:Austin, TX

Posted 27 November 2006 - 08:04 AM

Of course. So you are saying that the camera Vesper was using could not have had the logo covered slightly in normal use? I guess that thatr's how product placement works, like it or not...


MfaH I like your signature quotes. Good to see another FIREFLY/SERENITY fan. Hey, that isn't a product placement is it?

#22 Monkeyfoahead

Monkeyfoahead

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1164 posts
  • Location:A hollowed-out volcano, a submarine, and a moon base.

Posted 27 November 2006 - 01:05 PM

No, its not... I just like that show/movie. :)

#23 George Kaplan

George Kaplan

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 118 posts

Posted 27 November 2006 - 02:21 PM

To tell the truth, I can't say that I noticed the product placements.

Unless its glaringly obvious (for example, in a few films I've seen there's been some scene where two people are talking at a table and someone sets a "coke can" down on the table in such a way that it dominates the scene) odds are I won't notice a product placement.

They seem to just bounces off of me. Partially because I don't overly pay attention to brands and models unless I'm in the market to buy something (and then its part of research to try and get something solid for the money) and partially because if I get wrapped up in a story, I'm tending to look at the bigger things (like the actors/actresses and what they're doing) than the minutae.

Other than the line where Bond mentions the Aston-Martin car, I really don't remember the brand names or types/styles used in the film. It was just a camera or whatever.

#24 00Twelve

00Twelve

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7706 posts
  • Location:Kingsport, TN

Posted 27 November 2006 - 02:23 PM

I guess I was just too tied in to the story. I honestly never noticed any of it, other than the Bollinger. Even with 2 viewings, I never even gave any Sony equipment any thought. :)

#25 jaguar007

jaguar007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5608 posts
  • Location:Portland OR

Posted 27 November 2006 - 05:02 PM

MOST of the product placement did not bother me. Many of the Sony items, I notices mainly becuase I found myself looking for them. If I was a casual moviegoer and not aware that Sony made the film, I probably would not have noticed more than half the SOny items I did notice. I did get tired of all the cell phone use during the film.

I was not bothered by Bond driving a Mondeo, afterall it is realistically the type of car he would get from a rental car agencey. What did bother me was the music and second shot of the car, made it seem like it was something special.

#26 FlemingBond

FlemingBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 610 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, Az U.S.

Posted 28 November 2006 - 04:11 AM

Talk about prodcut placement. Did anyone notice Richard Branson in metal detector at the Miami airport. If it wasn't him it was a lookalike. Actually after the first half of the movie i didn't notice any product placement.

#27 yolt13

yolt13

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 259 posts

Posted 28 November 2006 - 04:31 AM

Of course. So you are saying that the camera Vesper was using could not have had the logo covered slightly in normal use? I guess that thatr's how product placement works, like it or not...



It COULD have, but it didn't need to be to be held and used in a realistic fashion. So what I'm saying is that while the effort was obviously made to ensure that the logo was visible ("product placement"), the camera was still used the way a real camera would be, and only those looking for product placement, consciously or unconsciously, are likely to find it distracting. And the only thing sillier than getting testy about product placement is getting testy about someone saying it's silly to allow that to distract one from an otherwise excellent film.


I was not bothered by Bond driving a Mondeo, afterall it is realistically the type of car he would get from a rental car agencey. What did bother me was the music and second shot of the car, made it seem like it was something special.


But there is something special about it... it's being driven by James Bond. That's the point of both the shot and the music cue. If Mathis were driving the car and Bond was elsewhere, the scene would not have been given that same dramatic emphasis.

Edited by yolt13, 28 November 2006 - 04:32 AM.


#28 Monkeyfoahead

Monkeyfoahead

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1164 posts
  • Location:A hollowed-out volcano, a submarine, and a moon base.

Posted 28 November 2006 - 05:47 AM

I'm not saying that it distracted me, because it didn't I'm just saying that the product placement by Sony was very evident to me, although it didn't distract from the movie at all.

#29 yolt13

yolt13

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 259 posts

Posted 28 November 2006 - 06:17 AM

I'm not saying that it distracted me, because it didn't I'm just saying that the product placement by Sony was very evident to me, although it didn't distract from the movie at all.



Then why exactly are we (sort of) arguing? The whole point of the thread was that I find people using the product placement as a complaint against the film quite silly. I don't believe I ever contended that it wasn't there or wasn't obvious if one was paying attention to such things. I just said that the product placement in the film hardly detracts from its quality.

#30 MarcAngeDraco

MarcAngeDraco

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3312 posts
  • Location:Oxford, Michigan

Posted 28 November 2006 - 11:45 AM

I generally don't mind product placement in the Bond movies, as long as it doesn't seem forced or overly obvious. I think it can actually be a positive when done properly, particularly when it demonstrates a choice that Bond makes (to drink a certain brand of champagne etc). In this context, it is similar to the way Fleming wrote the books with Bond drinking/using certain brands.

But for me there is a relatively fine line between that and using a film as a commercial. Two similar scenes that leave me with a different feeling:

Dr. No- Bond pours himself a vodka on the rocks from what is recognizable as a bottle of Smirnoff (you might even be able to read the label if you try hard enough).

TND- Bond pours himself a glass of vodka from what is obviously a bottle of Smirnoff. Zoom in tight to bottle to make sure we can clearly read the label...

Does it ruin the TND scene for me, no (it's still one of the best scenes in the film). Do I find it unnecessary and slightly annoying, yes.