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.