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

Commercial involvement of Bond franchise out of control?


73 replies to this topic

#1 Gustav Graves

Gustav Graves

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 356 posts

Posted 14 September 2008 - 05:08 PM

It's becoming an all time high after all. The involvement of commercial companies in a Bond film is nothing new. Product placement was already visible in the classic Bond films of the Connery era.

But after this news I'm becoming more and more wary of the uncontrolled commercial success of the Bond franchise. Read this issue statement from Jack White's management:

“Jack White was commissioned by Sony Pictures to write a theme song for the James Bond film Quantum Of Solace, not for Coca Cola. Any other use of the song is based on decisions made by others, not by Jack White. We are disappointed that you first heard the song in a co-promotion for Coke Zero, rather than in its entirety.”


It is already a fact. The segments you've heard in the new Coca Cola Zero ad was indeed the music of the Quantum Of Solace-theme song 'Another Way To Die'. I'm actually disappointed again of these few segments. They are unoriginal indeed and quite a rip-off from the 'You Know My Name' failed rock song.

But that's what I don't want to discuss about. My problem is that Sony Pictures and other commercial companies like sister company Sony Consumer Products, Heineken, Coca Cola and Ford Motor Company seem to control entire aspects of the Bond franchise.

We saw the heavily mobile phone texting in 'Casino Royale', which still irritates me to death. But the fact that Coca Cola can actually control the launch of the new Bond song is quite disturbing. Film franchises like Jason Bourne and Batman don't suffer from this uncontrolled product placement and way too extensive involvement of commercial ventures.

I hope Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Brocolli take some control back of the Bond franchise. Eon Productions should take in mind, that if they don't control the franchise more carefully, the Bond franchise will be treated as 'just' a million-dollar brand instead of high-quality entertainment. The Batman-franchise and Jason Bourne-franchise actually don't have this problem.

Could it be a matter of time that not only big companies like Coca Cola and Sony can influence the creative outcome of a Bond film, but maybe big Arabian companies as well? And do you agree Eon Productions and the Bond franchise are becoming much more a trend-follower which executes heavily marketing research instead of a trend-setter?

#2 ImTheMoneypenny

ImTheMoneypenny

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1352 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 14 September 2008 - 05:25 PM

Though TDK probably didn't have product placement ( I haven't seen it personally.). However it, like Spider Man, get Smart, and going back a few years to Phantom Menace for example, was heavily promoted through snack foods, fast food chains, and toys. I couldn't turn around without seeing Christian Bale's face on a bag of Reese's Pieces or all those years back, Ewan MacGregor as Obi Wan on a bag of Cheese and Onion crisps. Studios pay big money for cross promotion in hopes to bring in the audience. Comes down to money. It's all about making up the money for production costs and making it back when the movie is out. Unfortunately I don't think any of it's going to change any time soon. Alea Jacta Est. . .

Personally, I didn't actually care about the product placement in CR as I blanked them out. I was too into the story. I forgot all about the products and walked out dazzled, remembering only the performances, the plot, the visuals, and the music.

#3 Gustav Graves

Gustav Graves

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 356 posts

Posted 14 September 2008 - 05:32 PM

The point I want to make clear is that at times it seems producers Wilson and Brocolli are not willing to take bold choises anymore. Opting for Alicia Keys and Jack White seems to me as a way to safe choice; to feed the needs from the MTV-generation.

Where are their guts to actually come up with something completely original? Having heard the 'Another Way To Die'-segments did not brought me into an extatic mood. I sincerely hoped the new Bond song would be....more jazzier, more romantic, in the style of 'For Your Eyes Only'. Just like many of Amy Whinehouse's songs.

Furthermore, I have the feeling David Arnold looses some control over the music department of the Bond films as well. In the past John Barry was heavily involved in eveyrthing. He was much more of a trendsetter in my opinion, while David Arnold does not even want to put his own stamp on the songs. It's quite a shame. It seems Sony Pictures are really demanding their wishes to be seen executed.

#4 Skudor

Skudor

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9286 posts
  • Location:Buckinghamshire

Posted 14 September 2008 - 05:42 PM

It's becoming an all time high after all. The involvement of commercial companies in a Bond film is nothing new. Product placement was already visible in the classic Bond films of the Connery era.

But after this news I'm becoming more and more wary of the uncontrolled commercial success of the Bond franchise. Read this issue statement from Jack White's management:

“Jack White was commissioned by Sony Pictures to write a theme song for the James Bond film Quantum Of Solace, not for Coca Cola. Any other use of the song is based on decisions made by others, not by Jack White. We are disappointed that you first heard the song in a co-promotion for Coke Zero, rather than in its entirety.”


It is already a fact. The segments you've heard in the new Coca Cola Zero ad was indeed the music of the Quantum Of Solace-theme song 'Another Way To Die'. I'm actually disappointed again of these few segments. They are unoriginal indeed and quite a rip-off from the 'You Know My Name' failed rock song.

But that's what I don't want to discuss about. My problem is that Sony Pictures and other commercial companies like sister company Sony Consumer Products, Heineken, Coca Cola and Ford Motor Company seem to control entire aspects of the Bond franchise.

We saw the heavily mobile phone texting in 'Casino Royale', which still irritates me to death. But the fact that Coca Cola can actually control the launch of the new Bond song is quite disturbing. Film franchises like Jason Bourne and Batman don't suffer from this uncontrolled product placement and way too extensive involvement of commercial ventures.

I hope Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Brocolli take some control back of the Bond franchise. Eon Productions should take in mind, that if they don't control the franchise more carefully, the Bond franchise will be treated as 'just' a million-dollar brand instead of high-quality entertainment. The Batman-franchise and Jason Bourne-franchise actually don't have this problem.

Could it be a matter of time that not only big companies like Coca Cola and Sony can influence the creative outcome of a Bond film, but maybe big Arabian companies as well? And do you agree Eon Productions and the Bond franchise are becoming much more a trend-follower which executes heavily marketing research instead of a trend-setter?


Where did the quote come from?

#5 Gustav Graves

Gustav Graves

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 356 posts

Posted 14 September 2008 - 05:58 PM

Uhm, from THIS website. Read the news carefully :(

#6 [dark]

[dark]

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6239 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 14 September 2008 - 06:01 PM

It's becoming an all time high after all. The involvement of commercial companies in a Bond film is nothing new. Product placement was already visible in the classic Bond films of the Connery era.

But after this news I'm becoming more and more wary of the uncontrolled commercial success of the Bond franchise. Read this issue statement from Jack White's management:

“Jack White was commissioned by Sony Pictures to write a theme song for the James Bond film Quantum Of Solace, not for Coca Cola. Any other use of the song is based on decisions made by others, not by Jack White. We are disappointed that you first heard the song in a co-promotion for Coke Zero, rather than in its entirety.”


It is already a fact. The segments you've heard in the new Coca Cola Zero ad was indeed the music of the Quantum Of Solace-theme song 'Another Way To Die'. I'm actually disappointed again of these few segments. They are unoriginal indeed and quite a rip-off from the 'You Know My Name' failed rock song.

But that's what I don't want to discuss about. My problem is that Sony Pictures and other commercial companies like sister company Sony Consumer Products, Heineken, Coca Cola and Ford Motor Company seem to control entire aspects of the Bond franchise.

We saw the heavily mobile phone texting in 'Casino Royale', which still irritates me to death. But the fact that Coca Cola can actually control the launch of the new Bond song is quite disturbing. Film franchises like Jason Bourne and Batman don't suffer from this uncontrolled product placement and way too extensive involvement of commercial ventures.

I hope Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Brocolli take some control back of the Bond franchise. Eon Productions should take in mind, that if they don't control the franchise more carefully, the Bond franchise will be treated as 'just' a million-dollar brand instead of high-quality entertainment. The Batman-franchise and Jason Bourne-franchise actually don't have this problem.

Could it be a matter of time that not only big companies like Coca Cola and Sony can influence the creative outcome of a Bond film, but maybe big Arabian companies as well? And do you agree Eon Productions and the Bond franchise are becoming much more a trend-follower which executes heavily marketing research instead of a trend-setter?


Where did the quote come from?

Check out this story.

#7 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2219 posts

Posted 14 September 2008 - 06:06 PM

EON has survived from the 60s marketing to kids over adults, and product placement has always been a part of that. Non-issue IMO.

#8 quantumofsolace

quantumofsolace

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1563 posts

Posted 14 September 2008 - 06:28 PM

I would have liked Whinehouse to do the song as I think she fits perfectly. The 'Another Way To Die' Coke instrumental does sound very cliched - but I'll wait to judge the full track.
But with a film with such a huge budget there is bound to be compromise. I hate the scene when Bond is driving and looking at his phone in CR as it serves no purpose but as an advertisement but I think the product placement was even more blatant in the Moore years.
However, I think the risk that Babs and Mike took with Casino Royale was bold. The change in tone and the choice of actor was radical.
Bourne and The Bat don't cost as much to make as Bond

#9 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 14 September 2008 - 06:41 PM

Bourne and The Bat don't cost as much to make as Bond


I suspect you're right, but I wonder why they don't. After all, they have bigger stars and (I imagine) more expensive directors, as well as action scenes and FX that are just as impressive as those in Bond if not rather more so. So why is Bond the costliest of the bunch? In any case, wouldn't the budgets of THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, THE DARK KNIGHT and QUANTUM OF SOLACE be at least roughly comparable? I'd be stunned if it were the case that Bond left Bourne and the Bat absolutely in the dust in terms of cost.

#10 jaguar007

jaguar007

    Commander

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

Posted 14 September 2008 - 07:00 PM

Bourne and The Bat don't cost as much to make as Bond


I suspect you're right, but I wonder why they don't. After all, they have bigger stars and (I imagine) more expensive directors, as well as action scenes and FX that are just as impressive as those in Bond if not rather more so. So why is Bond the costliest of the bunch? In any case, wouldn't the budgets of THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, THE DARK KNIGHT and QUANTUM OF SOLACE be at least roughly comparable? I'd be stunned if it were the case that Bond left Bourne and the Bat absolutely in the dust in terms of cost.


I suspect is is mainly because of location filming and real stunts as opposed to studio shots and CGI (at least as far as TDK is concerned).

#11 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 14 September 2008 - 07:24 PM

I'd considered that, but then again I was under the impression that TDK featured a fair bit of location filming (Chicago and Hong Kong), as well as real stunts (e.g. the truck flip). It certainly doesn't seem as studio-bound or CGI-reliant as BATMAN BEGINS. And, obviously, Bourne has plenty of real stunts and international locations. I'm really not sure how Bond manages to cost so much more, if indeed it does.

#12 marygoodnight

marygoodnight

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 132 posts
  • Location:sweden

Posted 14 September 2008 - 07:49 PM

EON has prostituted Bond. shame on the kids for doing this to their fathers legacy.

#13 Publius

Publius

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3225 posts
  • Location:Miami

Posted 14 September 2008 - 07:57 PM

It definitely got out of hand in DAD and CR, although I can understand Sony pushing hard for it in CR as a compromise with EON for taking such big risks with a guaranteed moneymaker (which I'm sure was part of the reason for Sony's interest in partially buying MGM). After CR proved to be a commercial monster, I'd hope they pull back in QoS. There's no excuse now.

#14 quantumofsolace

quantumofsolace

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1563 posts

Posted 14 September 2008 - 08:03 PM

EON has prostituted Bond. shame on the kids for doing this to their fathers legacy.


The product placement and jumping on the latest trends were more blatent in the Cubby day. Shame on you. If he's looking down I bet he's really proud

Edited by quantumofsolace, 14 September 2008 - 08:10 PM.


#15 stamper

stamper

    Lt. Commander

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

Posted 14 September 2008 - 08:32 PM

You people read too much into it. Coca Cola just released the ad too early, it's just a mishap, I'm sure they heard from EON spokesperson, and probably from Wilson or Babs themselves. This could put future partneships with Coke in jeopardy.
As for Jack White being "safe", I think the contrary, no one gives a toss about Jack White, or about rock'n'roll these days, except die hards like (yes) Babs and some 15 to 20 youngs musicians. Madonna was a safe choice, as was Tina Turner, or this joke of a band that was the aptly named Garbage, not speaking of Sheryl Crow (she also have a fitting name). Taking Jack White today would have been like using The Breeders for Goldeneye : transgressive, bold, needs to shake up the old etablishment. All praise Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson and Craig for succeeding in redefining the franchise. Those threads should have been there when Broz was using whatever brand phones on whatever brand cars, smiling and in fact LAUGHING when he touched a dial, right after he found his ex lover dead killed by my master Kaufmann and exacted revenge. Did I mention the car being dumped into the whatever brand rental shop ? Or the tank crushing 2000 cans of Perrier in Goldeneye -- Please --

#16 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 14 September 2008 - 08:38 PM

EON has prostituted Bond. shame on the kids for doing this to their fathers legacy.


The product placement and jumping on the latest trends were more blatent in the Cubby day. Shame on you. If he's looking down I bet he's really proud

No, it was only MR that had too much of it. And that was nothing compared to the GE-CR era.

I would be happy with less product placement in QOS. I don't care what companies, or how many, that are involved, as long as they do it in a subtle way in the actual film. No more "Omega".

#17 00Twelve

00Twelve

    Commander

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

Posted 15 September 2008 - 02:06 AM

Oh, Lord...c'mon, let the product placement thing go.

There's always going to be product placement in the films, just as there was product placement in the novels. It's just a fact and it's not going to change. And honestly, I didn't even pick up on it in CR. I was wrapped up in the story. Who watches these films with such a scrutinous eye that these kind of things really cause all that much of a distraction? It's not like he takes a sip of a Coke with the logo facing perfectly toward the camera, and lets out a satisfied "Ahhhhhhh..." with a twinkling smile. That goes for the Omega line in CR as well. Like Ian Fleming wouldn't have acknowledged a real brand name like that.

Sorry, can't understand the fuss. No hard feelings.

#18 Publius

Publius

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3225 posts
  • Location:Miami

Posted 15 September 2008 - 02:23 AM

There were a few in CR that I found annoying, like the extended look at Carlos's phone/detonator and (for some reason) the phone in Dryden's drawer.

The Omega line, on the other hand, was done well, since Vesper put Bond down for it (and got it confused with Rolex anyway). The Ford Mondeo also got a lot of laughs from the audience, which made it more than tolerable.

#19 dinovelvet

dinovelvet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8038 posts
  • Location:Jupiter and beyond the infinite

Posted 15 September 2008 - 02:24 AM

Oh, Lord...c'mon, let the product placement thing go.

There's always going to be product placement in the films, just as there was product placement in the novels. It's just a fact and it's not going to change. And honestly, I didn't even pick up on it in CR. I was wrapped up in the story. Who watches these films with such a scrutinous eye that these kind of things really cause all that much of a distraction? It's not like he takes a sip of a Coke with the logo facing perfectly toward the camera, and lets out a satisfied "Ahhhhhhh..." with a twinkling smile. That goes for the Omega line in CR as well. Like Ian Fleming wouldn't have acknowledged a real brand name like that.

Sorry, can't understand the fuss. No hard feelings.


I've never been bothered by it in the slightest, either. A, it anchors Bond in the real world a bit more, B, Fleming did it all the time, and C, its cool that so many brands want to get on the Bond bandwagon. You just know that if there was absolutely no product placement in CR at all, there'd be a thread on CBN asking "Why don't they do product placement anymore? It's not real Bond otherwise!" :(

#20 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 15 September 2008 - 02:30 AM

Oh, Lord...c'mon, let the product placement thing go.

There's always going to be product placement in the films, just as there was product placement in the novels. It's just a fact and it's not going to change. And honestly, I didn't even pick up on it in CR. I was wrapped up in the story. Who watches these films with such a scrutinous eye that these kind of things really cause all that much of a distraction? It's not like he takes a sip of a Coke with the logo facing perfectly toward the camera, and lets out a satisfied "Ahhhhhhh..." with a twinkling smile. That goes for the Omega line in CR as well. Like Ian Fleming wouldn't have acknowledged a real brand name like that.

Sorry, can't understand the fuss. No hard feelings.


I've never been bothered by it in the slightest, either. A, it anchors Bond in the real world a bit more, B, Fleming did it all the time, and C, its cool that so many brands want to get on the Bond bandwagon. You just know that if there was absolutely no product placement in CR at all, there'd be a thread on CBN asking "Why don't they do product placement anymore? It's not real Bond otherwise!" :(


I generally don't have a problem with product placement either. To me, it all depends on how it's done in the film. Having Bond use real-life products is a great thing for the franchise because, as you said, it grounds the film in reality as well as the fact that Fleming did it in the novels a lot as well. There are times, however, when it's not done properly that I'm not a fan of it, such as the line about the watch during the train scene in Casino Royale.

#21 00Twelve

00Twelve

    Commander

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

Posted 15 September 2008 - 02:40 AM

Oh, Lord...c'mon, let the product placement thing go.

There's always going to be product placement in the films, just as there was product placement in the novels. It's just a fact and it's not going to change. And honestly, I didn't even pick up on it in CR. I was wrapped up in the story. Who watches these films with such a scrutinous eye that these kind of things really cause all that much of a distraction? It's not like he takes a sip of a Coke with the logo facing perfectly toward the camera, and lets out a satisfied "Ahhhhhhh..." with a twinkling smile. That goes for the Omega line in CR as well. Like Ian Fleming wouldn't have acknowledged a real brand name like that.

Sorry, can't understand the fuss. No hard feelings.


I've never been bothered by it in the slightest, either. A, it anchors Bond in the real world a bit more, B, Fleming did it all the time, and C, its cool that so many brands want to get on the Bond bandwagon. You just know that if there was absolutely no product placement in CR at all, there'd be a thread on CBN asking "Why don't they do product placement anymore? It's not real Bond otherwise!" :(


I generally don't have a problem with product placement either. To me, it all depends on how it's done in the film. Having Bond use real-life products is a great thing for the franchise because, as you said, it grounds the film in reality as well as the fact that Fleming did it in the novels a lot as well. There are times, however, when it's not done properly that I'm not a fan of it, such as the line about the watch during the train scene in Casino Royale.

See, I don't understand what "properly" means there, t. I thought it was entirely "proper," to use your word. Very Flemingesque dialogue. See, I believe that if they'd had the same exact exchange about Vesper's perfume, everyone on here would be extolling the writers for maintaining the Fleming touch, but because it was a watch brand that had been announced as being in the film, everyone balked. I just don't get that. Seemed like an exchange right out of the literary world to me.

#22 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 15 September 2008 - 02:43 AM

I think this thread is a bi-product of sour grapes...over Whinehouse not getting the title song.

I think DAD had 20 corporate tie-ins and it has actually been pruned down since then.

I think James Bond, unlike Luke Skywalker or Spidey or Batman or Jason Bourne, lends itself to discriminating tastes, real world tastes and lifestyles. Hell, I welcome the additions of real life products.

I think Eon are in the wealth-creation business and James Bond is a means to that end. It's a world-wide brand. That brand has a certain cache', a certain symbolism...and i'm all for discriminating tie-ins.

I think people need to grow up and understand that marketing a movie is expensive business.

I think Eon are on the right path, a corrected path.

I think this thread is a by product of sour grapes.

#23 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 15 September 2008 - 02:50 AM

Oh, Lord...c'mon, let the product placement thing go.

There's always going to be product placement in the films, just as there was product placement in the novels. It's just a fact and it's not going to change. And honestly, I didn't even pick up on it in CR. I was wrapped up in the story. Who watches these films with such a scrutinous eye that these kind of things really cause all that much of a distraction? It's not like he takes a sip of a Coke with the logo facing perfectly toward the camera, and lets out a satisfied "Ahhhhhhh..." with a twinkling smile. That goes for the Omega line in CR as well. Like Ian Fleming wouldn't have acknowledged a real brand name like that.

Sorry, can't understand the fuss. No hard feelings.


I've never been bothered by it in the slightest, either. A, it anchors Bond in the real world a bit more, B, Fleming did it all the time, and C, its cool that so many brands want to get on the Bond bandwagon. You just know that if there was absolutely no product placement in CR at all, there'd be a thread on CBN asking "Why don't they do product placement anymore? It's not real Bond otherwise!" :(


I generally don't have a problem with product placement either. To me, it all depends on how it's done in the film. Having Bond use real-life products is a great thing for the franchise because, as you said, it grounds the film in reality as well as the fact that Fleming did it in the novels a lot as well. There are times, however, when it's not done properly that I'm not a fan of it, such as the line about the watch during the train scene in Casino Royale.

See, I don't understand what "properly" means there, t. I thought it was entirely "proper," to use your word. Very Flemingesque dialogue. See, I believe that if they'd had the same exact exchange about Vesper's perfume, everyone on here would be extolling the writers for maintaining the Fleming touch, but because it was a watch brand that had been announced as being in the film, everyone balked. I just don't get that. Seemed like an exchange right out of the literary world to me.


It just seemed very abrupt to me, and I didn't think that the dialogue there was really necessary in the scene. If they had taken the exact same scene from CR and instead of the watch reference had made a reference to Vesper's perfume, I probably wouldn't have liked that reference either, just because I didn't feel as though it was dialogue that was natural to the scene. To me, the scene was going along just fine with the two characters trading psychological assessments of each other and then, all of a sudden, they were talking about Bond's watch of choice. I'm willing to admit that perhaps I missed the point of the reference, but it just didn't work for me, but it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the brand name was spoken out loud, but rather it had more to do with how it was worked into the particular dialogue exchange.

#24 Professor Dent

Professor Dent

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5326 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania USA

Posted 15 September 2008 - 03:12 AM

A necessary evil but actual products do make things seem more real. I'd rather see someone drinking a Coke vs some generic can that has Cola written on it. My only beef is that sometimes it goes over the top. In the world of Casino Royale, everyone uses a Sony-Ericsson cell phone - yeah, that's realistic. :(

#25 jaguar007

jaguar007

    Commander

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

Posted 15 September 2008 - 03:12 AM

I feel the watch dialogue works just fine, however the constant SONY logo on everything electronic did distract me a bit.

In the entire series the product placement that bothered me the most was in DAD. When Bond is in the hotel room in Hong Kong and it shows a closeup of the Norelco electric razor, Brioni shirt and the other products on his bed are a bit much.

That said, Fleming always used real products, the books are full of them so the movies should be as well.

#26 Mr Ashdown

Mr Ashdown

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 68 posts

Posted 15 September 2008 - 06:03 AM

The point I want to make clear is that at times it seems producers Wilson and Brocolli are not willing to take bold choises anymore.


Yeah, when was the last time that Wilson and Broccoli did something creatively daring, such as abandoning an amazingly lucrative series of Bond films, and instead opting to go back to basics with a Fleming novel, rebooting Bond, controversially casting a proper actor as 007, filming a prologue in black and white, stripping down and reconstructing familiar Bond icons, making a direct sequel, giving their latest movie a head-scratchingly intellectual Fleming title such as "Quantum of Solace", hiring a director known for his character-driven movies, rather than an action film director, etc.?

Edited by Mr Ashdown, 15 September 2008 - 06:05 AM.


#27 Mr Teddy Bear

Mr Teddy Bear

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1154 posts

Posted 15 September 2008 - 07:09 AM

Mr Ashdown, you took the key presses right out from my fingers. :(

The Bond franchise has taken plenty of risks recently. Fundamental risks to do with the core franchise, not superficial risks like title song and brand advertising.

While on the topic, Winehouse would've been the safe pick. I'm not sure how it could be perceived any differently. There was a new story in the paper every day that she had landed the gig, and the general public were screaming out that she had the perfect style for Bond. To pick White instead of Winehouse, that was not an expected, safe move.

#28 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4755 posts
  • Location::noitacoL

Posted 15 September 2008 - 07:34 AM

It's becoming an all time high after all. The involvement of commercial companies in a Bond film is nothing new. Product placement was already visible in the classic Bond films of the Connery era.

I consistently disagree with you over at the other forums and I'm going to continue the trend here; after reading your post there's not a single thing I agree with you on. Also, I'm out of lithium, so I'm not going to be in an agreeable mood anyway.

But after this news I'm becoming more and more wary of the uncontrolled commercial success of the Bond franchise. Read this issue statement from Jack White's management:

“Jack White was commissioned by Sony Pictures to write a theme song for the James Bond film Quantum Of Solace, not for Coca Cola. Any other use of the song is based on decisions made by others, not by Jack White. We are disappointed that you first heard the song in a co-promotion for Coke Zero, rather than in its entirety.”


It is already a fact. The segments you've heard in the new Coca Cola Zero ad was indeed the music of the Quantum Of Solace-theme song 'Another Way To Die'. I'm actually disappointed again of these few segments. They are unoriginal indeed and quite a rip-off from the 'You Know My Name' failed rock song.

Firstly, if you were familiar with Jack White, you'd know he's one of the most enigmatic figures in modern music. He doesn't give a hell of a lot away, and I'm pretty sure he's recorded more than one album on an independent label. I get the feeling that he's very anti-celebrity like Pearl Jam, trying to undo the fame he's built up around his name because he doesn't want it. He exists as a musician first and a money-maker second, which is why he wanted us to hear the song in its entirety first and not as some promotional thing.

Secondly, You Know My Name was certainly not a failure. It had more soul than anything Chris Cornell had put out since 1994's Superunknown, and had more fire in it than most modern rock albums. I could name half a dozen albums it bested from bigger names than Cornell; chief among them Metallica's St. Anger. Nor did I notice any plagiarism from You Know My Name. The sund may be the same, but I'm 95% certain that the main riff is not the same, though I play bass as opposed to guitar, so I naturally tune into the bass sounds first. Then again, you were the one who thought that because David Arnold's name did not appear in the song writing credits, he had absolutely zero involvement in the decision-making process.

But that's what I don't want to discuss about. My problem is that Sony Pictures and other commercial companies like sister company Sony Consumer Products, Heineken, Coca Cola and Ford Motor Company seem to control entire aspects of the Bond franchise.

We saw the heavily mobile phone texting in 'Casino Royale', which still irritates me to death. But the fact that Coca Cola can actually control the launch of the new Bond song is quite disturbing. Film franchises like Jason Bourne and Batman don't suffer from this uncontrolled product placement and way too extensive involvement of commercial ventures.

Don't be an idiot: Coca-Cola do NOT hae any control over this sort of thing. White signed the song to Sony, who control the distribution because they're the record label. Coca-Cola would have to ask permission first before using it, and it's likely they did so before the song was even recorded.

I hope Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Brocolli take some control back of the Bond franchise. Eon Productions should take in mind, that if they don't control the franchise more carefully, the Bond franchise will be treated as 'just' a million-dollar brand instead of high-quality entertainment. The Batman-franchise and Jason Bourne-franchise actually don't have this problem.

Could it be a matter of time that not only big companies like Coca Cola and Sony can influence the creative outcome of a Bond film, but maybe big Arabian companies as well? And do you agree Eon Productions and the Bond franchise are becoming much more a trend-follower which executes heavily marketing research instead of a trend-setter?

I think all the members of these forums have a better chance of winning their respective national lotteries for six straight weeks while aboard the International Space Station after having walked there than there is of commercial companies controlling the release of the Bond franchise. Use your head a little bit for once: EON are notorious taskmasters in that they like to hold on everything until they say it can be released. If the Bond theme had been recorded and Coca-Cola asked to use it before White and Keys were announced as the performers, it's likely EON would have said no.

And the only "insight" I'm getting from this discussion is how quickly you jump to conclusions.

Edited by Captain Tightpants, 15 September 2008 - 07:37 AM.


#29 Mr Teddy Bear

Mr Teddy Bear

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1154 posts

Posted 15 September 2008 - 08:02 AM

EON has prostituted Bond. shame on the kids for doing this to their fathers legacy.

:(
As an aside, is anyone else disappointed that this forum promotes (relatively) free speech?

Edited by Mr Teddy Bear, 15 September 2008 - 08:03 AM.


#30 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4755 posts
  • Location::noitacoL

Posted 15 September 2008 - 09:09 AM

EON has prostituted Bond. shame on the kids for doing this to their fathers legacy.

:(
As an aside, is anyone else disappointed that this forum promotes (relatively) free speech?

Only when free speech consitiutes trolling.