31 replies to this topic

[Broadsword]

I won't post a long review but I felt strangely let down by some age old bugs.

DC is fantastic and well suited (if a little sun burnt at times!) but I share other members fears that he needs to assert himself in the future in case he gets trapped by poor writing like Brosnan.

The action sequences are also well staged but still lacking the full realism this series badly needs e.g. why shoot the pipes in the embassy? did he know they were hot water pipes?
The Venice finale was exceptional but the car chase was 10 seconds long. why?

The length overall was fully appreciated. well done to Campbell and co. for sticking to their guns.

EON PLEASE TAKE NOTE:
The Product Placements virtually ruin the show. Utterly disgusting. Virgin, FORD and SONY as well as OMEGA all feature (does EON really need to guarantee screen time and in some cases script time? Isn't Bond succesful enough. NB: you can make action thrillers without the PP. with ease!).

The OMEGA line is truly dreadful, I winced when I heard it. There is no need for either Aston Martin, period. So why include them? We get it that its a Bond film and some heritage is neccessary but stop ramming it down our throats.

He actually drives one AM around in circles.

The doesn't tell you something about the PP?


The 1st car crash scene at the hotel was well executed but ruined by having the full car park filled with FORDS.
EON : we are not children. Having him drive the new Ford Mondeo in the blazing sun is surely enough without having to populate every scene with a brand spanking new Ford. What kind of deal has been made where Ford get so much screen time? AND yet again the baddies drive Jags and Range Rovers. Its just plain odd. The film stops every five minutes for a commercial.

DC understands what we want to see in the character but everyone else connected with the production seems to be there for their corporate breathren. DC is there for the audience, his performance is one for us to saviour, its just a shame that EON don't back him as much as he deserves.

[dee-bee-five]

I won't post a long review but I felt strangely let down by some age old bugs.

DC is fantastic and well suited (if a little sun burnt at times!) but I share other members fears that he needs to assert himself in the future in case he gets trapped by poor writing like Brosnan.

The action sequences are also well staged but still lacking the full realism this series badly needs e.g. why shoot the pipes in the embassy? did he know they were hot water pipes?
The Venice finale was exceptional but the car chase was 10 seconds long. why?

The length overall was fully appreciated. well done to Campbell and co. for sticking to their guns.

EON PLEASE TAKE NOTE:
The Product Placements virtually ruin the show. Utterly disgusting. Virgin, FORD and SONY as well as OMEGA all feature (does EON really need to guarantee screen time and in some cases script time? Isn't Bond succesful enough. NB: you can make action thrillers without the PP. with ease!).

The OMEGA line is truly dreadful, I winced when I heard it. There is no need for either Aston Martin, period. So why include them? We get it that its a Bond film and some heritage is neccessary but stop ramming it down our throats.

He actually drives one AM around in circles.

The doesn't tell you something about the PP?


The 1st car crash scene at the hotel was well executed but ruined by having the full car park filled with FORDS.
EON : we are not children. Having him drive the new Ford Mondeo in the blazing sun is surely enough without having to populate every scene with a brand spanking new Ford. What kind of deal has been made where Ford get so much screen time? AND yet again the baddies drive Jags and Range Rovers. Its just plain odd. The film stops every five minutes for a commercial.

DC understands what we want to see in the character but everyone else connected with the production seems to be there for their corporate breathren. DC is there for the audience, his performance is one for us to saviour, its just a shame that EON don't back him as much as he deserves.

I really do not understand why some people get so worked up about product placement in movies, and Bond in particular. Fleming was very snobbish about brand names, so it's hardly out of character for the films to be awash with them.

So we have a scene where Bond drives a car. He's got to drive something. And if a company were to offer me, as the producer, a car for him to drive at no cost, I'd take it if I had any commercial nous at all.

The Bond producers, like everyone else in TV and the movies - and I do know what I'm talking about professionally - have to live in the real commercial world and sponsorship and product placement, whether we like it or not, are here to stay. And quite how having a fleet of Ford cars in a scene compromises the art (whatever "art" actually is in the movies) escapes me.

Edited by dee-bee-five, 21 November 2006 - 08:24 AM.

[Broadsword]

I won't post a long review but I felt strangely let down by some age old bugs.

DC is fantastic and well suited (if a little sun burnt at times!) but I share other members fears that he needs to assert himself in the future in case he gets trapped by poor writing like Brosnan.

The action sequences are also well staged but still lacking the full realism this series badly needs e.g. why shoot the pipes in the embassy? did he know they were hot water pipes?
The Venice finale was exceptional but the car chase was 10 seconds long. why?

The length overall was fully appreciated. well done to Campbell and co. for sticking to their guns.

EON PLEASE TAKE NOTE:
The Product Placements virtually ruin the show. Utterly disgusting. Virgin, FORD and SONY as well as OMEGA all feature (does EON really need to guarantee screen time and in some cases script time? Isn't Bond succesful enough. NB: you can make action thrillers without the PP. with ease!).

The OMEGA line is truly dreadful, I winced when I heard it. There is no need for either Aston Martin, period. So why include them? We get it that its a Bond film and some heritage is neccessary but stop ramming it down our throats.

He actually drives one AM around in circles.

The doesn't tell you something about the PP?


The 1st car crash scene at the hotel was well executed but ruined by having the full car park filled with FORDS.
EON : we are not children. Having him drive the new Ford Mondeo in the blazing sun is surely enough without having to populate every scene with a brand spanking new Ford. What kind of deal has been made where Ford get so much screen time? AND yet again the baddies drive Jags and Range Rovers. Its just plain odd. The film stops every five minutes for a commercial.

DC understands what we want to see in the character but everyone else connected with the production seems to be there for their corporate breathren. DC is there for the audience, his performance is one for us to saviour, its just a shame that EON don't back him as much as he deserves.

I really do not understand why some people get so worked up about product placement in movies, and Bond in particular. Fleming was very snobbish about brand names, so it's hardly out of character for the films to be awash with them.

So we have a scene where Bond drives a car. He's got to drive something. And if a company were to offer me, as the producer, a car for him to drive at no cost, I'd take it if I had any commercial nous at all.

The Bond producers, like everyone else in TV and the movies - and I do know what I'm talking about professionally - have to live in the real commercial world and sponsorship and product placement, whether we like it or not, are here to stay. And quite how having a fleet of Ford cars in a scene compromises the art (whatever "art" actually is in the movies) escapes me.

it doesn't reflect what you see when you view a car park. You said it yourself: a fleet of Ford cars, all beautifually shot. Bourne drives cars, they were there to feed the story not promote a corporate product. Bourne's nemesis also drive flash cars but they suitably scuffed up and NOT a central part of the scene in question. In Bond its the opposite. Please note: NOT a central part of the scene in question.

I don't understand the argument that film companies have to have overt and vulgar PP.

See Any number of effective SPY thrillers without PP. They have the integrity that the Bond franchise lacks at this stage.

[dee-bee-five]

I won't post a long review but I felt strangely let down by some age old bugs.

DC is fantastic and well suited (if a little sun burnt at times!) but I share other members fears that he needs to assert himself in the future in case he gets trapped by poor writing like Brosnan.

The action sequences are also well staged but still lacking the full realism this series badly needs e.g. why shoot the pipes in the embassy? did he know they were hot water pipes?
The Venice finale was exceptional but the car chase was 10 seconds long. why?

The length overall was fully appreciated. well done to Campbell and co. for sticking to their guns.

EON PLEASE TAKE NOTE:
The Product Placements virtually ruin the show. Utterly disgusting. Virgin, FORD and SONY as well as OMEGA all feature (does EON really need to guarantee screen time and in some cases script time? Isn't Bond succesful enough. NB: you can make action thrillers without the PP. with ease!).

The OMEGA line is truly dreadful, I winced when I heard it. There is no need for either Aston Martin, period. So why include them? We get it that its a Bond film and some heritage is neccessary but stop ramming it down our throats.

He actually drives one AM around in circles.

The doesn't tell you something about the PP?


The 1st car crash scene at the hotel was well executed but ruined by having the full car park filled with FORDS.
EON : we are not children. Having him drive the new Ford Mondeo in the blazing sun is surely enough without having to populate every scene with a brand spanking new Ford. What kind of deal has been made where Ford get so much screen time? AND yet again the baddies drive Jags and Range Rovers. Its just plain odd. The film stops every five minutes for a commercial.

DC understands what we want to see in the character but everyone else connected with the production seems to be there for their corporate breathren. DC is there for the audience, his performance is one for us to saviour, its just a shame that EON don't back him as much as he deserves.

I really do not understand why some people get so worked up about product placement in movies, and Bond in particular. Fleming was very snobbish about brand names, so it's hardly out of character for the films to be awash with them.

So we have a scene where Bond drives a car. He's got to drive something. And if a company were to offer me, as the producer, a car for him to drive at no cost, I'd take it if I had any commercial nous at all.

The Bond producers, like everyone else in TV and the movies - and I do know what I'm talking about professionally - have to live in the real commercial world and sponsorship and product placement, whether we like it or not, are here to stay. And quite how having a fleet of Ford cars in a scene compromises the art (whatever "art" actually is in the movies) escapes me.

it doesn't reflect what you see when you view a car park. You said it yourself: a fleet of Ford cars, all beautifually shot. Bourne drives cars, they were there to feed the story not promote a corporate product. Bourne's nemesis also drive flash cars but they suitably scuffed up and NOT a central part of the scene in question. In Bond its the opposite. Please note: NOT a central part of the scene in question.

I don't understand the argument that film companies have to have overt and vulgar PP.

See Any number of effective SPY thrillers without PP. They have the integrity that the Bond franchise lacks at this stage.

I saw no evidence of a lack of integrity in Casino Royale. But we're obviously not going to agree. However, with so much other nonsense going on in the world, I really can't get worked up about product placement in movies; particularly, as I said earlier, in Bond movies where it reflects, albeit possibly unintentionally, the original author's mania for brand names.

Edited by dee-bee-five, 21 November 2006 - 09:29 AM.

[NATO Sub]

I generally don't mind product placement and could overlook the various Vaios, Mobile phones, etc. But the "No, Omega" line was really a step too far for me. I think the worst thing was that it felt clumsy, like it had been added purely for marketing purposes. I know that Fleming used real product names in the books to inject a sense of realism , but with so many other ways to show the watch, there was no need speak it's name out loud.

My brother joked that he was expecting Omega sales reps to be in the foyer touting for business when we left and that is a little bit how that line made me feel!

Thoroughly enjoyed the film, but please no more product placement like that.

Edited by NATO Sub, 21 November 2006 - 09:35 AM.

[Broadsword]

I won't post a long review but I felt strangely let down by some age old bugs.

DC is fantastic and well suited (if a little sun burnt at times!) but I share other members fears that he needs to assert himself in the future in case he gets trapped by poor writing like Brosnan.

The action sequences are also well staged but still lacking the full realism this series badly needs e.g. why shoot the pipes in the embassy? did he know they were hot water pipes?
The Venice finale was exceptional but the car chase was 10 seconds long. why?

The length overall was fully appreciated. well done to Campbell and co. for sticking to their guns.

EON PLEASE TAKE NOTE:
The Product Placements virtually ruin the show. Utterly disgusting. Virgin, FORD and SONY as well as OMEGA all feature (does EON really need to guarantee screen time and in some cases script time? Isn't Bond succesful enough. NB: you can make action thrillers without the PP. with ease!).

The OMEGA line is truly dreadful, I winced when I heard it. There is no need for either Aston Martin, period. So why include them? We get it that its a Bond film and some heritage is neccessary but stop ramming it down our throats.

He actually drives one AM around in circles.

The doesn't tell you something about the PP?


The 1st car crash scene at the hotel was well executed but ruined by having the full car park filled with FORDS.
EON : we are not children. Having him drive the new Ford Mondeo in the blazing sun is surely enough without having to populate every scene with a brand spanking new Ford. What kind of deal has been made where Ford get so much screen time? AND yet again the baddies drive Jags and Range Rovers. Its just plain odd. The film stops every five minutes for a commercial.

DC understands what we want to see in the character but everyone else connected with the production seems to be there for their corporate breathren. DC is there for the audience, his performance is one for us to saviour, its just a shame that EON don't back him as much as he deserves.

I really do not understand why some people get so worked up about product placement in movies, and Bond in particular. Fleming was very snobbish about brand names, so it's hardly out of character for the films to be awash with them.

So we have a scene where Bond drives a car. He's got to drive something. And if a company were to offer me, as the producer, a car for him to drive at no cost, I'd take it if I had any commercial nous at all.

The Bond producers, like everyone else in TV and the movies - and I do know what I'm talking about professionally - have to live in the real commercial world and sponsorship and product placement, whether we like it or not, are here to stay. And quite how having a fleet of Ford cars in a scene compromises the art (whatever "art" actually is in the movies) escapes me.

it doesn't reflect what you see when you view a car park. You said it yourself: a fleet of Ford cars, all beautifually shot. Bourne drives cars, they were there to feed the story not promote a corporate product. Bourne's nemesis also drive flash cars but they suitably scuffed up and NOT a central part of the scene in question. In Bond its the opposite. Please note: NOT a central part of the scene in question.

I don't understand the argument that film companies have to have overt and vulgar PP.

See Any number of effective SPY thrillers without PP. They have the integrity that the Bond franchise lacks at this stage.

I saw no evidence of a lack of integrity in Casino Royale. But we're obviously not going to agree. However, with so much other nonsense going on in the world, I really can't get worked up about product placement in movies; particularly, as I said earlier, in Bond movies where it reflects, albeit possibly unintentionally, the original author's mania for brand names.

\I take this point about Fleming. But there have been plenty of his tastes dropped from the franchise (Bond's 70 a day habit springs to mind).

If they are aiming at the grit that they say they are then they need to grow up a bit. Ronin advertized the new Audi S-8 but i never felt once was Audi's corporate interest put above my needs as a viewer (and paying consumer!!!). yet the Mondeo scene (or 'commercial' as it should be called) clearly put the needs of Ford before our requirement of seeing Bond go from A to B. By all means use a Mondeo but did it need to be shot like an advert? why have an Omega reference in the script when DC's face with an Omega is shining out of every magainze I open. Why feature Virgin? why have so many Fords. They can tone it down abit, thats all I am saying.


I just feel owner ship has passed from what Fleming established in the Connery era to the corporate board rooms of whomever EON is sucking up to.

I certainly don't feel it belongs to the fans, in the same way that Trekkies or Fireflies Brown coats feel they have a sense of belonginig with their altar of worship.

I just felt let down whenever an advert popped up in the film.

[Zorin Industries]

Note to poster - Ian Fleming's novels are littered with references to real products. So is the real world. Why should Bond films not even pretend that exists....? Terms such as The Aston, a Martini, Mi6, Walther PPK....they're all product names...?!

When are fans going to realise that Bond films are not made for them to watch on DVD time and time again. They are made for a global cinematic audience. The majority of criticisms levelled by fans at CASINO ROYALE have been nothing but petulant anoraks throwing their Corgi cars out of the pram...."I didn't like that bit", "I didn't like the way he walked", "he shouldn't hold the glass with that hand" and "a company that has successfully produced a product for 45 years doesn't know what it's doing".... Please.....


Okay words, mediocre execution.

[dee-bee-five]

Note to poster - Ian Fleming's novels are littered with references to real products. So is the real world. Why should Bond films not even pretend that exists....? Terms such as The Aston, a Martini, Mi6, Walther PPK....they're all product names...?!

When are fans going to realise that Bond films are not made for them to watch on DVD time and time again. They are made for a global cinematic audience. The majority of criticisms levelled by fans at CASINO ROYALE have been nothing but petulant anoraks throwing their Corgi cars out of the pram...."I didn't like that bit", "I didn't like the way he walked", "he shouldn't hold the glass with that hand" and "a company that has successfully produced a product for 45 years doesn't know what it's doing".... Please.....


Okay words, mediocre execution.

A man (and realist) after my own heart.

[Broadsword]

Note to poster - Ian Fleming's novels are littered with references to real products. So is the real world. Why should Bond films not even pretend that exists....? Terms such as The Aston, a Martini, Mi6, Walther PPK....they're all product names...?!

When are fans going to realise that Bond films are not made for them to watch on DVD time and time again. They are made for a global cinematic audience. The majority of criticisms levelled by fans at CASINO ROYALE have been nothing but petulant anoraks throwing their Corgi cars out of the pram...."I didn't like that bit", "I didn't like the way he walked", "he shouldn't hold the glass with that hand" and "a company that has successfully produced a product for 45 years doesn't know what it's doing".... Please.....


Okay words, mediocre execution.

But my review didn't mention any of those words. The real world is littered with real products agreed. (if you want to get technical he should have driven the current model Mondeo but thats not the point!!!)

It is the way they are filmed. I can't say this any plainer.

Look at Ronin featureing the new S-8, Bourne: the S class, Audi A4, G Wagon. and countless phones and computers

At no point in those films did it feel like the production company was advertizing those products. They felt real and appropriate to the film; integral to the story and character etc.

Please read my post again (clearly you didn't as your comments of my review uses quotes i didn't use ?!).

IN English as plain as I can be:

I want to see the series be gritty and true to the character. Therefore he will need to drive cars and use guns etc. But they shouldn't build scenes around the corporate need to sell these products. Ie presenting them in the most attractive light. The S Class in Bourne the S-8 in Ronin are scuffed and not the centre of the shots. The Mondeo in CR looks just like a Ford advert, the Virgin Logo, the constant SONY products, the presentation of world populated by only brand new shiny FORDS.

It is odd and throws the film off filter. It is far from the real world you seem anxious for them to represent.

this is my point and i honestly can't be any plainer. I don't know how else to articlulate it.

Edited by Broadsword, 21 November 2006 - 12:25 PM.

[JameswpBond]

I agree. I think they should be more subtle with the product placements.

[Broadsword]

I agree. I think they should be more subtle with the product placements.

but that makes you a whiny anorak who doesn't know anythign about the real world of film making

[dartmouthparkisfab]

The only thing I didn't like was the use of the cell phone as a plot device. It seemed clunky and contrived to get as many views as possible for its manufacturer.

[MattofSteel]

Terms like "Walther" or "Omega" are Bond staples, I love hearing them. And Omega made perfect sense given the dialogue. I don't mind the product placement, it didn't take me out of the film. If Bond is carrying a Sony Ericsson, Bond is carrying a Sony Ericsson. Big deal. I carry a Bell LG, and I'm reminded of it every time I look at MY phone. Whoop di do. And frankly, a laptop with NO brand on it would look weirder and more out of place than one that says "VAIO".

And a VAIO is a pretty nice thing to have, anyways.

[Broadsword]

Terms like "Walther" or "Omega" are Bond staples, I love hearing them. And Omega made perfect sense given the dialogue. I don't mind the product placement, it didn't take me out of the film. If Bond is carrying a Sony Ericsson, Bond is carrying a Sony Ericsson. Big deal. I carry a Bell LG, and I'm reminded of it every time I look at MY phone. Whoop di do. And frankly, a laptop with NO brand on it would look weirder and more out of place than one that says "VAIO".

And a VAIO is a pretty nice thing to have, anyways.

DEAR GOD I FEEL LIKE I HAVE TAKEN CRAZY PILLS.

LISTEN. READ. THINK.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH PRODUCTS BEING IN THE FRANCHISE. ITS THE WAY THEY ARE FILMED.

HERE READ THE POST.

IN English as plain as I can be:

I want to see the series be gritty and true to the character. Therefore he will need to drive cars and use guns etc. But they shouldn't build scenes around the corporate need to sell these products. Ie presenting them in the most attractive light. The S Class in Bourne the S-8 in Ronin are scuffed and not the centre of the shots. The Mondeo in CR looks just like a Ford advert, the Virgin Logo, the constant SONY products, the presentation of world populated by only brand new shiny FORDS.

IT DOESN'T REPRESENT REAL LIFE BUT A SHINY COPORATE UNIVERSE.

They said it would be gritty and more 'real'. I just don\t see it with all the corporate promo stuff.

Agreed Lovely products. I'd LOVE the S-8 in RONIN. But it isn't the centre of attention. and is never filnmed according to coroporate need.

The PP in BOND is odd and throws the film off filter. It is far from the real world you seem anxious for them to represent.

this is my point and i honestly can't be any plainer. I don't know how else to articlulate it.

Seriously. I can't be plainer. ... Its not the products, its their central 'star' casting. you know the way they are filmed...oh I give up.

Edited by Broadsword, 21 November 2006 - 02:24 PM.

[spynovelfan]

The title of the thread seems a little at odds with the subject, because your main gripe appaears to be the product placement in the film, which didn't have *that* much of an impact on the entire film, surely.

However, I do agree with you. I thought the product placement was shameless, and the Omega line stuck out like a sore thumb. Bourne, M:I, any other major blockbuster action thriller out there doesn't have quite this level of product placement.

But there's another issue. For those who say that Fleming also mentioned brands: well yes, he did. But what brands? I think this is the real problem - the brands they are using often seem unsuitable for the character. Nice as they are, James Bond wouldn't wear off-the-peg Italian designer suits. They tried to rectify that a little in CR with Vesper's gift, but - fun as it is - it doesn't quite work as we now discover he got his penchant for tailor-made suits without ever having a tailor make it. The idea of 'sizing someone up' visually and getting a tailor-made suit as a result is a pretty major misunderstanding of the term 'made to measure'! (Sorry, that for me was like him entering M's flat for Loomis). Ditto Richard Branson - he's a tacky, 'groovy' billionaire with no class. I thought his cameo - though thankfully brief - still impinged on the mood of the scene and the film in general. Bond is trying to stop a terrorist and we're in gritty suspenseful territory with him - suddenly we have a Roger Moore-era sight 'gag'. Bizarre. Worse, while the action scene unfolded, you got to see a Virgin plane take off in the background! And Bond wouldn't wear an Omega - he's the guy with the Rolex.

I would welcome product placement if it were not overly intrusive, had a point to it and - above all - suited the character. Bond could have walked into his hotel room and been introduced to a Savile Row tailor by Vesper. The tailor could have looked nervous and said something along the lines of how highly unusual it all is, but that this would be a preliminary fititng, not the whole bespoke, which he would have to have done back in London next time he was there. Bond would nod, mystified by the man's inane babble. Cut to Bond in black tie walking through the casino with a smile on his face. Done. 'Your watch - Rolex?' 'Naturally.' Done. Many of the brands Fleming mentioned in his novels are still around, and highly respected: if you're going to do deals like this, do them with Bentley, Dunhill, Floris, Campari, etc. I'd have far rather seen an ad campaign with Lillet (http://www.lillet.fr) than Heineken. As Lillet has a very good reason to be promoted and Heineken doesn't! Obviously, Heineken will have more money. But they could do more deals with smaller, more prestigious companies and their placement of those products could actually promote the brands and make them into something much better known. As has happened with Brioni, for example. Why not do it with Kilgour instead?

That said - and I've now had my own little rant! - I do think this was a pretty minor issue in a film that has given us the best performance of James Bond ever committed to film.

[Broadsword]

The title of the thread seems a little at odds with the subject, because your main gripe appaears to be the product placement in the film, which didn't have *that* much of an impact on the entire film, surely.

However, I do agree with you. I thought the product placement was shameless, and the Omega line stuck out like a sore thumb. Bourne, M:I, any other major blockbuster action thriller out there doesn't have quite this level of product placement.

But there's another issue. For those who say that Fleming also mentioned brands: well yes, he did. But what brands? I think this is the real problem - the brands they are using often seem out of whack with the character. Nice as they are, James Bond wouldn't wear off-the-peg Italian designer suits. They tried to rectify that a little in CR with Vesper's gift, but - fun as it is - it doesn't quite work as we now discover he got his penchant for tailor-made suits without ever having a tailor make it. The idea of sizing someone up and gettnig a tailor-made suit as a result is a pretty major misunderstanding of the term 'made to measure'! (Sorry, that for me was like him entering M's flat for Loomis). Ditto Richard Branson - he's a tacky, 'groovy' billionaire with no class. I thought his cameo - though thankfully brief - still impinged on the mood of the scene and the film in general. Bond is trying to stop a terrorist and we're in gritty suspenseful territory with him - suddenly we have a Roger Moore-era sight 'gag'. Bizarre. Worse, while the action scene unfolded, you got to see a Virgin plane take off in the background! And Bodn wouldn't wear an Omega - he's the guy with the Rolex.

I would welcome product placement if it were not overly intrusive, had a point to it and suited the character. Bond could have walked into the room and been introduced to a Savile Row tailor by Vesper. He could have looked nervous and said something along the lines of how 'highly unusual' it all is, but that this would be a preliminary initial fititng, not the whole bespoke, which he would have to have done back in London next time he was there. Bond would nod, mystified by the babble. Cut to him in black tie walking through the casino with a smile on his face. Done. 'Your watch - Rolex?' 'Naturally.' Done.

But I do think this was a pretty minor issue in a film that has given us the best performance of James Bond ever committed to film.

I agree with all of this and obviously this is a matter of taste. For me I was a little thrown by all these things, the Branson cameo, M's flat scene, the bloody tear duct. They just added up to less than the sum of DC's performance. It felt rushed and ill thought out. And the cell phone reference as well as the "do i lookk like I give a dam!' line.

Seriously. Moody former SAS/SBS bloke saying 'Damn'.

It just felt schizophrenic and off kilter,,,clunky maybe. It wasn't as rugged and dangerous as Craig's central performance. The love scene on the beach stands out as a major highlight...it was "finally a proper actor' type moment. Someone who can really emote without speaking.

[Harmsway]

Ditto Richard Branson - he's a tacky, 'groovy' billionaire with no class. I thought his cameo - though thankfully brief - still impinged on the mood of the scene and the film in general. Bond is trying to stop a terrorist and we're in gritty suspenseful territory with him - suddenly we have a Roger Moore-era sight 'gag'. Bizarre.

I didn't notice him. It's hardly obtrusive, and hardly a big deal. Why not have a Richard Branson cameo? He's just an extra.

I agree with all of this and obviously this is a matter of taste. For me I was a little thrown by all these things, the Branson cameo, M's flat scene, the bloody tear duct.

Isn't the bloody tear duct something that seems like it would be straight out of Fleming?

They just added up to less than the sum of DC's performance. It felt rushed and ill thought out. And the cell phone reference as well as the "do i lookk like I give a dam!' line.

Seriously. Moody former SAS/SBS bloke saying 'Damn'.

Bond says damn in the novels and has used it more than a few times in the film. What's so bizarre about its use in the film?

[Mike00spy]

Part of the reason is that Bond is more visible than Bourne or Ronin (which were the examples cited) When Bond drives a car, we've heard about it before hand, so when we see it in the movie, it feels like product placement. I didn't know (or care) what cars were going to be in Ronin or Bourne, so seeing them in the movie was different. Its more of the fault of the marketing of the movie to me.

Also, I just dont really care. We could always have each car, cell phone, computer, watch, and bottle of vodka be stamped "ACME" and get it over with.

[Broadsword]

Ditto Richard Branson - he's a tacky, 'groovy' billionaire with no class. I thought his cameo - though thankfully brief - still impinged on the mood of the scene and the film in general. Bond is trying to stop a terrorist and we're in gritty suspenseful territory with him - suddenly we have a Roger Moore-era sight 'gag'. Bizarre.

I didn't notice him. It's hardly obtrusive, and hardly a big deal. Why not have a Richard Branson cameo? He's just an extra.

eh? just an extra?

i think Spy Novel fan said it best 'tacky groovy billionaire' who happens to own the airline EON are currently plugging. The scene lost its momentum when he pops up AND when his airline is featured. So he is hardly 'just an extra'

Lets get Donald Trump in there next time and really ground it in the real world as Campbell said he was attempting.

[Harmsway]

Ditto Richard Branson - he's a tacky, 'groovy' billionaire with no class. I thought his cameo - though thankfully brief - still impinged on the mood of the scene and the film in general. Bond is trying to stop a terrorist and we're in gritty suspenseful territory with him - suddenly we have a Roger Moore-era sight 'gag'. Bizarre.

I didn't notice him. It's hardly obtrusive, and hardly a big deal. Why not have a Richard Branson cameo? He's just an extra.

eh? just an extra?

i think Spy Novel fan said it best 'tacky groovy billionaire' who happens to own the airline EON are currently plugging. The scene lost its momentum when he pops up AND when his airline is featured. So he is hardly 'just an extra'

If you hadn't heard the reports beforehand, you wouldn't have noticed him in the scene. As I said, "just an extra."

[Broadsword]

Part of the reason is that Bond is more visible than Bourne or Ronin (which were the examples cited) When Bond drives a car, we've heard about it before hand, so when we see it in the movie, it feels like product placement. I didn't know (or care) what cars were going to be in Ronin or Bourne, so seeing them in the movie was different. Its more of the fault of the marketing of the movie to me.

Also, I just dont really care. We could always have each car, cell phone, computer, watch, and bottle of vodka be stamped "ACME" and get it over with.

DEAR GOD. DEAR GOD. HELP ME HELP ME HELP ME

Stamping a car with ACME would make it more real? You actually think thats what i was articulating?



I agree with you about Marketing though. I just don't understand why they have to team up with FORD etc to make a decent Spy thriller.

[dee-bee-five]

Ditto Richard Branson - he's a tacky, 'groovy' billionaire with no class. I thought his cameo - though thankfully brief - still impinged on the mood of the scene and the film in general. Bond is trying to stop a terrorist and we're in gritty suspenseful territory with him - suddenly we have a Roger Moore-era sight 'gag'. Bizarre.

I didn't notice him. It's hardly obtrusive, and hardly a big deal. Why not have a Richard Branson cameo? He's just an extra.

I agree with all of this and obviously this is a matter of taste. For me I was a little thrown by all these things, the Branson cameo, M's flat scene, the bloody tear duct.

Isn't the bloody tear duct something that seems like it would be straight out of Fleming?

They just added up to less than the sum of DC's performance. It felt rushed and ill thought out. And the cell phone reference as well as the "do i lookk like I give a dam!' line.

Seriously. Moody former SAS/SBS bloke saying 'Damn'.

Bond says damn in the novels and has used it more than a few times in the film. What's so bizarre about its use in the film?

Shame on you. Don't you realise that the blink-and-you'll-miss-him Richard Branson cameo (hardly that, actually) is symptomatic of a complete lack of integrity on behalf of the film-makers? A wicked capitalist conspiracy to have Virgin rammed down your throat, in fact.

Although it could be the way it was filmed, of course...

Edited by dee-bee-five, 21 November 2006 - 02:59 PM.

[Mike00spy]

The ACME comment was just a joke.... not a suggestion

[Broadsword]

Ditto Richard Branson - he's a tacky, 'groovy' billionaire with no class. I thought his cameo - though thankfully brief - still impinged on the mood of the scene and the film in general. Bond is trying to stop a terrorist and we're in gritty suspenseful territory with him - suddenly we have a Roger Moore-era sight 'gag'. Bizarre.

I didn't notice him. It's hardly obtrusive, and hardly a big deal. Why not have a Richard Branson cameo? He's just an extra.

eh? just an extra?

i think Spy Novel fan said it best 'tacky groovy billionaire' who happens to own the airline EON are currently plugging. The scene lost its momentum when he pops up AND when his airline is featured. So he is hardly 'just an extra'

If you hadn't heard the reports beforehand, you wouldn't have noticed him in the scene. As I said, "just an extra."

and the airline plug? Notice how Miami International Airport only has one airline servicing it? I wouldn't have noticed that either if they could find a way to make the scene less ...considered. Less obsessive with the corporate plug.

Its a case of 'how best can we situate this camera to really sell the Virgin product? ' Or whatever product that scene had in the script. The focus is too disparate, it needs to be laser like on this character we are going to see, whats driving him? whats he doing now? why? etc

but instead we get: how can we associatel this product with the 007 brand?

[dee-bee-five]

The ACME comment was just a joke.... not a suggestion

You've no need to apologise. There's a bit of a humour malfunction on this thread. Not to mention a lack of perspective.

Edited by dee-bee-five, 21 November 2006 - 03:05 PM.

[Harmsway]

Shame on you. Don't you realise that the blink-and-you'll-miss-him Richard Branson cameo (hardly that, actually) is symptomatic of a complete lack of integrity on behalf of the film-makers? A wicked capitalist conspiracy to have Virgin rammed down your throat, in fact.

Although it could be the way it was filmed, of course...

To be honest, the product placement wasn't a big deal for me. Of course I saw the Mondeo scene, but I thought that was supposed to be humorous - the music is roaring, and what we're seeing Bond drive is a... Ford. Hilarious.

The Sony products? Sorry. Wasn't paying attention to them. Doubt the audience was, either.

Omega? Okay. You got me. But I didn't mind it too much, to be honest. So sue me.

and the airline plug? Notice how Miami International Airport only has one airline servicing it?

No. I was too busy paying attention to the story.

[Broadsword]

Ditto Richard Branson - he's a tacky, 'groovy' billionaire with no class. I thought his cameo - though thankfully brief - still impinged on the mood of the scene and the film in general. Bond is trying to stop a terrorist and we're in gritty suspenseful territory with him - suddenly we have a Roger Moore-era sight 'gag'. Bizarre.

I didn't notice him. It's hardly obtrusive, and hardly a big deal. Why not have a Richard Branson cameo? He's just an extra.

I agree with all of this and obviously this is a matter of taste. For me I was a little thrown by all these things, the Branson cameo, M's flat scene, the bloody tear duct.

Isn't the bloody tear duct something that seems like it would be straight out of Fleming?

They just added up to less than the sum of DC's performance. It felt rushed and ill thought out. And the cell phone reference as well as the "do i lookk like I give a dam!' line.

Seriously. Moody former SAS/SBS bloke saying 'Damn'.

Bond says damn in the novels and has used it more than a few times in the film. What's so bizarre about its use in the film?

as he should. Miilitary types spoke like that in the 1950s and 1960s . He smokes 70 a day as well and does a few press ups now and again to keep fit. Great. For 1960!!!

Shame on you. Don't you realise that the blink-and-you'll-miss-him Richard Branson cameo (hardly that, actually) is symptomatic of a complete lack of integrity on behalf of the film-makers? A wicked capitalist conspiracy to have Virgin rammed down your throat, in fact.


Its certainly a lack of integrity. A silly joke that no one but my grandma will find amusing. It doesn't befit the scene and throws our emotions off kilter.

Although it could be the way it was filmed, of course...

[Harmsway]

Its certainly a lack of integrity. A silly joke that no one but my grandma will find amusing. It doesn't befit the scene and throws our emotions off kilter.

The only ones who notice it are the ones looking for it. And because you were looking for it, it threw your emotions off kilter. I? I didn't even notice it.

[Broadsword]

[quote name='Harmsway' date='21 November 2006 - 16:07' post='653198']
[quote name='dee-bee-five' post='653192' date='21 November 2006 - 08:58']
Shame on you. Don't you realise that the blink-and-you'll-miss-him Richard Branson cameo (hardly that, actually) is symptomatic of a complete lack of integrity on behalf of the film-makers? A wicked capitalist conspiracy to have Virgin rammed down your throat, in fact.

Although it could be the way it was filmed, of course...[/quote]


To be honest, the product placement wasn't a big deal for me. Of course I saw the Mondeo scene, but I thought that was supposed to be humorous - the music is roaring, and what we're seeing Bond is a... Ford. Hilarious.



Bond in a Mondeo. Funny stuff. I know when they wrote the exact screen time the car would share with the character in the contract with Ford they all hoped we'd be laughing.

If their intentions were for us to laugh then i missed the joke. If their intentions where to plug a car thats not even built yet and suggest its a rentacar then i got it. Loud and clear.

[Harmsway]

If their intentions were for us to laugh then i missed the joke.

Harry Knowles of AICN got it. My theatre got it - they roared with laughter at the moment. My friend, after he saw the film on his own, called me up and talked to me about how awesome it was to have a moment with Bond driving a Ford before he gets a "genuine" Bond car.