45 replies to this topic

[stamper]

I agree, what I find annoying is that there a lots of zoomin in on the actor playing Bond, during the whole movie. I hate that. Bond should be generic, why should there be endless close ups of the actor playing Bond ? So that we know it's Daniel Craig ???
Actors should be shot in a way that we cannot recognise their face, unless trying hard.

[tapalapadapa]

The section in the film when Bond is driving the Mondeo bugged the life out of me. It just looks like an advert: the sun, his shades, the music, the angle..arghh. And is everyone forgetting "Rolex?" "Omega" "Beautiful!"

Edited by tapalapadapa, 28 November 2006 - 12:48 PM.

[stamper]

I never noticed it was a mondeo. For me, that shot was totally TB Connery era postcard brilliant movie stuff, the stuff of Bond. If it was an aston, a ford, or whatever car, you would have said the same. OK, let JB not drive a car anymore.

[Roebuck]

And is everyone forgetting "Rolex?" "Omega" "Beautiful!"

Taking into account how dismissive Vesper is being about guys with big watches, I think that was intended more as a good natured dig rather than promotion for Omega.

BTW

[pedroarmendariz]

let me just add to yolt13's comment that without the cash that product placements bring in to eon, they would have to beg to some dumb studios chief(s) for it only to have them refuse it. having companies pay eon to show their products gives more money and independence to the company so that bond doesn't end up being controlled by stupid accountants that only want to spend money on things that are quaranteed to make a return back. do you want bond to be controlled the same way as batman or superman or countless other movie franchises that tried the eon formula, but failed becasue of the movie system? that's one reason i bleed bond. no studio tells the broccoli/wilson team what to do because they're on the passenger seat. if eon wants to sell space in the movies for company products in return for cash they can use to make great movies like cr, then i'm all for it. besides, bond isn't bond without the name brands. some of us are guilty of the same crime anyways and should not throw stones at his glass house.

[yolt13]

Yeah, the watch thing was in response to aspecific question about his watch type, intended to belittle Bond's extravagant taste in apparel. If anything, it was an off-hand swipe at Omega, implying that their watches are vain status symbols for materialistic playboys. I suppose if one didn't understand the point of the dialogue exchange, one could be bothered by the reference.

And I too did not know the car was a Mondeo until someone pointed it out. Again, it's a matter of people looking for the product placement.

Well said, pedro. I personally think Bond fans should be honored and thrilled that companies so desperately want their products associated with the coolest movie character of all time.

[stamper]

That's what I thought too, if anything, the wath reference makes up Omega as watches for the dumbs. Of course Omega probably doesn't mind, they have commercials to make up for it. I love the expression on Green's face when she says "beautiful" implying the guy is a neanderthal.

[x 440Magnum x]

I wasn't thinking about the association with products going in, and the big Vaio logo pulled me out of the experience once or twice, and that's the only thing that made me notice that the tv's, phone, and camera were all Sony as well.
That being said, the Mondeo wasn't that obtrusive, even though I knew he was going to be driving it beforehand. And the Aston Martin is definitive James Bond (and they totaled how many of them to make the movie?). At least they didn't total that beautiful DB5, even if he did "nick the door."
I think Sony missed a big chance to include some slightly "private eye" idealized products, just to showcase some concept technology, or slight stretches of the imagination. Doesn't have to drive a car by itself. Just be more than what the average guy can get on eBay with a good bid and maybe a little overtime or a raise.

It didn't totally ruin the movie though...but I've kind of learned to expect it, ever since my eye zoomed in on the Pepsi logo perfectly facing the camera in Gone In 60 Seconds, right between his fingers. :-P.

[Damien Hunt]

Product placements in movies is second nature and should be expected. What about in DAD, with the Norelco electric razor? Or BMW with the first three Brosnan movies? Or even the giant 7-Up and Seiko signs in Moonraker? Nothing has changed IMO, just the products.

My only complaint about the Sony Vaio, as an IT professional, is that Sony Vaio's are over priced pieces of junk.

[darthbond]

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.

When I went with Exar Kun and his cousians, that is what their mom bickered about. Everybody else loved it.

darthbond

[Mr. Wint]

Trust me....Product placement in Bond movies only bothers you because you know there are product placements before you go into the cinema. I'm sure there are a lot of product placements in other movies too. But they didn't bother you and you didn't notice them because you didn't know about them ahead of time. It's psychological.

[BMT-216A]

yea, you've gotta admit, there was a heap of product placement, the ford focus was quite prominent with all those panning shots of the car, and heaps of sony ones!! on his phone and laptop!!

did they do it in the old movie much? moonraker per chance? lol

[bill007]

The Ford was the debut of the 2007 Mondeo, not a Focus. The U.K. have been producing Ford 4-doors the haul-*ss for a long time. Like that Ford Sierra 3-door Cosworth in the 80's. Man, I really wanted one of those win I lived there.

Edited by bill007, 08 December 2006 - 12:17 AM.

[AMC Hornet]

Why is the discussion in this thread about bothersome product placement, when it started out being about the opposite?:

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.

My question is, who was taken 'out the moment' by phoney corporate names like Auric Enterprises, Osato Chemicals, WWTechtronics, Hi Fat Industries, Stromberg Shipping Lines, Drax Industries, Zorin Industries, CMGN, King Industries, Graves Diamonds, Skyfleet or Greene Planet?

Perzackly. No matter how predicated in the real world any movie is, the audience is supposed to be willing to suspend some degree of disbelief. I for one didn't care if there was a Texron company or not (for all I knew there was). Naturally, when products or companies are being used for nefarious purposes, no one wants their names associated with them (AVTAK started with a disclaimer because of the similarity between the villain's company and Zoran electronics). Give Kudos to Richard Branson for supplying aircraft for filming the Miami Airport sequence - all he got for it was a brief, off-to-the-right cameo even shorter than Florida Governor Bob Martinez's in LTK.

Sometimes product placement can work to the film makers' advantage, such as "British Airways - We'll take better care of you" in Moonraker (the hillsides in Rio really are lined with billboards like that), or the frozen pizza billboard in the background where Wednesday and Puggsly Addams were selling 'lemonade' ('What do you want on your Tombstone?')

BTW, I did a double-take when I saw a building in my city being put up by Quantum Construction - what, no disclaimer?

Edited by AMC Hornet, 15 March 2012 - 10:40 PM.

[larrythefatcat]

I do find it slightly annoying when big budget films find it necessary to make up fake corporations when they aren't related to the plot. This usually only happens if the film itself is weak enough that I'm wondering what a fake company has to do with the story. Otherwise, I say get permission from corporations to use their logos, but don't ask for money for product placement... and the high amount of product placement money for Skyfall has me slightly worried in this respect. Let's hope the movie is strong enough to not let us focus on what products Bond will be using/consuming.

Going more into real product placement, I don't really have too much of an issue with the overt moments in Moonraker: the billboard scene wouldn't have worked any better (or worse, I guess) with a fake company advertised on it and there are lots of bars/restaurants that used to have those plastic 7-Up signs on them... and I've seen some older places that still do. Die Another Day does bother me a bit, however... oh... and there's product placement in it too, I guess...

The Sony products featured in Casino Royale DO get shoved right into the viewer's face, but I think the gigantic Blu-ray logo on the security footage disc is the one that bothers me the most... it's 100% unnecessary. I guess I can get over the Ericcson and Vaio logos because cellular phones and laptop computers generally have noticeable logos on them, whereas most people don't find it necessary to print GIGANTIC logos onto custom labels for things like archived security footage media.

Edited by larrythefatcat, 15 March 2012 - 06:48 AM.

[Guy Haines]

I dare say he received no payment for it, but when it came to product placement in a Bond story, nobody did it better than Ian Fleming himself. Bond never just smoked a cigarette, it was Morlands, specially customised for him. He didn't just like marmalade for breakfast, it had to be Cooper's Oxford. As for his choice of car or gun, Fleming went in to loving detail about them.

I expect it was to lend a degree of authenticity to his novels, and probably reflected some of his own personal tastes, but my point is that product placement in Bond is nothing new, it's just that Ian Fleming didn't do it because Morlands tobacco, Cooper's marmalade, Bentley cars or the makers of the Walther or Berretta pistols were sponsoring him to.