73 replies to this topic

[Zorin Industries]

James Bond 007 has ALWAYS had commericial ties. From Fleming onwards name-dropping various brands and products into the mix and DR NO and every film that followed Eon Productions have always used a bit of marketing know-how. What was GOLDFINGER's Aston Martin if not product placement of a sort? A Walther PPK was a blatant endorsement of a brand as is Martini. It doesn't distract from the films as 007 is a labels man. He can afford it. There is an aspiration there - which is a VITAL ingredient of the characters longevity, appeal and finesse.

There is also a fiscal element here. The films overall budget and finances are aided and supported by these products. Yes, the inclusion can be a tad crass (okay CASINO ROYALE I 'get' the nods to Sony) but it is usually all handled fairly appropriately.

Someone has already said "shame on Eon" for tarnishing the Cubby Broccoli legacy. The only shaming here is about some people not seeing the wood for their James Bond boxsets. The product placement (and to be fair it is not that anyway in the 007 films) has been there since the 1960's. James Bond 007 is a commercial vehicle - the title tune released to the public, the DVD sales, the tie-in books and even Sebastian Faulks' DEVIL MAY CARE. It is all about generating a business from the character and the world he inhabits. None of would be here if that was removed from the mix. There would be no 007 industry.

And ask yourself another question. How many of us have really watched a Bond film and thought, "Oh - I must be fickle and consumer led and buy that Omega watch now!". The fans will. The fans would anyway. But the general public wouldn't. It's more about brand awareness than a trade fair via the narrative of a Bond film.

[spynovelfan]

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.

Let's look at the dialogue in question:

'Vesper: All right….by the cut of your suit you went to Oxford or wherever and actually think human beings dress like that. But you wear it with such disdain, that my guess is you didn’t come from money and all your school chums rubbed that in your face every day, which means you were at that school by the grace of someone else’s charity, hence the chip on your shoulder. And since your first thought about me ran to orphan, that's what I'd say you are. Oh you are. And it makes sense since MI6 looks for maladjusted young men who'd give little thought to sacrificing others to protect queen and country. You know, former SAS types with easy smiles and expensive watches. Rolex?

Bond: Omega.

Vesper: Beautiful. Now having just met you I wouldn’t go as far as calling you a cold-hearted bastard...'

This felt wrong to me for several reasons. It didn't feel 'right out of the literary world' - it contradicted it at several points. James Bond is an orphan, and he was sent to school by his aunt, but this is the first time we've heard that he went there by someone else's charity or didn't come from money. His father worked for Vickers and went to Fettes, one of the most prestigious and, to this day, expensive schools in Britain. One presumes he inherited. Vesper is not far off the literary Bond when she says he's a former SAS type, though, because Fleming's Bond appears to be a former commando.

And she guesses that his watch is Rolex, which is what he wears in Fleming's books. Great. But then... Bond contradicts her and says he's wearing an Omega. She needlessly states 'Beautiful' - out of character, really, because she's just been chastising his expensive tastes to put him down and suddenly switches to passivity and allowing him to have the upper hand. This part of the exchange has very little to do with Vesper and Bond, and rather a lot to do with Omega marketing themselves. Omega is not nearly as famous, prestigious or expensive a brand as Rolex. Ian Fleming's James Bond wore a Rolex. Omega is a pale imitation of that. They have paid to have their product in the film, and somehow they engineered this piece of dialogue. The idea is to equate their brand with the better known, more expensive and more traditional Bondian brand. If she can't tell the difference between a Rolex and an Omega, well, they must be pretty similar, mustn't they? This is not Fleming-ian at all! Fleming's Bond had extremely exacting tastes, and he would not only not wear a brand like Omega, the dialogue would be far more likely to be:

Vesper: Omega?
Bond: And you were doing so well! Rolex, actually. Sorry, I'm not sure I can talk to you anymore. [Leaves compartment.]

In fact, I don't think Bond would engage in this sort of discussion about what brand he is wearing. He wears a Rolex, but he doesn't boast about it. 'Rolex?' 'Omega.' He just wouldn't tell her. He'd smile, or shake his head. He's not about to tell someone who doesn't know what he's wearing - that's someone who has bought the watch because Bond wears it - not Bond. Fleming never even reveals who Bond's tailor is in the books. But when brands are discussed, they are discussed because they are distinctive: there can be no confusion. Bond knows that Count Lippe's suit is from Anderson and Sheppard. He doesn't ask him!

Lippe: Huntsman.
Bond: Beautiful.

Would have been as absurd.

Just mentioning a brand name doesn't make something Flemingian. If the conversation had been about cologne and she had spotted he was wearing something actually in Fleming or that fitted with Fleming and is still around: fine. If she'd asked him if he was wearing CK One and there had been a lot of cross-promition with that company... not fine! The purpose of this piece of dialogue is blatantly to position Omega as a rival to Rolex - that's why it doesn't work.

[Zorin Industries]

"Ian Fleming's James Bond wore a Rolex."

I think you are missing the point a tiny bit. Ian Fleming's James Bond may have worn a Rolex, but this is not solely Fleming's James Bond. This is Eon Productions' James Bond 007 as set and produced over 50 years after Fleming started writing the books and with - apparently - a fair bit of success.

Why is the use of the phrase "Omega" so distracting? Is it because it's a product, a product endorsement or that it wasn't the Rolex?

Instead of scorning the use of products within the films, I look at them as part of the financial reasons we have James Bond films in the first place.

[spynovelfan]

"Ian Fleming's James Bond wore a Rolex."

I think you are missing the point a tiny bit. Ian Fleming's James Bond may have worn a Rolex, but this is not solely Fleming's James Bond. This is Eon Productions' James Bond 007 as set and produced over 50 years after Fleming started writing the books and with - apparently - a fair bit of success.

Why is the use of the phrase "Omega" so distracting? Is it because it's a product, a product endorsement or that it wasn't the Rolex?

Instead of scorning the use of products within the films, I look at them as part of the financial reasons we have James Bond films in the first place.

Read the point I was replying to: 'Seemed like an exchange right out of the literary world to me.' I don't think it seemed right out of the literary world - it contradicts it, because Bond wore a Rolex not Omega, and would not have worn an Omega for the reasons I've explained.

It's mildly distracting because it's a product. The Fleming books and even the Bond films have tons of brands in them - but they are not discussed by the characters. But it's much more distracting because, as I tried to explain, it's clearly product endorsement rather than the characters speaking and, yes, it's the wrong brand to boot. Would you not have minded if the dialogue had been:

'You know, former SAS types with easy smiles and expensive cologne. Issey Miyake?

Bond: Axe Clix.

Vesper: Beautiful. Now having just met you I wouldn’t go as far as calling you a cold-hearted bastard...'

In fact, that's just made me realise something else. Former SAS types don't wear expensive watches! It goes completely against the characterisation of Bond she is constructing - probably because the lines were added by someone else.

[honeyjes]

"Ian Fleming's James Bond wore a Rolex."

I think you are missing the point a tiny bit. Ian Fleming's James Bond may have worn a Rolex, but this is not solely Fleming's James Bond. This is Eon Productions' James Bond 007 as set and produced over 50 years after Fleming started writing the books and with - apparently - a fair bit of success.

Why is the use of the phrase "Omega" so distracting? Is it because it's a product, a product endorsement or that it wasn't the Rolex?

Instead of scorning the use of products within the films, I look at them as part of the financial reasons we have James Bond films in the first place.

Read the point I was replying to: 'Seemed like an exchange right out of the literary world to me.' I don't think it seemed right out of the literary world - it contradicts it, because Bond wore a Rolex not Omega, and would not have worn an Omega for the reasons I've explained.

It's mildly distracting because it's a product. The Fleming books and even the Bond films have tons of brands in them - but they are not discussed by the characters. But it's much more distracting because, as I tried to explain, it's clearly product endorsement rather than the characters speaking and, yes, it's the wrong brand to boot. Would you not have minded if the dialogue had been:

'You know, former SAS types with easy smiles and expensive cologne. Issey Miyake?

Bond: Axe Clix.

Vesper: Beautiful. Now having just met you I wouldn’t go as far as calling you a cold-hearted bastard...'

In fact, that's just made me realise something else. Former SAS types don't wear expensive watches! It goes completely against the characterisation of Bond she is constructing - probably because the lines were added by someone else.

I guess Bond threw away his rolex then, and the SAS types left theirs behind too, I'm quite bemused at how pedantic one can be in trying to win an argument.

[spynovelfan]

I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm trying to explain why the Omega line in CR didn't work for me, and seemed like obvious and inappropriate product placement. Instead of name-calling, why not try to come up with a viable answer to what I posted? By which I mean something a little more convincing than 'Bond threw away his Rolex and the SAS types left their behind too'.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

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.

Right there with you...at times in DAD it was a little obvious (think Pierce's hotel room display)...but it's never been that big of a deal. If anything, the product placement adds flavor in certain instances.

What I'm more concerned about is the fact that the song is that coke ad was actually the theme. It sounded like a dumbed down, dressed up version of You Know My Name...

[Mister Asterix]

I would have liked Whinehouse to do the song as I think she fits perfectly.

Yes, I understand Winehouse likes Coke.

[double o ego]

All this is nothing new, in fact, it was commercial companies that actually financed the entire budget of DAD, (the first ever film to do such a thing) and as crappy as that movie was, these companies have a huge stake in what they invest their money in and thus, are able to do things that most of us don't like.

[dodge]

Novelist John O'Hara, to the best of my knowledge, 'invented' product placement. And that's going back a good ways. But we can turn our eyes to the more recent past: Stephen King has always been renowned for his own product placement.

I've never been bothered in the slightest by Bond's p.p., which is not odorless, it's unobtrusive, imo. I suppose if I were to repeatedly see gigantic COKE or EAT AT MOE'S signs in any film, I'd be a little disturbed. But a cell phone or a lap top or a car? I don't care.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

I would have liked Whinehouse to do the song as I think she fits perfectly.

Yes, I understand Winehouse likes Coke.

ohhh you di-ent!

*snaps fingers*

[stamper]

The Omega line in CR is great. They manage to fit in a product placement, by dissing it. The morality of the exchange is that Omega is for thickos. I'm sorry, but it's not getting out of hand, it's keeping in control

[jaguar007]

No, Bond did not wear an Omega in Fleming's books. With the exception of GF, he mostly drove a Bentley. Does Bond driving an Aston Martin in the films bother you as well?

[spynovelfan]

No, Bond did not wear an Omega in Fleming's books. With the exception of GF, he mostly drove a Bentley. Does Bond driving an Aston Martin in the films bother you as well?

Not at all. But if his choice of Aston Martin had been a subject of conversation as clumsy as the one about Omega, it would have bothered me.

Fiona Volpe: Bentley?
Bond: Ashton Martin.
Fiona Volpe: Beautiful.

And Bond driving a BMW did bother me - because it's not the right brand for him. Neither is Omega, in my view. Do you not mind what brands are in the films at all? If he'd driven a Skoda instead of an Aston Martin, would you not have cared?

But the main reason I didn't like it is because those lines of dialogue are only there to position Omega's branding, not to further plot, reveal character or do anything else dialogue is meant to do in films. It's an advert in the film.

[Jim]

The Omega line in CR is great. They manage to fit in a product placement, by dissing it. The morality of the exchange is that Omega is for thickos.

Yes - I got that impression. Omega - for maludjusted, arrogant, emotionally stunted know-alls.

Not untrue, given the wearers.

And Bond driving a BMW did bother me - because it's not the right brand for him.

Ghastly, wasn't it?

Omega. BMW. Italian suit. James Bond - licensed to sell photocopiers.

[Mr Ashdown]

BOND and FIONA are about to make love.

Fiona Volpe: Bentley?
Bond: No, it's jusht a bit limp. Wait till itsh erect. (BEAT) There you go.
Fiona Volpe: Beautiful.

[Mister Asterix]

And Bond driving a BMW did bother me - because it's not the right brand for him.

Ghastly, wasn't it?

The BMW doesn’t bother me one bit in Tomorrow Never Dies. He’s in Germany and has a for hire car. He’s supposed to be a banker. The 750 was perfect for that. I don’t see Bond driving the BMW 750 in Germany any different than Bond driving a Thunderbird in the US as Fleming had Bond do in The Spy Who Loved Me.

The Z3? No, It was a car commercial in the middle of the film. The Z8? I thought that’d work but

The Omega line? Wouldn’t bug me at all if you guys would quit harping on about it.

[Mr_Wint]

No, Bond did not wear an Omega in Fleming's books. With the exception of GF, he mostly drove a Bentley. Does Bond driving an Aston Martin in the films bother you as well?

Not at all. But if his choice of Aston Martin had been a subject of conversation as clumsy as the one about Omega, it would have bothered me.

Fiona Volpe: Bentley?
Bond: Ashton Martin.
Fiona Volpe: Beautiful.

And Bond driving a BMW did bother me - because it's not the right brand for him. Neither is Omega, in my view. Do you not mind what brands are in the films at all? If he'd driven a Skoda instead of an Aston Martin, would you not have cared?

But the main reason I didn't like it is because those lines of dialogue are only there to position Omega's branding, not to further plot, reveal character or do anything else dialogue is meant to do in films. It's an advert in the film.

... and I wouldn't care so much if the 'omega'-line was used between Brosnan and Halle Berry. But HERE... it was like a big shock. Totally, and I mean totally, ruined the well written dialouge that we got before it. It is strange that the director/editor or anyone else did not reflect over this. Omega must have paid an enormous amount.

I have a theory that it is Campbell, because we got some shocking product placement in GE as well...

[double o ego]

The Omega line in CR is great. They manage to fit in a product placement, by dissing it. The morality of the exchange is that Omega is for thickos. I'm sorry, but it's not getting out of hand, it's keeping in control

Am I the only person who didn't think the omega line from the vesper exchange was a diss?? I thought he was casually correcting her, as she made an understanable mistake/assumption.

[Jim]

The Omega line in CR is great. They manage to fit in a product placement, by dissing it. The morality of the exchange is that Omega is for thickos. I'm sorry, but it's not getting out of hand, it's keeping in control

Am I the only person who didn't think the omega line from the vesper exchange was a diss??

I suspect not, but it's more entertaining if it is.

[double o ego]

In fact, that's just made me realise something else. Former SAS types don't wear expensive watches! It goes completely against the characterisation of Bond she is constructing - probably because the lines were added by someone else.

How many SAS types go around sleeping with countless women, married or not? How many SAS types drink martinis, How many SAS types like to crack frequent one-liners. The fact is, Eon's Bond is a compound character. There's just so many factors, often contradictory to the real thing that make up who and what he is. Eon's Bond is a meaty extension of Terrence Young and that's what we need to remember...and to be perfectly honest, I'm glad he doesn't wear a rolex because as prestigious as the brand is, it's reputation has somewhat been cheapened and tarnished and is way too commercial. Hell, even rappers don't bother with rolexs anymore, it's beneath them. Rolex is the most obvious and most frequent brand to fall victim to counterfitters. To the general public, an omega is a more obscure watch and nothing TOO conspicuous, compared to a Rolex, wich even literary Bond would have to agree with

Edited by double o ego, 15 September 2008 - 05:14 PM.

[Mr_Wint]

No, Rolex fits the character much better.

And Bond is not an SAS type.

[double o ego]

Well, according to Eon, Omega fits Bond perfectly, especially the models he's worn. They're not too conspicuous a characteristic literary Bond shares, Flemming's Bond wasn't a scrupulous showoff and according to this reboot, Bond is a SAS type.

[jaguar007]

I think Omega fits BOnd just fine. Double 0 ego is correct, almost every successful businessman wears a Rolex these days (not that I don't think Rolex is a great watch, it is). Omega is also a great swiss watch with a long heritage and history (founded in 1848 and was the watch worn during the moonlanding). OF course they were purchased in 1985 by Swatch. I do remember Roger Moore wearing an Omega in the TV series The Saint.

[honeyjes]

http://www.spirityac...sino_Royale.htm

I do not think there was anything wrong with the Omega line, if we're going to moan about product placement, I think we need to remember that Bond is a global phenominon and cannot be run on a shoe string, the sheer scale of the franchise and the efforts made to maintain interest and make films successfully for over 40 years is unparalleled.

Some have questioned why filming Bond is so expensive, the above article will give an insight into what efforts are made when we demand, lush sets and exotic locations etc. If the above efforts were made for 4 days filming, imagine the costs and scale logistically in filming in several locations over a 6 month period, and this doesn't even include, advertising/marketing/distribution etc.

[Harmsway]

And Bond is not an SAS type.

Fleming's Bond was.

[00Twelve]

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.

Let's look at the dialogue in question:

'Vesper: All right….by the cut of your suit you went to Oxford or wherever and actually think human beings dress like that. But you wear it with such disdain, that my guess is you didn’t come from money and all your school chums rubbed that in your face every day, which means you were at that school by the grace of someone else’s charity, hence the chip on your shoulder. And since your first thought about me ran to orphan, that's what I'd say you are. Oh you are. And it makes sense since MI6 looks for maladjusted young men who'd give little thought to sacrificing others to protect queen and country. You know, former SAS types with easy smiles and expensive watches. Rolex?

Bond: Omega.

Vesper: Beautiful. Now having just met you I wouldn’t go as far as calling you a cold-hearted bastard...'

This felt wrong to me for several reasons. It didn't feel 'right out of the literary world' - it contradicted it at several points. James Bond is an orphan, and he was sent to school by his aunt, but this is the first time we've heard that he went there by someone else's charity or didn't come from money. His father worked for Vickers and went to Fettes, one of the most prestigious and, to this day, expensive schools in Britain. One presumes he inherited. Vesper is not far off the literary Bond when she says he's a former SAS type, though, because Fleming's Bond appears to be a former commando.

And she guesses that his watch is Rolex, which is what he wears in Fleming's books. Great. But then... Bond contradicts her and says he's wearing an Omega. She needlessly states 'Beautiful' - out of character, really, because she's just been chastising his expensive tastes to put him down and suddenly switches to passivity and allowing him to have the upper hand. This part of the exchange has very little to do with Vesper and Bond, and rather a lot to do with Omega marketing themselves. Omega is not nearly as famous, prestigious or expensive a brand as Rolex. Ian Fleming's James Bond wore a Rolex. Omega is a pale imitation of that. They have paid to have their product in the film, and somehow they engineered this piece of dialogue. The idea is to equate their brand with the better known, more expensive and more traditional Bondian brand. If she can't tell the difference between a Rolex and an Omega, well, they must be pretty similar, mustn't they? This is not Fleming-ian at all! Fleming's Bond had extremely exacting tastes, and he would not only not wear a brand like Omega, the dialogue would be far more likely to be:

Vesper: Omega?
Bond: And you were doing so well! Rolex, actually. Sorry, I'm not sure I can talk to you anymore. [Leaves compartment.]

SNF, didn't you catch the sarcasm in her voice? She wasn't passively letting him get the upper hand, she was dismissing him. Her "beautiful" was simply a thinly-veiled "whatever, it's all the same to me". Naturally she went to Rolex, because that's a much more cliche brand today. But the dialogue exists to show that Bond doesn't just mindlessly chase expensive brands-- he DOES have particular tastes. It just so happens that in 2006, Bond would rather wear Omega than Rolex. I don't see anything unFleming-like about that exchange. And that's exactly what I mean about the argument: If it had been a brand that was specifically endorsed in the novels (as if that made a real difference), everybody would be lauding the moment as a triumphant tribute to Fleming. However, because it's a brand that didn't exist then (and, fortunately, isn't so commonly viewed as a symbol of wealth), it's a "shameless" advertisement for some "other" brand (and, in this case, one that happens to be far, FAR out of my price range).

In fact, I don't think Bond would engage in this sort of discussion about what brand he is wearing. He wears a Rolex, but he doesn't boast about it. 'Rolex?' 'Omega.' He just wouldn't tell her. He'd smile, or shake his head. He's not about to tell someone who doesn't know what he's wearing - that's someone who has bought the watch because Bond wears it - not Bond. Fleming never even reveals who Bond's tailor is in the books. But when brands are discussed, they are discussed because they are distinctive: there can be no confusion. Bond knows that Count Lippe's suit is from Anderson and Sheppard. He doesn't ask him!

Lippe: Huntsman.
Bond: Beautiful.

Would have been as absurd.

Just mentioning a brand name doesn't make something Flemingian. If the conversation had been about cologne and she had spotted he was wearing something actually in Fleming or that fitted with Fleming and is still around: fine. If she'd asked him if he was wearing CK One and there had been a lot of cross-promition with that company... not fine! The purpose of this piece of dialogue is blatantly to position Omega as a rival to Rolex - that's why it doesn't work.

1) The Bond/Vesper exchange doesn't fit with the TB context because it's not the same character dynamic at all. Not really an applicable example. Bond's not trying to out-analyze Largo like Vesper is with Bond, and he's not assuming that Largo would be wearing any typically symbolic wealthy brand of Caribbean clothing. *That* is why it would sound absurd in that context. But that's exactly what Vesper's doing in CR, so it doesn't ring so falsely to me.

2)Of course he doesn't talk about Huntsman in the novel. And yet, Fleming went to the trouble to show that he knew the brand anyway, using the narrative tool that film doesn't have-- inner monologue. Had this scene been included in the movie, they'd have had to talk about it, or give the audience a good Moore-era style closeup of the tag.

I just don't see why this CR scene gets so much more negative attention than the scenes in the Moore & Brosnan films where we get distinctive closeups (effectively, posters) of the watch brands. If you want to get technical, Q branch never made a gadget out of a Rolex in Fleming, but EON sure did advertise them pretty heavily with just such a method. How many closeups of Bond's Omega did we get in CR? Zero. He verbally (and briefly) mentioned the name, rather than pausing to show the audience a "Look how shiny!!" closeup. I personally thought it was a much more subdued and clever way of including the brand, and not unlike the way brands were subtlely included in the novels. But, obviously, that's only my opinion.

[Captain Tightpants]

Sorry, but I'm stil afiling to see anything in this thread that ould be considered "insightful".

[00Twelve]

Sorry, but I'm stil afiling to see anything in this thread that ould be considered "insightful".

And what "insight" are you looking for, exactly? We're just debating about product placement (yet again) and how it affects our personal viewing experiences.

[spynovelfan]

Horses for courses, 00Twelve - I don't think we're going to agree. I think that Bond mentioning the brand in dialogue is far more obtrusive than showing a glimpse of it in use, but there you go.

Omega was around in Fleming's day, though.

I'll stop there before someone accuses me of discussing James Bond matters on a James Bond discussion forum or something.