51 replies to this topic

[doublenoughtspy]

Kentucky Fried Chicken (favorite fast food spot for CIA agents on the run).

But KFC didn't give EON any money. Hamilton shot in front of the restaurant because it had "Kentucky" in the title, and thus gave a visual indication they were in Kentucky. He did not know it was a chain at the time. So yes the logo is in the film but it wasn't a tie-in/product placement.

And yes, Smirnoff not only had an appearance in Dr No, there were also print ads featuring Connery at the Dorchester bar with Smirnoff and the ad copy references the film.

So yes, it has been there from the beginning. But not at the levels seen in the Brosnan and Craig eras.

[J J]

So yes, it has been there from the beginning. But not at the levels seen in the Brosnan and Craig eras.
[/quote]


...MOONRAKER was far worse in shameless product placement. As you said, it was always there :-)

[jaguar007]

I have read that after Bond switched from Dom Perignon to Taittinger in FRWL (not paid product placement) Moet (owner of Dom) contacted Danjaq to get Dom Perignon back in GOldfinger. THey did not pay for the placement but provided several cases for the production crew.

[Napoleon Solo]

So yes, it has been there from the beginning. But not at the levels seen in the Brosnan and Craig eras.

I never said it was at the same levels seen in the Brosnan and Craig eras. I just said it was in the early films. I'll concede the Kentucky Fried Chicken point but Gillette and Ford were definitely some kind of deal (Ford may not have paid money but may have simply provided the vehicles to get them in the movie; we have Hamilton's comment to Adrian Turner about Harry Saltzman and Gillette).

[Simon]

There is something to be said for subtle advertising. I don't remember 'Minority Report' being chalk full of product placement so I mean it can be done.

There is the mere possibility that, as you weren't (my assumption, of course) following the production of Minority Report in such close detail as you would a Bond film, you weren't tuned into recognising the product placement.

I wonder if someone who sees a Bond film in the same way as we would see any other type of film, would really notice the product placement either.

[Dustin]

There is something to be said for subtle advertising. I don't remember 'Minority Report' being chalk full of product placement so I mean it can be done.

There is the mere possibility that, as you weren't (my assumption, of course) following the production of Minority Report in such close detail as you would a Bond film, you weren't tuned into recognising the product placement.

I wonder if someone who sees a Bond film in the same way as we would see any other type of film, would really notice the product placement either.

This is a very good point. I remember that, prior to the days of home-entertainment and the Internet, I wasn't particularly aware of many of the brands that featured in the Bond films. Even as a slightly-above-average interested fan I missed many of the relevant shots and really only registered the obvious ones. I can entirely imagine a casual viewer wondering what all the fuss is about.

[Jim]

That probably depends on the level of subtlety. An entirely forced conversation about the deliciousness of some watch or other is difficult to miss; the odd shot of the watch face whilst it's being used as a gun or a grappling hook or a grenade is probably - and sensibly - of no great moment except to those determined to catalogue it, save the subliminal message that James Bond wears this brand of lovely watch, he's super-duper and you can be too give us your money.

[Dustin]

Agreed, that watch dialogue was truly the benchmark for how bad things can get. As with many errors the responsible person(s) probably thought it a good idea initially. Well, it wasn't, it saddens me to say.

The baffling thing about it is, Vesper, who is the audience's proxy in this case, is clearly mocking Bond's blatant snobism and the watch-fetish. The swooning about the presence of such an obvious piece of vulgar luxury is fake, and rather obvious so I'd say. Frankly, the idea such an item could impress a woman would surely be a valid one (and that's what this whole business of product placement is about, isn't it?). But this piece of conversation makes it both cringeworthy over-the-head and at the same time laughably silly. As a fan I used to come from the Fleming/books corner and was all for making Bond authentic and in line with that spirit (for a given value of "authentic" at any rate). But this definitely missed the top marks in the subtlety-department. Not exactly as tastefully as, doubtlessly, intended.

Edited by Dustin, 05 May 2011 - 06:46 PM.

[Quantumofsolace007]

So yes, it has been there from the beginning. But not at the levels seen in the Brosnan and Craig eras.

http://screenmusings...s/Mnrkr_539.htm

you sure about that one?

[jaguar007]

So yes, it has been there from the beginning. But not at the levels seen in the Brosnan and Craig eras.

http://screenmusings...s/Mnrkr_539.htm

you sure about that one?

Moonraker is hardly the beginning, but as Doublenoughtspy said, it has been there since the beginning.

http://screenmusings...ages/DN_185.htm

[B5Erik]

While I'm not thrilled, either, at the prospect of a ton of product placement I do think it is possible to do so in a less than blatant way that doesn't hurt the movie. I mean, they show products in every movie (cars, watches, drinks, etc), so getting paid for it certainly makes sense.

As long as they don't go all Dr. Pepper in Godzilla 1985 on us I'm OK with it.

Just make it look natural - like that stuff is supposed to be there.


(Man, it feels like years since I've posted here...)

[Robinson]

Agreed, that watch dialogue was truly the benchmark for how bad things can get. As with many errors the responsible person(s) probably thought it a good idea initially. Well, it wasn't, it saddens me to say.

I recently watched SEX AND THE CITY 2. The product placement throughout the film and dialog that surrounds it, is truly just how bad things can get.

For Bond 23, I can picture a chase scene throughout a major city, passing advertisements on buses, billboards and as well as the Sony Store near the city center. Lest we forget, Bond pushing past trendies and label whores wearing shirts that say Hollister.

[Robert Watts]

I don't have a problem with this. As of late the Bond films are generally rather organic with their product placement and such a large amount will in all likelihood mean the representation of a wider range of brands, rather than less. CASINO ROYALE strayed a bit too far off course, the line where Vesper calls the Omega "beautiful" crossed the line, as did the superfluous shot of the Ford Mondeo. But other than that, they're pretty good with it, I think. It's not as bad in TMWTGG and LALD, where every car was one of two different American Motors models... even on a major New York roadway.

[larrythefatcat]

Agreed, that watch dialogue was truly the benchmark for how bad things can get. As with many errors the responsible person(s) probably thought it a good idea initially. Well, it wasn't, it saddens me to say.

I really don't understand why people are so disgusted by that piece of dialogue. The watches have been featured in a number of Bond films... I distinctly remember Rolex close-ups from GF and TMWTGG... and I know there are things like that in a few of the other films.

I saw it as a sort of 'jab' that the EON producers have changed from Rolex to Omega since they're relatively intercheangable and are merely VERY expensive watches with some of the almost exact same designs in both companies' lines. Otherwise, it's in line with the rest of the scene and, I would say, a perfect bit of product placement... unlike the numerous shots of Sony products that go on a second or two too long.

[doublenoughtspy]

I really don't understand why people are so disgusted by that piece of dialogue. The watches have been featured in a number of Bond films... I distinctly remember Rolex close-ups from GF and TMWTGG... and I know there are things like that in a few of the other films.

The difference is that when you see the product on the screen, it is the producer's shilling the product in return for money and/or advertising support.

But when Bond speaks the brand name, the CHARACTER is doing the selling, and that crosses the line. For me anyway.

[Aris007]

That's good news as long as they place the products in a way that they're not way off the main story. I can't help by bringing to my mind the scene from DAD which shows Bond shaving. Such a bad product placement now wasn't it?

[Captain Tightpants]

To be fair to that scene, the theory behind it wasn't that bad. It was the execution that failed miserably. Bond had, after all, just escaped from over a year of imprisonment in North Korea, and looked like a homeless man. It's only natural that he'd want to clean himself up, and that he'd use a razor to do it. Therefore, it's not unexpected that a razor would appear in that scene. However, the way the camera panned over the box so that we could clearly see the brand name was where the scene fell apart.

[univex]

True, that one and the Mondeo are the worst for me I´d rather they did something like that with the PO Omega (probably cause I´ve got one , right vodkamartino, Dell Deaton, and other watch people ) Oh, I forgot, they did The train scene. See? I can forgive that one

Edited by univex, 19 July 2011 - 02:07 PM.

[AMC Hornet]

I can forgive almost anything since Moonraker, where I learned that a 7-Up cooler is indestructible.

As for the Sony products in CR: John Gardner pointed out early on (LR) that commercial companies are producing off-the shelf gadgets that rival anything that Q Branch can come up with, and when Q does come up with something nifty, it's usually disguised as some commercially-available item.

And what's the big deal about the mention of Bond's watch in CR? Omega got their plug, but then so did Rolex - I'll bet Rolex didn't have to pay for being mentioned as second-best (I'll bet they didn't sue either - there are worse things than being mistaken for an Omega).

Someone posted a while back in another thread about how jarring it is to recognize when a brand name is made up, like the Texron tanker in CR. However, no-one wants to be associated with a product that is being used for destructive purposes (for more on that watch The Front, a film where Woody Allen, fronting for blacklisted TV writers, has to rewrite a death-camp scene to remove any mention of gas chambers, because the gas company is sponsoring the program).

The only harm in product placement comes when it encourages some gullible young twit to buy a clapped-out POS car because it's like the one used by his hero in his favorite movie (I'm not mentioning any names).

[jaguar007]

But when Bond speaks the brand name, the CHARACTER is doing the selling, and that crosses the line. For me anyway.

Perhaps Bond should just order Champagne rather than Bollinger, Dom Perignon etc?

[doublenoughtspy]

But when Bond speaks the brand name, the CHARACTER is doing the selling, and that crosses the line. For me anyway.

Perhaps Bond should just order Champagne rather than Bollinger, Dom Perignon etc?

I have no problem with "Where's my Bentley?" from FRWL, etc. Bentley didn't pay the producers a dime, and the character has an association with the brand from the books. But Omega paid for product placement in CR, and rather than being subtle, they shoved it down our throat.

[univex]

But when Bond speaks the brand name, the CHARACTER is doing the selling, and that crosses the line. For me anyway.

Perhaps Bond should just order Champagne rather than Bollinger, Dom Perignon etc?

I have no problem with "Where's my Bentley?" from FRWL, etc. Bentley didn't pay the producers a dime, and the character has an association with the brand from the books. But Omega paid for product placement in CR, and rather than being subtle, they shoved it down our throat.

Yeah, but what can we do if it does work? I mean I´d never, ever, not ever, buy a Ford, and everytime I see a bloody Mondeo I have to think of Bond On the other hand, I´m still, and hope to always will be, wearing my PO I had the sonny ericsson cause when the time came to choose a new phone, I saw the one with Bond on the box

And Fleming was the most product placement author I´ve ever read. Some of Bond´s best lines are associated with brands. I happen to like that, it´s historical and a sign of the ever passing times. Except when it´s done like the Mondeo bit, with all that fanfare, or the electric phillips shaver, ...