James Bond movie - one big commercial???
J-B-007
Posts: 17MI6 Agent
Am I right or not? Everything we saw in James Bond movie soon become a very popular thing... cars, motorbikes, drinks, food, places on the Earth, particular persons etc. etc. etc. This list has no end.
So, what do you think about this?
My opinion is that James Bond must not be a trade mark; he is one and only.
So, what do you think about this?
My opinion is that James Bond must not be a trade mark; he is one and only.
Comments
Absolutely. The Bond novels helped reinforce that characteristically modern obsession with 'expressing' one's 'individuality' through 'discerning' and even 'creative' consumer choice.
And the 'upper-bracket' products went with the exotic locations - both being, at the time, inaccessible to the masses.
I do think Bond had great taste in jam...Tiptree Little Scarlet is delicious!
I was about to say. I never paid attention to it before, but they just showed Moonraker on SpikeTV yesterday, and the plugs for 7UP were waaaay overboard. At least with Aston-Martin, Bmw, AMC, and Lotus, the cars played a significant part of the plot.
Everyone knows that all 20 or so people at the location were just in the mood for a nice 7Up by a great big sign advertising 7Up. Honorable mention to the British Airways billboard.
I was watching Moonraker today and even now the question of why there is a sign for British Airways in Brazil did not occur to me. Sure, British planes land in Brazil but the company is certainly not stationed in Brazil. The answer to your question is that British Airways was sponsoring the film and it was required by a deal between British Airways and Eon productions to show the BA logo somewhere in the picture as an advertisement of course.
Since Portuguese is the main language in Brazil due to the Portuguese colonizing the country, it should have been in Portuguese except it had to be in English since the western world is at the heart of James Bond productions; I'm sure there was a subtitle in Portuguese when the cigarette advert shows up when the picture was being shown in Brazil.
Has Roger ever read the books, I wonder? And hasn't he ever noticed the cars--the Lotus Esprit in FYEO, the Aston-Martin? The Walther PPK?
Those count as product placements, don't they?
ANd this is not confined to the movies. I'm reading LALD. Bond is about to attack Mr. Big
and rescue Solitaire. (You're welcome, fellas.) But before he does, he helps himself to some Blue Mountain coffee, which Fleming describes as "the finest coffee in the world." That is not a quote from one of the characters--that's Fleming's own wording as the author.
And in GF, Bond ruins GF's plot by photographing GF cheating--using Leica camera
equipment. These are the two that leap to mind.
But I hated the product placement. It's not justified by the argument that Fleming also did product placement in his books. Books are different than visual media. In a book you are imagining everything. The brand names help you to concoct a fantasy world of style and luxury.
In movies, the blatant visual presence of logos and brand names does NOT contribute to the narrative or to the feeling of being in a new world. In fact, as soon as I saw Craig driving the new Ford (or whatever brand it was, I've blocked it out) rental in the Bahamas scene, I let out a groan. The segment is shot exactly like a car commercial!! I mean, the angle of the camera and everything! And the great dialogue and repartee between Craig and Green on the train is spoiled for me as soon as Craig clarifies his watch brand is Omega. It's so obvious! You can see it coming at you from a mile away.
It leaves a sour taste in my mouth, frankly. Does the product stuff have to be so shameless?
Compare product placement in CR to 1964's Goldfinger. Connery looks down at his watch in the pre-credits sequence. We see the face of a Rolex Submariner. But it's not jarring at all. The camera doesn't linger, it gives a glimpse. The visual is seamless, because the scene is about tension, seconds ticking, a synchronized operation, in and out. And as for cars. Yes, we get the full-on bathing of the Aston Martin DB5 in the film frame, but we have to spend time with the car; it's part of the story. And it's hardly crass commercialism when we are exploring a car that very few people in the world actually ever see or drive.
Now back to CR -- the scene with the Ford rental car. This is not an overstatement -- the scene is completely gratuitous, totally unnecessary to the narrative or the visual feel of the movie. Yet we get a concentrated focusing on the car in a way that is directly transferable to a television auto commercial.
It's offensive to moviegoers, offensive to the legacy of Ian Fleming (though he dropped product names, he certainly wouldn't have approved of crass selling tactics), and offensive to the tradition of adventure-suspense storytelling that includes Hitchcock, Orson Welles, novelist Eric Ambler, Jules Verne, and so on.
Honestly, do you think Hitchcock would have put up with such tacky visuals or dialogue? I know Orson Welles or David Lean would have howled with derision (Imagine Lawrence of Arabia, Peter O'Toole rising to the crest of the sand dunes, white garments flowing, blue eyes burning with manic audacity as he removes his....what? Ray-Ban Aviator Sunglasses? Washing his white garments in a stream --oh look, he has a travel box of Tide Detergent with him! How resourceful!). Do the Bond producers and the loyal fans want these movies to be taken seriously as heroic narratives 100 years from now or not?? I want Bond movies that I'm not ashamed to say I loved when I'm old and grey and telling my grandchildren what real movie heroes were like in MY day.
Blatant product placement is WRONG. It cheapens the only brand that matters here -- 007.
But ask yourself why that is? Why is it different in a movie? I think it's simply because we're used to seeing those things in commercials on TV and the like. It's not the movie's fault.
I think you're wrong about the product placement. I didn't notice the Omega watch line until I heard someone else remark about it -- probably because I'm not the least bit interested in watches -- and the placement of the car couldn't have been too obnoxious if you couldn't tell what brand it was. I never noticed the vodka stand at the airport until someone at AJB pointed it out. Then I noticed it on a subsequent viewing.
IMO, showing real products in real settings is simply acknowledging the reality around us. If there's one thing that spoils a movie's "reality" for me is to see someone drinking from a can labeled "Beer," or "Soda," or manipulating the can in such an unnatural way that it's obvious they're trying to hide the label. If there's one thing I found annoying in CR was the airport scene. I'd heard that all the planes were Virgin aircraft. I only wish that had been the case (a particular gate, where most of the planes are seen in CR, would have planes from a single airline, so it wouldn't have been unusual). There was in fact only one from Virgin, from what I could see. The rest were a bunch of obviously phony airlines. It really detracted from the "reality" of the scene for me. But to each his own.
Jez there was heaps!!! But i want DCs phone
"Better make that two."
These companies pay a lot of money to have their products appear in big films. It all contributes to the budget of the picture at the end of the day.
The only time product placement is un-natural is when it is forced. I think TND is the worst film for it.
At the end of the day though, people use these products in real life situations and a product without a logo would look out of place in todays consumer focused world.
The only way to get round it is to follow Tarantino's lead and use made up items i.e. Lucky Strike cigarettes (I think thats what they are called, correct me if i'm wrong).
Doing this however, would cause a drop in budget size for the film.