O.T.T product placement in Casino Royale

MOTHERTRUCKER

Was it just me or did anyone else notice the amount of product placement in Casino Royale.
(1.) First we see Bond driving the new Mondeo (Made by Ford) when he arrives in the Bahama's.

(2.) Then he rear ends a Rangerover in the car park while trying to park it(owned by Ford).

(3.) And if you not all the other cars in the car park are Jaguars (owned by Ford)

(4.) Also Bonds gadget car the brand new Aston Martin DAVY BROWN 9 (is owned by Ford)

(5.) Including the vintage Aston martin he wins playing poker. (Ford)

(6.) Then his state of the art Mobile phone (GPS) is clearly shown in numerious shots through out the film. And on top of his phone made by
Sony Eriksson.

(7.) When ordering a drink at the Table while playing Poker, Bond says "i'll have a Martini to the Waiter" it went along the lines of " No hand on a second, make than two parts Gordons and one part vodka with a twist of lime". which everybody surounding the table replied i'll have one of them they sound great.

(8.) While Bond is on the train with Miss Moneypenny, she is trying to figure him out by judging him on his appearance. Quote "Tailored suited, i bet thats a Rolex" To which he replies "NO ITS AN OMEGA".:eek:


I know this Movie cost 90 Million Euro to make but i think they probably got that straight from advertising with in it.

Its the longest AD i've ever seen.

Karl Hungus

Was it just me, or is this NOT A REVIEW?

Do not post a thread in Film Reviews, unless it is a Review.

Moved.

Missed the Sony VAIO laptops then?

ObeyGiant

Karl Hungus wrote:

Was it just me, or is this NOT A REVIEW?

Is it just me, or is there an entire thread about product placement on the FRONT PAGE of the films board? My mind, it boggles.

Sad Professor

Why does everyone keep going on about this? Yes there was a quite bit product placement but christ it wasn't that bad. Just enjoy the movie and stop focusing on what make computer/watch/mobile/car/electric shaver Bond is using.

It honestly didn't bother me that much.

BopNiblets

Yeah! He should have had 007 branded laptops and phones and cars so that the bad guys would know where he was and he wouldn't blend into the real world and they could shoot him in the face easily!


Wait...

:rolleyes:

Rabies

Sad Professor wrote:

Why does everyone keep going on about this? Yes there was a quite bit product placement but christ it wasn't that bad. Just enjoy the movie and stop focusing on what make computer/watch/mobile/car/electric shaver Bond is using.

I agree.
The product placement wasn't that bad. Only the Sony Eriksson was very in your face.

MOTHERTRUCKER, most people will no know that Ford owns all those brand names. Not really an issue in my opinion.

As much as I don't like to see really stupid and obivious product placement, we have to accept that it is going to be a part of most big budget movies from now on.

Don't get me started on Little Miss Sunshine. VW must have paid a fortune to have a their old VW van that broke down in that movie. It was on screen for ages....


On a diff note, I'm just back from the cinema. Bond was finally released here. Great movie. Really enjoyed it. 4/5 for me.

Peteee

Yes, Sitting at my PC I can see no brands what so ever...actually no wait, I see: Acer, Microsoft, AMD, ATi, Bytestor, Google, Labtec and Canon

Brands being shoved in your face is a part of life, get over it!

ObeyGiant

Peteee wrote:

Yes, Sitting at my PC I can see no brands what so ever...actually no wait, I see: Acer, Microsoft, AMD, ATi, Bytestor, Google, Labtec and Canon

Brands being shoved in your face is a part of life, get over it!

That's almost a good analogy. But you forgot to include the part where occasionally, your gaze is FORCIBLY SHOVED from the screen, from the thing you're in the middle of working on, down to the little "AMD" logo for seconds at a time.

Now that's more like the experience of a lot of product placement in movies.

biko

MOTHERTRUCKER wrote:

Quote "Tailored suited, i bet thats a Rolex" To which he replies "NO ITS AN OMEGA".:eek:

Yeah, that got to me too. At least Rolex or Patek Philippe has an air of class. Omega is just any watch, like Casio

unkel

I can tolerate a bit of product placement but the "it's an Omega" one nearly made me puke

humanji

unkel wrote:

I can tolerate a bit of product placement but the "it's an Omega" one nearly made me puke

He should of had a casio calculator watch! That would have been classy.

Peteee

MOTHERTRUCKER wrote:

(7.) When ordering a drink at the Table while playing Poker, Bond says "i'll have a Martini to the Waiter" it went along the lines of " No hand on a second, make than two parts Gordons and one part vodka with a twist of lime". which everybody surounding the table replied i'll have one of them they sound great.
.

This is how one makes a Vodka martini as described in the book:

The Vesper
(from Casino Royale)
Three measures of Gordon’s gin
One measure of vodka (preferably a Russian grain vodka)
Half a measure of Lillet Blanc

Shake very well until ice-cold. Pour in a deep champagne goblet, and add a large thin slice of lemon-peel.

Peteee

ObeyGiant wrote:

That's almost a good analogy. But you forgot to include the part where occasionally, your gaze is FORCIBLY SHOVED from the screen, from the thing you're in the middle of working on, down to the little "AMD" logo for seconds at a time.

Now that's more like the experience of a lot of product placement in movies.

Maybe so in other films, not Casino Royale, imo there was no point at which the camera was focused on just the product logo.

As for the Omega watch, I think Vesper was making a personality point about his watch (What do you think about people who wear Rolex watches?) which bond replied otherwise. Sure, he could have just said no...but still!

davyjose

I recently started a thread about product placement, and in general I am against it. But I really can't see why people are coming down so hard on this film in particularly.
Firstly, Bond has always been about having the finer things. What I mean is, it's in his very nature (since the books) to place a value on materialism. The simple fact is, it wouldn't be the same character if he didn't take pride in driving an Aston, or wearing an Omega watch. If there was a Ross O'Carroll Kelly film, would people expect to remove that aspect of HIS cahracter? No, because it would lose something.
Secondly, some of the points are quite obtuse. Sure, Ford probably had a stake in the financing of the film, but you really have to put the effort in to figure out that every car was a Ford. I mean, I didn't know Aston or Jag were owned by them, so it hasn't really lost a sense of reality (to all but perhaps the most ardent car enthusiasts).
Sure, it's a big budget movie, but things, with regards to bond, haven't moved on an awful lot since the sixties. And in many ways it's not as bad as, for example, the BBC's attempts to cut out even the merest hint of product advertisments in their programming.

~Rebel~

Oh My God, The Product Placement companies are winning! Look How many Extra Mentions They've Gotten On This Thread Alone! Mothertrucker, admit it, you work for an advertising agency dont you!


To be honest i just let it all wash over me, didnt even notice the ford thing myself.. The one that did stick out alright was the Sony ones, with the Viao and vesper taking the photos on the boat.

Running Bing

Sad Professor wrote:

Just enjoy the movie and stop focusing on what make computer/watch/mobile/car/electric shaver Bond is using.

Thats the whole problem with product placement tbh at numerous occasions trough the movie I was distracted by product placement. Not very nice after ive paid close to 10 quid to sit, relax and enjoy a film.

Btw the argument about pp is not about wether real world brands should be used in movies, I fully agree they should. Its the way their done. Sacrificing the integrity of the movie by adding in shots with a brand prominently placed in the middle of the screen is distracting. Count how many times such shots appear in casino royale. Thats not an accident.

Running Bing

davyjose wrote:

Firstly, Bond has always been about having the finer things.

A ford mondeo? my grandad will be thrilled.

Sad Professor

davyjose wrote:

I recently started a thread about product placement, and in general I am against it. But I really can't see why people are coming down so hard on this film in particularly.

They notice it in this film more than others because they are looking for it. Back in the 60's (and to alot of people still) Bond was the walking, talking personification of "cool", women wanted him, men wanted to be him, etc. For that reason people are very attuned to what kind of car Bond drives, watch he wears, etc.

The truth is people really care what brands Bond uses and become distracted when they see Bond use a phone or laptop. But I reckon even without the big "Vaio", "Sony Ericsson" logos, everyone would be just as distracted trying to figure out what the brand was. Of course Sony knows this too and there certainly was alot of PP in CR but TBH without all the moaning on the net I really wouldn't have noticed or cared.

I guess with all the advertising we experience these days I've just become numbed to logos and brand names. It's everywhere! Sure I could live without it in movies but if it's only a logo then it really doesn't bother me much.

OTOH if the next film starts with Q showing Bond his new Vaio and spending 5 minutes explaining the RAM, HD space and how he got it on offer... well then I'll be on here moaning as well

Erin Go Brath

Sad Professor wrote:

OTOH if the next film starts with Q showing Bond his new Vaio and spending 5 minutes explaining the RAM, HD space and how he got it on offer... well then I'll be on here moaning as well

I wouldnt be surprised if it actually went down that road in the future! Or if they start bringing in ads during the film. Product placement should be banned in films. I like to get away from reality for a few hours when watching a film.