As it was such a miserable day yesterday I spent the afternoon on the sofa ploughing my way through a bunch of DVDs. And with Quantum of Solace less than a week away it seemed like the perfect chance to revisit Daniel Craig’s first outing as 007, Casino Royale. It was just as good as I had remembered and now I’m REALLY bloody excited about Quantum of Solace.
Having said that, there is something that is winding me up about the film, other than the fact that it’s the worst ever name for a Bond movie and that Amy Winehouse should have been signing the theme song. And that’s the level and quality of the product placements & associations. It was bad enough when we were supposed to accept that Bond would drive a Ford in Casino Royale, as you can see above.
But when the Bond theme is first used as a Coke ad (as if he’d ever drink anything without alcohol in it, let alone sugar or caffeine), and there’s a perfume called BOND GIRL 007 – made by Avon ferchrissakes – then you know that at least one part of the franchise has jumped the shark. Or nuked the fridge to use new phrase du jour.
I’m sure that the film will be amazing but just wish the makers would start to show a bit of quality control in their selections. The man oozes class for God’s sake, so would he really drink Diet Coke, drive a Mondeo or go out with a girl wearing Avon? No. Exactly.
As much as we movie viewers hate blatant product placements, as they say “money talks” and from what I’ve read product placements are a huge earner for the movie industry … they’re addicted to the revenue and aren’t going to stop doing it
I’m no naif, and don’t actually have a problem with product placement when it makes sense in terms of the character (hence I didn’t mention the Omega one in Bond): but the ones I did mention just feel wrong.
Whoever organised these should really be thinking more about what’s right for the brands – both the product brand & the Bond brand.