Tarantino wanted to make the new 007-film? WOW! I don't know if Martin Campbell really is the better choice. GoldenEye was OK, but by far not as good as the Bond-adventures with Sean Connery or Roger Moore.
QT was also wanting to place the film in the same time period as the novel, something the Bond producers have been adamantly against. Without doing this, I suspect the film will have very little to do with the novel, which QT was supposedly going to follow rather faithfully. Plus, Brosnan was finally going to find material that would be a perfect fit for his attempts to bring a tougher, truer Bond to screen. I hate that that is not going to happen.
And those screenwriters... Argh.
The current Bond producers suck and are not worthy of the series.
The producers would lose all of their product placement revenue if a Bond film was set in the past. I don't think any producer would want to pay an extra 10-20% when making a film. That's before any promotional tie-ins are taken into account.
I don't think that is necessarily true. There are plenty of brands around now that were around at the time, and the possibility of retro-tie-ins is strong. Many of the Bond placements have involved products made pretty much for the film and the placement.
I suspect the producers fear they are losing the younger audience to films like xXx, and that setting the plot back in time might quicken that loss.
Truth be told, though, I don't know, and you certainly could be right.
I remember reading an interview when Benson took over writing the novels. He said the estate pretty much said he could do whatever he wanted as long as a) M reflected Dench in the films, and b) Bond stayed in the present day. Obviously, the worry about product placement was probably not a huge concern with the novels. Or were they?
I knew I should've bothered to look it up before I shot my mouth off. The producers of Bond movies (the Broccoli Bunch) would not lose 10-20% of their budget without product placement. They would lose all of it.
Product placement allowed Die Another Day to make money for the studio before it sold a single ticket.
I think lukeprog is right in saying that setting a movie in the past (no matter how recent) limits product tie-ins. It certainly eliminates new product launches. None of the Bond films are clean. Pan Am , Red Stripe and Smirnoff are all placed in Dr. No , but I do not know that any money (or product support) was given in exchange for this treatment and I would like to think that their appearance(s) were not designed to sell products. GoldenEye started the acceleration down this road (with the BMW Z3 roadster, Brioni suits, etc.) Tomorrow Never Dies proved the franchise's value to advertisers (which included the BMW 750 , Brioni suits, Ericsson cell phones, Omega watches, Smirnoff vodka, Avis rental cars and even Heineken beer.)
It was game-on when The World is Not Enough was put together. Product launches included the BMW Z8 , Microsoft/HP Jornada 400 series (the 430se) and Calvin Klein sunglasses CK #2007. Companies paying for placement of their products (and positive treatment) included Brioni suits, Omega Speedmaster watch, Motorola Phones (v3688, Waris and FP7 two-way radios...), Fujitsu computer monitors and television screens (inclucing an ultra-expensive high-end plasma screen), Samsonite luggage (Aluminum 800), Church's shoes, Heineken , Bic lighters, Gucci , the Gap and Bollinger champagne.
Not only did Die Another Day (dubbed "Buy Another Day") make money before it ever screened, its promotional budget was dwarfed by the amount of money spent to promote the film by its sponsors. Twenty companies ponied up £44 million (that's over $70 million) to be displayed within the movie. This assault was followed up by over $120 million worth of advertisements in the North American market. Ford (alone) bid $35 million to bump off BMW as 007's car of choice and that's before they provided several hand-made Aston Martins, Jaguars (for Zao), Thunderbirds (for Jinx), Range Rovers (for utility vehicles), spare parts, technical help and then a massive television campaign that supported it all. Finlandia also outbid Smirnoff. ... 7-UP soft drinks, Norelco shavers (Spectra), Revlon cosmetics, British Airways , Kodak cameras as well as Sony security systems, laptops, televisions, cameras, and cell phones. If this makes one short of breath there is also the Phillips heart rate monitor.
Even if one wanted to remain "true" to (any of) the original vision of 007, I doubt that there is much money available to promote Bentleys, Dunhill lighters and Morlands Tobacconists... if they even still exist.
I know that most, perhaps all, people think that product placement is benign but I feel that it is just this insidious. A tremendously talented director is kept from a franchise in order to protect an advertising revenue stream. Products are featured in heroic roles. This is the principle way that the West communicates with the Third World... and it is destructive. It corrupts entertainment and it corrupts us, especially the weakest of us... and I have no illusions about the purity of media.
As usual, your discussion posts are as well-researched as most newspaper articles.
I agree that product placement is usually insidious, and destructive to the art of film. The most obvious example is the completely undesirable 30-minute ending of Castaway to make a product (or rather, lifestyle) message about Fed-Ex.
But I also admit that seeing a made-up product in films a bit distracting. After all, many (most?) scenes call for props that all of us use every day, and if I see a kid drinking 'Mesa Condensation' instead of 'Sierra Mist' or 'Mountain Dew,' I'm a bit distracted by it. As long as the film is still shot just as it would be as if there was no product tie-in, product tie-ins can be benign. Alas, I'm not aware of things happening this way. I'm just saying that product tie-ins aren't inherently bad, they just usually are because of the way marketers and producers think.
I actually think that product placement's insidiousness is greatest in examples that aren't obvious. If we realize what is being done/attempted by marketers and movie-makers it will lose much of its power. The fact that The FedEx hero suffers a catastrophic setback at the very outset of the film and then is redeemed at the end (a parallel journey taken along with Tom Hanks) is just the kind of manipulation that is "destructive" and not just to the art of film. It is destructive to us.
Any time that something of value is exchanged for the use of a product there is pressure to adjust the media. Newspapers, magazines and television face this pressure from advertizers. This may be less dangerous than product placement. It is relatively easy to figure out when facts/news is being edited. Entertainment lulls us into being more receptive to an advertizer's message. It's celebrity endorsement, the (movie) audience is captive, the (television) audience has a uniquely personal relationship with the endorser/show and it all has an infinite lifespan. Those are just some of the ways in which product placement is poisonous. The fact that you notice the brand of soft drink at all says something about your perception or the media's intent. Perhaps it says something about both. Product placements are bad because of the way that we think.
In the future, all restaurants will be Taco-Bell. "Most newspaper articles"?
The tie-ins are nothing new. The big difference is that the early films used pretty much the same products Fleming put into the novels, which were rather famous at the time for mentioning specific brands. They were driven by the novels, which were not driven by any money from tie-ins.
The tie-in craze was already at a fever pitch when Dalton took the role. The press had a field day pointing out the tobacco promotions. (Dalton was the last Bond to smoke).
Still, considering the constraints put on the novels as well, I suspect keeping Bond in the present is not only about promotions, even if it is partly about them. I bet the producers feel a strong need to keep Bond relevant in the post-Cold War world.
And believe me, I doubt QT's plans to take the series back in time was the only dealbreaker in that affair...
I absolutely agree with you that various brands appeared in Ian Fleming's books and that their inclusion was intentional. I think that the products served the character of 007 and gave him a specific position in the audience's mind, not the other way 'round. I think you're making a distinction between "mentioning specific brands" and placement "driven by any money." It is a significant distinction that I certainly use. I do believe that the restriction(s) placed on Raymond Benson are actually intended to keep the books and the movie franchise in sync. M is the only character who has morphed in the series. 007 will always be 007. Moneypenny will always be Moneypenny. Q will always be Q. Felix Leiter will always be Felix Leiter (whatever that means.) Honey Ryder will always be Pussy Galore, Kissy Suzuki, Tiffany Case, Mary Goodnight, Dr. Holly Goodhead, Octopussy, Jenny Flex, Xenia Onatopp, Paris Carver, Dr. Christmas Jones and Jinx Johnson. M is the one who must be outlined.
I do not think that product placement is a craze. I cannot think of any scenario where it will abate. Tie-ins obviously didn't start (nor do they end) with Bond. Whatever you think of the effectiveness/morality of product placements their history extends back through E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial , The African Queen and beyond. Paying a character to smoke Lark cigarettes is an evolutionary step that led to casting the Jornada 400 as a hero in The World is Not Enough . Marketers creating plot points should, at the very least, be recognized for what it is.
Keeping Bond in the present-day is the same as giving the Brawny paper towel man a makeover and sending Poppin' Fresh to a spa. Products need to be kept fresh, exciting and, as you say, "relevant."
Dealing with Tarantino (and a host of other factors) may be problematic. I think that it is a shame that product placement trumps all. It's the first and last deal-breaker.
I personally think that promoting cigarettes to children is, without question, evil.
I've always thought pretty much anyone was 'worthy' of the James Bond series, such as it is.
Sure, some products were around back then, but setting it in the past would severely limit product tie-in potential, and would probably make it impossible to tie-in a new product, such as the next model of BMW.
But I think that if they let Tarantino have a free hand to make his Bond film, it'd be the best Bond film yet made. But as you can tell, I don't think much of the Bond series.
Tarantino wanted to make the new 007-film? WOW! I don't know if Martin Campbell really is the better choice. GoldenEye was OK, but by far not as good as the Bond-adventures with Sean Connery or Roger Moore.
QT was also wanting to place the film in the same time period as the novel, something the Bond producers have been adamantly against. Without doing this, I suspect the film will have very little to do with the novel, which QT was supposedly going to follow rather faithfully. Plus, Brosnan was finally going to find material that would be a perfect fit for his attempts to bring a tougher, truer Bond to screen. I hate that that is not going to happen.
And those screenwriters... Argh.
The current Bond producers suck and are not worthy of the series.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
The producers would lose all of their product placement revenue if a Bond film was set in the past. I don't think any producer would want to pay an extra 10-20% when making a film. That's before any promotional tie-ins are taken into account.
I don't think that is necessarily true. There are plenty of brands around now that were around at the time, and the possibility of retro-tie-ins is strong. Many of the Bond placements have involved products made pretty much for the film and the placement.
I suspect the producers fear they are losing the younger audience to films like xXx, and that setting the plot back in time might quicken that loss.
Truth be told, though, I don't know, and you certainly could be right.
I remember reading an interview when Benson took over writing the novels. He said the estate pretty much said he could do whatever he wanted as long as a) M reflected Dench in the films, and b) Bond stayed in the present day. Obviously, the worry about product placement was probably not a huge concern with the novels. Or were they?
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I knew I should've bothered to look it up before I shot my mouth off. The producers of Bond movies (the Broccoli Bunch) would not lose 10-20% of their budget without product placement. They would lose all of it.
Product placement allowed Die Another Day to make money for the studio before it sold a single ticket.
I think lukeprog is right in saying that setting a movie in the past (no matter how recent) limits product tie-ins. It certainly eliminates new product launches. None of the Bond films are clean. Pan Am , Red Stripe and Smirnoff are all placed in Dr. No , but I do not know that any money (or product support) was given in exchange for this treatment and I would like to think that their appearance(s) were not designed to sell products. GoldenEye started the acceleration down this road (with the BMW Z3 roadster, Brioni suits, etc.) Tomorrow Never Dies proved the franchise's value to advertisers (which included the BMW 750 , Brioni suits, Ericsson cell phones, Omega watches, Smirnoff vodka, Avis rental cars and even Heineken beer.)
It was game-on when The World is Not Enough was put together. Product launches included the BMW Z8 , Microsoft/HP Jornada 400 series (the 430se) and Calvin Klein sunglasses CK #2007. Companies paying for placement of their products (and positive treatment) included Brioni suits, Omega Speedmaster watch, Motorola Phones (v3688, Waris and FP7 two-way radios...), Fujitsu computer monitors and television screens (inclucing an ultra-expensive high-end plasma screen), Samsonite luggage (Aluminum 800), Church's shoes, Heineken , Bic lighters, Gucci , the Gap and Bollinger champagne.
Not only did Die Another Day (dubbed "Buy Another Day") make money before it ever screened, its promotional budget was dwarfed by the amount of money spent to promote the film by its sponsors. Twenty companies ponied up £44 million (that's over $70 million) to be displayed within the movie. This assault was followed up by over $120 million worth of advertisements in the North American market. Ford (alone) bid $35 million to bump off BMW as 007's car of choice and that's before they provided several hand-made Aston Martins, Jaguars (for Zao), Thunderbirds (for Jinx), Range Rovers (for utility vehicles), spare parts, technical help and then a massive television campaign that supported it all. Finlandia also outbid Smirnoff. ... 7-UP soft drinks, Norelco shavers (Spectra), Revlon cosmetics, British Airways , Kodak cameras as well as Sony security systems, laptops, televisions, cameras, and cell phones. If this makes one short of breath there is also the Phillips heart rate monitor.
Even if one wanted to remain "true" to (any of) the original vision of 007, I doubt that there is much money available to promote Bentleys, Dunhill lighters and Morlands Tobacconists... if they even still exist.
I know that most, perhaps all, people think that product placement is benign but I feel that it is just this insidious. A tremendously talented director is kept from a franchise in order to protect an advertising revenue stream. Products are featured in heroic roles. This is the principle way that the West communicates with the Third World... and it is destructive. It corrupts entertainment and it corrupts us, especially the weakest of us... and I have no illusions about the purity of media.
...or of us.
As usual, your discussion posts are as well-researched as most newspaper articles.
I agree that product placement is usually insidious, and destructive to the art of film. The most obvious example is the completely undesirable 30-minute ending of Castaway to make a product (or rather, lifestyle) message about Fed-Ex.
But I also admit that seeing a made-up product in films a bit distracting. After all, many (most?) scenes call for props that all of us use every day, and if I see a kid drinking 'Mesa Condensation' instead of 'Sierra Mist' or 'Mountain Dew,' I'm a bit distracted by it. As long as the film is still shot just as it would be as if there was no product tie-in, product tie-ins can be benign. Alas, I'm not aware of things happening this way. I'm just saying that product tie-ins aren't inherently bad, they just usually are because of the way marketers and producers think.
Thank you for the compliment. I appreciate that.
I actually think that product placement's insidiousness is greatest in examples that aren't obvious. If we realize what is being done/attempted by marketers and movie-makers it will lose much of its power. The fact that The FedEx hero suffers a catastrophic setback at the very outset of the film and then is redeemed at the end (a parallel journey taken along with Tom Hanks) is just the kind of manipulation that is "destructive" and not just to the art of film. It is destructive to us.
Any time that something of value is exchanged for the use of a product there is pressure to adjust the media. Newspapers, magazines and television face this pressure from advertizers. This may be less dangerous than product placement. It is relatively easy to figure out when facts/news is being edited. Entertainment lulls us into being more receptive to an advertizer's message. It's celebrity endorsement, the (movie) audience is captive, the (television) audience has a uniquely personal relationship with the endorser/show and it all has an infinite lifespan. Those are just some of the ways in which product placement is poisonous. The fact that you notice the brand of soft drink at all says something about your perception or the media's intent. Perhaps it says something about both. Product placements are bad because of the way that we think.
In the future, all restaurants will be Taco-Bell.
"Most newspaper articles"?
Well, most local newspaper articles, but I live in hic-ville, Minnesota and don't read The New York Times.
The tie-ins are nothing new. The big difference is that the early films used pretty much the same products Fleming put into the novels, which were rather famous at the time for mentioning specific brands. They were driven by the novels, which were not driven by any money from tie-ins.
The tie-in craze was already at a fever pitch when Dalton took the role. The press had a field day pointing out the tobacco promotions. (Dalton was the last Bond to smoke).
Still, considering the constraints put on the novels as well, I suspect keeping Bond in the present is not only about promotions, even if it is partly about them. I bet the producers feel a strong need to keep Bond relevant in the post-Cold War world.
And believe me, I doubt QT's plans to take the series back in time was the only dealbreaker in that affair...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I absolutely agree with you that various brands appeared in Ian Fleming's books and that their inclusion was intentional. I think that the products served the character of 007 and gave him a specific position in the audience's mind, not the other way 'round. I think you're making a distinction between "mentioning specific brands" and placement "driven by any money." It is a significant distinction that I certainly use. I do believe that the restriction(s) placed on Raymond Benson are actually intended to keep the books and the movie franchise in sync. M is the only character who has morphed in the series. 007 will always be 007. Moneypenny will always be Moneypenny. Q will always be Q. Felix Leiter will always be Felix Leiter (whatever that means.) Honey Ryder will always be Pussy Galore, Kissy Suzuki, Tiffany Case, Mary Goodnight, Dr. Holly Goodhead, Octopussy, Jenny Flex, Xenia Onatopp, Paris Carver, Dr. Christmas Jones and Jinx Johnson. M is the one who must be outlined.
I do not think that product placement is a craze. I cannot think of any scenario where it will abate. Tie-ins obviously didn't start (nor do they end) with Bond. Whatever you think of the effectiveness/morality of product placements their history extends back through E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial , The African Queen and beyond. Paying a character to smoke Lark cigarettes is an evolutionary step that led to casting the Jornada 400 as a hero in The World is Not Enough . Marketers creating plot points should, at the very least, be recognized for what it is.
Keeping Bond in the present-day is the same as giving the Brawny paper towel man a makeover and sending Poppin' Fresh to a spa. Products need to be kept fresh, exciting and, as you say, "relevant."
Dealing with Tarantino (and a host of other factors) may be problematic. I think that it is a shame that product placement trumps all. It's the first and last deal-breaker.
I personally think that promoting cigarettes to children is, without question, evil.
I agree with all that.
I've always thought pretty much anyone was 'worthy' of the James Bond series, such as it is.
Sure, some products were around back then, but setting it in the past would severely limit product tie-in potential, and would probably make it impossible to tie-in a new product, such as the next model of BMW.
But I think that if they let Tarantino have a free hand to make his Bond film, it'd be the best Bond film yet made. But as you can tell, I don't think much of the Bond series.