Bond ... James Bond

innerSpaceman · 11-18-2006, 08:34 AM

Um, Cricket, I don't know if you're familiar with James Bond films .... but the cars are not product placement. Particular vehicles - though certainly provided by the automaker for promotion - are integral to the JamesBondity (JamesBondage??) of these movies (and they're not there to gin up sales of those half-million dollar cars).

That eliminates 3 out of 5 from your list.

The 1964 Astin Martin, btw, was one of the more delicious homages to past Bonds - - in this case, the first of the famous gadget cars in Goldfinger.

I also loved the switch-homage that the Cricket's featuring in his current avatar - - the twist on the Ursula Andress bit from Dr. No. - acknowledging this time the sexiest player in the film is Mr. Craig as Mr. Bond. Yummy indeed.

And, heheh, my fave homage was the very modern, somewhat disturbing twist on the Goldfinger laser beam between-the-legs.
"You expect me to talk"

"No, Mr. Bond ... I expect you to die."

.

Alex · 11-18-2006, 09:28 AM

At least for the Pierce Brosnan films the cars definitely were product placement. There was a lot of news when BMW bought Bond into their cars instead of Astin Martins and the last three Bond movies introduced new models.

When the Z3 was introduced in Golden Eye it was viewed as one of the most successful product placement campaigns of all time. Bond paid more than $3 million to get Bond into a Z3 and then the movie was used heavily in the promotion of the new model.

Tomorrow Never Dies introduced the 750i as well as a BMW motorcycle and The World is Not Enough introduced the Z8.

Ford paid $14 million to get their new Mondeo into this Bond movie (according to Forbes though other articles say 14 million pounds which would be considerably more than $14 million).

Now, product placement doesn't really bother me, but the cars (at least the Ford ones) definitely are product placement.

NirvanaMan · 11-18-2006, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Um, Cricket, I don't know if you're familiar with James Bond films .... but the cars are not product placement. Particular vehicles - though certainly provided by the automaker for promotion - are integral to the JamesBondity (JamesBondage??) of these movies (and they're not there to gin up sales of those half-million dollar cars).

Umm, yeah there was. Why do you think Columbia pictures rented out an entire theatre at the spectrum for Premier Automotive Group employees and their freinds and family?

The event that was btw hosted by the guy who's entire job within Ford is product placement. He does not however, pay to get cars in tv and movies, but simply offers vehicles to the studios free of charge for their use.

The FoMoCo and Sony product placement was ridiculous and over the top. I don't typically have a problem with it but it was a bit obnoxious in this tepid action flick. Everwhere you turned there was a Jag, Volvo, Lincoln, or Land Rover. And of course, the requisite Aston Martin (which I have zero problem with). Even a hand-built prototype of the new european market Ford Mondeo (which did look really good and it was mildly amusing to see Bond in a rental car for once). I guess for those (like apparently Steve) who don't know that Ford owns all those brands it was not as apparent as it was to me, but I did feel it was over the top. Product placement is great for us, sure, but not when it starts to feel like a freakin' commercial. Heh, especially when you start to see all those exact same cars show up parked outside exotic locales in supposed different parts of the world.

Oh, and you'd frankly be quite surprised at how many Aston's we sell because of the Bond connection. I know it sounds ridiculous that people would buy $150-250k cars because of a movie but, well, they do.

11-18-2006, 08:34 AM	#1
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Um, Cricket, I don't know if you're familiar with James Bond films .... but the cars are not product placement. Particular vehicles - though certainly provided by the automaker for promotion - are integral to the JamesBondity (JamesBondage??) of these movies (and they're not there to gin up sales of those half-million dollar cars). That eliminates 3 out of 5 from your list. The 1964 Astin Martin, btw, was one of the more delicious homages to past Bonds - - in this case, the first of the famous gadget cars in Goldfinger. I also loved the switch-homage that the Cricket's featuring in his current avatar - - the twist on the Ursula Andress bit from Dr. No. - acknowledging this time the sexiest player in the film is Mr. Craig as Mr. Bond. Yummy indeed. And, heheh, my fave homage was the very modern, somewhat disturbing twist on the Goldfinger laser beam between-the-legs. "You expect me to talk" "No, Mr. Bond ... I expect you to die." .
	Submit to Quotes

11-18-2006, 09:28 AM	#2
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	At least for the Pierce Brosnan films the cars definitely were product placement. There was a lot of news when BMW bought Bond into their cars instead of Astin Martins and the last three Bond movies introduced new models. When the Z3 was introduced in Golden Eye it was viewed as one of the most successful product placement campaigns of all time. Bond paid more than $3 million to get Bond into a Z3 and then the movie was used heavily in the promotion of the new model. Tomorrow Never Dies introduced the 750i as well as a BMW motorcycle and The World is Not Enough introduced the Z8. Ford paid $14 million to get their new Mondeo into this Bond movie (according to Forbes though other articles say 14 million pounds which would be considerably more than $14 million). Now, product placement doesn't really bother me, but the cars (at least the Ford ones) definitely are product placement.
	Submit to Quotes