It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
And yes, SP aside I love all Bond films. I don't critique them in the same way I do other films. They sort of stand aside on their own.
Not sure how controversial that is...
Spectre aside, though? Well, whatever.
Yes, you're right. I just wanted to clarify what I said above in case people thought I was being too harsh about Die Another Day or any other Bond film. Context is key in all criticism of films or other areas of the Arts.
Not at all controversial. There are Bond films I dislike more than it (specifically DAD and AVTAK) but at least they’re not as lazy and uneventful as TMWTGG.
DAF is lazy, but fairly enjoyable. Sorta.
True of a few films, I believe. Which leads to a question: does anyone know if Eon’s rights to Bond expire if they do not release a film within a given time period?
Yes, I hate the film.
Yes, and it’s one thing to compare it to other Bond films, which is fair, but to compare it to properly bad films outside of the franchise? Insane.
In my case I hate it all.
Yeah, the somewhat fashionable "the first half of DAD is actually good" notion does not resonate with me. The PTS action is boring (can we please aim higher than generic machine gun action in mud?), Madonna's theme song is still horrible, Bond's escspe is utterly bizarre (more at home in a Harry Potter movie), the product placement galore scene in the hotel is pastiche, the dialogue and acting performances between Brosnan and Berry are embarrassing beyond words, the slow mo action edits are bad taste, Jinx' CGI jump is obnoxious and silly, Madonna's cameo is a travesty, the sexual innuendos are childish, the invicible car is ridiculous... :-&
Rant over... but I could go on...
It's not really fashionable. It's always been around. That being said, you're not entirely wrong in your criticisms bar one or two which I like. I'm struggling to remember the product placement in the hotel sequence though; it's been a while since I've seen it. I remember Bolinger in the ice bucket, at least - what others are there?
I might have exaggerated a bit. The obvious one is the Bollinger bottle which is one of the most glaring pieces of product placement ever seen in the series. Whether there are more I can't remember at the top of my head. Been a while since last time I saw the film.
The worst product placement in the whole series is surely in CR where we get an advert for a Mondeo interrupting the film for 30 seconds.
There is also the idiotic watch commercial.
The champagne is the big one. Using an electric razor in what seems like a carpeted bedroom while already clean shaven is a pretty odd choice I would say. And those shirts are placed very unnaturally, too. It isn't made super obvious but the ones that can be seen close up (on the table with the Bollinger and the packaging of the razor) are of course Brioni as I would assume are the suits. Generally, if you stop the above video at 0:57 it's like a specifically designed product placement still - which it arguably is.
I however think there are worse product placements in the series. I personally hate the use of the Olympus camera in the LTK title sequence (eventhough the camera itself is quite nice). And everything car related is much more blatant in my estimation, with some of those hero car shots being 75% of the way towards a car ad already.
At least in MR the billboards are funny and are integrated into the sequence.
The Mondeo in CR (a f**king Mondeo!!!!!! Of all the cars...) is embarrassing because it doesn't add anything. He's not driving a cool car. It's not even his car, it's a hire car. It has no purpose being there.
At least the others are nice shirts, cameras, drinks etc. Bond might choose them anyway.
I suppose what annoys me so much about the Bollinger bottle is that this particular shot serves no real other purpose than to hammer home that Bond drinks Bollinger. Cars at least serve a purpose in the films.
You are right. I was actually surprised how low-key the razor placement is. A small print on the packaging that is barely readable due to the movement. The way he uses the razor is weird, but it makes sense that he has one and then it just disappears during a cut. I would have assumed there would be a lingering shot of the razor after he puts it in it's base with the logo very visible (like in an ad). In the end I only know that it is a Philips Philishave Sensotec HQ8894 because I am a weirdo who looks these things up and there are other weirdos who put that information on the internet.
What are people's opinions on the tongue-in-cheek mentions of VW Beetles and the Omega in Skyfall? I personally think both of those are funny.
How was he supposed to get to the One and Only Club? I'd say it serves a pretty obvious purpose.
I actually remember the lingering shot of the watch in Skyfall while Bond is changing gears on the digger being the first time I actually said "that's some blunt product placement" in a theatre. Even in Casino Royale, the mention of the watch in conversation felt more organic, mainly because Vesper's assessment was pretty spot on and she didn't instantly go for Omega.
Hire a sexier car!
So it's the car itself you have an issue with, rather than the product placement?
Both. It's a shit scene and a shit car.
Haha I can't really imagine having a problem with the scene personally. A problem with the car, fine. I've never had an issue with this scene whatsoever.
:)) Fair enough.