The latest James Bond film Skyfall’s high product placement is attracting criticism. Devote 2 minutes to listen to Dow Jones‘s Nick Hastings questioning if 007 has gone too corporate:
When it comes to Quantum of Solace that was released in 2008 I felt a bit like I was watching a computer made commercial. The fact that the plot is almost non existent also allows the person watching to interpret it any way he/she wants. Just like a successful commercial.
What’s wrong with Vodka Martini – shaken not stirred?
Why didn’t the producers of Skyfall get a brand of vodka or Martini to sponsor the movie? “Shaken not stirred” is an essential and famous aspect of James Bond. Why did he suddenly have to start drinking beer? If Bond will wear, drive, eat and drink what sponsors want we risk being left with an agent that has nothing to do with the character Ian Flemming created.
Will Queen Elizabeth be associated with Heineken beer and Omega watches?
If the commercial aspect develops even more maybe Her Majesty needs to be careful about giving Bond movies indirect promotion.?If not, she could end up being associated with the sponsors’ products?
But the good news, not only for her but us as well, is that the famous Aston Martin Bond used to drive is back. Considering that Prince Charles drives a car of that make and that it’s another aspect of 007 that we have taken for granted it was welcome. The interesting aspect of it however is that Aston Martin is no longer just British but partly owned by a company in Kuwait.
Why change the Bond concept?
James Bond movies have been popular since 1962. They allow people to escape into a world where the handsome womaniser 007 is able to succeed with everything. Bond is elegant, surrounded by luxury and always wins. The Bond girls are stunning and all fall in love with Bond. At the end of the movies Bond was always making love to the Bond girl.
However, since Daniel Craig took over as Bond changes to the concept has been implemented. Not only is Craig less of a gentleman and more of a street fighter he is also an attempt to make 007 movies more like other espionage creations, such as The Bourne Identity.
Casino Royal introduced feminism and then the movies became more and more commercial.
And why don’t the movies end with 007 and the Bond girl being happy together anymore? Do we really want the Bond movies to be just like all other action movies? The reason the movies have been so popular is after all that they serve us a dream with everything in them that people wish was part of their lives. They already drink beer and wear Addidas trainers. So what is there for the fans to dream of? Another Heineken beer?
What do you think? Should Bond be the James Bond Ian Flemming created and we have got to know over the years? Or should sponsors decide? Should he stick to “shaken not stirred” or is it more democratic that he drinks beer? Do you like the fact that the Bond movie plots are so thin lately you can interpret them any way you wish? Should 007 movies be democratic and feministic? Or do we want Bond to remain the unstoppable gentleman that gets the beautiful girl at the end? Or maybe you like the fact that Bond movies have become like commercials and the plots can be whatever you interpret them to be? Should they be just like any other action movie? Or should they stick to the Bond brand Ian Flemming created?
Video:WSJDigitalNetwork – You TubeGoogle+