Sony and MGM raising $45 million for Bond 23

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/more-than-a-word-from-007s-sponsors/story-e6frg6so-1226047962752

ONE-THIRD of the budget for the next James Bond film is to come from brands that will appear on screen, making it the biggest product-placement bonanza in cinema history.

Under a deal struck between the MGM studio and the film's distributor, Sony, $45 million will be raised from companies wanting their brands displayed on screen, says a New York marketing executive.

The figure is twice the previous record, held by Steven Spielberg's Minority Report, released in 2002. Lexus, Bulgari and American Express together paid about $20m to appear in the film.

Although the new production, codenamed Bond23, is not due to reach cinemas before November next year, when the world's most successful film franchise will be celebrating its 50th anniversary, Sony is already establishing brand "ambassadors" to liaise with potential sponsors including, for the first time, Chinese technology entrepreneurs.

Spending on product placement in US films, television shows and video games tripled between 2004 and 2009, reaching about $3 billion, according to PQ Media, a research company.

Until the recession, Volkswagen and its linked company, Porsche, were spending $210m a year to ensure their cars were driven by screen heroes.

The Bond series has long profited from product placement. The most prominent include the three-film deal signed with BMW in 1995, starting with GoldenEye, for the fictional spy to use its cars.

Fans fear Bond scripts are being distorted by the needs of advertisers to plug products.

Their worries are shared by Morgan Spurlock, director of the documentary Super Size Me, in which he ate only McDonald's food for a month.

In his latest film, The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, exploring product placement, he derides lingering close-up shots of Ericsson phones in the last two Bond films. But he has a "special place in hell" for a scene on a train in Casino Royale in which 007 talked about his Omega watch to Vesper Lynd, his love interest, played by Eva Green. "The fact you are having a conversation about a watch is ridiculous," said Spurlock.

Oh dear me, we get to look forward to more Omega scenes. It'll be one long advert won't it?

Salomé wrote:

Oh dear me, we get to look forward to more Omega scenes. It'll be one long advert won't it?

I hope not.... :pale:

I just don't want Bond driving around in economy cars anymore...that's a blasphemy.

danslittlefinger wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Oh dear me, we get to look forward to more Omega scenes. It'll be one long advert won't it?

I hope not.... :pale:

I just don't want Bond driving around in economy cars anymore...that's a blasphemy.

One third of the movie will likely be an advert.

Salomé wrote:

danslittlefinger wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Oh dear me, we get to look forward to more Omega scenes. It'll be one long advert won't it?

I hope not.... :pale:

I just don't want Bond driving around in economy cars anymore...that's a blasphemy.

One third of the movie will likely be an advert.

Hopefully Craig will use use his input and judgment when it comes to the actual filming.

I'm not too bothered about the product placement as long as it's not obtrusive and detracts from the rest of the movie. Bond films do require money, therefore a compromise has to be made.

All the SONY advertising in Casino Royale must have worked, I got me a Sony XPeria X10 cellphone. It takes 8.1mp pics and HD vids...great for amateur home-made porn because 3gp is absolute shit.

I'd be more bothered if a generous budget is wasted on a sub-standard film. QoS was allegedly budgeted at $200m and had some of the shittiest special-effects (the freefall when Bond and Camille abandoned the plane was a total travesty).

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

I'd be more bothered if a generous budget is wasted on a sub-standard film. QoS was allegedly budgeted at $200m and had some of the shittiest special-effects (the freefall when Bond and Camille abandoned the plane was a total travesty).

Very good point there Ms Sects.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

I'd be more bothered if a generous budget is wasted on a sub-standard film. QoS was allegedly budgeted at $200m and had some of the shittiest special-effects (the freefall when Bond and Camille abandoned the plane was a total travesty).

QOS's money was wasted on too many locations across the globe, with numerous teams for each, yet none of them getting nearly enough screen time in the final cut.

Oh yeah Dog, blame this guy for the shitty fx -

Sharky wrote:

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

I'd be more bothered if a generous budget is wasted on a sub-standard film. QoS was allegedly budgeted at $200m and had some of the shittiest special-effects (the freefall when Bond and Camille abandoned the plane was a total travesty).

QOS's money was wasted on too many locations across the globe, with numerous teams for each, yet none of them getting nearly enough screen time in the final cut.

And what will make B23 any different you think? :|

danslittlefinger wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

I'd be more bothered if a generous budget is wasted on a sub-standard film. QoS was allegedly budgeted at $200m and had some of the shittiest special-effects (the freefall when Bond and Camille abandoned the plane was a total travesty).

QOS's money was wasted on too many locations across the globe, with numerous teams for each, yet none of them getting nearly enough screen time in the final cut.

And what will make B23 any different you think? :|

Hopefully they'll learn from their mistakes.

Sharky wrote:

danslittlefinger wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

I'd be more bothered if a generous budget is wasted on a sub-standard film. QoS was allegedly budgeted at $200m and had some of the shittiest special-effects (the freefall when Bond and Camille abandoned the plane was a total travesty).

QOS's money was wasted on too many locations across the globe, with numerous teams for each, yet none of them getting nearly enough screen time in the final cut.

And what will make B23 any different you think? :|

Hopefully they'll learn from their mistakes.

One does hope Sharky, one does hope. ;)

This was surely inevitable due to MGM's financial situation. I hope the selected sponsors will be "logical" fits for the film and its plot, for instance Virgin Atlantic, British Airways, and Bentley. QOS had less obnoxious and cringeworthy ad placements than CR, so hopefully the product placement won't be too distracting in Bond 23.

Oh dear.

Well, like Aural Sects says, as long as it's not detrimental.

I have to say though, if they get to $100,000,000 for the entire budget, that should be sufficient, shouldn't it?

Don't mind. Fleming's product placement wasn't paid but it was there. The more product placement the better, a diverse range of brands is better than seeing the FDR Drive populated entirely by two different models of Chevys.

So long as they avoid mentioning it in the script. Well, rather, so long as they avoid selling it in the script. "Rolex?" "Omega" I can still live with but the beautiful was too far.

I don't mind Product Placement as long we don't have Leone style close-ups of Sony Ericsson phones and more dialogue referencing Omega watches.

bondfan06 wrote:

I don't mind Product Placement as long we don't have Leone style close-ups of Sony Ericsson phones and more dialogue referencing Omega watches.

I'd hope for the same but am fearing the worse. Maybe even more lines like "Rolex?" "Omega."

etc

Product placement is as much a Bond tradition as the martini. I'm not particularly fussed about this.

Stilicho Bias wrote:

Product placement is as much a Bond tradition as the martini. I'm not particularly fussed about this.

It is, but not to the extent that it invades actual dialogue... And for 45 million dollars, I'm going to wager that they will demand something more than a two second appearance of their product at the edge of the frame. :evil:

This isn't very surprising, and not really a big deal....

Of course, it kind of depends on the product. We don't really want Bond endorsing Viagra or something....(Or maybe we do, idk....)

Edit: So I had to type in a captcha to post this. Is that because I used the word Viagra in my post?

Salomé wrote:

Stilicho Bias wrote:

Product placement is as much a Bond tradition as the martini. I'm not particularly fussed about this.

It is, but not to the extent that it invades actual dialogue... And for 45 million dollars, I'm going to wager that they will demand something more than a two second appearance of their product at the edge of the frame. :evil:

If it's shoehorned into the dialogue, I shall be pissed. But I don't think it's going to come to that.

Gotta finance a film somehow I suppose.

My favorite shots of Casino Royale:
http://screenmusings.org/CasinoRoyale/pages/CR_0275.htm
and
http://screenmusings.org/CasinoRoyale/pages/CR_0323.htm (Seriously, this one looks right out of a Ford Ad)
and
http://screenmusings.org/CasinoRoyale/pages/CR_0327.htm
and
http://screenmusings.org/CasinoRoyale/pages/CR_0343.htm
and
http://screenmusings.org/CasinoRoyale/pages/CR_0551.htm
and
http://screenmusings.org/CasinoRoyale/pages/CR_0840.htm
and
http://screenmusings.org/CasinoRoyale/pages/CR_1355.htm
not to mention
http://screenmusings.org/CasinoRoyale/pages/CR_1367.htm
and
http://screenmusings.org/CasinoRoyale/pages/CR_1425.htm
and
http://screenmusings.org/CasinoRoyale/pages/CR_1542.htm
and finally
http://screenmusings.org/CasinoRoyale/pages/CR_1425.htm

Phew.

Casino Royale is my favorite Bond film, by the way. No, really, it is.

SJK91 wrote:

Casino Royale is my favorite Bond film, by the way. No, really, it is.

And Sony is your favourite brand. Yes, really, it is.

Such ideas remind me of that scene from THANK YOU FOR SMOKING - in which Aaron Eckhart and Rob Lowe discuss using cigarette product placement:

"Brad Pitt and Catherine Zeta jones lighting up after some cosmic fucking... these people aren't stupid - that's going to sell a lot of cigarettes!"

Sharky wrote:

SJK91 wrote:

Casino Royale is my favorite Bond film, by the way. No, really, it is.

And Sony is your favourite brand. Yes, really, it is.

If EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER in a movie does not carry a Sony Ericsson I don't consider it a real film.

I'm surprised Craig's blue swim trunks didn't have a pair of appropriately placed Apple logos.