James Bond is a prick and has been since the misogynistic saga began with Sean Connery back in 1962. He drinks too much, puns aggressively, kills unnecessarily and forces himself on women in such a way that sometimes the line between impromptu sex and rape becomes a little bit blurry which this video sums up perfectly. But he gets away with it because he’s well dressed and working towards the eradication of war criminals the world over. He was a lovable, murderous rogue with a very strong character image. Bond once had a set of very specific tastes which had to be tended to with almost pedantic regularity. Then product placement took over.
The relationship between James Bond films and product placement is not a recent development. Product placement began with the first James Bond film, Dr No.
Product placement is a reality in most films, especially Hollywood blockbusters. If it is done in such a way then it can actually add to a film by allowing the set to appear more authentic but only if the products used are relevant. Product placement must also be subtle as this article explains.Viewers can just about stomach advertising when it’s strictly confined to advertising air time but when it tries to dress itself up as part of the props, attempting to trick people into staring at its brand logo then the viewers get mad. It can almost seem insulting. It’s also irritating when fans witness the much loved image or persona of the character being washed away in order to suit the product that is being advertised. The best example of this is James Bonds recent abandonment of his classic Martini in exchange for beer. Bond you classless ape of a man, that martini was the only thing that stood between you and rapey thug. A man who sleeps around and drinks martini= a sexy, refined, play-boy legend. A man who carries a gun, grabs at women and drinks beer= a fat, sweaty threat to society.
Again I know that product placement helps to enhance certain aspects of a film and it is said that without the funding from Heineken that Skyfall would never have been made,according to this Ad Age article. This is a slight exaggeration as the film would have been made regardless of Heineken support, there may have been a few less pricey explosions but it would have been made.
If the James Bond franchise continues to embrace product placement at this rate then the James of the future will be unrecognisable ; bad at cards because Nike will be paying him to play golf, bloated with beer, slow to kill a man because he’s wearing crocks etc.
The point is that product placement is acceptable just as long as it doesn’t destroy the key, defining features of the character or film in question. James Bond, please stop selling out and keep using women as human shields, it’s what has made you famous.