Even James Bond selling out
Heineken, you homewrecker.
After spending 15 years (and six films) partnering with the James Bond franchise, Heineken is trying to destroy it.
In the new Bond film “Skyfall,” Daniel Craig’s incarnation of the famous character won’t order up anything “shaken, not stirred” because, as the industry mag Advertising Age reported last week, the Dutch company is paying for James Bond to swill the green-bottled brew.
Not only will Bond down the brewer’s drink on the big screen, but he will also appear in a spot released in conjunction with the film.
Now, no one is surprised that big-budget movies are being rolled out with more and more corporate “partners” — even when completely illogical, like when eco-friendly “Lorax” was used to shill a Mazda SUV — but there’s just something so very wrong about product placement coming between a character and his trademark accessory.
In a press release from Heineken, the “Skyfall” producers called the level of collaboration with Heineken “unprecedented.” Yeah, probably because no producers have ever sold Bond up the river for a quick buck.
James Bond has been drinking martinis since Sean Connery ordered one in 1964. For Pete’s sake, the American Film Institute put Connery’s “A martini. Shaken, not stirred.” as No. 90 on its list of 100 greatest movie quotes of the last 100 years. And it’s all down the drain in favor of better product “integration.” After all, James Bond is to martinis as Indiana Jones is to a bullwhip and a fedora.
Is nothing sacred?
At this rate, I wouldn’t be surprised if a re-release of “Ten Commandments” saw Moses part the Dasani sea, as opposed to the red one, or a new “E.T.” had Orbitz gum in place of Reese’s Pieces.
(Fun fact: The studio originally wanted M&Ms for that iconic scene in “E.T.,” but Mars, Inc. turned down the offer. So Hershey swooped in. Within two weeks of the film’s release, sales of Reese’s Pieces went through the roof.)
In a way, this is partly our fault: the movie industry keeps making bets on bigger and bigger budget films while fewer and fewer people are going to see them. Hollywood sells about 75 percent fewer tickets a year now compared to the 1940s. (And you thought newspapers had it bad.)
And since they need to keep making bigger and bigger profits, and you’re too busy with your iPad, 900 cable channels and Facebook to go to the theaters, studios are finding revenue elsewhere. And selling off screen time to logos and brand names is pretty painless — for studio execs at least.
So movie goers get to see characters swill Heineken and Pepsis, drive Audis and Volvos, use Macs and Verizon cell phones — and pay $15 for the pleasure to do so.
Setting aside the character-centric reasons for bemoaning the switch to Heineken, the beer bottle will not be the most intrusive product placement in recent memory. That award goes, in my book, to Chevy, for its $3 million investment in the “Transformers” franchise, which basically runs as two-hour car commercials.
(Of course, schlock still beats hearing Denis Leary lecture me about Ford trucks.)
Now, it’s understandable to wonder what all the fuss is about. After all, don’t we have more important things to worry about, like unemployment, the fate of Obamacare, the Penguins’ Stanley Cup chances, the Ground Zero Mosque (remember that one?), whether or not Santorum will drop out and the impending losing season of the Pirates?
Granted. But while the world may not end when James Bond drinks a beer on screen — that doesn’t mean my world won’t be shaken by it. You know, like a martini should be.
(See what I did there?)
—-
If you’d like to buy him a drink — any drink — Brandon Szuminsky can be reached at bszuminsky@heraldstandard.com.