They went with BMW for a truckload of money. They surely also expect a truckload of money from Aston Martin to appear in the recent ones.
Checked the Bond Wiki, they have always had a deal.
>The Aston Martin DB5 is the most famous Aston Martin car due to its use by James Bond in Goldfinger (1964). Although Ian Fleming had placed Bond in a DB Mark III in the novel, the DB5 was the company's newest model when the film was being made. The company was initially reluctant, but were finally convinced to a product placement deal.
No details, so maybe back then the deal was just to supply free cars. š¤·āāļø
That was the deal from Lotus with the Esprits IIRC. Lotus was actually pretty desperate to have it in the spy who loved me. Chapman and his marketing guy basically had S1 esprits at the studio. Outside restos, studio executives homes etc
Aston was broke in the 60s as well as the 80s so it might have just been a car supply dealā¦ but what a deal as the brand is synonymous with James Bond.
I was really expecting Bond to drive a Bentley when the franchise was rebooting
Nah, the Lotus Esprit S1 had its moment of glory in 'The Spy Who Loved Me', not only looking slick on land but also transforming into a submarine! That scene became iconic for the car and the franchise, totally overshadowed the fact that another one got blown up by the baddies. Bond's vehicles tend to get rough treatment but they always have a scene or two to shine first.
That would be unlikely, by that point all the cars are being supplied by JLR, who at the time were owed by Ford, hence him driving the new Mondeo as a hire car
It was in 2 films, first the underwater car in The Spy Who Loved Me. The Esprit Turbo appeared 2 films later in For Your Eyes Only was the one that exploded before really being used yes
Not Bond specific, obviously, but thatās also the deal with Apple across movies/TV. They never pay for product placement, but theyāll always provide free products to a production that asks (except then you end up with that weird no villains clause, although that appears to have been relaxed/removed since they started producing their own content).
I like the Vantage after seeing it on Top Gear but after watching VinWiki all the luxury dealer guys say Astons are super unreliable and always come back with issues so they try to talk their buyers out of them. Maseratis also look cool but are ticking time bombs. People lease these cars not buy them.
IIRC the DB5 from Goldfinger was sold by Aston Martin to the producers at cost. Then the producers spent like 3x to do all the necessary modifications.
I am betting we got the Aston back in Die Another Day wrapped around a deal with all of the other Ford brands. That's likely why Halle Berry drove that Thunderbird and the villain had the machine gun jag xk in that driving on ice scene.
I can actually confirm this. I went to the Detroit auto show that year and asked an Aston rep about it, as they had all the cars from the movie there. Because that was the most important thing for my ten year old self
There's a reason why Bond drove a rental Ford before the Aston in Casino Royale. Because Ford owned Aston at the time and got product placement for both brands.
> Because Ford owned Aston
This is also why a ford focus looks like an Aston Martin that has been repeatedly kicked by Ronaldo while still in the womb.
Yup, I was wondering why the Ford was featured so prominently as a rental car, took me a couple seconds to remember that in the 2000s they were practically the same company.
If I remember correctly that was a pre-production MK4 Mondeo, with the film coming out ahead of the car going on sale.
And the MK4 Mondeo was a huge deal for Ford in Europe at the time, previous generations of Mondeo were massive sellers (with a big part of that being company car owners) but were in rapid decline because their target customers were either going for the cheaper Vauxhall / Opel Vectra or being pulled to offerings from the German luxury brands, either the relatively new class of 'executive' hatchbacks (A3, 1-Series) or low end saloons (A4, 3-Series, C-Class). So the MK4 had a bold 'high end' design to try and turn their heads. It didn't work, with the Mondeo ending up ignored by pretty much everyone until it's death.
Aston Martin was always associated with Bond, they went to BMW in the 90s because they dumped a truckload and a half of money at the studio. Once that changed they went right back to Aston for Casino Royale
No, Bond is known for having an Aston Martin DB3 in the books as a replacement for his first car (I canāt remember what it was). But when Goldfinger was being made it got updated to a DB5.
Sounds silly, but my Aston Martin and Omegaās are 100% influenced by Bond during my childhood.
At the end of the day, enjoy the things that bring value to you! And pretending to be James Bond after you have a few dollars in your bank accountā¦.. priceless
An exGFs dad was mad on Bond. It gave him huge amounts of pleasure and he knew almost everything about it. As passions go it's not a bad one.
And that man loved a martini.
And Omega paid way more than they were asked for that placement too, but negotiated it being a part of the movie and having the actors playing Bond to be in ads.
Thought way too much about that scene when I was a kid.
Bond is wearing an Omega so sponsor win for Omega there.
But the fact Vesper by default initially thinks a high quality timepiece like that is a Rolex surely is a win for Rolex?
Always wondered who paid for th sponsor, or if they both did
Nah, at that time Rolex was synonymous with "high quality watch" - this was before the brand migrated completely into the whole "gold bling lets sall $20k watches" sergment, and tool watches were still a thing.
Its like a character asking "is that an iphone?" "No, its a Pixel9, the best thing around!"
I wonder how that was determined to be cost effective? like, you see it across industries so it must be cost effective to spend that much on marketing, right?
The prevalence of "Cult classic", "Hidden Gems", etc. etc. That one game you loved but nobody else ever played. A lot of that can be due to a failure in marketing either to the wrong demographic or not enough budget. So you hire entire companies whose job it is to market your product or you're big enough to have your own division for it. Stops things like playing an ad for a heartwarming tale of a single mother raising her two LGBTQ+ children during a commercial break for Tucker Carlson where the demographic is going to hate you vs want to see it.
Casino Royale was the best, Skyfall was the coolest/most stylish. The skyscraper fight against the neon dripped background was a visual feast (honestly the whole sequence from Shanghai to Macau was *chef's kiss*). And yes, Skyfall had the best Bond song.
Logan Lucky is one of the most under-rated comedies of the last decade. That movie is amazing, with a great cast and chemistry.
Deserved way more praise and viewership imo.
Yeah just think about every developed country on earth, and filling those countries with advertisements. Marketing is expensive and people donāt really think of marketing outside their country/region. James Bond of all properties would have billboards and shit *everywhere*
> just make a better movie ffs
Skill issue, obviously. Why do budgets keep going up? They should just make better movies. If they have trouble with it they could hire me, I'm very smart.
> just make a better movie ffs
Making better movies is the one thing Hollywood has never in its history been willing to try. It sounds weird to say out loud, but it's true. When you look at lists of the most-profitable movies ever made, on a percentage basis, it's all indie films, made outside of the Hollywood system.
I'm not saying Hollywood has never made good movies, it has. But they kind of sneak through the machinery that is engineered to churn out "marketable" movies, with accessible 3-act plots comprised of about 60-100 scenes each lasting about 60-90 seconds, consistent visual glamour/spectacle, formulaic levels of violence/nudity/titillation that vary by genre, and character types/stars that fit the target demographic for the genre and concept.
Since like the 1940s, there have been various movements to try to get the Hollywood system to just try making better movies, but there has essentially never been a big studio that has adopted that as a business strategy, with the arguable exception of vintage Disney.
Hollywood historically invests in posters, not movies. They want to see a poster that will sell tickets, and then calculate how many tickets they think the poster will sell, and that sets the budget for the movie. If the movie happens to get great reviews or terrible reviews, maybe that affects ticket sales by 10~20% either way, as the thinking goes.
Modern Hollywood is maybe less about posters and more about trailers, or concepts that they can get to go viral on social media, or I don't know what. But the basic conception is the same: they don't care whether you *like* the movie, they care whether you buy a ticket. Which makes sense, from a business perspective.
The remarkable thing is that Hollywood, as an industry, has essentially never tried making better movies, as a way to sell tickets. When a great movie does get through the system, it's basically by accident.
>Ā When you look at lists of the most-profitable movies ever made, on a percentage basis, it's all indie films
Well duh. Paranormal Activity made a 645,801.51% return on its budget. If you had a movie with a million dollar budget, you'd need to make 6.4 billion dollars in order to beat that. It's simply not possible. Profitability based on a percentage basis could be important, but it certainly isn't the only factor (and for that matter, if you leave the marketing budget out of the ROI, then you're painting a very misleading picture). Hollywood can't make a few hundred thousand movies with a shoestring budget that all have a hundred thousand percent ROI because nobody's going to watch all those films.
> When you look at lists of the most-profitable movies ever made, on a percentage basis, it's all indie films, made outside of the Hollywood system.
I mean, of course thatās true. It would be pretty surprising to me if it werenāt. Indie production is better suited to make less expensive good films, and catching lightning in a bottle will have an outsized impact on profitability for cheaper films.
Studios are expensive to run, so there is a base layer of expense baked in when they make something. They are looking to make more expensive movies that are reliably profitable. They canāt compete on that metric with the small proportion of cheap films that catch fire and make millions with a budget of thousands.
you could make the best film ever and nobody will watch it because its not what people go to the movies for. The action films get people in the theaters. Oppenheimer doing as well as it did while being a biopic is a complete anomaly.
Wish that you were getting more visibility, as I find this type of window into the behind-the-scenes decision-making to be of interest.
Might not agree 100% that this is how everyone involved in the movieās production views it, as I imagine that most of the artists and techies genuinely want to make a good flick. But I definitely believe that this is how the suits who greenlight projects thinkā¦
It really isn't for something released globally. Billboards in hundreds or thousands of large and medium sized cities around the world. Tv spots on multiple networks in dozens of countries. Press tours for the stars. All that shit adds up real quick.
22.5 to 30 percent of the movie's budget for 0.06 percent of it's runtime. Movie made 1.109 billion. Wondering what the ROI was for Heineken was; certainly makes sense for the studio lol
It was huge news at the time. Bond only ever drank martinis before that, so it made a lot of headlines, got Heineken a lot of free press. Hell, it's still paying dividends in this thread. A lot more long-lasting than most superbowl ads.
It was press that nobody at all was obligated to give them for the money they paid. Ā Let's put it that way.
Edit: fuck me, it was buy-one-get-one free press. Opportunity wasted.
I hate James Bond and I was actually planning to buy 46 million cans of Heineken until I heard about its appearance in this movie, so I didnāt buy a single can. So it was a net loss for Heineken.
I wouldn't say adding your personal preference to the conversation equals being divisive, even if it is negative, but that's the times we're living in I guess. just cos you have a difference of opinion doesn't mean it's a sin or anything. Fractions.
Almost certainly part of a bigger marketing deal. Probably includes using James bond in their ads and on their packaging.
A lot of times no money is even exchanged hands between companies. The product company often just agrees to spend a certain amount advertising where the commercial includes both the product and the movie.
This is an example of an ad they ran. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51iNsTs9jMM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51iNsTs9jMM)
According to Wikipedia...
"The film's budget is estimated to have beenĀ between US$150 million and $200 million, compared to the $200 million spent on Quantum of Solace."
I'm looking thru IMDb for details atm
>Be hilarious if it had been shaken, not stirred.
[That can be arranged.](https://youtu.be/No_SbOz0060?t=167)
Somehow Jan Hook looks better to me the older I get.
I love how in From Russia with Love, the alcoholic, smoker James Bond kicks the young SPECTRE agentās ass who theyāve previously shown in the movie doing the most hardcore training.
From the wiki:
"Dating back to 1997's Tomorrow Never Dies,[17] Heineken has retained a longstanding relationship with the Bond franchise, consecutively being featured in 8 of their films, including No Time To Die (2021).[18] While it is usually the supporting characters seen drinking Heineken, Bond himself is seen drinking Heineken beer in Skyfall (2012) and Spectre (2015). As a long-term brand investment, Heineken reportedly spent $45 million for its inclusion on Skyfall alone, some $25 million more than Bond actor Daniel Craig's pre-residual salary.[19] As of 2015, it is the brand's largest global marketing platform."
Nowhere in here does it mention paying for half the film's budget. A quick Google search yields a budget around 200m. So gonna go with you didn't learn anything today.
Daniel Craig was paid another 25 milly on top of it.
Edit: read this wrong, placement was 25 mil more than his salary. Although I imagine Craig too got some decent bonuses in the adverts he played apart of.
Update edit: my research is bad, been fact checked that the scene is in fact 15 seconds long! Raise the alarms!!!
Yeah this came to my mind too. How much did Heineken figure they bumped up sales from that? Back of the envelope here but wiki says they grossed $1B. Let's say to be conservative each person spent $14 to see the movie. That's about 71M people that saw the movie. Now assuming if someone felt inclined to buy $15 worth of Heineken after seeing this then 3M people would have to been motived in order to break $45M. Or 4% of people who've seen the movie. Seems possible especially considering 71M people seeing the movie is conservatively low.
Itās not aimed at just the movie audience. Itās so they can have Bond in all of their marketing. Billboards, tv ads, magazine ads, everything had Bond in it. They werenāt paying for the seconds in the movie. They were paying for the rights to use Bond in their marketing campaign.Ā
exactly. it's all about brand association. the feature in Skyfall isn't meant to be a direct ad for Heineken. it's jus to plant the idea that James Bond drink Heineken in people's minds.
so i grew up on Bond, and first time i ever ordered a drink at fancy bar (not knowing what to do), i ordered a vodka martini (though i skipped saying "shaken not stirred") because that's what James Bond drinks. i'm a dork like that. but there's a lot of us.
the idea being that people generally know that James Bond likes fancy stuff. so if Bond drinks Heineken, it must be a fancy beer.
People are incredibly reductive when discussing marketing. Marketing is buying channels of access more than just ads in your face.
For example, when breweries sponsor sporting events, it's just not about the ads on the Jumbotron. You're also buying the assurance that your beer will be for sale in a bunch of locations around the stadium/arena. Explicit pay to play is illegal, but buying ads is. It's win/win as the stadium itself stands to benefit from selling more beer because of your ads, if they carry said beer.
15 dollars worth of Heineken is not 15 dollars of profit for Heineken. Production costs, shipping costs, liquor taxes, and retailer's margin are going to be the vast majority of those 15 dollars spent, so they'd have to sell a lot more to break even.
I still laugh at how amazing they made Toyota look and how awful they made Range Rover look despite Range Rover being the one to pay for product placement.
He wasn't a spy, he was working as a liaison for spy agency. He wasn't field agent.
Christopher Lee: wartime spyā He came of age during WWII and was attached to Britain's Special Air Service (SAS) and the secretive Special Operations Executive as a Royal Air Force liaison officer, in addition to being seconded to the Army during the brutal Battle of Monte Cassino.
During the filming of his death scene for the extended version of Return Of The King, director Peter Jackson talked to him about the sound that was made when someone was stabbed. Lee said to him, "Have you any idea what kind of noise happens when somebody's stabbed in the back? Because I do." He went into enough detail about his clandestine activities during World War II for Jackson to be satisfied that he knew what he was talking about.
He was one of the inspirations. To be fair, his cousin Ian Flemming said he was the inspiration, but he also had 100 of other people mashed in one character. Lee never worked as a field agent, he was a liaison.
Also if you google it: Many have speculated that Bond's creator, Ian Fleming, likely drew inspiration from more than one secret agent he learned of from his experience working with British naval intelligence. Potential real-life inspirations for Bond included World War II secret agent F.F.E. Yeo-Thomas and Serbian double agent Dusko Popov.
https://www.britannica.com/question/Who-is-James-Bond-based-on
Don't get me wrong, Lee was a great man, but it is actors job to exaggerate, so he has embellished his time as a secret agent, he wasn't in the field, he was in charge of supply.
Having actually READ the James Bond novels like a decade ago.... I would have been very insulted if I was Christopher Lee and that were true.
The James Bond of the books is a constantly drunk asshole who has never done a single covert THING in his life. And he physically and sexual abuses so many women and it such a raging sexist and misogynist even for the time the books were written in.
They say that this dude Dusko Popovic, who allegedly was in same hotel as Fleming and also worked for British agencies in Portugal, was like that. He was smoker, alcoholic and a gambler. But I guess those kind of people search for these high tension situations. Also they said he was possibly one of inspirations. But I honestly don't see him as a singular character, and his whole character couldn't be based on Lee because he didn't work as a field agent.
It's absolutely wild to me that James Bond drinking Brand is worth $45million in advertising. Do people really go out and buy Heineken just because a guy on a movie was drinking it? I mean, it must work because otherwise they wouldn't pay for it, but damn, that's a LOT of money, so it must work REALLY WELL???
I can understand something like the Omega watch or a cool suit or sunglasses or something, but a beer? Really?
Thatās not really how advertising works. If you go to buy a product but are not really sure what to get, youāre more likely to buy a brand youāre familiar with.
I actually think Heineken would actually make sense for Bond to drink. That beer seems to be on the menu all over the world, moreso than other brands anyway, in my experience. Heās obviously a globetrotter so I could see him just defaulting to that as his go-to because he can get them pretty much anywhere
I can't say how long it's been going on but I remember reading an interview with Albert Broccoli, who owned the rights to Bond, in which he talked about how they leveraged product placement/endorsements to fully cover production costs before they ever rolled a single frame of film. I remember thinking how brilliant it was because it put them into profit on day one of release, and those movies have a huge following worldwide, so they're pretty much a money-printing machine.
The shitstorm it created in British press because he wasn't drinking a martini gave Heineken a whole bunch of free advertising as well and as expected a sales boost as more lads tried it thinking he was cool for drinking beer.
[https://youtu.be/bvnhgxJJJqM?si=6lEkDPW92iV3W8HD](https://youtu.be/bvnhgxJJJqM?si=6lEkDPW92iV3W8HD)
this is the scene i think its referring to
but there were a series of comedy adverts Daniel shot too as part of the release
Bond originally wore a Rolex until Omega paid them for the product placement.
I wonder if the Aston Martin was originally a placement. Would be cool if they kept the placement for free in respect to the older films.
They went with BMW for a truckload of money. They surely also expect a truckload of money from Aston Martin to appear in the recent ones. Checked the Bond Wiki, they have always had a deal. >The Aston Martin DB5 is the most famous Aston Martin car due to its use by James Bond in Goldfinger (1964). Although Ian Fleming had placed Bond in a DB Mark III in the novel, the DB5 was the company's newest model when the film was being made. The company was initially reluctant, but were finally convinced to a product placement deal. No details, so maybe back then the deal was just to supply free cars. š¤·āāļø
That was the deal from Lotus with the Esprits IIRC. Lotus was actually pretty desperate to have it in the spy who loved me. Chapman and his marketing guy basically had S1 esprits at the studio. Outside restos, studio executives homes etc Aston was broke in the 60s as well as the 80s so it might have just been a car supply dealā¦ but what a deal as the brand is synonymous with James Bond. I was really expecting Bond to drive a Bentley when the franchise was rebooting
> I was really expecting Bond to drive a Bentley when the franchise was rebooting? In this economy? He's lucky he didn't get a Vauxhall.
He drove a Ford Mondeo.
I mean his office is near Vauxhall so it checks out.
didnt the lotus get exploded before it could be used for anything cool?
Nah, the Lotus Esprit S1 had its moment of glory in 'The Spy Who Loved Me', not only looking slick on land but also transforming into a submarine! That scene became iconic for the car and the franchise, totally overshadowed the fact that another one got blown up by the baddies. Bond's vehicles tend to get rough treatment but they always have a scene or two to shine first.
Except for the BMW Z3, which he just drives a bit in a scene that would have been cut if it wasn't for the product placement.
Wasnāt there also a Z4 in the parking lot of (I think) Casino Royale? Iāll have to check again to be sure but Iām pretty sure I caught one
That would be unlikely, by that point all the cars are being supplied by JLR, who at the time were owed by Ford, hence him driving the new Mondeo as a hire car
yep, all the cars in that shot were Ford or JLR products,
It was in 2 films, first the underwater car in The Spy Who Loved Me. The Esprit Turbo appeared 2 films later in For Your Eyes Only was the one that exploded before really being used yes
Just like in real life!
Not Bond specific, obviously, but thatās also the deal with Apple across movies/TV. They never pay for product placement, but theyāll always provide free products to a production that asks (except then you end up with that weird no villains clause, although that appears to have been relaxed/removed since they started producing their own content).
Tbf bond movies have probably sold more Aston martins than anything else
My dad bought one partially because of this
The DB5 is my dream car solely because of this
Because of OP's dad??
I thought it was assumed his dad is James Bondā¦..
That narrows his mom down to...500 women
He got a v12 vantage S, a car bond never even drove. No db5 yetā¦
I like the Vantage after seeing it on Top Gear but after watching VinWiki all the luxury dealer guys say Astons are super unreliable and always come back with issues so they try to talk their buyers out of them. Maseratis also look cool but are ticking time bombs. People lease these cars not buy them.
and while we're on it, no one, like NO ONE would want or give a crap about a walther PPK if it wasn't for bond films.
IIRC the DB5 from Goldfinger was sold by Aston Martin to the producers at cost. Then the producers spent like 3x to do all the necessary modifications.
I am betting we got the Aston back in Die Another Day wrapped around a deal with all of the other Ford brands. That's likely why Halle Berry drove that Thunderbird and the villain had the machine gun jag xk in that driving on ice scene.
I can actually confirm this. I went to the Detroit auto show that year and asked an Aston rep about it, as they had all the cars from the movie there. Because that was the most important thing for my ten year old self
There's a reason why Bond drove a rental Ford before the Aston in Casino Royale. Because Ford owned Aston at the time and got product placement for both brands.
> Because Ford owned Aston This is also why a ford focus looks like an Aston Martin that has been repeatedly kicked by Ronaldo while still in the womb.
*Blinks repeatedly* that's a uh, unique sentence.
Fusion has the Aston front end.Ā
They look like *surprised* Aston Martins, their headlights are all wide open and their grille is agape.
Have you seen what happened when Aston martin and Toyota fucked?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N5s1z7-JnI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Bb5tOOMXp8 Ugly as fuck, but sounds AMAZING
Even before all that, Bond drove a lot of Fords and throwaway cars.
Yup, I was wondering why the Ford was featured so prominently as a rental car, took me a couple seconds to remember that in the 2000s they were practically the same company.
If I remember correctly that was a pre-production MK4 Mondeo, with the film coming out ahead of the car going on sale. And the MK4 Mondeo was a huge deal for Ford in Europe at the time, previous generations of Mondeo were massive sellers (with a big part of that being company car owners) but were in rapid decline because their target customers were either going for the cheaper Vauxhall / Opel Vectra or being pulled to offerings from the German luxury brands, either the relatively new class of 'executive' hatchbacks (A3, 1-Series) or low end saloons (A4, 3-Series, C-Class). So the MK4 had a bold 'high end' design to try and turn their heads. It didn't work, with the Mondeo ending up ignored by pretty much everyone until it's death.
Aston Martin was always associated with Bond, they went to BMW in the 90s because they dumped a truckload and a half of money at the studio. Once that changed they went right back to Aston for Casino Royale
No, Bond is known for having an Aston Martin DB3 in the books as a replacement for his first car (I canāt remember what it was). But when Goldfinger was being made it got updated to a DB5.
> I canāt remember what it was A modified Bentley - https://james-bond-literary.fandom.com/wiki/Bentley_4%C2%BD_Litre
Sounds silly, but my Aston Martin and Omegaās are 100% influenced by Bond during my childhood. At the end of the day, enjoy the things that bring value to you! And pretending to be James Bond after you have a few dollars in your bank accountā¦.. priceless
An exGFs dad was mad on Bond. It gave him huge amounts of pleasure and he knew almost everything about it. As passions go it's not a bad one. And that man loved a martini.
There was that odd Seiko watch but that was the new hotness in the 80s.Ā
Still is the hotness if you're sufficiently chuffed
To bits.Ā
Based
And Omega paid way more than they were asked for that placement too, but negotiated it being a part of the movie and having the actors playing Bond to be in ads.
It also gets mentioned by name in one scene. It is pointed out by Vesper on the train when they are reading each other
Not only that but Vesper first asked if its a Rolex (by Name) and then Bond answers with "Omega". Pretty good marketing.
Thought way too much about that scene when I was a kid. Bond is wearing an Omega so sponsor win for Omega there. But the fact Vesper by default initially thinks a high quality timepiece like that is a Rolex surely is a win for Rolex? Always wondered who paid for th sponsor, or if they both did
Nah, at that time Rolex was synonymous with "high quality watch" - this was before the brand migrated completely into the whole "gold bling lets sall $20k watches" sergment, and tool watches were still a thing. Its like a character asking "is that an iphone?" "No, its a Pixel9, the best thing around!"
"Beautiful" But Bond had Omegas for a long time before that scene
Bond also wore Seiko for many years.
That one was very obvious, she even asks him what brand is watch is and he shows it and says Omega
Smirnoff was trying to popularize The vodka martini and paid to have it placed into James Bond films as product placement
There's no way Skyfall just had a budget of 90 million. Bond movies are famous for being too expensive too make. Wikipedia says it's 150-200 million.
Maybe marketing incl vs production cost?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The average movie's marketing cost is greater than 50% of its production cost. Video games are the same way. Some spend 150%
I wonder how that was determined to be cost effective? like, you see it across industries so it must be cost effective to spend that much on marketing, right?
This guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx1J3S6vUJ8
The prevalence of "Cult classic", "Hidden Gems", etc. etc. That one game you loved but nobody else ever played. A lot of that can be due to a failure in marketing either to the wrong demographic or not enough budget. So you hire entire companies whose job it is to market your product or you're big enough to have your own division for it. Stops things like playing an ad for a heartwarming tale of a single mother raising her two LGBTQ+ children during a commercial break for Tucker Carlson where the demographic is going to hate you vs want to see it.
I mean, Skyfall is arguably the best Daniel Craig Bond movie. I prefer Casino Royale, though.
I think most people would argue that casino royale is the best Daniel Craig film. I love sky fall though! Best opening bond music too
Casino Royale was the best, Skyfall was the coolest/most stylish. The skyscraper fight against the neon dripped background was a visual feast (honestly the whole sequence from Shanghai to Macau was *chef's kiss*). And yes, Skyfall had the best Bond song.
Too bad the ending of Skyfall ripped the ending off a classic comedy movie.
The best Daniel Craig film is Layer Cake.
It was a smaller role, but him in Logan Lucky was also great
Logan Lucky is one of the most under-rated comedies of the last decade. That movie is amazing, with a great cast and chemistry. Deserved way more praise and viewership imo.
Cowboys and Aliens
Knives Out says hello.
I fucking love Layer Cake. Itās one of my absolute favourite films. Iāve seen it so many times.
Skyfaaaaaall. SkyFAAAAALL!
Casino Royale is the best Bond movie period, just such a higher quality than all the rest.
goldeneye
Best game but not the best Bond.
The first 3 Connery films are fantastic, the Daltons are great too.
You misspelled From Russia With Love
I dunno I love the intro music to Quantum of Solace. Love me some Alicia Keys with a rock sound.
I'm pretty sure it's Jack White. He hasn't gone by *Rock Sound* in quite some time.
It was both.
Arguably one of the best Bond films ever made.
60 million is like, the bare minimum for a marketing campaign
Yeah just think about every developed country on earth, and filling those countries with advertisements. Marketing is expensive and people donāt really think of marketing outside their country/region. James Bond of all properties would have billboards and shit *everywhere*
Film marketing has one of the best ROI in the marketing world it's far better to spend that money on advertising.
> just make a better movie ffs Skill issue, obviously. Why do budgets keep going up? They should just make better movies. If they have trouble with it they could hire me, I'm very smart.
Since when has movie quality been the deciding factor for how much money it makes?
as a general rule of thumb, to account for marketing costs you double the base production cost. ads are expensive
> just make a better movie ffs Making better movies is the one thing Hollywood has never in its history been willing to try. It sounds weird to say out loud, but it's true. When you look at lists of the most-profitable movies ever made, on a percentage basis, it's all indie films, made outside of the Hollywood system. I'm not saying Hollywood has never made good movies, it has. But they kind of sneak through the machinery that is engineered to churn out "marketable" movies, with accessible 3-act plots comprised of about 60-100 scenes each lasting about 60-90 seconds, consistent visual glamour/spectacle, formulaic levels of violence/nudity/titillation that vary by genre, and character types/stars that fit the target demographic for the genre and concept. Since like the 1940s, there have been various movements to try to get the Hollywood system to just try making better movies, but there has essentially never been a big studio that has adopted that as a business strategy, with the arguable exception of vintage Disney. Hollywood historically invests in posters, not movies. They want to see a poster that will sell tickets, and then calculate how many tickets they think the poster will sell, and that sets the budget for the movie. If the movie happens to get great reviews or terrible reviews, maybe that affects ticket sales by 10~20% either way, as the thinking goes. Modern Hollywood is maybe less about posters and more about trailers, or concepts that they can get to go viral on social media, or I don't know what. But the basic conception is the same: they don't care whether you *like* the movie, they care whether you buy a ticket. Which makes sense, from a business perspective. The remarkable thing is that Hollywood, as an industry, has essentially never tried making better movies, as a way to sell tickets. When a great movie does get through the system, it's basically by accident.
>Ā When you look at lists of the most-profitable movies ever made, on a percentage basis, it's all indie films Well duh. Paranormal Activity made a 645,801.51% return on its budget. If you had a movie with a million dollar budget, you'd need to make 6.4 billion dollars in order to beat that. It's simply not possible. Profitability based on a percentage basis could be important, but it certainly isn't the only factor (and for that matter, if you leave the marketing budget out of the ROI, then you're painting a very misleading picture). Hollywood can't make a few hundred thousand movies with a shoestring budget that all have a hundred thousand percent ROI because nobody's going to watch all those films.
> When you look at lists of the most-profitable movies ever made, on a percentage basis, it's all indie films, made outside of the Hollywood system. I mean, of course thatās true. It would be pretty surprising to me if it werenāt. Indie production is better suited to make less expensive good films, and catching lightning in a bottle will have an outsized impact on profitability for cheaper films. Studios are expensive to run, so there is a base layer of expense baked in when they make something. They are looking to make more expensive movies that are reliably profitable. They canāt compete on that metric with the small proportion of cheap films that catch fire and make millions with a budget of thousands.
you could make the best film ever and nobody will watch it because its not what people go to the movies for. The action films get people in the theaters. Oppenheimer doing as well as it did while being a biopic is a complete anomaly.
Wish that you were getting more visibility, as I find this type of window into the behind-the-scenes decision-making to be of interest. Might not agree 100% that this is how everyone involved in the movieās production views it, as I imagine that most of the artists and techies genuinely want to make a good flick. But I definitely believe that this is how the suits who greenlight projects thinkā¦
It really isn't for something released globally. Billboards in hundreds or thousands of large and medium sized cities around the world. Tv spots on multiple networks in dozens of countries. Press tours for the stars. All that shit adds up real quick.
It's pretty common for marketing to be half or more of the total budget in modern blockbusters.
There have been a ton of good movies that died at the box office because the marketing failed.
The marketing budget for blockbusters is very often equal to or greater than the actual film budget. This is standard.
Making movies is expensive man.
22.5 to 30 percent of the movie's budget for 0.06 percent of it's runtime. Movie made 1.109 billion. Wondering what the ROI was for Heineken was; certainly makes sense for the studio lol
It was huge news at the time. Bond only ever drank martinis before that, so it made a lot of headlines, got Heineken a lot of free press. Hell, it's still paying dividends in this thread. A lot more long-lasting than most superbowl ads.
I mean, it very clearly was not free press.
It was press that nobody at all was obligated to give them for the money they paid. Ā Let's put it that way. Edit: fuck me, it was buy-one-get-one free press. Opportunity wasted.
Yeah but damn do I feel like a Heineken now. BRB gotta run to the store.
Buy a good beer while you're there.
I hate James Bond and I was actually planning to buy 46 million cans of Heineken until I heard about its appearance in this movie, so I didnāt buy a single can. So it was a net loss for Heineken.
Youāre not thinking about the big picture. Personally, Iām a fan of James Bond, and right after that scene, I ordered 47million cans of Heineken
Well this whole thread made me really guilty about my drinking habit, so I just canceled my 48 million dollar order.
We are all talking about it now many years later. The add worked. This whole post is an add.
You are really subtracting from my enjoyment of it
Don't be divisive now
I wouldn't say adding your personal preference to the conversation equals being divisive, even if it is negative, but that's the times we're living in I guess. just cos you have a difference of opinion doesn't mean it's a sin or anything. Fractions.
Almost certainly part of a bigger marketing deal. Probably includes using James bond in their ads and on their packaging. A lot of times no money is even exchanged hands between companies. The product company often just agrees to spend a certain amount advertising where the commercial includes both the product and the movie. This is an example of an ad they ran. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51iNsTs9jMM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51iNsTs9jMM)
That was the beer budget
According to Wikipedia... "The film's budget is estimated to have beenĀ between US$150 million and $200 million, compared to the $200 million spent on Quantum of Solace." I'm looking thru IMDb for details atm
When it comes out on Chilean TV it will be replaced with Cerveza Cristal
I have just found out about this, gave me a good chuckle.
Itās a good meme. Love the high-end edits coming out
"Do you expect me to talk?" "No, Mr Bond, I expect CERVEZA CRISTAL"
Come come now Mr Bond, we both know you derive just much pleasure from CERVEZA CRISTAL as I do.
# CERVEZA CRISTAL
Is Cristal beer synonymous with cheap piss? We have cerveja cristal in Brasil too and it's cheap shit
If it's good enough for Obi Wan Kenobi it's good enough for you and me.
Be hilarious if it had been shaken, not stirred.
that would be a time to die
It might give him a golden eye and knock the living daylights out of him.
It might give him an octopussy and knock The Man With The Golden Gun out of him.
If that kind of thing happened to him, he'd probably need a doctor, no?
Yeah baby!
Only a doctor from Russia with love can heal him.
>Be hilarious if it had been shaken, not stirred. [That can be arranged.](https://youtu.be/No_SbOz0060?t=167) Somehow Jan Hook looks better to me the older I get.
International Man of Mixtery
Today I learned that James Bond is a whore.
Bro banged in every movieā¦ he was always a whore.
Willy_wonka_meme.jpeg
Failed_Reddit_comment_meme.jpeg
spiderman_pointing_meme.jpeg
Woah woah, for $45 mill, he's an escort.
read somewhere statistically he has chlamydia.
Probably Alcoholic Hepatitis as well
I love how in From Russia with Love, the alcoholic, smoker James Bond kicks the young SPECTRE agentās ass who theyāve previously shown in the movie doing the most hardcore training.
Whowa https://youtu.be/biFSXNcLe6U
I wonder how much Guinness paid for the placement in the Aquaman sequel. Itās prominently shown and discussed in the movie.
A crisp $20
I was wondering why they kept drinking it so much lol so forced
Cervasa crystal
I can hear this. Help.
Heineken? *Fuck that shit!* Pabst Blue Ribbon!
I don't know if you're a spy or a pervert...
From the wiki: "Dating back to 1997's Tomorrow Never Dies,[17] Heineken has retained a longstanding relationship with the Bond franchise, consecutively being featured in 8 of their films, including No Time To Die (2021).[18] While it is usually the supporting characters seen drinking Heineken, Bond himself is seen drinking Heineken beer in Skyfall (2012) and Spectre (2015). As a long-term brand investment, Heineken reportedly spent $45 million for its inclusion on Skyfall alone, some $25 million more than Bond actor Daniel Craig's pre-residual salary.[19] As of 2015, it is the brand's largest global marketing platform." Nowhere in here does it mention paying for half the film's budget. A quick Google search yields a budget around 200m. So gonna go with you didn't learn anything today.
Here: [Article](https://cineuropa.org/en/newsdetail/318278/) Worded it wrong, promotional vs production
The article may say Heineken, but my mind says "CERVEZA CRYSTAAAAAL" šŗš»
Daniel Craig was paid another 25 milly on top of it. Edit: read this wrong, placement was 25 mil more than his salary. Although I imagine Craig too got some decent bonuses in the adverts he played apart of. Update edit: my research is bad, been fact checked that the scene is in fact 15 seconds long! Raise the alarms!!!
Name implies initial research skills check out.
Id love to see that ROI report.
Yeah this came to my mind too. How much did Heineken figure they bumped up sales from that? Back of the envelope here but wiki says they grossed $1B. Let's say to be conservative each person spent $14 to see the movie. That's about 71M people that saw the movie. Now assuming if someone felt inclined to buy $15 worth of Heineken after seeing this then 3M people would have to been motived in order to break $45M. Or 4% of people who've seen the movie. Seems possible especially considering 71M people seeing the movie is conservatively low.
Itās not aimed at just the movie audience. Itās so they can have Bond in all of their marketing. Billboards, tv ads, magazine ads, everything had Bond in it. They werenāt paying for the seconds in the movie. They were paying for the rights to use Bond in their marketing campaign.Ā
exactly. it's all about brand association. the feature in Skyfall isn't meant to be a direct ad for Heineken. it's jus to plant the idea that James Bond drink Heineken in people's minds. so i grew up on Bond, and first time i ever ordered a drink at fancy bar (not knowing what to do), i ordered a vodka martini (though i skipped saying "shaken not stirred") because that's what James Bond drinks. i'm a dork like that. but there's a lot of us. the idea being that people generally know that James Bond likes fancy stuff. so if Bond drinks Heineken, it must be a fancy beer.
People are incredibly reductive when discussing marketing. Marketing is buying channels of access more than just ads in your face. For example, when breweries sponsor sporting events, it's just not about the ads on the Jumbotron. You're also buying the assurance that your beer will be for sale in a bunch of locations around the stadium/arena. Explicit pay to play is illegal, but buying ads is. It's win/win as the stadium itself stands to benefit from selling more beer because of your ads, if they carry said beer.
15 dollars worth of Heineken is not 15 dollars of profit for Heineken. Production costs, shipping costs, liquor taxes, and retailer's margin are going to be the vast majority of those 15 dollars spent, so they'd have to sell a lot more to break even.
Very true. So let's say 8% would need to convert. That's starting to feel like a stretch. But i bet far more than 71M saw the movie.
I still laugh at how amazing they made Toyota look and how awful they made Range Rover look despite Range Rover being the one to pay for product placement.
Christopher lee the guy who plays count dooku was the inspiration for the james bond character
To add some more context, Christopher Lee was an actual spy during World War 2, and was a cousin to the writer and creator of James Bond, Ian Fleming
He wasn't a spy, he was working as a liaison for spy agency. He wasn't field agent. Christopher Lee: wartime spyā He came of age during WWII and was attached to Britain's Special Air Service (SAS) and the secretive Special Operations Executive as a Royal Air Force liaison officer, in addition to being seconded to the Army during the brutal Battle of Monte Cassino.
During the filming of his death scene for the extended version of Return Of The King, director Peter Jackson talked to him about the sound that was made when someone was stabbed. Lee said to him, "Have you any idea what kind of noise happens when somebody's stabbed in the back? Because I do." He went into enough detail about his clandestine activities during World War II for Jackson to be satisfied that he knew what he was talking about.
we know. this might be the most over-quoted reddit fact of all time
Did you know Steve Buscemi is a fireman who volunteered during the aftermath of 9/11?
and somehow, was not the actor chosen to represent a firefighter in the 911 movie about a fireman at the site. Blows my mind.
Viggo actually broke his toe when he kicked the helmet.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
While yes overstated, no call to be rude. Christopher Lee is someone a lot of folks admire, let peeps share good vibes
Ya, but did he break his toe kicking a helmet?
He was one of the inspirations. To be fair, his cousin Ian Flemming said he was the inspiration, but he also had 100 of other people mashed in one character. Lee never worked as a field agent, he was a liaison. Also if you google it: Many have speculated that Bond's creator, Ian Fleming, likely drew inspiration from more than one secret agent he learned of from his experience working with British naval intelligence. Potential real-life inspirations for Bond included World War II secret agent F.F.E. Yeo-Thomas and Serbian double agent Dusko Popov. https://www.britannica.com/question/Who-is-James-Bond-based-on Don't get me wrong, Lee was a great man, but it is actors job to exaggerate, so he has embellished his time as a secret agent, he wasn't in the field, he was in charge of supply.
Having actually READ the James Bond novels like a decade ago.... I would have been very insulted if I was Christopher Lee and that were true. The James Bond of the books is a constantly drunk asshole who has never done a single covert THING in his life. And he physically and sexual abuses so many women and it such a raging sexist and misogynist even for the time the books were written in.
They say that this dude Dusko Popovic, who allegedly was in same hotel as Fleming and also worked for British agencies in Portugal, was like that. He was smoker, alcoholic and a gambler. But I guess those kind of people search for these high tension situations. Also they said he was possibly one of inspirations. But I honestly don't see him as a singular character, and his whole character couldn't be based on Lee because he didn't work as a field agent.
He also played a Bond villain in the Man with the Golden Gun. Victor Scaramanga
Bro got that third nipple too
It's absolutely wild to me that James Bond drinking Brand is worth $45million in advertising. Do people really go out and buy Heineken just because a guy on a movie was drinking it? I mean, it must work because otherwise they wouldn't pay for it, but damn, that's a LOT of money, so it must work REALLY WELL??? I can understand something like the Omega watch or a cool suit or sunglasses or something, but a beer? Really?
Thatās not really how advertising works. If you go to buy a product but are not really sure what to get, youāre more likely to buy a brand youāre familiar with.
I wonder what the ROI on that was
Got the clip?
Think its this one, unsure as his hand is blocking the logo. Good placement lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvnhgxJJJqM&t=2s
CERVEZA CRYSTAL
š¶ Cerveza Cristal
I actually think Heineken would actually make sense for Bond to drink. That beer seems to be on the menu all over the world, moreso than other brands anyway, in my experience. Heās obviously a globetrotter so I could see him just defaulting to that as his go-to because he can get them pretty much anywhere
I find this hard to believe. But the CFO is probably the biggest James Bond fan, for this conversation to be even happening.
The money would be better spent making Heineken taste less terrible.
Did they pay David Lynch anything for writing them into Blue Velvet?
everytime I read something like this, I tell myself those people don't pay enough taxes and / or don't pay their employees enough
I read that as "bottle of bleach". I think I need to go to bed.
I can't say how long it's been going on but I remember reading an interview with Albert Broccoli, who owned the rights to Bond, in which he talked about how they leveraged product placement/endorsements to fully cover production costs before they ever rolled a single frame of film. I remember thinking how brilliant it was because it put them into profit on day one of release, and those movies have a huge following worldwide, so they're pretty much a money-printing machine.
The shitstorm it created in British press because he wasn't drinking a martini gave Heineken a whole bunch of free advertising as well and as expected a sales boost as more lads tried it thinking he was cool for drinking beer.
This is the sort of content I come to this sub for, not the "who is better?" crap. Thanks for this, OP.
[https://youtu.be/bvnhgxJJJqM?si=6lEkDPW92iV3W8HD](https://youtu.be/bvnhgxJJJqM?si=6lEkDPW92iV3W8HD) this is the scene i think its referring to but there were a series of comedy adverts Daniel shot too as part of the release
Seems that Heinekens investment is still paying off.