I never realized how cool Aston Martins are until I saw Daniel Craig drive one off a cliff as James Bond in “Quantum of Solace.” I never realized how refreshing Coca-Cola is until I watched Simon Cowell sip a big red cup of it on “American Idol.” I never realized how charming American Airlines is until George Clooney handsomely sat aboard an AA aircraft in “Up in the Air.”

After seeing each of these things, my regular nightly dreamscape was replaced by a repeating plot of flying an AA plane into an Aston Martin while Daniel Craig and George Clooney shower me in Coca Cola.

Or so these companies would hope.

With the advent of TiVo and other ways to digitally record and watch TV shows and skip those doggone commercials, companies need a new way to convince us how awesome their stuff is and how we should totally buy it.

The answer: product placement.

Excuse me for a moment while I puke all over myself. OK I’m back.

What could be worse, what in the world could be worse, than films and television shows bending their plots to suit a corporate sponsor? Don’t answer that question. Of course there are worse things than this. This is a sick world we live in. I shall rephrase. What could be worse in this whole Thursday arts section than the idea of any of these works being infiltrated by advertising smut?

Take, for instance, the review in today’s paper of Cal Shakes’ “Much Ado About Nothing.” Look for it. Read it. Isn’t it a pretty review? Who wrote that again? Anyway.

Shakespeare of course wrote with outside pressures, making sure he didn’t tread on any Tudor toes in his histories. But imagine the following corporate-sponsored Shakespearean play: “Much Ado About Quinn’s High-Quality Quills.” This is a terrible example; I will abandon it immediately.

All right, it’s open mind time. God I hate this part.

It’s possible, I admit, for product placement to add to a piece of art. This can be seen in comedies for purposes of irony. Tina Fey’s “30 Rock” is littered with brands. Alec Baldwin once sang an ode onscreen to the McFlurry. Fey later claimed that no cash exchanged hands for the McFlurry bit – it was product placement done to benefit the plot.

And who could forget Stephen Colbert’s Doritos Spicy Sweet Pennsylvania primary coverage from Chili-Delphia. I know I couldn’t; it was too delicious. Colbert grasped the reins of product placement and tasted the spicy sweet monetary awards. He also earned some chuckles in the process. Success.

But can product placement succeed beyond the accommodatingly ironic sphere of comedy?

Jason Reitman’s 2009 “Up in the Air” suggests so. Rather than inventing a fictional airline to fly George Clooney around his loveless world, Reitman instead struck a deal with American Airlines and Hilton Hotels to accommodate his crew throughout filming in return for Clooney making their brands look sexy in an old-guy kind of way.

Money saved. But the embedded advertisement has perks beyond mere financial savvy. “Up in the Air” scores major believability points for its incorporation of real-world brands. Which is the point of a brand – to make us feel comfortable. We know exactly what we’re getting with a well-known brand, and when that familiarity translates to film, an audience is given an extra boost toward relating to fictitious characters and their experiences.

There, I said it. The incorporation of corporate sponsors can help a film. I feel dirty. Someone call up Craig and Clooney to wash me in Diet Coke.