It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Hmmm... a few here seem to be rooting that way...
No doubt. I think it will be right at $95 million at the end of the weekend with a good chance of doing better than that. A little saltiness makes it more fun. A lot is a bit of a drag.
I should've taken my shot yesterday and seen it for the second time, now I won't have the opportunity until next weekend, so a week and a half from now. I'm sure it'll still be playing by then, but knowing my luck, I'm worried.
Because it was a fitting end to the Craig era that put a bow on a lot of the ongoing themes they’d been exploring (lost childhoods leading to more lost childhoods, Bond ruining everything he touches because of the baggage of his life as an assassin, etc). I think it was full of meaning. The perfect end to the story that started with CR.
And now they have a fresh slate and can do what they like, baggage free. A whole new take on the old legend. I’ve seen a lot of criticism of the ending because of the idea of Bond as a mythical hero. Well, if we compare him to another mythical hero: Robin Hood’s died plenty of times. Died in one of the old poems iirc, died in the Sean Connery film, died in the old ITV series (before being replaced by Jason Connery, funnily enough). Think he even died at the end of the dire BBC reboot. Does that make any new takes on that story meaningless?
Like you said, continuity in Bond has only mattered in the Craig films. They didn’t effect what came before, so I’m not sure why people think it’ll be difficult for audiences to accept that they won’t effect what comes next.
My sense is that no one wants it to fail but several want it to underperform a bit with the implication that this will motivate the film makers to make the film they want to see. I doubt this hope is fulfilled.
Indeed, it opens up everything fresh and supercharged with emotion, curiosity, and intrigue. What will they do? Will the next Bond be a throwback to Roger's tone and humor? Will they go strongly in opposite direction of Craig's realistic and vulnerable Bond? Bond won't die again, will he? (Geez, I hope not for 20 years at least; if they want to try that again, make it FAR in the future. It's been done - and done right, with respect and authenticity, with NTTD. Never needs to be done again.) Will the next Bond be young? Just don't make it begin with him as a rookie or redo Casino Royale, and I will probably be happy enough. Fresh start seems quite positive to me. If we had ended Craig's run with Spectre, I would have been very dissatisfied AND not filled with excitement for next Bond ... because it would feel like, okay they have already reverted to old formula (with SP) so more of the same is coming, I guess. I am more than satisfied with NTTD - it gives me a separate, completed story of a Bond I enjoy thoroughly and one that reminds me of Fleming. Now on to something new; I feel quite positive about NTTD and the future of Bond films. B-)
What are you talking about?
Lazenby had a seemless story arc from start to finish!
(But I now clarified that even more in my post above). Lovely photo, by the way. I love Diana Rigg (in everything).
On the subject of making comparisons to Robin Hood, King Arthur and Hercules, these are ancient tales dating back from c. 1300 BCE to medieval times that have a well established beginning, middle and an end to their stories. In Bond's 60 to 70 year life cycle, he hasn't died until now. Plus, if the character of James Bond is still being talked about in 650 years from now, or more in Hercules' case, then it would be fair to draw a comparison. Sadly, none of us here will be around to say with any certainty whether this will be the case. :-/
Instead they tried to turn it into a saga and because they didn’t plan it out and took it one film at a time,they didn’t really know what they were doing like Kevin Feige does with the MCU.James Bond is appealing because he’s a fantasy character but to have film after film of him quitting and moping about his lost love got tedious.Bond loses Tracey in OHMSS ( A film that NTTD tries to ape by directly lifting dialogue and music from it ) but we don’t hear about it again until TSWLM and even then it’s just a brief mention.
So when Martin Campbell and Henry Cavill are doing the press rounds for Bond 26, I hope they emphasise they are bringing the fun back to the series 😉
Amen Brother!
Just for the record, F9 grossed $93 million within its first 10 days. Bond has a chance to do slightly better.
At this point the best case scenario for NTTD will be hitting the $700 million mark at the end of its run. Australia won’t help that much and I believe China will provide only $50 million or so. I hoped for $750 million but it really doesn’t seem the case.
I wouldn't say Cavill was a crummy Superman. I believe he was poorly served by the material and Zack Snyder's direction.
Okay, how's this: Cavill gave a fair-to-middling performance as a very poorly-written Superman.
But that's the problem, they won't want to use an actor who is already well known for another franchise character part, and in any case, most actors wouldn't want to be pinned down by more than one franchise leading character part either.
I wouldn't want to have Bond appear in the gun-barrell only to have my subconscious mind break the spell by telling me - "pssst isn't that Loki dressed as James Bond?"
So no Loki-Bond, Venom-Bond or Superman-Bond please
Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan were a bit different, as the Saint and Remington Steele were Bond-like characters (or rather, from an historical perspective, Bond was Saint-like) a much easier transition for the mind to make
He wasn't a crummy Superman, and he looks the part, esp in the last MI film.
He's one of the few names being mentioned that I like.
No Time To Get A Better Ending was never going to make 900 million. It would be a brave man to try and predict the future with any degree of confidence but my guess is cinema is in terminal decline. We'll have to see if the box office can return to pre coronavirus 2019 levels. It seems unlikely.
If cinema never recovers I can't see Bond 26 going straight to the big screen. The box office won't be high enough to guarantee profit.
Cinema has recovered. Not completely recovered because the pandemic is still a thing but everything points to this direction: people still want to see big event movies in a theater.
Excellent, my plan to destroy James Bond is working, World Cinema lies in ruins, Craig-Bond is dead and by the time they find another actor to play the part there will be nothing left, Muya-ha-ha-ha...
Earlier in the thread I projected $95 million by the end of the weekend and a $700 million cume so we are on about the same page. I think it may do a little better in China than 50.
I think the real key is what exclusive theatrical window the market is going to dictate and the studios will accept as well as the box office split. I don't know that we will ever see a 150 days like Spectre (?) had or even 90 again. The theater owners can't afford a tiny take and a short window. People definitely still like to see big movies at the theater. The question will be whether that model can remain profitable. Hopefully, yes.
You'll have to forgive me, but MI hasn't been the same to my mind since Peter Graves stopped getting the mission assignments. I haven't seen any of the movies. I can't take Tom Cruise at all, the whole Scientology thing just puts a mental block in front of his face for me. It's my own prejudice but at least I own up to it.
As I've already stated, I'll allow that Henry Cavill just gave a mediocre performance as a very poorly-written Superman. But again, I'm just an old curmudgeon: the last good performance as Superman I've seen was given by Christopher Reeve. You could believe that his Clark Kent fooled all those people all those years with nothing but a pair of glasses. Henry C. I can accept as Napoleon Solo, but I'd really rather not see him as James Bond. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
It wasn't covid. Box office numbers have been in overall decline for decades due to other issues. Covid was just the nail in the coffin.
HA!
You’re right, I did forget. :)) Can you blame me though? The trailers for it makes it look so dull and forgettable. But fans will eat it up anyway as if it’s a moral obligation.