NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - Critical Reaction and Box Office Performance

11819212324172

Comments

  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,538
    Sony Pictures Moves 'Peter Rabbit 2' to Easter 2020 Release
    https://hollywoodreporter.com/news/peter-rabbit-2-moves-easter-2020-1241048

    'Peter Rabbit 2' has moved from 7 February, 2020 to 3 April, 2020.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Uh oh, look out Bond!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    Uh oh, look out Bond!

    They're just setting it up for a Peter Rabbit/James Bond crossover film.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Uh oh, look out Bond!

    They're just setting it up for a Peter Rabbit/James Bond crossover film.

    Of course! That is Rami Malek s character. I guarantee it.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,538
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Uh oh, look out Bond!

    They're just setting it up for a Peter Rabbit/James Bond crossover film.

    Is that where Bond got his blue Matera jacket from!
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Sony Pictures Moves 'Peter Rabbit 2' to Easter 2020 Release
    https://hollywoodreporter.com/news/peter-rabbit-2-moves-easter-2020-1241048

    'Peter Rabbit 2' has moved from 7 February, 2020 to 3 April, 2020.

    This is a true non-film for animated movies. Especially for kids:
    gdi31ys.png

    Kids prefer really cute animations. Of which a Minion, is the gold standard. This….rabbit looks old and scary. Will not gross more than $500 Million worldwide. No competition.
    1K6wDul.png
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,179
    RC7 wrote: »
    The amount of people who are a miffed because Bond films aren’t produced consistently is minuscule. There has to be an overwhelming appetite. There clearly wasn’t after SP and they’ve let the dust settle. It was all well and good back in the day when Bond was the big boy in town, but you can see fatigue set in around the 80s as competing film series’ begin to swell. The 6 year gap was necessary to breath new life (despite the fact nothing could be done about). Likewise the four year was before CR. It’s not as simple as turning something out like clockwork. Yes, it would be delightful for us all if they were chucking them out every 3 years, but the logistics of these picture only become more complex over time and the market is saturated and shifting. It isn’t A-Level business studies.

    That pretty much touches on why I'm content to having languid pace with the production of these films. There's already 24 films and they're still being made to this day and by the same family that has made them since 1962. You can't say the same thing about other fictional heroes in cinema. They either fizzled out at the box office, or as Marvel has been doing, "retiring" characters rather than recasting like Bond.

    This is why I've always said that LTK scarred EON in a big way. It was the first time they realized they can't just keep churning them out the old fashioned way and expect the same results. From then on they've been much more careful about how to make these films, re-calibrating the character and tone of the films in order to keep it active in the changing landscape of cinema. After SP they probably felt they needed to take a break and sit on it before coming up with a film that would hopefully be better received financially and critically as opposed to just charging forward hoping the gamble will pay off.

    Exactly. @MakeshiftPython hits the nail on the head.

    Bond and Marvel are two completely different--and I'll indulge Gert here--film "franchises". One is a top brand of wine, constantly striving to provide its costumers with the best quality product it can. The other is the Coca Cola Company, throwing various soft drinks off the assembly line, keeping the ones that sell, dismissing the ones that don't, and generating constant customer satisfaction by betting on different horses at the same time.

    The Bond films excel at reconfiguring themselves in an ever-changing world, ensuring a persistent relevance and modernness, despite what certain critics may say. But the fact is that is has gotten tougher to do so. Bond helped to shape the '60s, but nearly sixty years later, Bond has to constantly reshape himself to fit the new '20s. Things we worried about yesterday are old news today. Things we used to take for granted are by the same token being submitted to endless socio-political scrutiny and harsh exaggeration wrapped up in a "hashtag" hype, resulting in the painful fact that even Fleming's Bond must tread carefully lest some modern Internet crusaders get Medieval on him. Bond still has to be his unique, trustworthy self, but he also has to show that he's caught up with some of the latest trends. He can't just cheaply copy the one-hit wonders of the moment, nor leave behind his 66-year old persona, but he can't just keep hitting the same notes either as smacking a girl on the bottom or, worse, slapping her in the face, would raise a storm of red flags nowadays.

    At the same time, trend shifts in the film making business require a non-stop evaluation and re-evaluation of where to take the next project. Some series benefit from punching one film after another in our theatres; others toy with viewership fatigue almost after two films released in quick succession. The Bond series used to be doing well with the first model but eventually segued into the second. Some fans seem to think that what we need is "stability" and a sense of continuation, but I don't think that works right now. With each next instalment, it seems, come long sessions of reflection, contemplation and analysis. Even if the next lead actor proves more available than Craig and less demanding about sitting down and having his sayings too, they'll still have to maintain a careful "plan, do, check, act" approach. It takes much longer these days to recover from disappointment. One "bad" film can put a series on hold for a long period of time. Whatever some here feel we are owed by EON, they'll want to take as few risks as possible. A brand of good wine may travel far and find itself respected everywhere, but even such good wine can turn into undrinkable vinegar overnight after a small production error.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    I just read this article from Bill Koenig. My question: How realistic is it that MGM will be bought in the coming years?
    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2019/09/25/apple-seen-as-buyer-to-stock-new-streaming-service-mgm/
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    I just read this article from Bill Koenig. My question: How realistic is it that MGM will be bought in the coming years?
    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2019/09/25/apple-seen-as-buyer-to-stock-new-streaming-service-mgm/

    Just imagine if MGM still had its pre-1986 films, it would be a goldmine of massive pop culture content for Apple.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,135
    I’m going to say that I predict that No Time To Die will make more at the box office than Spectre, and may even surpass Skyfall.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    Benny wrote: »
    I’m going to say that I predict that No Time To Die will make more at the box office than Spectre, and may even surpass Skyfall.

    I agree @Benny. NTTD might be one of the biggest blockbusters worldwide of 2020. Especially since Marvel is slowing down a bit in 2020.
  • Posts: 613
    I just want to say I can't believe a bond move eclipsed a billion in today's comic book resurgence . It should guarantee a long future
  • Posts: 613
    I am in Cali getting in my groove but it looks like the boys are all in bed . Time zones are a b
  • Posts: 613
    And I'm sorry for saying boys there are women amongst us I think and they them all and it . #allbipeds
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    Minion wrote: »
    Compare the release schedule of Dan's Bond's to the Mission: Impossible series, and suddenly the gaps don't look quite so outrageous.

    The difference is Mission Impossible is speeding up and Bond is slowing down. Soon enough that comparison won't be so apt, as MI are dropping films back 2 back years, as Bond did back in the day.

    If things continue on the trajectory they are on, mission Impossible will overtake Bond at the box office as well, as Bond used or be THE franchise to beat. But when you think MI are coming off their most successful entry to date, and Bond is coming off SP, it's going to be very close to who will come out on top next time.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited October 2019 Posts: 4,343
    Lol. M:I is "speeding up" only because in a few years Cruise will be 60 years old and he won't be able to make his crazy stunts, since you know, M:I is just a short-lived collection of crazy stunts.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    matt_u wrote: »
    Lol. M:I is "speeding up" only because in a few years Cruise will be 60 years old and he won't be able to make his crazy stunts, since you know, M:I is just a short-lived collection crazy stunts.

    And Paramount is pushing for more films because at this time they don’t have a lot of strong IPs compared to a few years ago when they had other hits like TRANSFORMERS, STAR TREK, G.I. JOE, IRON MAN, THOR, and CAPTAIN AMERICA. During that time they were okay with having to wait four to six years between M:I films because they were ultimately just movies Cruise did on his time.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    peter wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    The amount of people who are a miffed because Bond films aren’t produced consistently is minuscule. There has to be an overwhelming appetite. There clearly wasn’t after SP and they’ve let the dust settle. It was all well and good back in the day when Bond was the big boy in town, but you can see fatigue set in around the 80s as competing film series’ begin to swell. The 6 year gap was necessary to breath new life (despite the fact nothing could be done about). Likewise the four year was before CR. It’s not as simple as turning something out like clockwork. Yes, it would be delightful for us all if they were chucking them out every 3 years, but the logistics of these picture only become more complex over time and the market is saturated and shifting. It isn’t A-Level business studies.

    Well said @RC7 ...

    Lets look at another classic series that owes its invention to Bond...., Indiana Jones:

    ROTLA, 1981
    ToD, 1984
    (this second film, although I really loved it as a kid, is not as beloved in the franchise as one and three-- this was the quickest turn around of the series; it was to capitalize on the success of the first, and yet, even in the 80s it took 3 years (and was still the lesser of the original trilogy)
    TLC, 1989

    (I won't count the other Indy film that follows in the new century)...

    Indiana is/was like Bond, and both are unlike the Marvel/DC-churn-out-extended-universe franchises and poop out these "universe" films every 6 months.

    Bond and Indy are contained in their own world. And because of that, IMHO, they need time now to breathe life into the new story (it was different in the beginning for 007 when the creators could plough the stories of Fleming, but; the Bond franchise is now like Indy with original stories being given to us (even if the DNA is from Fleming...). EoN doesn't need to move at the pace of Marvel.

    It can take its time to work out each adventure (as Spielberg and Lucas did with Bond's closest film brother...),

    I'll go so far and say what Cubby/Saltzman, and now Barbra/Wilson, have created, is so rich in worldwide film culture, that if they took 10 years off, their next film in 2029 would be a hit because a new actor would utter the words "Bond. James Bond"...

    Yes, this is a unique series and is under no gun to come up with the next adventure. It will come, when it comes. And people will follow.

    Bang on @RC7, @MakeshiftPython and @peter couldn't have put it better myself.
  • Is anyone concerned about NTTD box office? There's been a trend of "go woke go broke" that's been happening with disappointing grosses for Terminator: Dark Fate and Charlie's Angels. The only buzz that NTTD has had from the wider public has been negative involving Lashana Lynch (rightly or wrongly). I'm sure a teaser trailer may generate a bit of hype, but I get the feeling there is quite a few people not planning to see this movie that normally would or people who are not excited at all. I know this is probably an overreaction, but it is just something I have observed over the last couple of weeks.
  • Posts: 1,680
    Nobody really knows about the film. It definitely doesn’t have the awareness skyfall had. I think there hedging their bets on a surprise hit similar to black panther , joker etc.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    "go woke go broke" didn't hurt those films, that's just a claim made by misogynistic trolls on the internet. They failed at the box office because they've been barren franchises the studios keep trying to make relevant.

    The outrage over NTTD mainly came from folks wrongfully assuming James Bond was recast as a woman. All that nonsense should pass when a trailer hits and firmly establishes that Bond is still very much a man and played by Daniel Craig.
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 16,162
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Nobody really knows about the film. It definitely doesn’t have the awareness skyfall had. I think there hedging their bets on a surprise hit similar to black panther , joker etc.

    I wouldn't go "banco" on that. Most people I know personally are only aware of NTTD, because they have an obnoxious, Bond obsessed friend who keeps reminding them. That would be me.

    I am slightly concerned that April is untested waters for Bond. I believe the only other Bond film to have an April release was the U.S. distribution of FRWL in '64.

    Oh, and there's the '67 CR.


  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Back in the day your sure dates for blockbuster hits were either the May through July or November through December, and the Bond films have largely stuck to releasing films in those windows. However, we've been getting a lot of major hits from outside those traditional windows consistently on February and April for the last few years, and at one point NTTD was going to come out in February before a slot for April opened up.

    Disney and Universal have done amazingly well with April releases (FURIOUS 7, THE JUNGLE BOOK, THE FATE OF THE FURIOUS, INFINITY WAR, and ENDGAME), so it's no surprise if Universal opted for a April release once a slot opened up.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    2Wint2Kidd wrote: »
    Is anyone concerned about NTTD box office? There's been a trend of "go woke go broke" that's been happening with disappointing grosses for Terminator: Dark Fate and Charlie's Angels. The only buzz that NTTD has had from the wider public has been negative involving Lashana Lynch (rightly or wrongly). I'm sure a teaser trailer may generate a bit of hype, but I get the feeling there is quite a few people not planning to see this movie that normally would or people who are not excited at all. I know this is probably an overreaction, but it is just something I have observed over the last couple of weeks.

    Not even remotely concerned, honestly. There's a lot more involved in those films' disappointing box-office returns than "wokeness".
  • "go woke go broke" didn't hurt those films, that's just a claim made by misogynistic trolls on the internet. They failed at the box office because they've been barren franchises the studios keep trying to make relevant.

    The outrage over NTTD mainly came from folks wrongfully assuming James Bond was recast as a woman. All that nonsense should pass when a trailer hits and firmly establishes that Bond is still very much a man and played by Daniel Craig.

    So true. The failure of Terminator and Charlie's Angels are wrongfully being claimed by misogynistic trolls. Those movies flopped for a myriad of other reasons. The fact that they were billed as 'woke' had nothing to do with their failures.

    Bond as a brand is strong enough to sustain the storm - plus, the series isn't getting a radical overhaul. Daniel Craig is still James bond and his tenure has been associated with success.

    Plus, unlike recent flops - Bond isn't a dusty old bit of IP. Over the last 14 years, Craig has played the role and his films have a legion of fans who know him as 007.

    If NTTD can get a $80-90 million weekend and a $250 million haul domestically, that would be terrific.

    The big question mark here is China........................since 2015 that market has exploded and that will factor massively in the final total. Bond will either make big bucks there or die entirely.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Kind of like how some assume GHOSTBUSTERS 2016 flopped because it was "woke", when the simplest answer has always been that it was just not funny.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    I'm also not really seeing how anyone can really claim the film is going to be any more "woke" than previous Bond films. We get the girl power stuff, the comments about Bond being brought "up to date", with every entry. Bond always ends up being the focus. It's always him that thwarts the villain and saves the day.

    Terminator: Dark Fate was only undone by the idiotic comments of its director combined with general lack of interest after a number of poor sequels.

    Bond, and specifically Daniel Craig's Bond, is as popular as ever. SP was a bump for sure, but not enough to diminish his era entirely. And with the fans that he has brought in since '06, I'm sure the box-office returns for his almost certainly final film will reflect how liked he has been in the role.

    The final piece of the puzzle is a good film, and that's all that's missing now.
  • "go woke go broke" didn't hurt those films, that's just a claim made by misogynistic trolls on the internet. They failed at the box office because they've been barren franchises the studios keep trying to make relevant.

    The outrage over NTTD mainly came from folks wrongfully assuming James Bond was recast as a woman. All that nonsense should pass when a trailer hits and firmly establishes that Bond is still very much a man and played by Daniel Craig.
    The director of the movie doesn't help when she makes these statements:
    • 'You've had 37 Spider-Man movies'

    • 'It reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don’t go see women do action movies'
    https://twitter.com/CultureCrave/status/1196146852187365376

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    I seriously doubt those comments had much of an impact on a movie nobody was even excited about in the first place.
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 678
    I seriously doubt those comments had much of an impact on a movie nobody was even excited about in the first place.
    I didn't say those comments made the movie tank. I'm saying it fuels that narrative of the movie flopping cuz audiences are rejecting wokeness. Those comments were in reaction to the movie tanking.
Sign In or Register to comment.