› ›

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

1…148149151153154…174

Comments

  • GerardGerard
    Posts: 6,032
    In France, we are at 3 933 113 seats sold, and NTTD is still the most successful movie of the year.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Leave it to the Bond franchise to release a movie featuring a dangerous virus that can spread and kill people worldwide during a time when an actual pandemic is going on...all while managing to be one of the most successful films of such a crazy time.

    This is why the series is so incredible: you just can't make this crap up.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    This made me grin:

    https://www.cinemablend.com/movies/after-rumors-swirl-that-daniel-craigs-final-bond-movie-no-time-to-die-could-lose-millions-mgm-responds
    "Unnamed and uninformed sources suggesting the film will lose money are categorically unfounded and put more simply, not true. The film has far exceeded our theatrical estimates in this timeframe, becoming the highest grossing Hollywood film in the international marketplace and passing F9 to become the highest grossing Hollywood film since the pandemic. With the PVOD release of the film already doing stellar home viewing business, all while continuing to hold well theatrically, No Time To Die will earn a profit for MGM, both as an individual film title and as part of MGM’s incredible library."

    -MGM
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Yeah all those garbage websites are picking up Variety's clickbait nonsense.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @matt_u, what amazes me is that people think Variety have credibility. Amazing the amount of trust you can garner just by being popular.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    Gee, I wonder who they could possibly be referring to. 8->
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,062
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    Leave it to the Bond franchise to release a movie featuring a dangerous virus that can spread and kill people worldwide during a time when an actual pandemic is going on...all while managing to be one of the most successful films of such a crazy time.

    This is why the series is so incredible: you just can't make this crap up.

    Haha!
  • JimjambondJimjambond
    Posts: 328
    At the risk of "stirring the pot" where exactly did MI6 HQ get their info from?
  • BurgessBurgess
    Posts: 399
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    At the risk of "stirring the pot" where exactly did MI6 HQ get their info from?

    I think their assessment was an extrapolation of NTTD's estimated budget with interest charges due to COVID delays. It's typical that studios receive around 45-50% of the box office during the theatrical window. That percentage varies as time passes during the theatrical lifespan of a film. The highest percentage of box office that studios receive will always be for the opening weekend. Also, percentages can change country-by-country.

    Assessing a film's break even point or profitability is hard (if not impossible) when studios pay fees to their own subsidiaries for contract work. A studio may spend $150M for VFX work but the VFX company may be owned by an arm of the studio or the conglomerate that owns the studio. Also, productions get more tax benefits when they report higher costs.

    I don't know the accuracy of MI6 in their reporting, which I think is the point. No one outside of the studio and producers know that info.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited December 2021 Posts: 4,343
    The fact that MI6HQ’s didn’t even bother to estimate any money detracted from partnerships, product placement and tax incentives makes their supposed break even final number not worth the attention.

    The most ridiculous thing is that they treat their calculations as facts in that Risky Business piece.
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    @matt_u, what amazes me is that people think Variety have credibility. Amazing the amount of trust you can garner just by being popular.

    They are a joke. Two weeks before that article they dropped another one stating that NTTD would've needed $800M to break even. Clowns.

    EDIT: Last week Bond opened in Malaysia but piracy, few theaters showing it and COVID are damaging its run. NTTD opened with just $510,000 compared to SP's $2,35M...
  • Scaramanga1974Scaramanga1974
    Posts: 752
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    Leave it to the Bond franchise to release a movie featuring a dangerous virus that can spread and kill people worldwide during a time when an actual pandemic is going on...all while managing to be one of the most successful films of such a crazy time.

    This is why the series is so incredible: you just can't make this crap up.

    Yes. Bond has always been ahead of the curve
  • MrsAuralSectsMrsAuralSects
    Posts: 214
    matt_u wrote: »

    EDIT: Last week Bond opened in Malaysia but piracy, few theaters showing it and COVID are damaging its run. NTTD opened with just $510,000 compared to SP's $2,35M...

    That was to be expected with 4K VOD prints all over the place as soon as it was released on rental.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,297
    It's clear to me that NTTD is not a failure at all. Given the circumstances, I would even call it a success. You know, I'm really proud of Bond. This is a bold, bang-on, best-performing Bond with a balanced, blonde, ballsy and brilliant bloke. (That last alliteration... nearly killed me.)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @DarthDimi, it definitely proves there's still a lot of lifeblood left in this series, no matter how much time changes and people pressure Bond to change. He's the kind of guy we need for the world today, and I think Dan's Bond really represented that as a man who could push up against modern conveniences and hazards with his own brand of old fashioned brashness and uncompromising duty. He went from a blunt instrument to a voice of reason in a time of blurred political lines, unseen enemies and surreal threats.

    It just makes me smile that Bond has done so well, and continues to do so, while every other big series I can think of outside of the MCU has had dramatic ups and downs, massive outcries from the public and critics and financial distresses. Bond has stayed true, and been an insane success, which is something we can all be proud of. Dan was definitely the right man to hitch this carriage to, as he helped to bring about a greater understanding of Bond as a man and what the movies can do with him, on top of attracting some of the biggest talent in moviemaking. You could only tell these kinds of stories with the character with an actor as convincing and compelling as him, and I think he was the perfect blend of the cinematic Bond and Fleming's original, creating a vastly fascinating portrait of our favorite spy.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited December 2021 Posts: 1,714
    Burgess wrote: »

    I don't know the accuracy of MI6 in their reporting, which I think is the point. No one outside of the studio and producers know that info.

    It's not so much about the accuracy of budget numbers they reported, but about how dumb the analysis was.

    Like if I said, "Hey, the movie cost $319 million and earned $750 million at the BO! That's an over $400 million profit!", it would be dumb, but not really any dumber than what they did.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited December 2021 Posts: 24,297
    ProfJoeButcher wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »

    I don't know the accuracy of MI6 in their reporting, which I think is the point. No one outside of the studio and producers know that info.

    It's not so much about the accuracy of budget numbers they reported, but about how dumb the analysis was.

    Like if I said, "Hey, the movie cost $319 million and earned $750 million at the BO! That's an over $400 million profit!", it would be dumb, but not really any dumber than what they did.

    Not mincing words there, are you? The people who made this analysis are not dumb. They did what they did with the best of intentions. But I am sure they get the message. In fact, they got it last time. And the time before that. And the time before that. It reads: people get upset about everything these days. The internet: where anger and frustration meet for drinks.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Let’s not pretend that piece wasn’t extremely amateurish tho. In fact, it was so amateurish that I’m amazed it gained all that resonance.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,714
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    ProfJoeButcher wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »

    I don't know the accuracy of MI6 in their reporting, which I think is the point. No one outside of the studio and producers know that info.

    It's not so much about the accuracy of budget numbers they reported, but about how dumb the analysis was.

    Like if I said, "Hey, the movie cost $319 million and earned $750 million at the BO! That's an over $400 million profit!", it would be dumb, but not really any dumber than what they did.

    Not mincing words there, are you? The people who made this analysis are not dumb. They did what they did with the best of intentions. But I am sure they get the message. In fact, they got it last time. And the time before that. And the time before that. It reads: people get upset about everything these days. The internet: where anger and frustration meet for drinks.

    Oh, I only said the analysis was dumb, not the people. I'm sure they're doing their best, just like the fine scribes at Variety, the Daily Express, Screen Rant, and so on. ;)
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,258
    Dumb people can say smart things. Smart people can say dumb things. MI6-HQ has made smart AND dumb articles in the past. It’s human nature.

    Life goes on.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    It gained a lot of attention for sure :-)
    Anyway - I am happy NTTD did so well at the box office and looking at the number of tickets sold over here in Germany (Roughly 5.85 Million) in comparison to the number 2 (FF9 - just 1.9 Million) it's clear how strong this "franchise" (I even hate calling it that) still is. I am sure it will do very well here in (P)VOD and physical home media sales.
  • Leon12Leon12 England
    Posts: 16
    Given how Covid 19 is still ongoing and a lot of countries have restrictions in place the makers 1) did very well to get the film a cinema release at all and 2) that it has done so well at the box office and I'm sure it will clean up on VOD as well.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,297
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    It gained a lot of attention for sure :-)
    Anyway - I am happy NTTD did so well at the box office and looking at the number of tickets sold over here in Germany (Roughly 5.85 Million) in comparison to the number 2 (FF9 - just 1.9 Million) it's clear how strong this "franchise" (I even hate calling it that) still is. I am sure it will do very well here in (P)VOD and physical home media sales.

    Agreed. I know people mean well, but the word is often not used correctly. As a rule of thumb, when people say "the Bond franchise", they really mean "the Bond film series". Not the same thing.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited December 2021 Posts: 3,180
    Indeed. The scrapped Jinx film would've been part of a franchise, a Paloma film would be part of a franchise - but there's only the Bond films, so it's a series. I fear we're losing the argument on this one, though, and they're becoming interchangeable terms.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    All the eras are so different I never look at them as sharing a series in the greatest extent of the term. I view each era as isolated from the others, in other universes, in a way, outside of OHMSS, but even that is touch and go.

    It's all semantics, and the more a term is used one way, whether it's right or wrong, it appears irreversible. You use words you see others using to define things without thought, and soon we're on the road to confusing terminology. But hey, it's the internet.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,180
    Indeed. It's similar to the way that 'anti-hero' is now used to refer to someone like Tony Soprano, when it originally meant someone like Bartleby. It won't be long before 'conversate' becomes a real word... ;)
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,258
    Venutius wrote: »
    Indeed. It's similar to the way that 'anti-hero' is now used to refer to someone like Tony Soprano, when it originally meant someone like Bartleby. It won't be long before 'conversate' becomes a real word... ;)

    It’s funny because I’ve seen fans offended by the notion that Bond is an anti-hero. I mean, back in 1962, it wasn’t exactly common to see someone like Cary Grant shoot an unarmed man to death.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,297
    Venutius wrote: »
    Indeed. It's similar to the way that 'anti-hero' is now used to refer to someone like Tony Soprano, when it originally meant someone like Bartleby. It won't be long before 'conversate' becomes a real word... ;)

    Is that really a thing? "Conversate"? :-D English isn't my first language and even I'm appalled.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,548
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited December 2021 Posts: 3,180
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    It’s funny because I’ve seen fans offended by the notion that Bond is an anti-hero. I mean, back in 1962, it wasn’t exactly common to see someone like Cary Grant shoot an unarmed man to death.
    True. Thing is, in the early '60s anti-hero still meant a main character who was literally the opposite of a hero - a coward, a traitor, a backstabber. It's now used more in the sense of what in Gothic fiction used to be called a 'hero-villain': a protagonist with flaws, someone who's not whiter than white but not all bad. The meaning's changed over time as most people adopted the new definition of anti-hero, even if it was incorrect. The same's going to happen with franchise and series. And conversate...! After that, who knows what mangled linguistic swamp awaits? Maybe Christopher Nolan will 'directorize' a Bond film, with Gregg Wilson as 'producerator'... ;)
  • MrsAuralSectsMrsAuralSects
    Posts: 214
    Bond went rogue in LTK....so yeah, he can be an anti-hero.
Sign In or Register to comment.