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
PS. I must add that no one has yet to tackle the point I first brought up with box office analysts continually changing their forecasts from Oct 4th as the opening weekend neared. They would've already factored in Venom and the pandemic in their evaluations, so there must be another reason outside of these for their renewed pessimism.
Not only are we six years removed from the last Bond compared to the frequency of other franchises (Marvel in particular), but what we have is also a direct sequel to a film that wasn't the most well received Bond adventure in the first place. Casuals who may have checked out after Spectre wouldn't exactly be in a rush to see its sequel. On top of that, it requires a lot more knowledge of the preceding films in general than past Bonds to truly get the most out of it.
While I don't think the ending necessarily is a deterrent, I think those wanting a "feel good" Bond after the pandemic have not been served well. To no fault of the film since it was obviously filmed prior to the pandemic, but nevertheless it may have inadvertently hurt the film. Still, it's quite interesting to note the difference in performance between North America and the rest of the world.
But the movie is doing great worldwide and when it hits streaming it will also do great business, especially in US. Which I think they timed to make the holidays. Spectre has been in top 10 in iTunes last few weeks and that’s pretty good for a forgettable movie.
I suspect their take away will be to cast young for next Bond to engage younger audience. Which is good as long as they don’t carried away and go for 20something… but you never know, they may think that’s a fresh take. Also, stepping up releases which would be a big challenge for EON. But I wouldn’t be surprised if Bond 27 comes on heals of Bond 26.
Thanks @DoctorNo for your detailed assessment. Some very interestings thoughts there to think about.
To my eyes, NTTD box office is only slowed down by the lesser quantity of showings a day.
Another factor might be the brain dead youth wanting to see a 90mn films because it's faster than blocking 3 hours for Bond.
I sincerely hope they do not try to reach that demographic only with the next Bond, because that would mark the end of the series. Youth have a shorter life attention span, they change opinions and trends from one day to the next. They don't give a toss about one Bond every 3 or 4 years. They like Marvel only because there are several movies a year, and they can check their brain at the door, to enjoy watching costumed heroes doing quips and CGI overload. This will not work for any Bond, and if you lose the older fans, you lose everything.
General audiences hardly go to the movies two times within the same week… not to mention within a single weekend.
Venom did some damage to Bond. As I said many times it’s not the main reason Bond disappointed in NA, there are a lot of factors in play, but the unexpected Venom phenomenon didn’t help Bond and most of the youngest chose the easy 90 minutes comic book flick.
Yeah Columbus Day it’s not exactly July 4th…
yes, you read it well, that's 25 for Venom vs 127 for NTTD !
In Italy they used that same translation for DAD back in 2002.
Japan :
NTTD's first three weeks were #1 - #1 - #2 , 16M$ total so far
Dune just opened, and in its first week is #3, behind NTTD
#1 movie this week is Japanese movie Baragaki, which does less than half of NTTD's 1st week.
So; hardly a flop there, eh ?
Russia :
Ok, there, Venom Carnage *is* the massive hit !
NTTD's first week was a third of Venom's first week...
NTDD opened at #2, with Carnage still at #1 on its second week.
Greece :
NTTD's #1 for its first three weeks and is already #2 of the whole 2021 just below a greek movie. It has already done 4 times the figures of FF9.
Ah !
So "Mourir peut attendre" is 19 years after "La Morte Puo' Attendere" ! :)
I guess there's No Time To Die Another Day.
#1 for its first three weeks !
1.194.000 viewers in its opening week-end (2nd movie had 10 times less...)
And not much steam lost in the threes weeks, only about -20% each week ! At the moment it means about 45 M$.
It's already an undisputed #1 for the year at the moment. Of course it will depend of the next releases.
A 43% drop in the second week means it's just above 2M in 2 weeks, the Eiffel movie 1st week is behing NTTD's second week but not a flop, and there is more competition to come, which means NTTD final figures are hard to guess. At the moment NTTD is #4 of the year, and movies #1, #2 (Dune), #3 have French-speaking directors, too bad they did not used the fact NTTD's director speaks French too here :) French moviegoers like to hear from the directors of the movies !
Not a fair comparison. Brosnan's era (1995-2004) coincidence with the infancy of 3D shooter games. There was very little competition, so Goldeneye being released back then was revolutionary. But today there's thousands of them, and it's really hard to stand out. Even if a great very good game is made, it won't have the impact Goldeneye back then.
Whether Craig’s is an improvement is debatable but I think Connery and lazenby nailed the Fleming character.
The MCU's most popular hero, Iron Man was already 43 when he started out and his popularity grew exponentially. The majority of the core cast of the MCU franchise started at least in their late 30s and currently skews over 40 and 50. Looking at phase 1, the youngest core actors were ScarJo, Chris Evans and Hemsworth. People love the fast and furious movies and yes, it's been going on for 20 years now but the films are still currently very successful and People go out to see these films who's main cast are all over 40 bar Nathaloe Emmanuel's character and the lead, Vin Diesel in his mid 50s.
Then there's mission impossible. Tom Cruise is the draw and the man will be 60 next summer.
Personally, I don't think Bond's age isn't the problem per se but if the films go out of their way and address his age and refer to him as being an old man, being irrelevant and oast it, then that could be a problem. The aforementioned films don't factor their ages into the story for it to be somewhat of a hindrance to the respective characters. So, casting extremely young like someone in their 20s is so not necessary. We need an actor ideally in their 30s and to bring the credible capability to meet the demands of the role and to bring the fun factor of BEING Bond back.
Craig's films have been largely really good films and enjoyable but more often than not, the fantasy of wanting to be him has been absent (at least for me anyway). Let's see Bond the cool, brutal, butt-kicking charmer, Bond the man who can have fun and find enjoyment in this perilous job he has. Less tragic trauma and more thrilling treats, please.
Thanks very much for this information. B-)
Remember, the same folks who made the widely-reported and very silly claim that the movie needs $928 million to break even also predicted it would earn less that $500 million at the global box office.
Oh -- you mean the folks at mi6-hq.com, the same group hosting the forum that enables you to post your whining about the film's budget?
For the record, here's what they posted:
https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/no-time-to-die-box-office-projection-for-october-2021?t=&s=&id=04915
Now the ball's in your court. Please present us with the evidence that you have refuting their "very silly claim."
Yes, I mean the folks at mi6-hq. If you apply their formula to other Bond movies, all the Craig films would probably have lost money except for Skyfall. That seems unlikely. They also don't account for product placement/endorsements, which is a hefty sum of money.
They also said $530 million was the high end of what the film could earn at the global box office and gave inaccurate data on COVID regulations in cinemas. They have no idea what they're talking about.
Also, not sure where I was whining, or where I mentioned the budget in that post.... :-?
Well said!
There’s a decent portion of highfalutin waffle on there.