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

11314161819172

Comments

  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,790
    Sure, ROI is a way to present recent films as disappointments or failures in comparison.

    But the franchise is about as troubled as NTTD is a troubled production.

  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    But the franchise is about as troubled as NTTD is a troubled production.

    Uff, absolutely (sadly) :-). How can we get the Bond-franchise into less troubled waters then…….and with it future Bond film productions? :-).
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,790
    Bond is the problem eliminator. They'll work things out every time. It's what they do.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    Bond is the problem eliminator. They'll work things out every time. It's what they do.

    Indeed. A cat has 9 lives. However……not 10 :-). The Bond-franchise is an old franchise and more and more it lacks a certain lean-ness and effectiveness. Sadly….
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,790
    Well that's not shown by the success of the last four films. They're doing very well.

    Likely will outlast us all.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,135
    Bond is an event movie nowadays. We all know the story going into the cinema.
    It's the age old tale of good versus evil. How will James Bond save the world this time?
    People know what they're in for. I don't think EON or the studio are overly concerned just yet. They know what they're doing.
    If the films got to a point where the ROI was so low, they wouldn't be able to make/finance another film.
  • Posts: 1,680
    Considering the quality of Spectre it should have come out in 2014, bond 25 in 2017, and bond 26 should’ve come out April 2020. Eon is too slow for a franchise nowadays. If it takes 4-5 years to make a film fine but it should be acclaimed. Skyfall and Spectre are really good films with lousy scripts tbh.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    Compare the release schedule of Dan's Bond's to the Mission: Impossible series, and suddenly the gaps don't look quite so outrageous.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    If we are adamant on judging NTTD financially, then please stop the talking about box office grosses and focus on the ROI-ratio, the real-time profits and sponsorships. Or at least focus on box office grosses in relationship to profits and ROI.

    I disagree. Granted, those may be more "legitimate" or more "correct" ways of judging the finances of films, but between BOMojo and what the average newspapers releases, it's mostly about the absolute figures. With Endgame surpassing Avatar, I don't recollect any of the excitement focussing on ROI's or the such. A few people were keen to point out that with inflation adjustments, Gone With The Wind is still at number 1. That was pretty much it. Absolute figures are one way to look at things, and not necessarily incorrect.

    The Bond-franchise here is in troubled, actually...bad financial waters, not Marvel. What Kevin Feige is doing is exactly what Cubby did in the 1960's, albeit under different circumstances geopolitically and geoeconomically. But Feige….he admires Cubby. So Marvel (Disney) can focus on those box office gross figures (ticket sales) while not worrying too much about ROI and profits. With Bond that's now, unfortunately, a different story. Look at SP. That Bond-flick barely broke even. Barbara and Michael...…..they pumped millions on all those expensive bespoke DB10's, but without a clear plan.

    Also don't forget that even with inflation corrections the Return-On-Investments of GWTW where unbelievably huge. Nowadays costs in movie business have skyrocketed, even for Marvel. But at least Marvel appeals to larger audiences than Bond. Is it that much to ask for….for Bond to appeal to larges audiences? Are we really that fed up with at least parts of Cubby's vision? What Kevin Feige, Kathleen Kennedy and Tom Cruise can, can not be done by Barbara & Michael? Come on.....

    I just read "When Harry Met Cubby"...…..and it saddens me to say that Barbara and Michael nowadays treat the franchise more like Harry did, and not like Cubby did. Especially in between two Bond-productions. And that's not a positive conclusion.

    EON is just taking a different approach, it’s not about being “fed up” with Cubby’s vision, which I honestly do not know where you’re getting that from. EON would rather take their time with the films rather than pump them out as much as humanly possible, and are not really interested in making Bond movies that appeal to families like the old days. Maybe when the next producers take over the franchise we’ll see a different approach closer to Marvel.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    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.
    Barely. And it'll change even more in 2021 and 2022 when M:I 7 and 8 will be premiering back to back. Not to mention the new ViacomCBS company that probably want to relaunch M:I as a CBSAllAccess series too. Nope, the Bond-franchise still pales in comparison to Ethan Hunt...especially in the coming 3 years.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    From a certain point of view, perhaps.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    edited September 2019 Posts: 431
    EON is just taking a different approach, it’s not about being “fed up” with Cubby’s vision, which I honestly do not know where you’re getting that from. EON would rather take their time with the films rather than pump them out as much as humanly possible, and are not really interested in making Bond movies that appeal to families like the old days. Maybe when the next producers take over the franchise we’ll see a different approach closer to Marvel.

    That's the thing. EON doesn't take their time. Yes, they take their time to enjoy non-Bond stuff. But they don't plan the production of a new Bond-film as extensively, thus, with more time (years), as opposed to, for instance, "Wonder Woman 1984" or "Mission: Impossible - Falout". The road towards production (full pre-production) of a Bond-film is way (too) short(er) as compared to other blockbusters/action films. Yes, Craig announced exactly 2 years ago that he would be back. But until Danny Boyle joined as director nothing had been done script-wise. Neal Purvis & Robert Wade even admitted early 2018 that they didn't have any inspiration, because villains became to real (WTF :-O, Ian Fleming would have loved today's geopolitical climate!).

    Not to mention the fact that EON isn't planning ahead a bit further into the future with regard to contracting a director and a writer. It was one of the reasons why Denis Villeneuve couldn't commit, Danny Boyle became the 2nd choice and, in essence, Cary Fukunaga became some kind of 'emergency fixer' or 3rd choice director.

    I.....just don't get this. I just don't. Between november 2015 and august 2017 the only thing EON did was having a breaks. For personal reasons (Michael and Barbara love the stuff they do for Film Trusts and Tate Modern), but also for focussing in real Harry Saltzman-esque way on other non-Bond EON-films. In this intermediate period EON could have focused entirely on securing a new distribution deal, while at the same time working hard as early as 2016 with a director and writer to come up with the groundwork of Bond 25. They didn't.

    Still, NTTD can turn out a masterpiece. Despite the sad notion that Cary is a 3rd choice, he's one hell of a director who knows how to work under stress. So my complaints are not on Cary. On the contrary. But Barbara, Michael...….why :-S. Please…...as soon as NTTD has premiered go work your buts off finding a new Bond-actor (this will be Craig's last) and start pre-production during the spring/summer of 2020. Please!

    Also in retrospect: let's compare "Mission: Impossible - Fallout" with "SPECTRE":

    --> Filming of "SPECTRE" officially commenced December 8thth 2014 and premiered only 11 months later, November 2015.

    --> Filming of "M:I - Fallout" officially commenced April 8th 2017 and premiered a mere 15 months later, July 2018. Several salary negotiation delays and ankle injuries included.

    I mean, it's all about planning. EON makes it unnecessarily complicated by planning badly. Just have little more excruciatingly long in-between breaks, focus bit less on non-Bond EON productions, and…...plan better!
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,790
    Well, there's no point in campaigning against the filmmakers on this discussion board, is there.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    Well, there's no point in campaigning against the filmmakers on this discussion board, is there.

    But a good discussion about our beloved franchise is never bad :-). You call it "campaigning against the filmmakers". I call it "rooting for the Bond-franchise". And deep inside I think the filmmakers have that opinion too ;-).
  • Posts: 1,680
    Well, there's no point in campaigning against the filmmakers on this discussion board, is there.

    But a good discussion about our beloved franchise is never bad :-). You call it "campaigning against the filmmakers". I call it "rooting for the Bond-franchise". And deep inside I think the filmmakers have that opinion too ;-).
    As here and outlined above, well said! Eon wasted a good 2 years from November 2015-2017, all they did was lure Craig back. They didn’t get serious until April/ May 2018. They’ll have only worked on NTTD for two years when it’s all said and done.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,790
    Well, there's no point in campaigning against the filmmakers on this discussion board, is there.

    But a good discussion about our beloved franchise is never bad :-). You call it "campaigning against the filmmakers". I call it "rooting for the Bond-franchise". And deep inside I think the filmmakers have that opinion too ;-).
    Huh?
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Well, there's no point in campaigning against the filmmakers on this discussion board, is there.

    But a good discussion about our beloved franchise is never bad :-). You call it "campaigning against the filmmakers". I call it "rooting for the Bond-franchise". And deep inside I think the filmmakers have that opinion too ;-).
    As here and outlined above, well said! Eon wasted a good 2 years from November 2015-2017, all they did was lure Craig back. They didn’t get serious until April/ May 2018. They’ll have only worked on NTTD for two years when it’s all said and done.

    Now let me be clear, I'm now foremost rooting for a big critically and financially acclaimed success of "No Time To Die". We barely know a thing of the plot. Although I have a gut-feeling Rami Malek is gonna play a memorable Dr. Julius No...Time To Die (no pun intended ;-) hehe).
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    Also important, despite my honest worries about the Bond-franchise, I get happy when I see video's like these. The franchise to me isn't run in the best possible way, but once Barbara Broccoli & Michael Wilson are on set, they walk on sneakers, work hard. This doesn't nullify my criticism, but it shows that I'm not all pessimistic:
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited September 2019 Posts: 8,183
    EON is going to make the films how they want and when they want. As far back as GE, Wilson has claimed that they’re making the films on a one by one basis, treating each as if it may be the last because that’s the pace they’re comfortable with.

    And let’s be honest, the I:M films are making films at a faster rate at this time because Tom Cruise knows he can’t do this forever, and that’s why he’s doing a back to back deal. Prior to FALLOUT, he was only making the films every four to six years on his own pace. Now that he’s much older Paramount wants to milk as much before he bows out, and IMO to the detriment as I’m not even that big of a fan of FALLOUT and the series abandoning the concept of featuring a new director like with movies 1-5.
  • Posts: 1,314
    @GertGettler surely we don’t want a marvel style slate of saturation. I’m fine with a Bond every 3 years. It feels more like an event. Disney is a cash cow. Remakes, sequels, etc. It’s Coca Cola. Bond is a fine wine.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,179
    Matt007 wrote: »
    @GertGettler surely we don’t want a marvel style slate of saturation. I’m fine with a Bond every 3 years. It feels more like an event. Disney is a cash cow. Remakes, sequels, etc. It’s Coca Cola. Bond is a fine wine.

    Very well said! As soon as they start serializing the Bonds, pushing them off the assembly line one after the other, the magic will be gone.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    @GertGettler surely we don’t want a marvel style slate of saturation. I’m fine with a Bond every 3 years. It feels more like an event. Disney is a cash cow. Remakes, sequels, etc. It’s Coca Cola. Bond is a fine wine.

    Very well said! As soon as they start serializing the Bonds, pushing them off the assembly line one after the other, the magic will be gone.

    Massive +1.
  • RC7RC7
    edited September 2019 Posts: 10,512
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    @GertGettler surely we don’t want a marvel style slate of saturation. I’m fine with a Bond every 3 years. It feels more like an event. Disney is a cash cow. Remakes, sequels, etc. It’s Coca Cola. Bond is a fine wine.

    Very well said! As soon as they start serializing the Bonds, pushing them off the assembly line one after the other, the magic will be gone.

    Agreed. Thankfully EON get this. The wider audience doesn’t expect Bond to be an omnipotent presence ala Disney.

    @GertGettler - your post is littered with factual inaccuracies and conjecture. To say no work had been done pre-Boyle is incorrect. I know of a writer who was contacted as early as 2016 to work on what would be B25.

    I get you’re annoyed but let’s get some perspective in here. The cinematic landscape has changed dramatically since the Cubby days and they’ve had to retool to accommodate that.

    Besides, this same argument has been ongoing from a certain subsection of the fan base for years. One things for sure, no amount of bleating on here or anywhere else will change it. It really is a case of getting used to it and enjoying what we do get or, sadly, moving on.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,179
    I can't believe the lack of gratitude some so-called fans are showing.

    "Thank you, dear wife, for giving me three such beautiful children. Now, when is the next one coming? Not until a few years from now? I'm sorry that's unacceptable! You're an incompetent wife and I should probably divorce you."

    Twenty-four movies, with a twenty-fifth one coming up soon, and still people get in a temper tantrum... Because the twenty-fifth didn't come soon enough... Go figure.

    “Unhappiness is a contagious disease caused by a chronic deficiency of gratitude.”
    (M. Mokhonoana)
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    Matt007 wrote: »
    @GertGettler surely we don’t want a marvel style slate of saturation. I’m fine with a Bond every 3 years. It feels more like an event. Disney is a cash cow. Remakes, sequels, etc. It’s Coca Cola. Bond is a fine wine.

    Fine wine I like it
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 19,339
    Matt007 wrote: »
    @GertGettler surely we don’t want a marvel style slate of saturation. I’m fine with a Bond every 3 years. It feels more like an event. Disney is a cash cow. Remakes, sequels, etc. It’s Coca Cola. Bond is a fine wine.

    Fine wine I like it

    The anticipation of finding out the title,catching short video clips,announcements and just general chit chat about what the film will be,is half of the fun and 2-3 years means this can happen .

    Any earlier and the quality will drop as will the level of interest and enthusiasm from all concerned - viewing public,actors,crew etc .

    Bond is an EVENT.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited September 2019 Posts: 8,183
    I get the desire for wanting more Bond films like in the Cubby days, and using the ROI idea is one way to push for that. However, I don’t think Mike and Babs are as profit driven as Cubby was. They’re very ridiculously rich as it is, and perhaps (just my guess) they’re the kind of filmmakers that are far more interested in how the actual film shapes up than whether it makes back twice as much at the box office as they actually spent. Of course I’m sure they’d like to make a profit off it, it’s just not as big of a priority. If it were, I highly doubt they would have made some of the esoteric choices they made since taking over from Cubby, like hiring Daniel Craig. Had Marvel/Disney made Bond films, I don’t think Daniel Craig would have never come close to the Bond role in any way. We certainly would never get a film as unique as SKYFALL by a production company like Marvel. That’s what I like about EON. It makes them unique in that regard. We may only get a three films a decade out of them compared to the Cubby years giving five, but I’ve liked what we got out of them for the most part.

    If you wanna interpret that as them spitting on the fans and on Cubby’s grave, whatever man.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,179
    I get the desire for wanting more Bond films like in the Cubby days, and using the ROI idea is one way to push for that. However, I don’t think Mike and Babs are as profit driven as Cubby was. They’re very ridiculously rich as it is, and perhaps (just my guess) they’re the kind of filmmakers that are far more interested in how the actual film shapes up than whether it makes back twice as much at the box office as they actually spent. Of course I’m sure they’d like to make a profit off it, it’s just not as big of a priority. If it were, I highly doubt they would have made some of the esoteric choices they made since taking over from Cubby, like hiring Daniel Craig. Had Marvel/Disney made Bond films, I don’t think Daniel Craig would have never come close to the Bond role in any way. We certainly would never get a film as unique as SKYFALL by a production company like Marvel. That’s what I like about EON. It makes them unique in that regard. We may only get a three films a decade out of them compared to the Cubby years giving five, but I’ve liked what we got out of them for the most part.

    If you wanna interpret that as them spitting on the fans and on Cubby’s grave, whatever man.

    Agreed on everything. Brocolli and Wilson may be stupid rich, but their heart is in the right place. They are still going after quality before quantity, control instead of selling out, keeping it within the family rather than letting too many suits ruin the business. I firmly believe that to them it's much more a family heirloom than it is a "franchise". Coca Cola is a franchise. Disney owns many franchises. But EON's Bond, while a guaranteed money-making machine, is first and foremost a legacy that still manages to negotiate the obstacles and traps of the modern film business. People complain about Barbara listening to Craig like he owns her. Even if that's true, it has so far done them more good than bad, given the overall quality of the Craig era Bonds. What frustrates some is that Craig, according to them, keeps EON from making many more Bond films in 14 years than a mere 5. I don't think that's the complete picture, though. It's not like Craig is very busy otherwise, or overbooked. His career outside the Bond series isn't hitting too many high bars. Whatever Craig's own temper, he too benefits from a few more Bonds on his resumé. I have given up arguing with the cynics, but I honestly think a lot of views on the EON-Craig business plans and mission statements are lacking in nuance and data.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    Matt007 wrote: »
    @GertGettler surely we don’t want a marvel style slate of saturation. I’m fine with a Bond every 3 years. It feels more like an event. Disney is a cash cow. Remakes, sequels, etc. It’s Coca Cola. Bond is a fine wine.
    That's not well said, because I never implied something as such. Never. If one reads my article......properly.....than my worries are about how the Bond-franchise is managed, financially and organizationaly. No one mentions that here, but that is indeed a big weakness of the franchise. What I did say was something like this: we could learn a thing or two about the passion with which producers like Kevin Feige, Tom Cruise and Kathleen Kennedy treat their love babies. NOT that Bond should now suddenly make 3 (!!) Bond films per year. That's ridiculous nonsense. However the problems I laid out are real, and for me loving the Bond-franchise so much, I do hope certain important financial ratios improve through strong hands-on, top-down producers management. That's all basically. And I wanna bet deep in their veins most Bond fans agree. Time to wrap up your sleeves and begin production of Bond 26 as early as late 2020! Stop wasting time on non-Bond stuff. Plan your beloved Bond baby better. And stop thinking that the current conservative mojo about Bond-filmmaking is the best. Observe, find the passion for making Bond films and get on with it dammit 🙂.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,179
    I believe I really did comment on that, @GertGettler, just two posts above.
Sign In or Register to comment.