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

11617192122172

Comments

  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    I predict Bond 25's box office tally to be $650-700.

    Remember, Danny Boyle is a very uncommercial filmmaker. He's had a great track record of making unprofitable films.

    Yes, Star Wars IX will take a huge chunk of the b.o. But WW84 could possibly destroy Bond at the b.o. There is a very good chance that WW84 holds over and Bond doesn't win its opening weekend. No one is really asking for Bond 25; everyone is waiting with baited breath for the next superhero movie.

    Daniel Craig isn't exactly a "star" and the Bond franchise doesn't have strong legs in the USA. Meanwhile, Gal Gadot can work the press circuit and will go on another charisma warpath and sell WW84. The last film made $412,563,408 in the USA (that's more than double the amount that SP made).

    Though it would be oddly just for a misogynistic icon of a forgotten-era getting beaten by a feminist and progressive film character - imagine the think pieces online.

    Now, I know that idea can be a little depressing to our more conservative and less open-minded members, so now would be a perfect time to post a picture of Gal Gadot just to distract from the pain.

    gal-gadot-at-warner-bros-presentation-during-comic-con-in-san-diego_1.jpg

    Why are you actually 'worrying' about box office figures if I may ask @Pierce2Daniel ;-)? I think $950 Million to just scratching the $1 Billion mark is entirely possible. But it all comes down to the film being profitable as well, which SP barely was.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 678
    I don't get why some simply insist on bringing quality into this topic. This is the box office thread. Of course a box office hit doesn't guarantee quality but that's besides the point of this very thread. And I personally think @GertGettler articulated well how different things can catch a zeitgeist with Bond, attracting a bigger audience isn't equivalent with selling out the dna of Bond, as Skyfall made evident.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,135
    What you seem to want is for EON to change the way they do business. After all it is a business. They're in it too make money.
    That can't be influenced by us as moviegoing public. Only if the films continually made less and less money on there ROI ;)
    But to change that would require the need for everyone across the world not to want to see the next Bond film. :-O
    EON do things on their terms. They've always done that. It's the way they run their business.
    They're the Harrods to all the other department stores. ;)
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    I don't get why some simply insist on bringing quality into this topic. This is the box office thread. Of course a box office hit doesn't guarantee quality but that's besides the point of this very thread. And I personally think @GertGettler articulated well how different things can catch a zeitgeist with Bond, attracting a bigger audience isn't equivalent with selling out the dna of Bond, as Skyfall made evident.

    Thanks @FrankXavier. You summarize it perfectly.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,179
    Why are you actually 'worrying' about box office figures if I may ask @Pierce2Daniel ;-)? I think $950 Million to just scratching the $1 Billion mark is entirely possible. But it all comes down to the film being profitable as well, which SP barely was.

    It will get its money back, don't worry. BR and DVD boxes continue to be sold containing all the Bonds or just the Craig Bonds, and it'll keep going on like that for a long, long time. Eventually, even SP will profit from that indirect income.
    I don't get why some simply insist on bringing quality into this topic. This is the box office thread. Of course a box office hit doesn't guarantee quality but that's besides the point of this very thread. And I personally think @GertGettler articulated well how different things can catch a zeitgeist with Bond, attracting a bigger audience isn't equivalent with selling out the dna of Bond, as Skyfall made evident.

    It works both ways, I guess. Some insist that SP's lower ROI is definitive proof of the film's lower quality. Others warn that even a great Bond film mightn't make a billion dollars. I believe it's normal for such things to be discussed in this thread. We're certainly not going to open up another thread for a discussion about whether or not the BO takes of a Bond film and its quality are causally related. That discussion will have to happen here too.
  • RC7RC7
    edited September 2019 Posts: 10,512
    I don't get why some simply insist on bringing quality into this topic. This is the box office thread. Of course a box office hit doesn't guarantee quality but that's besides the point of this very thread. And I personally think @GertGettler articulated well how different things can catch a zeitgeist with Bond, attracting a bigger audience isn't equivalent with selling out the dna of Bond, as Skyfall made evident.

    If that was the point being made I certainly didn’t catch it and I don’t think anyone here would disagree on the positivity of Bond capturing the zeitgeist - but you don’t capture the zeitgeist by the way you structure the company, or by streamlining your budget, and the two seem to have been conflated here. The whole concept of capturing the zeitgeist is by its nature abstract, and not something you can directly influence. You can make shrewd creative decisions, but you can’t guarantee the result. It’s like when businesses ask a creative agency to ‘make them a viral video’, it’s the same as saying ‘make me a hit film’, it’s a ludicrous request.

    Lest we forget the furore around NTTD and Lashana Lynch’s involvement. The producers are tapping into something with this character, something very current, whether they pull it off is anyone’s guess but it’s a creative decision that (if we’re to be believe the rumours) could prove divisive, so suggesting people ‘don’t want anything to be changed’ is besides the point. Things are changing, because EON, despite opinions to the contrary are the most creatively ‘open’ they’ve ever been.

    And of course, these sorts of creative choices are EON’s way of saying to the younger audience, we aren’t stuck in the past. So when we talk of broadening the audience, it’s not about restructuring the business to push social media channels, spin-offs and toys it’s about producing a movie, the essence of which resonates with as broad an audience as possible. A tricky feat of plate spinning. SF did it perfectly and it will happen again. Maybe not with NTTD, but it will happen again. EON will continue to evolve, but there’s no revolution necessary here.

    RC7 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Very well said, Benster!

    If the "billion-dollar BO takes" is suddenly a criterium, then Bond is out of his game. SF was a freak accident, an undisputed success but also a special case. And it's fine if that success isn't repeated soon.

    For a long time, MR held the record. None of the '80s films came close. Were they worse than MR? Were they rejected by audiences? No, of course not. But MR was a big hit, one of the few Bonds beefed up to be able to play with the big boys up there in the stars. A Bond on steroids, but not the norm.

    My point is that Bond doesn't have to go for "ultra". Bond is Bond, a special something for a special occasion. Bond is when you dress up nicely, take the wife out for dinner, then to see the movie, then to go home and make love and the next morning call your boss and tell him you won't be coming in today. The excitement is not in the mega-event that brings every teen, tween and adult to the theatre for a Red Bull induced stupor and a guaranteed billion-plus milestone; the excitement is in being a part of something that has inspired generations.

    When people say, "I was there, opening night, for The Excorcist", I go, "wow, I'm jealous". But when people say, "I was there, opening night, for The Spy Who Loved Me", I go, "I wish I could have experienced that moment" and bloody mean it.

    First of all, I reckon this topic is about a plain simple subject: box office talks. But I tried to make a point here that talking without any perspective about '$1 Billion Dollar Bond's' is pretty senseless really. There are more aspects to take into consideration.

    Regardless of that, box office talks should not blindly be connected with its quality. And I'm sorry but it's a bit sad that this is being blown up a bit. It can very well happen that a high-quality film fails to deliver at the box office, while a bad film simply can create a 'click' and becomes a huge box office hit.

    So I actually agree with you @DarthDimi: my point is as well that Bond should not just blindly go for "ultra". Bond is Bond, and history shows that mild changes and a certain mild dose of 're-inventing the wheel' can do wonders. "Die Another Day" did that by applying the larger-than-life quality of "Moonraker". It worked. It was a huge box office hit. And it stayed a pure Bond-film with all elements of the Bond-formula.

    But so did "Casino Royale". It went back-to-basics, it was a certain reboot, and by getting 'back to Earth', going back to the Fleming novel, it was a different film than "DAD". But the big audience loved it. It was a huge box office hit. Despite re-inventing elements, it was in its core a pure Bond-film.

    What I disagree with, is how you see the Bond-films only as a limited event for those people who dress up nicely, take the wife out for dinner, etc. That's just being romantic. And I think we all know that if Bond only focuses on an audience like that, then it will be problematic.

    Bond is an event film with red carpet premieres of mass proportions across the globe. Fact. Bond is foremost escapism too, and if you say that it's not EON's task to make sure that also families and kids go to see a Bond-film, than that does not bode well for the future. Even kids like escapism. And even kids love to indulge in thoughts that are about luxury casino settings in black-tie, or being handed over an Aston Martin by the company.

    So all I say is this: Bond can do both, appeal to the young and old, appeal to women and men. And Bond has always done that. It never helped by sticking the head in the sand and not trying to appeal to large audiences. You can do both, create a wonderful Bond-film with all its formula-elements applied and strengthening the Bond-brand for the future by doing something about financial and organizational matters.

    And again, this is a box office topic. Saying one thing does not mean instantly that you can't agree with other things :-).

    I don’t really understand the point you’re making, if there is one? These films will attract families and children in the way they always have, so nothing has changed there. What’s changed is the landscape, where certain franchises now acutely target a younger demographic. That isn’t Bond’s business. Of course, they aren’t going to push that market away, but there’s no reason for them to prioritise it over others either. This will be a thrilling event movie for ‘everyone’ (with good taste of course - and you can’t force that).

    My points were:

    --> Discuss the box office figures with more perspective (if you enjoy being in this topic), taking into account not just grosses, but also profits and ROI.
    --> Deliver some good ideas on how the Bond-franchise can improve itself in the long-term future (10 to 15 years from now or so), even if you are conservative and want nothing to be changed).
    --> Managing and planning pre-production of Bond-films better in a post-Craig environment (stop these long breaks when an actor is asking for it, no non-Bond productions, positively influencing social media (yeah you MGM!), contracting directors in a much earlier phase...if you want A-list directors, restructuring ownership).
    --> Making budgets more lean (The Bond films are doing something wrong to that respect when compared to other action blockbusters).

    Look @RC7. This is a box-office topic. I am fascinated about the financial and business side of filmmaking. You can say "why bother worrying if you can't influence it". But like in other topics, in which we criticize Bond-films from other (quality) perspectives (story, acting, etc), we are also unable to influence those aspects (I mean, would you say that fan art is also a useless thing, because those fan designs won't be used anyway by the Bond producers?). We are on this forums to show off our opinions about Bond, how useless and time-inefficient being on a forum sometimes may seem (I for instance couldn't stop my urge not to return here, because "No Time To Die" is premiering soon :-D!).

    In my case, and in the case of this topic: I just disagree with the notion that the Bond-franchise should be a solid unchangeable thing. I disagree with the fact that a proven success story should therefore not be tampered with (Bond can also make itself irrelevant in the long-term).

    I think there's a lot that needs to be improved about the Bond-franchise. Many people don't like to hear it, or skip this topic because of it. Fine. But I'm not the kind of guy that blindly agrees how the producers do these Bond-films. The Bond-brand will never die, but it can be mothballed randomly for years. And then obviously it's an event film, but for all the sinister reasons. Bond shouldn't be mothballed for such long periods. The more profits a new Bond-film makes, the more the producers can do to proactively create more of these 'thrilling event movies' decades to come.

    I’m not sure ‘fan art’ is the best comparison. It’s a very pure expression of passion for the series. Much like anything fan created, now and again it can really stir the senses and is a positive way of connecting fans and it’s not a platform for pomposity, or posturing. People don’t get into protracted discussions about the minutiae of art. It’s just an excuse for people to exchange ideas that either stick or don’t.

    Personally I’d love to see some evidence and findings that back up your fears, because a lot of it feels like hot air. Saying EON shouldn’t do anything outside Bond is fruitless. How do people respond to that? EON have always done that.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    edited September 2019 Posts: 431
    Let's agree to disagree fully then @RC7 and @DarthDimi. You call it, to summarize, 'hot air' @RC7, I don't. You try to black-and-white the discussion into 'the Bond franchise isn't in danger of self-destruct itself'. I never said that. Anyway, lovely to see how lively this discussion is 🙂.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Let's agree to disagree fully then @RC7 and @DarthDimi. You call it, to summarize, 'hot air' @RC7, I don't. You try to black-and-white the discussion into 'the Bond franchise isn't in danger of self-destruct itself'. I never said that. Anyway, lovely to see how lively this discussion is 🙂.

    But can you put any hard evidence on the table that a shorter period between movies would be better financially/critically? Or that a more aggressive social media strategy would somehow transform their fortunes. Or explain how a leaner budget would contribute? In one breath you’re talking about contracting ‘A-list’ directors early doors, and in the next cutting the budget. That’s like hiring a top tier football manager and telling him he can’t have what the last guy had.

    You’ve also not answered my question about non-Marvel attempts at long-term planning. No one has followed through thus far. The market moves too quickly. It’s all well and good mapping out a 10 year plan, but if it f**** up in year one where do you go? This is why I’m all for EON’s reactive way of working. The B25 we will get next year is not the B25 we would’ve got in 2017, for example, and that’s exactly how it should be.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    edited September 2019 Posts: 431
    RC7 wrote: »
    Let's agree to disagree fully then @RC7 and @DarthDimi. You call it, to summarize, 'hot air' @RC7, I don't. You try to black-and-white the discussion into 'the Bond franchise isn't in danger of self-destruct itself'. I never said that. Anyway, lovely to see how lively this discussion is 🙂.

    But can you put any hard evidence on the table that a shorter period between movies would be better financially/critically? Or that a more aggressive social media strategy would somehow transform their fortunes. Or explain how a leaner budget would contribute? In one breath you’re talking about contracting ‘A-list’ directors early doors, and in the next cutting the budget. That’s like hiring a top tier football manager and telling him he can’t have what the last guy had.

    You’ve also not answered my question about non-Marvel attempts at long-term planning. No one has followed through thus far. The market moves too quickly. It’s all well and good mapping out a 10 year plan, but if it f**** up in year one where do you go? This is why I’m all for EON’s reactive way of working. The B25 we will get next year is not the B25 we would’ve got in 2017, for example, and that’s exactly how it should be.

    Look, I am not working in the industry. All I can do is finding some evidence, as featured in my article for Bill Koenig's Spy Command blog (you might listen to the Bond & Friends podcast from MI6-hq.com where he is commenting on many occasions). I did a hefty amount of research, spent quite some hours of my free time to write it.

    So the evidence is really in the figures I calculated. Comment on that first. Here is it: https://spycommandfeatures.wordpress.com/bond-confronting-changing-media/

    Shorter period between movies
    As such it is never a black-and-white co-figure that improves the franchise financially. Again, read my article, and in there, to which you barely refer in detail, you will find I haven't used this ingrediënt to back up my conclusions. However, I do think that if you willingly make breaks between Bond-films bigger (due to disinterest of the Bond-producers, spending time on movies like "The Rhythmn Section" and "Film Stars Don't Die In Liverpool"), then the Bond-brand looses relevance in the long-term, then it could slowly be forgotten in our 'collective pop culture consciousness'. Is it hard evidence? No. But you could find lots of indirect factors that contribute to that notion.

    Aggressive social media strategy
    I think I haven't used the term 'agressive' with this (correct me if I'm wrong). All I think is it could not hurt the franchise to apply a more positive social media strategy to the franchise, a more strategically publicity machine. Back in 2015 many critics mentioned the SonyLeaks in one breath with other elements in their reviews. Not to mention the "Slash my wrists"-comments. That's certainly not positive publicity. So I would like to see, post-Craig, a Bond-actor who's a bit more involved with the Bond-fan community (Instagram, attendance at Comic-Con, etc). Will it be the evidence you want? No. But it certainly wouldn't hurt the franchise either (By the way, are you taken me that seriously, thinking you will get that hard evidence from me?)

    Leaner budgets
    Really my dear @RC7 :-). I'm not going to repeat these arguments again. Read this and if you are so kind, leave a comment on there, on Bill Koenig's Spy Command blog. He's a great chap: https://spycommandfeatures.wordpress.com/bond-confronting-changing-media/

    Contracting ‘A-list’ directors vs. cutting down budgets
    I was indeed talking about A-list directors, but I don't give a dime about a director being A-list or B- C- or Z-list. That's beside the point. All I ask for is planning better, contracting cast & crew earlier in the process of such a huge production. Barbara Broccoli, Michael Wilson and Daniel Craig were basically adamant at hiring Denis Villeneuve. Those negotiations were going wrong for several reasons, most importantly due to scheduling conflicts. So then you go picking up a Bond 25-director from a large pool of other possibilities: Danny Boyle, Yann Demange, Bart Layton, David Mackenzie, Cary Fukunaga, S.J. Clarkson. All we got was huge delays, because A) EON was that late in the process so adamant at hiring another A-List director (Boyle) and B) willingly went ahead with Boyle knowing he had already scheduling conflicts. In the end we got -sorry for saying this and I have the uttermost respect for Fukunaga- 3rd choice Cary Fukunaga. Why! It costs millions to rent space at Pinewood and even more money to keep the space at Pinewood available for that long. Not to mention lump sum payments that already this early in pre-production had to be paid out to John Hodge and Danny Boyle. I call that irresponsible management, it's an inefficient use of money. Looking back at it, I wonder why EON did not hire supertalent, and cheaper-to-contract Cary Fukunaga straight away late 2017. A-list directors are never guarantee for movie success or getting critical acclaim. We saw that with Sam Mendes.

    Non-Marvel attempts to plan long-term
    If I compare with other franchises, like "The Fast & The Furious" or "Mission: Impossible", it's to make a point. Planning and scheduling in a responsible and efficient way never hurts. It perhaps even helps paving the way for efficient use of time in the creative process. You say "No one has followed through". Wrong. Paramount ("Mission: Impossible") and Universal ("Fast & Furious") are doing it slightly better. Is it hard evidence to back up my claims to improve the franchise financially. Damn, off course not. But it does help.

    EON’s reactive way of working
    Can you actually give proof or hard evidence that this style of filmmaking is better for the franchise than how I perceive filmmaking? Again, read https://spycommandfeatures.wordpress.com/bond-confronting-changing-media/ and there's enough evidence why I think your notion is much more flawed than mine. My adage is: Improve the Bond-franchise financially and management-wise were possible. Your conclusion is: Don't change anything, keep the Bond-franchise like it is. In Hollywood, in blockbuster-land, the latter is in my opinion a far more risky approach for the long-term longevity and legacy of the Bond-franchise (15, 20 years into the future). I prefer a super-healthy Bond-franchise for everyone over an inefficiently managed Bond-franchise that only pleases us, forummembers, once every 4/5 years. And you know what, it might even result in a damn good Bond-film :-).

    Now @RC7? I am going to make some food. I think I have articulated and written my answers to your questions in a good way. I am not going to respond in a follow-up to your answer, because that'll take me another hour or more hehe. If you still have unanswered questions, or if you still disagree with me, then let it be. Like I said, I don't think I am selling 'hot air', but currently my pizza does need some hot air hehe. Again, let's agree to disagree, because we obviously have different opinions about how we perceive the franchise.

    Lastly, this is a box-office topic. With both our opinions there isn't rockhard evidence to show. All I can do is investigating financial figures at my best ability and draw some conclusions from that. In the end we are outsiders in the movie business (ask @antovolk, as he hass studied film business, or @FrankXavier) who love to spend (way too much) time on forums hehe. So again, you have to do it with this answer :-).
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    With all due respect I did read the article @GertGettler, and while some of it resonates for example, establishing a slightly more consistent schedule, other points don’t.

    You compare to ROI of Spectre with Black Panther, which is completely disingenuous. That film was a cultural phenomenon that, and let’s not beat around the bush here, only needed to be half decent to be a complete smash. Marvel were able to use the already huge goodwill around their series to build hype. If Black Panther 25 is delivering similar ROI, I’ll hold my hands up.

    Bond is the oldest of the film series’ out there. It wasn’t created as a commercial juggernaut, it became one, unlike the next oldest, SW, which Lucas shrewdly realised would be a cash cow through other commercial channels. Do we have any figures on the ROI of the new sequels? Because I’m not sure they’ll be tipping the scales either.

    For me it’s not as simple as following the trend of diversifying. Bond isn’t a universe, so it doesn’t immediately lend itself to expansion. Most of the key characters exist in the same insular world of espionage. With Marvel you have a plethora of characters across all ages, races, species and generations, with vastly different backgrounds that slot into a multitude of genres. Likewise in SW you have a literal universe to explore. If the general public are crying out for a Nomi movie post-NTTD, I’ll reconsider.

    The closest to Bond in terms of genre is M:I. And while they may have a TV series in the works I’m hardly expecting it to set the world of multimedia alight. They too don’t have the channels that the heavyweights above have to exploit. Yes, perhaps Bond could follow a similar path, but seriously, would the profitability exponentially grow enough to justify it. It’s equally possible you risk diluting the brand. It doesn’t seem to me like it’s a case of taking Bond to the ‘next level’ - there’s a ceiling on it. It’s about understanding what it is and what it means to people.

    So, while a bod at Apple (itself new to the game) might feel Bond is underdeveloped, do they truly understand what makes Bond work in the modern landscape? It seems to me that too many people have their Marvel-tinted spectacles on and the hubris to believe they can replicate that model.

    When the majority of your fan base are either against or ambivalent towards spin-offs of any form, what makes an exec think the general audience would be champing at the bit?

    Lastly, on the subject of figures - let’s not forget that Hollywood is notoriously opaque when it comes to finances - Hollywood accounting, as it’s known. Most supposed ‘budgets’ are nothing of the sort, likewise the true profits are usually hidden. So while your ROI might seem interesting they’re not bullet-proof. They also follow a trend that suggests they drop off loosely chronologically, bar a few spikes here and there, suggesting to me it’s the market that changes. Your modern day DN is Deadpool, but let’s see if Deadpool 25 is running the same ROI.

    Anyhow, I’m not sure we’ll agree on this so I shall bow out.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    edited September 2019 Posts: 431
    In all honesty? I really like your response. Thanks for reading my article. Indeed, it's not that black-and-white either. Perhaps there's some truth in both our replies. It will be fascinating to see what NTTD does.

    In all honesty, NTTD has almost 3,5 with no real competition until "Black Widow" premieres. So I bet NTTD might surprise some people with regard to box office gross. Do you have some guesses about that @RC7 ? I really think $100 Million less compared to "Skyfall" is a true possibility. Which means (barely) a $1.0 Billion film. Then with a budget that's slightly more trimmed compared to "SPECTRE", "No Time To Die" might be the film that urges EON to make a new one a bit faster (within 3 years).
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    edited September 2019 Posts: 431
    So, after having looked into great detail into the finances of the Bond-franchise, and how important it is to investigate the real-time investments (production budget) to get an idea how succesful a movie financially should be to properly gain profits, now time for some good old-fashioned box office predictions :-P.

    I have to say though, 2020 seems to become a way less competitive year when compared to this year and 2018. There's no real huge Marvel 'event'-film like "The Avengers". And the Marvel films that do appear are all lesser known characters. Hence I think Bond 25 "No Time To Die" has a way more serious shot to (just) pass the $1 Billion mark. Especially when you look at the rest of the month April 2020. So, how weird this may sound, Disney might face some stiff competition in 2020 from agent 007 :-O :

    01 ● $1,300 Billion ● DC's "Wonder Woman 1984" (WB)
    ▬ $0140 Million: box office gross China
    ▬ $0505 Million: box office gross US/Canada
    ▬ $0655 Million: box office gross Rest of the world

    02 ● $1,225 Billion ● Marvel's "Black Widow" (Disney)
    ▬ $0175 Million: box office gross China
    ▬ $0430 Million: box office gross US/Canada
    ▬ $0620 Million: box office gross Rest of the world

    03 ● $1,200 Billion ● "Minions 2: The Rise Of Gru" (Universal)
    ▬ $0075 Million: box office gross China
    ▬ $0480 Million: box office gross US/Canada
    ▬ $0645 Million: box office gross Rest of the world

    04 ● $1,150 Billion ● "Fast & Furious 9" (Universal)
    ▬ $0255 Million: box office gross China
    ▬ $0325 Million: box office gross US/Canada
    ▬ $0570 Million: box office gross Rest of the world

    05 ● $1,090 Billion ● Marvel's "Eternals" (Disney)
    ▬ $0110 Million: box office gross China
    ▬ $0375 Million: box office gross US/Canada
    ▬ $0605 Million: box office gross Rest of the world

    06 ● $1,025 Billion ● Bond 25 "No Time To Die" (MGM/Universal)
    ▬ $0160 Million: box office gross China
    ▬ $0235 Million: box office gross US/Canada
    ▬ $0630 Million: box office gross Rest of the world

    07 ● $ 945 Million ● Live-Action Remake "Mulan" (Disney)
    ▬ $0090 Million: box office gross China
    ▬ $0390 Million: box office gross US/Canada
    ▬ $0465 Million: box office gross Rest of the world

    08 ● $ 900 Million ● Untitled Marvel Project (most likely "Venom 2 ") (Sony, October 2020)
    ▬ $0290 Million: box office gross China
    ▬ $0190 Million: box office gross US/Canada
    ▬ $0420 Million: box office gross Rest of the world

    09 ● $ 875 Million ● Pixar's "Onward" (Disney)
    ▬ $0055 Million: box office gross China
    ▬ $0455 Million: box office gross US/Canada
    ▬ $0365 Million: box office gross Rest of the world

    10 ● $ 810 Million ● Marvel's "Morbius" (Sony)
    ▬ $0200 Million: box office gross China
    ▬ $0310 Million: box office gross US/Canada
    ▬ $0300 Million: box office gross Rest of the world

    11 ● $ 780 Million ● Pixar's/Pete Docter's "Soul" (Disney)
    12 ● $ 720 Million ● DC's "Harley Quinn: Birds Of Prey" (WB)
    13 ● $ 675 Million ● Marvel's "New Mutants" (20th Century Fox)
    14 ● $ 650 Million ● Christopher Nolan's "Tenet" (WB)
    15 ● $ 610 Million ● "Godzilla Vs. Kong" (WB)
    16 ● $ 585 Million ● "Top Gun: Maverick" (Paramount)
    17 ● $ 545 Million ● Disney's "Jungle Cruise" (Disney)
    18 ● $ 485 Million ● Marv's "The King's Man" (20th Century Fox)
    19 ● $ 465 Million ● Denis Villeneuve's "Dune" (WB)
    20 ● $ 425 Million ● Steven Spielberg's "West Side Story" (20th Century Fox)
    21 ● $ 350 Million ● "Bad Boys: For Life" (Sony)
    22 ● $ 325 Million ● "Ghostbusters 2020" (Sony)
  • @GertGettler are these your predictions or someone else's? Because I seriously doubt that Black Widow and WW '84 will make $1 billion each.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    So, after having looked into great detail into the finances of the Bond-franchise, and how important it is to investigate the real-time investments (production budget) to get an idea how succesful a movie financially should be to properly gain profits, now time for some good old-fashioned box office predictions :-P.

    I have to say though, 2020 seems to become a way less competitive year when compared to this year and 2018. There's no real huge Marvel 'event'-film like "The Avengers". And the Marvel films that do appear are all lesser known characters. Hence I think Bond 25 "No Time To Die" has a way more serious shot to (just) pass the $1 Billion mark. Especially when you look at the rest of the month April 2020. So, how weird this may sound, Disney might face some stiff competition in 2020 from agent 007 :-O :

    01 ● $1,300 Billion ● DC's "Wonder Woman 1984" (WB)
    ▬ $0140 Million: box office gross China
    ▬ $0505 Million: box office gross US/Canada
    ▬ $0655 Million: box office gross Rest of the world

    02 ● $1,225 Billion ● Marvel's "Black Widow" (Disney)
    ▬ $0175 Million: box office gross China
    ▬ $0430 Million: box office gross US/Canada
    ▬ $0620 Million: box office gross Rest of the world

    03 ● $1,200 Billion ● "Minions 2: The Rise Of Gru" (Universal)
    ▬ $0075 Million: box office gross China
    ▬ $0480 Million: box office gross US/Canada
    ▬ $0645 Million: box office gross Rest of the world

    04 ● $1,150 Billion ● "Fast & Furious 9" (Universal)
    ▬ $0255 Million: box office gross China
    ▬ $0325 Million: box office gross US/Canada
    ▬ $0570 Million: box office gross Rest of the world

    05 ● $1,090 Billion ● Marvel's "Eternals" (Disney)
    ▬ $0110 Million: box office gross China
    ▬ $0375 Million: box office gross US/Canada
    ▬ $0605 Million: box office gross Rest of the world

    06 ● $1,025 Billion ● Bond 25 "No Time To Die" (MGM/Universal)
    ▬ $0160 Million: box office gross China
    ▬ $0235 Million: box office gross US/Canada
    ▬ $0630 Million: box office gross Rest of the world

    07 ● $ 945 Million ● Live-Action Remake "Mulan" (Disney)
    ▬ $0090 Million: box office gross China
    ▬ $0390 Million: box office gross US/Canada
    ▬ $0465 Million: box office gross Rest of the world

    08 ● $ 875 Million ● Pixar's "Onward" (Disney)
    ▬ $0055 Million: box office gross China
    ▬ $0455 Million: box office gross US/Canada
    ▬ $0365 Million: box office gross Rest of the world

    09 ● $ 810 Million ● Marvel's "Morbius" (Sony)
    ▬ $0200 Million: box office gross China
    ▬ $0310 Million: box office gross US/Canada
    ▬ $0300 Million: box office gross Rest of the world

    10 ● $ 780 Million ● Pixar's/Pete Docter's "Soul" (Disney)
    ▬ $0040 Million: box office gross China
    ▬ $0400 Million: box office gross US/Canada
    ▬ $0340 Million: box office gross Rest of the world


    11 ● $ 735 Million ● "Untitled Marvel Project" (Sony, October 2020)
    12 ● $ 720 Million ● DC's "Harley Quinn: Birds Of Prey" (WB)
    13 ● $ 675 Million ● Marvel's "New Mutants" (20th Century Fox)
    14 ● $ 650 Million ● Christopher Nolan's "Tenet" (WB)
    15 ● $ 610 Million ● "Godzilla Vs. Kong" (WB)
    16 ● $ 585 Million ● "Top Gun: Maverick" (Paramount)
    17 ● $ 545 Million ● Disney's "Jungle Cruise" (Disney)
    18 ● $ 485 Million ● Marv's "The King's Man" (20th Century Fox)
    19 ● $ 465 Million ● Denis Villeneuve's "Dune" (WB)
    20 ● $ 425 Million ● Steven Spielberg's "West Side Story" (20th Century Fox)
    21 ● $ 350 Million ● "Bad Boys: For Life" (Sony)
    22 ● $ 325 Million ● "Ghostbusters 2020" (Sony)

    That's very impressive, but I am going to say something which may sound very stupid to most.
    Bond25 will be highest grossing film of 2020 :P just like:
    From Russia with love (1963)
    Goldfinger (1964)
    Diamonds are forever (1971)
    MOONRAKER (1979)
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,790
    happy-feet-penguin-clipart-1.thumb.jpg.20dd931d9cd8c47df0de2e4ca183ce08.jpg
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    That's very impressive, but I am going to say something which may sound very stupid to most.
    Bond25 will be highest grossing film of 2020 :P just like:
    From Russia with love (1963)
    Goldfinger (1964)
    Diamonds are forever (1971)
    MOONRAKER (1979)

    Actually, looking at the entire 2020 release schedule, I really can't see any of them easily surpassing the $1.3 Billion mark. There's no "Star Wars 7" ($2.0 Billion in 2015), "Jurassic World" ($1.6 Billion in 2015) "Star Wars 8" ($1.4 Billion in 2017), "Avengers 3" ($2.0 Billion in 2018), "Lion King" ($1.7 Billion at the end of 2019), or "Avengers: Endgame" ($2.7 Billion this year). None of the 2020 blockbusters have this little 'extra' at this stage.

    So it could be very well possible that "No Time To Die" will end up in the global TOP 4 list. But the film won't surpass "Skyfall". Or barely.

    I think "Wonder Woman 2" and "Black Widow" will do best within their cinematic universes. "Wonder Woman 2" because its predecessor earned the best critical acclaim since "The Dark Knight" and set a new standard for female empowerment. "Black Widow" will do the same for the Marvel Universe, and Natasha Romanoff is an already beloved Marvel character. And obviously those irritating "Minions" will go skyhigh.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    2Wint2Kidd wrote: »
    @GertGettler are these your predictions or someone else's? Because I seriously doubt that Black Widow and WW '84 will make $1 billion each.

    Mine ;-) (see my remarks above)
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    edited September 2019 Posts: 1,165
    2Wint2Kidd wrote: »
    @GertGettler are these your predictions or someone else's? Because I seriously doubt that Black Widow and WW '84 will make $1 billion each.
    Even if Black Widow underperforms, Disney will buy out empty screenings to ensure their films all look like runaway hits. That's the power of the mouse.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    Minion wrote: »
    2Wint2Kidd wrote: »
    @GertGettler are these your predictions or someone else's? Because I seriously doubt that Black Widow and WW '84 will make $1 billion each.
    Even if Black Widow underperforms, Disney will buy out empty screenings to ensure their films all look like runaway hits. That's the power of the mouse.

    However, Comcast is 2nd powerful after the Mouse.
  • I think it's important to recognize that Spectre faced some pretty stiff competition. There were 5 films that grossed a billion dollars, and 2 weeks after it reached America the Hunger Games opened which drew in the younger crowd. If memory serves me correct Skyfall didn't have much competition until the Hobbit, and was the second highest grossing movie that year behind the Avengers. I certainly think it isn't out of the realm of possibility that No Time to Die could be the highest grossing movie of the year next year.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,790
    Part competition, part fuel for box office attendance to see Bond.

    Troubled production, hah. Surely doesn't seem like it at the moment.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    2Wint2Kidd wrote: »
    I think it's important to recognize that Spectre faced some pretty stiff competition. There were 5 films that grossed a billion dollars, and 2 weeks after it reached America the Hunger Games opened which drew in the younger crowd. If memory serves me correct Skyfall didn't have much competition until the Hobbit, and was the second highest grossing movie that year behind the Avengers. I certainly think it isn't out of the realm of possibility that No Time to Die could be the highest grossing movie of the year next year.

    Yes very true :D
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,179
    So, after having looked into great detail into the finances of the Bond-franchise,

    No, you didn't. You looked into the finances of the Bond film series, not the Bond franchise, which is an entirely different thing.
    and how important it is to investigate the real-time investments (production budget) to get an idea how succesful a movie financially should be to properly gain profits,

    It's only as important as you want it to be. Film finances is not an exact science. There are several grading scales one can use, even when discussing the financial success of a movie. You will find them all somewhat fluid, essentially flawed in at least one way and useful and adequate in other ways. It's good that we approach film finances from multiple angles and I respect your efforts in elaborating on some of those, but it would be wrong to suggest that one way is the proper way.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    edited September 2019 Posts: 2,541
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    So, after having looked into great detail into the finances of the Bond-franchise,

    No, you didn't. You looked into the finances of the Bond film series, not the Bond franchise, which is an entirely different thing.
    and how important it is to investigate the real-time investments (production budget) to get an idea how succesful a movie financially should be to properly gain profits,

    It's only as important as you want it to be. Film finances is not an exact science. There are several grading scales one can use, even when discussing the financial success of a movie. You will find them all somewhat fluid, essentially flawed in at least one way and useful and adequate in other ways. It's good that we approach film finances from multiple angles and I respect your efforts in elaborating on some of those, but it would be wrong to suggest that one way is the proper way.

    I completely agree with this. Half data is not the right way to determine something especially if you don't have any resources from the production. It's franchise not a series, franchise is a long term buisness which can handle loss for certain period of time if needed. Most film series work on each film's profits to decide if they are going to continue with the next one or not.

    Financial success of the film should not be my concern but people who are associated with the EON production even if I had some brilliant ideas . If I want my ideas to be implemented in bond production shouldn't I be applying in their marketing or PR department. My only concern is how to enjoy it in different ways , Like how many times I am going to watch NTTD in theaters with friends, family & others. :D
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    So, after having looked into great detail into the finances of the Bond-franchise,

    No, you didn't. You looked into the finances of the Bond film series, not the Bond franchise, which is an entirely different thing.
    and how important it is to investigate the real-time investments (production budget) to get an idea how succesful a movie financially should be to properly gain profits,

    It's only as important as you want it to be. Film finances is not an exact science. There are several grading scales one can use, even when discussing the financial success of a movie. You will find them all somewhat fluid, essentially flawed in at least one way and useful and adequate in other ways. It's good that we approach film finances from multiple angles and I respect your efforts in elaborating on some of those, but it would be wrong to suggest that one way is the proper way.

    Thanks for correcting me @DarthDimi ;-). Perhaps you can can elaborate on that and post some angles of the finances of things. One thing for instance that I didn't take into account was the price inflation. But that makes sense if you want to compare the success from a historical perspective.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    2Wint2Kidd wrote: »
    @GertGettler are these your predictions or someone else's? Because I seriously doubt that Black Widow and WW '84 will make $1 billion each.

    What makes you say that...if I may ask ;-)?
  • Posts: 1,092
    RC7 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Very well said, Benster!

    If the "billion-dollar BO takes" is suddenly a criterium, then Bond is out of his game. SF was a freak accident, an undisputed success but also a special case. And it's fine if that success isn't repeated soon.

    For a long time, MR held the record. None of the '80s films came close. Were they worse than MR? Were they rejected by audiences? No, of course not. But MR was a big hit, one of the few Bonds beefed up to be able to play with the big boys up there in the stars. A Bond on steroids, but not the norm.

    My point is that Bond doesn't have to go for "ultra". Bond is Bond, a special something for a special occasion. Bond is when you dress up nicely, take the wife out for dinner, then to see the movie, then to go home and make love and the next morning call your boss and tell him you won't be coming in today. The excitement is not in the mega-event that brings every teen, tween and adult to the theatre for a Red Bull induced stupor and a guaranteed billion-plus milestone; the excitement is in being a part of something that has inspired generations.

    When people say, "I was there, opening night, for The Excorcist", I go, "wow, I'm jealous". But when people say, "I was there, opening night, for The Spy Who Loved Me", I go, "I wish I could have experienced that moment" and bloody mean it.

    First of all, I reckon this topic is about a plain simple subject: box office talks. But I tried to make a point here that talking without any perspective about '$1 Billion Dollar Bond's' is pretty senseless really. There are more aspects to take into consideration.

    Regardless of that, box office talks should not blindly be connected with its quality. And I'm sorry but it's a bit sad that this is being blown up a bit. It can very well happen that a high-quality film fails to deliver at the box office, while a bad film simply can create a 'click' and becomes a huge box office hit.

    So I actually agree with you @DarthDimi: my point is as well that Bond should not just blindly go for "ultra". Bond is Bond, and history shows that mild changes and a certain mild dose of 're-inventing the wheel' can do wonders. "Die Another Day" did that by applying the larger-than-life quality of "Moonraker". It worked. It was a huge box office hit. And it stayed a pure Bond-film with all elements of the Bond-formula.

    But so did "Casino Royale". It went back-to-basics, it was a certain reboot, and by getting 'back to Earth', going back to the Fleming novel, it was a different film than "DAD". But the big audience loved it. It was a huge box office hit. Despite re-inventing elements, it was in its core a pure Bond-film.

    What I disagree with, is how you see the Bond-films only as a limited event for those people who dress up nicely, take the wife out for dinner, etc. That's just being romantic. And I think we all know that if Bond only focuses on an audience like that, then it will be problematic.

    Bond is an event film with red carpet premieres of mass proportions across the globe. Fact. Bond is foremost escapism too, and if you say that it's not EON's task to make sure that also families and kids go to see a Bond-film, than that does not bode well for the future. Even kids like escapism. And even kids love to indulge in thoughts that are about luxury casino settings in black-tie, or being handed over an Aston Martin by the company.

    So all I say is this: Bond can do both, appeal to the young and old, appeal to women and men. And Bond has always done that. It never helped by sticking the head in the sand and not trying to appeal to large audiences. You can do both, create a wonderful Bond-film with all its formula-elements applied and strengthening the Bond-brand for the future by doing something about financial and organizational matters.

    And again, this is a box office topic. Saying one thing does not mean instantly that you can't agree with other things :-).

    I don’t really understand the point you’re making, if there is one? These films will attract families and children in the way they always have, so nothing has changed there. What’s changed is the landscape, where certain franchises now acutely target a younger demographic. That isn’t Bond’s business. Of course, they aren’t going to push that market away, but there’s no reason for them to prioritise it over others either. This will be a thrilling event movie for ‘everyone’ (with good taste of course - and you can’t force that).

    My points were:

    --> Discuss the box office figures with more perspective (if you enjoy being in this topic), taking into account not just grosses, but also profits and ROI.
    --> Deliver some good ideas on how the Bond-franchise can improve itself in the long-term future (10 to 15 years from now or so), even if you are conservative and want nothing to be changed).
    --> Managing and planning pre-production of Bond-films better in a post-Craig environment (stop these long breaks when an actor is asking for it, no non-Bond productions, positively influencing social media (yeah you MGM!), contracting directors in a much earlier phase...if you want A-list directors, restructuring ownership).
    --> Making budgets more lean (The Bond films are doing something wrong to that respect when compared to other action blockbusters).

    Look @RC7. This is a box-office topic. I am fascinated about the financial and business side of filmmaking. You can say "why bother worrying if you can't influence it". But like in other topics, in which we criticize Bond-films from other (quality) perspectives (story, acting, etc), we are also unable to influence those aspects (I mean, would you say that fan art is also a useless thing, because those fan designs won't be used anyway by the Bond producers?). We are on this forums to show off our opinions about Bond, how useless and time-inefficient being on a forum sometimes may seem (I for instance couldn't stop my urge not to return here, because "No Time To Die" is premiering soon :-D!).

    In my case, and in the case of this topic: I just disagree with the notion that the Bond-franchise should be a solid unchangeable thing. I disagree with the fact that a proven success story should therefore not be tampered with (Bond can also make itself irrelevant in the long-term).

    I think there's a lot that needs to be improved about the Bond-franchise. Many people don't like to hear it, or skip this topic because of it. Fine. But I'm not the kind of guy that blindly agrees how the producers do these Bond-films. The Bond-brand will never die, but it can be mothballed randomly for years. And then obviously it's an event film, but for all the sinister reasons. Bond shouldn't be mothballed for such long periods. The more profits a new Bond-film makes, the more the producers can do to proactively create more of these 'thrilling event movies' decades to come.

    Well said. There's no doubt whatsoever in my mind the Bond producers have gotten lazy and have no clue as to the current climate of movie-making. They think they are safe and secure doing things the way they always have and hey, I get wanting to keep Craig around, but they need to become better at the business side of things if they wish to survive much longer.
  • Posts: 1,680
    It’ll be interesting come May/June 2020 what Barbara has to say about what’s next or bond cuz it ain’t with Craig
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It’ll be interesting come May/June 2020 what Barbara has to say about what’s next or bond cuz it ain’t with Craig

    Knowing EON, they'll likely keep quiet for awhile and only make announcements when they actually have something solid in their grasp, which may not be for another year or two. They always focus on one production at a time rather than do long term planning. Wilson had mentioned that as far back as the Brosnan era that ever since GE they had been working on each Bond film with the mindset that it could be the last. That has never changed.
Sign In or Register to comment.