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

11718202223172

Comments

  • DeerAtTheGatesDeerAtTheGates Belgium
    Posts: 524
    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

    A bit off-topic, sorry.
    But my gut feeling is that she will say either one of two things:
    1. "We haven't spoken with him about it, but we'd like to get Daniel back"
    2. "Well, this was Daniel's last one, so we'll be looking for a new Bond, but we're taking our time to go through the process."

    Of course, possibility 1 is rendered moot if 'Craig's last one' is part of the marketing of NTTD, or if NTTD ends very definitively. But my feeling is that EON will take their time with starting to work on Bond26, probably doing other projects in between. Whether that's a good or a bad thing is up for debate.

    Which brings me to this topic. I'm not a number guy and I have to admit I need to really read @GertGettler 's posts a couple of times, 'cause I certainly can't do what he does. Hat off to you, Gert!
    But what I can see is that cinema has changed from SP and 2015. I honestly have no idea how much is needed to get that same result, or maybe even get that same thrill of Bondmania like we had in 2012, and get SF's box office numbers. I hope we get that feeling back. That once the new year rolls around, Bond is everywhere and on everybody's minds. Granted, a good film is key here: word of mouth is important for the big box office draw. But the Bondmania in 2012 had so many other factors behind it. It was the 50th anniversary. There was the Blu-ray box set, heavily promoted by an relay race and a golden suitcase. There was the Olympic Games bit with the Queen. We had new merch, Adele's title song really took off outside Bond fans, even outside the film world. We had the Everything or Nothing documentary. Regular video blogs on SF's production were published.

    And now? Yes, we have Fukunaga's Instagram posts and the odd tweet from @007, posting pictures of the DB5 in Matera that look almost the same as the pictures a local news site published 5 weeks ago. If that's all we're getting, SF's BO numbers are a far way off.

    I'm not saying all hope is lost. They still have time to promote the film. But the BO of NTTD, if we want those magical SF numbers again, depends on more than 'just' a good or excellent film. They need a great title song, recognised outside the Bond world, some strong tie-in campaigns (remember that viral Coca-Cola campaign for SF with travellers having to sprint to a dispenser machine to win tickets?), a few good trailers, some genuine scoops and titillating info via the official social media channels and everyone in the cast and crew in PR top form. Including Craig, who will do the press rounds in the months leading up to the release, and he needs to sell the movie. We know he hates these things, but they're crucial in generating buzz and ticket sales.
  • Posts: 1,680
    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.

    Quantum of solace was in pre production immediately following the filming of Casino Royale. They planned ahead at the beginning of Craig’s tenure.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    True, that didn’t work out so well then.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    edited September 2019 Posts: 1,165
    Wasn’t that due to Sony jumping the gun and announcing a release date for Bond 22 immediately after CR released? Never happened again, maybe because EON had a little talk with them.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Bond 22 was at one point set for a May 2008 release, but was pushed back because many filmmakers being offered the gig felt there wasn’t enough time to properly develop it before shooting.

    I do remember around the time SF came out someone at Sony was hyping that Bond 24 would come out in 2014, and when Barbara Broccoli was asked about that she basically scoffed it off.
  • Posts: 1,680
    Bond 22 was at one point set for a May 2008 release, but was pushed back because many filmmakers being offered the gig felt there wasn’t enough time to properly develop it before shooting.

    I do remember around the time SF came out someone at Sony was hyping that Bond 24 would come out in 2014, and when Barbara Broccoli was asked about that she basically scoffed it off.

    Two years is a lot of time, you have one year to write a script, 6 months to film, 3 months to edit , 3 months to promote and market. Done.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Perhaps, but EON is doing things at their own pace. No need to rush them.
  • Posts: 1,680
    What’s upsetting is that we’re easily looking at another 4 year gap minimum
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,790
    Why exactly? Doesn't have to be.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    What’s upsetting is that we’re easily looking at another 4 year gap minimum
    There are other movies to watch.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    What’s upsetting is that we’re easily looking at another 4 year gap minimum

    Had to wait that long between DAD and CR, didn’t upset me then, wouldn’t upset me now. My ideal minimum wait time is three years. I wish Disney had kept that for the Star Wars episodes, as two years just feels too fast.
  • Posts: 1,680

    Why exactly? Doesn't have to be.

    Eon will take a year or until the end of 2020 to see how No Time to Die is recieved and toss a few ideas around about where to go next.

    It will take them almolst two years to find a new actor and write a script with said actor in mind

    Another year of production and that brings us to four years.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,790
    That's just one possibility. Let's see what does happen.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Or look forward to NTTD for now.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    RC7 wrote: »
    Or look forward to NTTD for now.

    Spot on.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2019 Posts: 15,716
    Or tell yourself that so far, none of the Bond actors had a gap of more than 2 years between their first 2 outings (save for Lazenby, of course). So if a 4 year gap to B26 scares you, just remind yourself that B27 will likely come 2 years after that.

    I think it is important for any new Bond actor to establish themselves as 007, so this tradition will likely continue for Bond #7.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    Minion wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    What’s upsetting is that we’re easily looking at another 4 year gap minimum
    There are other movies to watch.

    I find it rather appaling to simply say "Go watch another movie then". Let me be clear, I'm truly thrilled for "No Time To Die". Already planning stuff to attend the premiere in London. But if we Bond-fans say "Go watch another movie" I find it a bit low. Obviously a large part of Bond fans do miss freshly produced Bond films. There's obviously demand for a Bond film to be premiered sooner than a ridiculous long wait of 4,5 years.

    All it takes for EON Productions is to plan ahead better, like some of us here suggested. You can end up in EON's asses for saying "Go watch another film then" or "EON do what they want to do and you need to shut up". It basically shows that the Bond fandom is getting older and perhaps a bit too elitary. What's wrong with having both a top-notch quality Bond-film and meet the demand of fans by starting production of a new Bond-film a bit sooner?

    No need to be a prick and alienate the Bond-fans who are simply dying for a new Bond-film a bit sooner than every 4,5 years. Look forward to "No Time To Die" for now and look forward to more high-quality Bond-films in a slightly shorter period is what most Bond-fans want.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    I'm fine with 3/4 years gaps. Makes every new release ever more special. Bond is the only sartorial billion dollars franchise in the world. Let's keep it this way.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    matt_u wrote: »
    I'm fine with 3/4 years gaps. Makes every new release ever more special. Bond is the only sartorial billion dollars franchise in the world. Let's keep it this way.

    You are fine with that maybe. Like I said, the Bond fandom is a bit more diverse. You and me are perhaps fine with it. You would like to keep it that way....others not.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    matt_u wrote: »
    I'm fine with 3/4 years gaps. Makes every new release ever more special. Bond is the only sartorial billion dollars franchise in the world. Let's keep it this way.

    You are fine with that maybe. Like I said, the Bond fandom is a bit more diverse. You and me are perhaps fine with it. You would like to keep it that way....others not.

    What thousands of fans want doesn't interest me tbh. I just want Bond movies that feels unique, with a more compelling artistic approach and an identity at their basis. Not the regular industrial product made in series every 2 years...
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    I have 24 films to enjoy, so I’m not exactly super anxious to have EON crank as many Bond films as possible like in the old days. I’m just happy Bond films are made at all. A long wait between Craig’s last film and the new actor’s first would not hurt the franchise, as there would be enough hype over just a new Bond actor taking over.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    matt_u wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    I'm fine with 3/4 years gaps. Makes every new release ever more special. Bond is the only sartorial billion dollars franchise in the world. Let's keep it this way.

    You are fine with that maybe. Like I said, the Bond fandom is a bit more diverse. You and me are perhaps fine with it. You would like to keep it that way....others not.

    What thousands of fans want doesn't interest me tbh. I just want Bond movies that feels unique, with a more compelling artistic approach and an identity at their basis. Not the regular industrial product made in series every 2 years...

    There we tend to disagree then. I am not constantly talking about 'I' :-). And by the way, you really overrate Bond-films now. We have seen some pretty dire entries. I think many were not fond of "SPECTRE" for its more compelling artistic approach. You make it sound like the Bond-franchise is truly unique, like some kind of elitist 'piece-de-resistance' in Blockbusterland. Kind of nonsense really. Bond is a regular industrial product.

    By the way, what's wrong with planning production of a Bond-film better? Only some 'touch' that subject.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited September 2019 Posts: 8,183
    There’s nothing wrong with the Cubby approach to production, just as there’s nothing wrong with Mike and Babs approach. Both generations have managed to keep Bond alive throughout 50+ years, and until there’s a major drop in theater attendance, it doesn’t look like it’s gonna stop.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited September 2019 Posts: 4,343
    matt_u wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    I'm fine with 3/4 years gaps. Makes every new release ever more special. Bond is the only sartorial billion dollars franchise in the world. Let's keep it this way.

    You are fine with that maybe. Like I said, the Bond fandom is a bit more diverse. You and me are perhaps fine with it. You would like to keep it that way....others not.

    What thousands of fans want doesn't interest me tbh. I just want Bond movies that feels unique, with a more compelling artistic approach and an identity at their basis. Not the regular industrial product made in series every 2 years...

    There we tend to disagree then. I am not constantly talking about 'I' :-). And by the way, you really overrate Bond-films now. We have seen some pretty dire entries. I think many were not fond of "SPECTRE" for its more compelling artistic approach. You make it sound like the Bond-franchise is truly unique, like some kind of elitist 'piece-de-resistance' in Blockbusterland. Kind of nonsense really. Bond is a regular industrial product.

    By the way, what's wrong with planning production of a Bond-film better? Only some 'touch' that subject.

    The Bond franchise IS unique. The sartorial approach behind those gigantic production is something that you can find in few blockbusters, like the ones Nolan makes, Villeneuve makes etc etc. Not definitely the ones that come out every two years, or that are shot back to back... Out of four (five in a few months) Craig entries every movie feels different, has a different identity, a different feel, a different visual palette. Bond is unique because is not that standardize, and this qualities are kind of difficult to achieve if you make a film every two years, in the long term obviously. Having said that, it's clear that those long gaps are also because of Daniel. So yes, there would be nothing wrong with a slightly more strict planning, but it's important that in this uber saturated blockbusterfest panorama Bond remains a unique beast like is now. If some fans are not fond of the slightly more artistic approach - because we're not talking Bresson here - behind most of the Craig era, there's still M:I and F&F to enjoy.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    matt_u wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    I'm fine with 3/4 years gaps. Makes every new release ever more special. Bond is the only sartorial billion dollars franchise in the world. Let's keep it this way.

    You are fine with that maybe. Like I said, the Bond fandom is a bit more diverse. You and me are perhaps fine with it. You would like to keep it that way....others not.

    What thousands of fans want doesn't interest me tbh. I just want Bond movies that feels unique, with a more compelling artistic approach and an identity at their basis. Not the regular industrial product made in series every 2 years...

    There we tend to disagree then. I am not constantly talking about 'I' :-). And by the way, you really overrate Bond-films now. We have seen some pretty dire entries. I think many were not fond of "SPECTRE" for its more compelling artistic approach. You make it sound like the Bond-franchise is truly unique, like some kind of elitist 'piece-de-resistance' in Blockbusterland. Kind of nonsense really. Bond is a regular industrial product.

    By the way, what's wrong with planning production of a Bond-film better? Only some 'touch' that subject.

    Dude bond franchise is truly unique, as far as I know it's the first film series in the world. This franchise has given so much to the cinema from gunbarrel to opening title Sequences and many more. Till this day they are trying to do something new in each film and never felt shy to experiment with the formula. There is a sense of elegance which I don't find in any other film. Many film series has look upto bond for inspiration. It's not regular product and it never will be.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    Jees, let's go back to my original idea shall we: Make the Bond-franchise -so everything, from films to the sponsorship business, all owned by Danjaq and Eon- a bit more stronger, streamlined, business-wise more efficient, and make sure the planning of pre-production is being done better in advance. Tada. Nothing else :-). PS: I am pretty damn sure now NTTD will be a huge box office hit in 2020, more so than SP.
  • RC7RC7
    edited September 2019 Posts: 10,512
    The amount of people who are a miffed because Bond films aren’t produced consistently is minuscule. There has to be an overwhelming appetite. There clearly wasn’t after SP and they’ve let the dust settle. It was all well and good back in the day when Bond was the big boy in town, but you can see fatigue set in around the 80s as competing film series’ begin to swell. The 6 year gap was necessary to breath new life (despite the fact nothing could be done about). Likewise the four year was before CR. It’s not as simple as turning something out like clockwork. Yes, it would be delightful for us all if they were chucking them out every 3 years, but the logistics of these picture only become more complex over time and the market is saturated and shifting. It isn’t A-Level business studies.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,135
    Great post @RC7, totally agree with all you've said here.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited September 2019 Posts: 8,183
    RC7 wrote: »
    The amount of people who are a miffed because Bond films aren’t produced consistently is minuscule. There has to be an overwhelming appetite. There clearly wasn’t after SP and they’ve let the dust settle. It was all well and good back in the day when Bond was the big boy in town, but you can see fatigue set in around the 80s as competing film series’ begin to swell. The 6 year gap was necessary to breath new life (despite the fact nothing could be done about). Likewise the four year was before CR. It’s not as simple as turning something out like clockwork. Yes, it would be delightful for us all if they were chucking them out every 3 years, but the logistics of these picture only become more complex over time and the market is saturated and shifting. It isn’t A-Level business studies.

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

    This is why I've always said that LTK scarred EON in a big way. It was the first time they realized they can't just keep churning them out the old fashioned way and expect the same results. From then on they've been much more careful about how to make these films, re-calibrating the character and tone of the films in order to keep it active in the changing landscape of cinema. After SP they probably felt they needed to take a break and sit on it before coming up with a film that would hopefully be better received financially and critically as opposed to just charging forward hoping the gamble will pay off.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    RC7 wrote: »
    The amount of people who are a miffed because Bond films aren’t produced consistently is minuscule. There has to be an overwhelming appetite. There clearly wasn’t after SP and they’ve let the dust settle. It was all well and good back in the day when Bond was the big boy in town, but you can see fatigue set in around the 80s as competing film series’ begin to swell. The 6 year gap was necessary to breath new life (despite the fact nothing could be done about). Likewise the four year was before CR. It’s not as simple as turning something out like clockwork. Yes, it would be delightful for us all if they were chucking them out every 3 years, but the logistics of these picture only become more complex over time and the market is saturated and shifting. It isn’t A-Level business studies.

    Well said @RC7 ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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