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

1103104106108109173

Comments

  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 560
    Minion wrote: »
    9IW wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Bond rises above estimates for its first domestic Monday at $6.94 million:

    https://deadline.com/2021/10/no-time-to-die-monday-box-office-domestic-1234854716/

    Really good sign. A chance at being really close to $100 million by the end of the weekend.
    I could a name a few users who will be salty over this news. ;)
    Do you really think any Bond fan here wants this film to fail? Nobody wants the franchise put in jeopardy.
  • Minion wrote: »
    9IW wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Bond rises above estimates for its first domestic Monday at $6.94 million:

    https://deadline.com/2021/10/no-time-to-die-monday-box-office-domestic-1234854716/

    Really good sign. A chance at being really close to $100 million by the end of the weekend.
    I could a name a few users who will be salty over this news. ;)
    Do you really think any Bond fan here wants this film to fail? Nobody wants the franchise put in jeopardy.

    Hmmm... a few here seem to be rooting that way...
  • 9IW9IW
    edited October 2021 Posts: 59
    Minion wrote: »
    9IW wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Bond rises above estimates for its first domestic Monday at $6.94 million:

    https://deadline.com/2021/10/no-time-to-die-monday-box-office-domestic-1234854716/

    Really good sign. A chance at being really close to $100 million by the end of the weekend.
    I could a name a few users who will be salty over this news. ;)

    No doubt. I think it will be right at $95 million at the end of the weekend with a good chance of doing better than that. A little saltiness makes it more fun. A lot is a bit of a drag.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 39,463
    Ryan wrote: »
    I might go again this coming weekend, so at the very least I will be making a small contribution to that total! You're welcome, EON. ;)

    I should've taken my shot yesterday and seen it for the second time, now I won't have the opportunity until next weekend, so a week and a half from now. I'm sure it'll still be playing by then, but knowing my luck, I'm worried.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 12,754
    slide_99 wrote: »
    If there's no continuity between Craig's Bond and the others, and if Eon was always planning on bringing Bond back for #26 anyway, it means NTTD's ending is ultimately meaningless, and was only done for GOT-style shock effect. You could argue that the lack of continuity makes the NTTD's ending okay (I believe it doesn't), but the question is, why even do it?

    Because it was a fitting end to the Craig era that put a bow on a lot of the ongoing themes they’d been exploring (lost childhoods leading to more lost childhoods, Bond ruining everything he touches because of the baggage of his life as an assassin, etc). I think it was full of meaning. The perfect end to the story that started with CR.

    And now they have a fresh slate and can do what they like, baggage free. A whole new take on the old legend. I’ve seen a lot of criticism of the ending because of the idea of Bond as a mythical hero. Well, if we compare him to another mythical hero: Robin Hood’s died plenty of times. Died in one of the old poems iirc, died in the Sean Connery film, died in the old ITV series (before being replaced by Jason Connery, funnily enough). Think he even died at the end of the dire BBC reboot. Does that make any new takes on that story meaningless?

    Like you said, continuity in Bond has only mattered in the Craig films. They didn’t effect what came before, so I’m not sure why people think it’ll be difficult for audiences to accept that they won’t effect what comes next.
  • 9IW9IW
    Posts: 59
    Minion wrote: »
    9IW wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Bond rises above estimates for its first domestic Monday at $6.94 million:

    https://deadline.com/2021/10/no-time-to-die-monday-box-office-domestic-1234854716/

    Really good sign. A chance at being really close to $100 million by the end of the weekend.
    I could a name a few users who will be salty over this news. ;)
    Do you really think any Bond fan here wants this film to fail? Nobody wants the franchise put in jeopardy.

    My sense is that no one wants it to fail but several want it to underperform a bit with the implication that this will motivate the film makers to make the film they want to see. I doubt this hope is fulfilled.
  • The next guy has got one heck of a job on his hands to follow DC.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited October 2021 Posts: 12,454
    slide_99 wrote: »
    If there's no continuity between Craig's Bond and the others, and if Eon was always planning on bringing Bond back for #26 anyway, it means NTTD's ending is ultimately meaningless, and was only done for GOT-style shock effect. You could argue that the lack of continuity makes the NTTD's ending okay (I believe it doesn't), but the question is, why even do it?

    Because it was a fitting end to the Craig era that put a bow on a lot of the ongoing themes they’d been exploring (lost childhoods leading to more lost childhoods, Bond ruining everything he touches because of the baggage of his life as an assassin, etc). I think it was full of meaning. The perfect end to the story that started with CR.

    And now they have a fresh slate and can do what they like, baggage free. A whole new take on the old legend. I’ve seen a lot of criticism of the ending because of the idea of Bond as a mythical hero. Well, if we compare him to another mythical hero: Robin Hood’s died plenty of times. Died in one of the old poems iirc, died in the Sean Connery film, died in the old ITV series (before being replaced by Jason Connery, funnily enough). Think he even died at the end of the dire BBC reboot. Does that make any new takes on that story meaningless?

    Like you said, continuity in Bond has only mattered in the Craig films. They didn’t effect what came before, so I’m not sure why people think it’ll be difficult for audiences to accept that they won’t effect what comes next.
    Yes, I agree with you. Also, since it is the fitting finish for Craig's Bond and his is the ONLY Bond to have a connected story arc start to finish (as a rookie 00 agent and the finish of his career and life) through films, we can set it aside. For those of us who love Craig's Bond, it is a jewel. For those who don't care of him as Bond, it is one set piece all together, one era you never have to revisit. It doesn't affect the next film in any detrimental way, in my opinion.

    Indeed, it opens up everything fresh and supercharged with emotion, curiosity, and intrigue. What will they do? Will the next Bond be a throwback to Roger's tone and humor? Will they go strongly in opposite direction of Craig's realistic and vulnerable Bond? Bond won't die again, will he? (Geez, I hope not for 20 years at least; if they want to try that again, make it FAR in the future. It's been done - and done right, with respect and authenticity, with NTTD. Never needs to be done again.) Will the next Bond be young? Just don't make it begin with him as a rookie or redo Casino Royale, and I will probably be happy enough. Fresh start seems quite positive to me. If we had ended Craig's run with Spectre, I would have been very dissatisfied AND not filled with excitement for next Bond ... because it would feel like, okay they have already reverted to old formula (with SP) so more of the same is coming, I guess. I am more than satisfied with NTTD - it gives me a separate, completed story of a Bond I enjoy thoroughly and one that reminds me of Fleming. Now on to something new; I feel quite positive about NTTD and the future of Bond films. B-)

  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 357
    Yes, I agree with you. Also, since it is the fitting finish for Craig's Bond and his is the ONLY Bond to have a connected story arc start to finish...

    What are you talking about?

    Lazenby had a seemless story arc from start to finish!

    George-Lazenby-Diana-Rigg.png


  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited October 2021 Posts: 12,454
    Films ...plural ... connected. You know my name. You know what I mean. ;)
    (But I now clarified that even more in my post above). Lovely photo, by the way. I love Diana Rigg (in everything).
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,333
    Seve wrote: »
    George-Lazenby-Diana-Rigg.png
    Great photo, love it!!

    On the subject of making comparisons to Robin Hood, King Arthur and Hercules, these are ancient tales dating back from c. 1300 BCE to medieval times that have a well established beginning, middle and an end to their stories. In Bond's 60 to 70 year life cycle, he hasn't died until now. Plus, if the character of James Bond is still being talked about in 650 years from now, or more in Hercules' case, then it would be fair to draw a comparison. Sadly, none of us here will be around to say with any certainty whether this will be the case. :-/
  • I get the Robin Hood analogy but I'm not sure it quite works here. Those Robin Hood stories aren't made by the same production/studio in an ongoing series. I think the issue some people have with Bond's death is that they explicitly killed him and he'll be back on screen for the 26th movie in about 2 or 3 years from now. I can understand why some people feel like it was gratuitous and cheap shock value. To some, Bond is like Michael Myers, he just doesn't die. Personally, even though I would have preferred Bond's death to be ambiguous I'm okay with it here. We have a lot to look forward to and be excited about going forward with a clean slate.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 1,351
    Now that it’s over,what let the Craig era down for me is that we never got to see Bond given a mission by M ( Besides CR ).He only stumbled across missions and seemed to retire multiple times.He actually seemed to hate his job really.CR worked because it was an origin story but as soon as the credits rolled on that one he was Bond and the following films should have been mission based.

    Instead they tried to turn it into a saga and because they didn’t plan it out and took it one film at a time,they didn’t really know what they were doing like Kevin Feige does with the MCU.James Bond is appealing because he’s a fantasy character but to have film after film of him quitting and moping about his lost love got tedious.Bond loses Tracey in OHMSS ( A film that NTTD tries to ape by directly lifting dialogue and music from it ) but we don’t hear about it again until TSWLM and even then it’s just a brief mention.

    So when Martin Campbell and Henry Cavill are doing the press rounds for Bond 26, I hope they emphasise they are bringing the fun back to the series 😉
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 357
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Now that it’s over, what let the Craig era down for me is that we never got to see Bond given a mission by M ( Besides CR )... He actually seemed to hate his job really. CR worked because it was an origin story but as soon as the credits rolled on that one he was Bond and the following films should have been mission based.

    Instead they tried to turn it into a saga... James Bond is appealing because he’s a fantasy character but to have film after film of him quitting and moping about his lost love got tedious. Bond loses Tracey in OHMSS ( A film that NTTD tries to ape by directly lifting dialogue and music from it ) but we don’t hear about it again until TSWLM and even then it’s just a brief mention.

    So when Martin Campbell and Henry Cavill are doing the press rounds for Bond 26, I hope they emphasise they are bringing the fun back to the series 😉

    Amen Brother!
  • Martin Campbell? We can only hope. Henry Cavill? Why? He's been a crummy Superman, why would you want to see him as James Bond?
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    9IW wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Bond rises above estimates for its first domestic Monday at $6.94 million:

    https://deadline.com/2021/10/no-time-to-die-monday-box-office-domestic-1234854716/

    Really good sign. A chance at being really close to $100 million by the end of the weekend.

    Just for the record, F9 grossed $93 million within its first 10 days. Bond has a chance to do slightly better.
    At this point the best case scenario for NTTD will be hitting the $700 million mark at the end of its run. Australia won’t help that much and I believe China will provide only $50 million or so. I hoped for $750 million but it really doesn’t seem the case.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    I get the Robin Hood analogy but I'm not sure it quite works here. Those Robin Hood stories aren't made by the same production/studio in an ongoing series. I think the issue some people have with Bond's death is that they explicitly killed him and he'll be back on screen for the 26th movie in about 2 or 3 years from now. I can understand why some people feel like it was gratuitous and cheap shock value. To some, Bond is like Michael Myers, he just doesn't die. Personally, even though I would have preferred Bond's death to be ambiguous I'm okay with it here. We have a lot to look forward to and be excited about going forward with a clean slate.
    There's that as well. I can't disagree with your assessment, I made a similar one.
    Martin Campbell? We can only hope. Henry Cavill? Why? He's been a crummy Superman, why would you want to see him as James Bond?
    I wouldn't say Cavill was a crummy Superman. I believe he was poorly served by the material and Zack Snyder's direction.
  • Posts: 366
    If they did go for an British actor familiar to American audience's there are three fairly obvious choices. Tom Hiddleston, hugely popular as Loki. Tom Hardy, just had massive hit with Venom and Henry Cavill, well known for Supes and Witcher. Not sure where that would leave Jean- Page. Do Americans know Bridgerton.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,454
    Idris Elba would have been perfect, but he is too old now. And Americans love him, I think. But we have another thread for that.
  • bondsum wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    I get the Robin Hood analogy but I'm not sure it quite works here. Those Robin Hood stories aren't made by the same production/studio in an ongoing series. I think the issue some people have with Bond's death is that they explicitly killed him and he'll be back on screen for the 26th movie in about 2 or 3 years from now. I can understand why some people feel like it was gratuitous and cheap shock value. To some, Bond is like Michael Myers, he just doesn't die. Personally, even though I would have preferred Bond's death to be ambiguous I'm okay with it here. We have a lot to look forward to and be excited about going forward with a clean slate.
    There's that as well. I can't disagree with your assessment, I made a similar one.
    Martin Campbell? We can only hope. Henry Cavill? Why? He's been a crummy Superman, why would you want to see him as James Bond?
    I wouldn't say Cavill was a crummy Superman. I believe he was poorly served by the material and Zack Snyder's direction.

    Okay, how's this: Cavill gave a fair-to-middling performance as a very poorly-written Superman.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 2021 Posts: 357
    cooperman2 wrote: »
    If they did go for an British actor familiar to American audience's there are three fairly obvious choices. Tom Hiddleston, hugely popular as Loki. Tom Hardy, just had massive hit with Venom and Henry Cavill, well known for Supes and Witcher. Not sure where that would leave Jean- Page. Do Americans know Bridgerton.

    But that's the problem, they won't want to use an actor who is already well known for another franchise character part, and in any case, most actors wouldn't want to be pinned down by more than one franchise leading character part either.

    I wouldn't want to have Bond appear in the gun-barrell only to have my subconscious mind break the spell by telling me - "pssst isn't that Loki dressed as James Bond?"

    So no Loki-Bond, Venom-Bond or Superman-Bond please

    Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan were a bit different, as the Saint and Remington Steele were Bond-like characters (or rather, from an historical perspective, Bond was Saint-like) a much easier transition for the mind to make
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 214
    Martin Campbell? We can only hope. Henry Cavill? Why? He's been a crummy Superman, why would you want to see him as James Bond?

    He wasn't a crummy Superman, and he looks the part, esp in the last MI film.

    He's one of the few names being mentioned that I like.

  • edited October 2021 Posts: 188
    The worldwide box office has collapsed since coronavirus in March 2020. Only one US film has grossed over 500 million worldwide - F9.

    No Time To Get A Better Ending was never going to make 900 million. It would be a brave man to try and predict the future with any degree of confidence but my guess is cinema is in terminal decline. We'll have to see if the box office can return to pre coronavirus 2019 levels. It seems unlikely.

    If cinema never recovers I can't see Bond 26 going straight to the big screen. The box office won't be high enough to guarantee profit.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    bondywondy wrote: »
    The worldwide box office has collapsed since coronavirus in March 2020. Only one US film has grossed over 500 million worldwide - F9.

    No Time To Get A Better Ending was never going to make 900 million. It would be a brave man to try and predict the future with any degree of confidence but my guess is cinema is in terminal decline. We'll have to see if the box office can return to pre coronavirus 2019 levels. It seems unlikely.

    If cinema never recovers I can't see Bond 26 going straight to the big screen. The box office won't be high enough to guarantee profit.

    Cinema has recovered. Not completely recovered because the pandemic is still a thing but everything points to this direction: people still want to see big event movies in a theater.

  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 2021 Posts: 357
    bondywondy wrote: »
    The worldwide box office has collapsed since coronavirus in March 2020. Only one US film has grossed over 500 million worldwide - F9.

    No Time To Get A Better Ending was never going to make 900 million. It would be a brave man to try and predict the future with any degree of confidence but my guess is cinema is in terminal decline. We'll have to see if the box office can return to pre coronavirus 2019 levels. It seems unlikely.

    If cinema never recovers I can't see Bond 26 going straight to the big screen. The box office won't be high enough to guarantee profit.

    Excellent, my plan to destroy James Bond is working, World Cinema lies in ruins, Craig-Bond is dead and by the time they find another actor to play the part there will be nothing left, Muya-ha-ha-ha...

    68c2f2e4f8cd7bab0378c31350f31aed.jpg
  • 9IW9IW
    Posts: 59
    matt_u wrote: »
    9IW wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Bond rises above estimates for its first domestic Monday at $6.94 million:

    https://deadline.com/2021/10/no-time-to-die-monday-box-office-domestic-1234854716/

    Really good sign. A chance at being really close to $100 million by the end of the weekend.

    Just for the record, F9 grossed $93 million within its first 10 days. Bond has a chance to do slightly better.
    At this point the best case scenario for NTTD will be hitting the $700 million mark at the end of its run. Australia won’t help that much and I believe China will provide only $50 million or so. I hoped for $750 million but it really doesn’t seem the case.

    Earlier in the thread I projected $95 million by the end of the weekend and a $700 million cume so we are on about the same page. I think it may do a little better in China than 50.
  • 9IW9IW
    Posts: 59
    matt_u wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    The worldwide box office has collapsed since coronavirus in March 2020. Only one US film has grossed over 500 million worldwide - F9.

    No Time To Get A Better Ending was never going to make 900 million. It would be a brave man to try and predict the future with any degree of confidence but my guess is cinema is in terminal decline. We'll have to see if the box office can return to pre coronavirus 2019 levels. It seems unlikely.

    If cinema never recovers I can't see Bond 26 going straight to the big screen. The box office won't be high enough to guarantee profit.

    Cinema has recovered. Not completely recovered because the pandemic is still a thing but everything points to this direction: people still want to see big event movies in a theater.

    I think the real key is what exclusive theatrical window the market is going to dictate and the studios will accept as well as the box office split. I don't know that we will ever see a 150 days like Spectre (?) had or even 90 again. The theater owners can't afford a tiny take and a short window. People definitely still like to see big movies at the theater. The question will be whether that model can remain profitable. Hopefully, yes.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,563
    Martin Campbell? We can only hope. Henry Cavill? Why? He's been a crummy Superman, why would you want to see him as James Bond?

    He wasn't a crummy Superman, and he looks the part, esp in the last MI film.

    He's one of the few names being mentioned that I like.

    You'll have to forgive me, but MI hasn't been the same to my mind since Peter Graves stopped getting the mission assignments. I haven't seen any of the movies. I can't take Tom Cruise at all, the whole Scientology thing just puts a mental block in front of his face for me. It's my own prejudice but at least I own up to it.

    As I've already stated, I'll allow that Henry Cavill just gave a mediocre performance as a very poorly-written Superman. But again, I'm just an old curmudgeon: the last good performance as Superman I've seen was given by Christopher Reeve. You could believe that his Clark Kent fooled all those people all those years with nothing but a pair of glasses. Henry C. I can accept as Napoleon Solo, but I'd really rather not see him as James Bond. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 620
    bondywondy wrote: »
    The worldwide box office has collapsed since coronavirus in March 2020. Only one US film has grossed over 500 million worldwide - F9.

    No Time To Get A Better Ending was never going to make 900 million. It would be a brave man to try and predict the future with any degree of confidence but my guess is cinema is in terminal decline. We'll have to see if the box office can return to pre coronavirus 2019 levels. It seems unlikely.

    If cinema never recovers I can't see Bond 26 going straight to the big screen. The box office won't be high enough to guarantee profit.

    It wasn't covid. Box office numbers have been in overall decline for decades due to other issues. Covid was just the nail in the coffin.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,737
    QQ7 wrote: »
    https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/world/?ref_=bo_nb_hm_tab

    Just compare domestic and foreign numbers for Venom and NTTD.
    It's clear that one movie appeals to USA and other to foreign audience and vice versa.

    Only 23% of Venom's earnings are foreign.

    It will not surprise me if the US box office 2021 ends with the top four titles being Marvel films (Black Widow, Shang-Chi, Venom, and Spider-Man), which really demonstrates just how massively popular Marvel is in the US. I don't think Bond has a chance of cracking that top four.

    You're forgetting The Eternals. They'll kick Venom's ugly butt. You heard it here first.

    HA!

    You’re right, I did forget. :)) Can you blame me though? The trailers for it makes it look so dull and forgettable. But fans will eat it up anyway as if it’s a moral obligation.
Sign In or Register to comment.