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

24567172

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited June 2018 Posts: 7,922
    I really can't see how Quantum cost 200 million. I'm not one for these number comparisons but I assume most of it was spent on the Miniorty Report MI6 offices

    Almost everything was shot on location with Quantum, and that's really expensive. Probably part of the reason why Skyfall featured Britain centrally. They made something that feels much bigger in scope on a comparable budget. Then ofcourse they went way overboard with SP (300 million), which is what makes me think they will scale it back with B25.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2018 Posts: 23,883
    What's fascinating about the Bond line is that it makes most of its money overseas. The US gross has been relatively stable to declining during the Craig years, inflation adjusted. I've read that most of the profits are situated within the US market, due to the theatre chain splits etc. In this case, there are additional splits with EON/MGM and what not. So ultimately while they are making more topline gross overseas due to growing income levels and population growth in those markets, they are apparently doing it with less profit per head.

    The one market where they get an outsize share (to be expected) is the UK, where Craig has been extremely popular. It would perhaps make sense to film there (as has been rumoured) since there will be more relative gross coming from that market (where Boyle is also popular), but the flipside is there could be a possible decline in the £ if Brexit occurs as anticipated.

    If I was to guess, I'd say the £ may decline going into March of next year and then could increase by the time B25 is released (because uncertainty may have been lifted by then). If that happens, it will be good for profits because filming costs could be lower and relative grosses higher due to currency effects. Of course they could attempt to hedge it in advance with currency swaps or futures contracts, but that carries its own risk.
  • Posts: 12,506
    I have no concerns whatsoever!
  • Posts: 4,400
    Interesting discussion in the latter half of this video concerning the B25 v WW84 box-office battle:


    I think whilst SP and SF beat WW at the box-office, there’s a very good chance that WW84 (especially if it’s good) could get a 50% boost. I don’t think this will sink Bond domestically, but if WW84 plays as well as the first, I think Bond could struggle to hit $200m in North America.

    Internationally, Bond 25 will be fine. In fact, I think it’s numbers will be stronger than WW84. However, if Bond 25 gets middling reviews and a lacklustre response than the film could underperform. They really need a strong cast (those Angelina Jolie rumours would guarantee a bigger box-office) and a good story. I think anything less than $600m worldwide would be below expectations.

    I’m sure Universal think that the Craig-finale/Boyle combo will work gangbusters. But remember, Daniel Craig isn’t a star outside of Bond and Boyle has never made a box-office smash (he’s had considerable success but mostly in the UK). In fact, Boyle has had a couple of notorious bombs, one of which came from Universal’s dodgy marketing (see Steve Jobs).

    I think the four-year gap will hurt them in the long run. I hope Universal spend some serious money marketing this thing. I want Bond to be omnipresent throughout 2019.
  • Posts: 4,023
    EON have got to be hoping for way more than 600m. Probably looking for more than Spectre.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 13,877
    I don't really get into the numbers and stats... but hey, just for fun, I guess ~$900-950m would seem like a reasonable expectation for B25. Maybe more, depending on how they promote it.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,566
    If England win the world cup would it be too late to climb on the back of that? ;)
    Maybe..
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,922
    If SP made 880 million, with a 300 million budget and return of Blofeld SPECTRE and other elements like the gadget car, why is it a reasonable expectation for a four years later follow up to make significantly more than that? If anything we should expect diminishing returns to take affect, since they haven't exactly shaken things up in a while and Bond 25 is not arriving in a timely manner after SP.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,360
    If it's a well made film with good reviews then I see it easily cracking 900 million. If Spectre received as much critical acclaim as Skyfall then it would have come close to Skyfall numbers. As much as I do not care for movie critics, they do have a hand on whether to see a film or not. I remember people asking on opening weekend of Spectre on Facebook on whether it was good and worth seeing and the majority of people I had seen said it was not worth the time.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,922
    Again, I think we are getting slightly ahead of ourselves. Remember that before Skyfall no Bond movie than ever made over 700 million. Then SF was a phenomenon, and SP was riding it's coattails with lots of added value elements added like the hype surrounding Waltz playing a Bond villain. It was a mighty production, one of the most expensive movies ever made, and with a marketing budget to match. But it still "only" reached 880 million when other franchises like Star Wars, Fast and Furious and Jurassic World are routinely hitting the billion dollar mark. The afterglow of hype surrounding SF, which was a lightening In a bottle film, has long since faded. I think it would be seriously impressive if Bond 25 reached somewhere in the ballpark of 750 - 800 million.
  • edited July 2018 Posts: 4,400
    If SP made 880 million, with a 300 million budget and return of Blofeld SPECTRE and other elements like the gadget car, why is it a reasonable expectation for a four years later follow up to make significantly more than that? If anything we should expect diminishing returns to take affect, since they haven't exactly shaken things up in a while and Bond 25 is not arriving in a timely manner after SP.

    You could say the same about SF.

    It had been four years since QOS (which wasn’t all that well-received and had mostly been forgotten). However, a great cast, an intriguing director and a great marketing campaign saw SF gross in excess of $1billion.

    Bond 25 is partially there:

    - It’s Daniel Craig’s finale: This is a perfect market pitch. It’s the “last” time you’ll see him in the role. If the story and marketing plays up this angle (just like how Fox sold ‘Logan’ as Hugh Jackman’s last film as Wolverine and Marvel have been selling ‘Infinity War’ as the beginning of the end) then big numbers are guaranteed.
    - ‘National Treasure’ Danny Boyle is directing: This is a big sell in the UK as Boyle is probably the country’s most loved/known filmmaker (whether that accolade is actually deserved or not is another debate). However, it may be difficult to sell this aspect to foreign audiences. Nonetheless, the fact that a “name” director is attached will entice cinephiles and general audiences alike.
    - They’ll need A-list talent: You can only get so far with Craig/Boyle. You’ll need some big name actors. If Bond 25 wants to look dangerous at the box-office, it’ll need to entice exciting names. People such as Angelina Jolie may be less than palatable to Bond fans, but general audiences will clamour to see such names in a Bond film. Suddenly a film they were less than interested to see is their most anticipated of the year.
    - A Good Film!: As crazy as it seems, if the film is good and the buzz on Twitter and amongst fans is strong than the film is almost guaranteed to succeed financially.
    - Market the ting:If all the above ingredients are in place, then the last component is a strong marketing campaign that doesn’t cut corners. There is an incentive on both Annapurna and Universal to overspend, as neither studio wants to make the first Daniel Craig-Bond film that flops. There is a lot of prestige riding on the film beyond financial remuneration.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    If SP made 880 million, with a 300 million budget and return of Blofeld SPECTRE and other elements like the gadget car, why is it a reasonable expectation for a four years later follow up to make significantly more than that? If anything we should expect diminishing returns to take affect, since they haven't exactly shaken things up in a while and Bond 25 is not arriving in a timely manner after SP.

    Because if the script sucks, no matter how much money you throw to the screen and how many things you stuff in the movie.

    Moreoever since when did the gadget car grant a high box office?

    That's some very poor thinking on your part.
    But it still "only" reached 880 million when other franchises like Star Wars, Fast and Furious and Jurassic World are routinely hitting the billion dollar mark.

    Bond movies are niche film. SW and JW all bloated movies with spaceships and dinosaurs and they appeal to everyone, especially kids.

    That said, not every SW movie is successful. Solo bombed, meaning people are feeling Star Wars fatigue.
    If SP made 880 million, with a 300 million budget and return of Blofeld SPECTRE and other elements like the gadget car, why is it a reasonable expectation for a four years later follow up to make significantly more than that? If anything we should expect diminishing returns to take affect, since they haven't exactly shaken things up in a while and Bond 25 is not arriving in a timely manner after SP.

    You could say the same about SF.

    It had been four years since QOS (which wasn’t all that well-received and had mostly been forgotten). However, a great cast, an intriguing director and a great marketing campaign saw SF gross in excess of $1billion.

    Exactly, thanks for showing some logic to @Mendes4Lyfe . But then again how can we argue with someone who supports the codename theory?
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I think it's important to remember that the land scape of cinema has changed in the last 12 months alone never mind 3 years ago. There are a lot of factors to consider and I think for Bond 25 to be a box office super mega hit it HAS to be a MUST SEE film.

    People will see Bond 25 no doubt about that but will it be good enough for audiences to come back and see the film multiple times? What is it offering that other films and programming aren't? What's the unique appeal that will have Joe Bloggs returning again and again.

    We live in a climate where Star Wars is becoming a toxic cinematic brand, where Hollywood blockbusters wish they had the hype and audience investment for their films the way programs like Game of Thrones are afforded. Films like Mission Impossible are delivering on the fun and stunt factor that Bond's been missing for years and then not only is the superhero movie genre dominating with unprecedented ferocity but there's a growing movement successfully in the genre pushing to the forefront those that have been marginalised for the longest time. DC with wonder woman and a lead character of colour in aquaman later this year. We've had the insane success of black panther which till date is the highest grossing film domesticly this year (there's only 5 months left of this year remaining) at just a hairs away from $700million, Ant-Man and the Wasp is out, doing very well so far and ironically for a "flavour of the week" character according to Zack Snyder, it's tracking to definitely outgross Justice League and this is a film where Wasp, the female co-lead is getting a lot of praise and attention. Then DC's birds of prey starts filming in January featuring Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn, who was arguably the best thing about suicide squad and then Captain Marvel comes out next year as well as Wonder Woman 2 later the same year, round about the time Bond 25 is released.

    All that is just a fraction of what's recently happened and what's to come in the next 12 to 18 months. Bond has never really had a marketing problem, in fact, that's probably where he excels the most but if we're talking about Bond 25 making north of $850Million then it doesn't matter who's been cast or who's directing. The film has to DELIVER and blow audiences away. It NEEDS to stand out and this is why it's important for EoN not to be complacent like they were with SP. They need to make sure this film is levelled up in a major way. That being said I'm convinced Bond 25 isn't touching $900Million and to be honest it doesn't need to. Still, if it can work with a reasonable budget and make SP numbers or thereabouts at least that's a good thing bit if we're looking at aiming for a target north of whatever SP made then EoN et al are going to have to do something remarkable.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited July 2018 Posts: 4,399
    As long as B25 turns profit, the suits won't particularly care.. But I have to feel that this next one, under the assumption that it's Craig's last and how long of a gap its been since the last one, that, if its good, it should turn out close to if not surpass $1b WW.. SP, for all its production controversies, and overall average film quality, other competition surrounding its release date etc,.. it still raked in close to $900m.. That's still damn impressive.. It just doesn't seem like its a huge win because the film was so damn expensive to make, plus it was coming off the heels of SF - and since they retained all the key componants, they (and some fans) assumed SF's high water mark would be met again.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Welcome back @haserot , haven't seen you around here for awhile.

    I'm like the karma chameleon.. I come and go. Lol.
  • edited July 2018 Posts: 1,661
    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

    The Star Wars franchise has taken a hit with extremely negative reaction to The Last Jedi, and Solo was a flop by Star Wars box office standards. I think ep 9 may struggle to hit the big 1 billion. You can never take your fanbase for granted!

    Could Craig's final Bond be another Skyfall big hitter? Could it make more money than Star Wars episode 9? I'm sure Craig will market Bond 25 as "wanting to leave on a high note, we want this to be my best Bond film" and that will help the hype marketing train steam ahead! I'm assuming people will remember who Daniel Craig is. He's not made many films since SPECTRE. Perhaps they've forgotten Daniel! :P

    I think Bond 25 will be a big success and most likely break records for biggest UK opening, biggest overall UK box office (or close to it!). James Bond will return.

    On a totally unrelated point - Gal Gadot looks lovely in that photo. The sun is shining when Gal smiles! :)
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited July 2018 Posts: 5,185
    fanbond123 wrote: »

    I think Bond 25 will be a big success and most likely break records for biggest UK opening, biggest overall UK box office (or close to it!). James Bond will return.

    I believe so too. I'm already hyped. All the enthusiasm i heard so far, from Boyle and Vic, and Craig ("high-note") has won me over. If they can translate that into the Marketing, then we'll have a winner.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    "Could Craig's final Bond be another Skyfall big hitter? Could it make more money than Star Wars episode 9?"

    Bond will do well enough but (a) it won't do SF numbers and (b) it will never EVER make more money than Episode IX.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited July 2018 Posts: 7,922
    I am on the same note here with @Peirce

    Daniel getting more creative control, and being involved in getting Boyle on board should tell us one thing, and that is that he wants to push further in an arty emotional direction for his final film, and hope it resonates with the public similar to how Logan did. I predict we will see less grand action sequence, and a more personal story. There will obviously be enough stunts and action to put in the trailers, but they won't go for the "everything and the kitchen sink" approach that they did with SP. B25 will be a calculated risk, reducing the budget and hoping that positive word of mouth will bring success.
  • Posts: 1,548
    Mission Impossible will be the one to beat.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,922
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Mission Impossible will be the one to beat.

    I agree. MI is now what the Bourne films were in the 2000's.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Mission Impossible will be the one to beat.

    I agree. MI is now what the Bourne films were in the 2000's.

    And we know what happened there.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited July 2018 Posts: 7,922
    RC7 wrote: »
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Mission Impossible will be the one to beat.

    I agree. MI is now what the Bourne films were in the 2000's.

    And we know what happened there.

    Yes, Damon stopped Greengrass stopped making them. And I'm sure Tom Cruise will stop making MI one day, but that's not the point. The point is that everyone accepts that addressing Bourne in the early 2000's was something Bond simply had to do, like there was no way around it. Clearly action films were headed in a certain direction, and the responsibility fell at the Bond producers feet to demonstrate that it could fit in with this new reality. So why is there no need for Bond to address things nowadays, when the main spy franchise competition is of another nature, gets rave reviews, and each film is as/more successful than the last? there is no sense that Bond should take notes, and instead the prevailing attitude seems to be that they should bury their heads in the sand and hope for the best. We say that Bond is part of culture, and has always survived through multiple decades of cinematic change, but it has do so by keeping a keen eye on new trends, and there is no better demonstration than this than the 2006 reboot itself, which everyone seems to herald as a correct and savvy move from EON.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,883
    Filming a modern version of Casino Royale as a more straightforward spy thriller actually didn't hinge on the Bourne films. It's an obvious path to most folks that have read the Fleming novel. Sure Bourne was in the mix style-wise, but still.

    As far as the suggestion Bond films more take on the style of M:I, I don't think that's required at all. And I gotta say I'm surprised the proposal is to follow a franchise with a true Scooby gang, established rogue activity, and its own element of this-time-it's-personal-again as the way to go.

    What I want to see is a large-scale mission for OO7 and a true Bond film. That's what the filmmakers should be building toward since the 2006 reboot. There's no train off the tracks situation for Bond right now. The box office for BOND 23 and BOND 24 was great. BOND 25 will follow that fine.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited July 2018 Posts: 7,922
    I'm not saying just copy MI, that's just the closest franchise at hand. Truth is most franchises these days have moved on from the "gritty reboot" era, and embraced a more fun tone. Like you I am also hoping for a true Bond film, as it seems we haven't had one for a long time.
  • Posts: 7,653
    I do not care about the BO, if Bond 24 is another turd like SP than we gave a problem with the franchise, the Craig years so far has been way to experimental (read Oscar hunting) and less of a try to make a decent movie. Cubby must be most annoyed by the amount spend and the amount really visible on the screen.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,922
    SaintMark wrote: »
    I do not care about the BO, if Bond 24 is another turd like SP than we gave a problem with the franchise, the Craig years so far has been way to experimental (read Oscar hunting) and less of a try to make a decent movie. Cubby must be most annoyed by the amount spend and the amount really visible on the screen.

    Yes, because Babs and Craig aren't concerned with getting the basics right of a good story, as long as they have their artistic flourishes and emotional moments.
  • Posts: 4,400
    SaintMark wrote: »
    I do not care about the BO, if Bond 24 is another turd like SP than we gave a problem with the franchise, the Craig years so far has been way to experimental (read Oscar hunting) and less of a try to make a decent movie. Cubby must be most annoyed by the amount spend and the amount really visible on the screen.

    Yes, because Babs and Craig aren't concerned with getting the basics right of a good story, as long as they have their artistic flourishes and emotional moments.

    I'm not sure I can agree with you.

    Audience appetites are constantly changing. The trick is either desperately cater to what you think they want, or to anticipate something new that they weren't expecting.

    The Craig era was really built on a number of thing:

    1. Origin Stories were big in the early 00's.

    I know we're in the age of the 'reboot' but this wasn't a common term in 2005. At the time people liked seeing origin stories. CR was built around this principle. In fact, on the DVDs, Barbara explicitly mentions that the first Spider-Man film was a big influence on their decision to explore Bond's early days and his formation into 007.

    2. 'Dark and Gritty' became the norm after the success of Nolan's Batman films.

    Eon jumped on this bandwagon as it fit with the tone they were already chasing and it suited the direction they were already moving in with Daniel Craig. However, it shouldn't be forgotten that the Bourne films really dictated the mood and tone of Craig's early movies.

    3. Pleasing Daniel Craig.

    I think this has become the main motive of Eon since CR. They hired Roger Michell, Marc Forster, Sam Mendes and Danny Boyle as they were directors approved by Craig. It's Craig who has wanted to add more of an artistic flourish to the series and make the Bond character more introspective.

    Regardless of what you think of Craig's films. They have all been successful and guaranteed the success of the franchise moving forward. Personally, I feel it is necessary for the health of the Bond series for the films to change with the next actor.

    I think if the big influences on the Craig era were Spider-Man, The Dark Knight and Bourne; then the likelihood is that Marvel and Mission Impossible will be big influences on the next actor.

    For those wanting a more 'fun' film, then I think you just need to get past Craig's finale to get that film (however, I can't see Boyle making something overly naval-gazing).
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,922
    SaintMark wrote: »
    I do not care about the BO, if Bond 24 is another turd like SP than we gave a problem with the franchise, the Craig years so far has been way to experimental (read Oscar hunting) and less of a try to make a decent movie. Cubby must be most annoyed by the amount spend and the amount really visible on the screen.

    Yes, because Babs and Craig aren't concerned with getting the basics right of a good story, as long as they have their artistic flourishes and emotional moments.

    I'm not sure I can agree with you.

    Audience appetites are constantly changing. The trick is either desperately cater to what you think they want, or to anticipate something new that they weren't expecting.

    The Craig era was really built on a number of thing:

    1. Origin Stories were big in the early 00's.

    I know we're in the age of the 'reboot' but this wasn't a common term in 2005. At the time people liked seeing origin stories. CR was built around this principle. In fact, on the DVDs, Barbara explicitly mentions that the first Spider-Man film was a big influence on their decision to explore Bond's early days and his formation into 007.

    2. 'Dark and Gritty' became the norm after the success of Nolan's Batman films.

    Eon jumped on this bandwagon as it fit with the tone they were already chasing and it suited the direction they were already moving in with Daniel Craig. However, it shouldn't be forgotten that the Bourne films really dictated the mood and tone of Craig's early movies.

    3. Pleasing Daniel Craig.

    I think this has become the main motive of Eon since CR. They hired Roger Michell, Marc Forster, Sam Mendes and Danny Boyle as they were directors approved by Craig. It's Craig who has wanted to add more of an artistic flourish to the series and make the Bond character more introspective.

    Regardless of what you think of Craig's films. They have all been successful and guaranteed the success of the franchise moving forward. Personally, I feel it is necessary for the health of the Bond series for the films to change with the next actor.

    I think if the big influences on the Craig era were Spider-Man, The Dark Knight and Bourne; then the likelihood is that Marvel and Mission Impossible will be big influences on the next actor.

    For those wanting a more 'fun' film, then I think you just need to get past Craig's finale to get that film (however, I can't see Boyle making something overly naval-gazing).

    I agree with everything you just said. Good job.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2018 Posts: 23,883
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Mission Impossible will be the one to beat.
    Not from a box office perspective, because the Bond films tend to outgross MI overall, although MI has been more consistent of late.
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Mission Impossible will be the one to beat.

    I agree. MI is now what the Bourne films were in the 2000's.
    Critically I would agree. MI has critical momentum and hardcore audience 'passion' behind it these days, which is similar to Bourne in the early 00's, irrespective of overall box office numbers.

    What's interesting about these two franchises is that despite their similarities, they have very different geographical fanbases. If one studies the details, apart from the US where they are pretty much on par (SF excepted), MI (sometimes significantly) outgrosses Bond in the 'newer' expanding markets like South Korea, Japan, India, Brazil, Mexico and China. Bond conversely outgrosses MI in what Donald Rumsfeld famously termed 'old Europe', most notably UK, Germany, the Nordic countries and Italy as well as in Australia. France is closer, with Bond still ahead. I'd imagine that both franchises would like to expand their viewer base in the others territory, but it will be difficult. James Bond (particularly with Daniel Craig as lead) doesn't seem to me like something that would appeal to Asian markets. Their heroes, at least in my observation, tend to be more younger looking, cleaner cut and almost 'asexual' in appearance. Cruise-like in fact. Narratively, Bond also doesn't seem like something that would be as appealing there in comparison to the more 'action heavy' and easily translatable MI.

    In terms of B25, I suppose it will all depend on what direction Boyle takes. From what I can see so far, I'd imagine a very powerful UK/Europe gross again, but can't see it doing too well stateside where enthusiasm appears tepid at best (the articles about a new Bond actor continue to percolate despite Craig's return, suggesting that is the narrative that has a hold). It will be interesting to see how it plays given the long time away and all the press about replacements, cut wrists, money demands and so on over the past few years.
Sign In or Register to comment.