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

134689172

Comments

  • //Whatever. There are reports stating SP's production budget is $245M and others saying $300M.//

    --$300 million figure came from the Sony leaks. It was an email by an MGM executive. I think he said at the current rate of spending, they were on track to spend in the "mid" $300 million.

    The email got into suggested cost savings and ways to maximize tax credits from Mexico. The idea was to slow down the rate of spending.

    --$245 million figure came from unspecified "sources" in stories appearing on major entertainment websites (THR, Variety, etc.) I suspect that was a figure Sony was putting out there to make people forget the Sony hack figure. But that's just my speculation.
  • Creasy47 wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Spectre s budget surely didn't look like 245 mill on screen that's for sure.

    That's always been my problem - where did the money go? How did they spend over $20 million on the Rome car chase and deliver such a pedestrian, "safe" feeling car chase?

    Actually 24 million *pounds*. At the time of production, the exchange rate was $36 million. And, no, it didn't look like it was worth that kind of spending.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    //Whatever. There are reports stating SP's production budget is $245M and others saying $300M.//

    --$300 million figure came from the Sony leaks. It was an email by an MGM executive. I think he said at the current rate of spending, they were on track to spend in the "mid" $300 million.

    The email got into suggested cost savings and ways to maximize tax credits from Mexico. The idea was to slow down the rate of spending.

    --$245 million figure came from unspecified "sources" in stories appearing on major entertainment websites (THR, Variety, etc.) I suspect that was a figure Sony was putting out there to make people forget the Sony hack figure. But that's just my speculation.

    Ah, there you go. Thanks for the clarification.
  • Posts: 4,023
    Wasn’t the 245m figure the one where they were taking into account money received for product placement and sponsorship?
  • vzok wrote: »
    Wasn’t the 245m figure the one where they were taking into account money received for product placement and sponsorship?

    That is my impression.
  • Posts: 1,680
    Spectre s budget surely didn't look like 245 mill on screen that's for sure.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Wasn’t it $250 Million?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,285
    Wasn’t it $250 Million?

    I doubt the $5 million makes a difference - didn't seem like either amount translated well to screen.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,984
    These movies are expensive not just for what's shown on screen but for what's going behind the camera. Had a pedestrian like John Glen filmed the Mexico sequence, it would look VERY different, ie cheap. Bond walking on the rooftops would have likely been shot on a soundstage at Pinewood.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited August 2018 Posts: 7,995
    These movies are expensive not just for what's shown on screen but for what's going behind the camera. Had a pedestrian like John Glen filmed the Mexico sequence, it would look VERY different, ie cheap. Bond walking on the rooftops would have likely been shot on a soundstage at Pinewood.

    Not to be that guy but a lot of that was done in Pinewood.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited August 2018 Posts: 12,883
    Well, it's not like Dalton had some kind of magic carpet ride, anyway.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited August 2018 Posts: 7,984
    These movies are expensive not just for what's shown on screen but for what's going behind the camera. Had a pedestrian like John Glen filmed the Mexico sequence, it would look VERY different, ie cheap. Bond walking on the rooftops would have likely been shot on a soundstage at Pinewood.

    Not to be that guy but a lot of that was done in Pinewood.

    That looked a hell of a lot more seamless than the greenscreen shots of Craig in the helicopter. :O
  • Posts: 725
    Is it me or is the North American box office for bond getting tinier and tinier? Soon it shall disappear.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited August 2018 Posts: 7,984
    Aside from the peak of Connery's run and SKYFALL, the North American box office business of Bond films never seemed to come close to many other blockbuster contemporaries. Just look at all the films that surpassed CASINO ROYALE in North America. I don't think many could make the claim that they hold up all that well a decade later.

    https://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2006&p=.htm
  • Posts: 4,400
    It's sad to thing that if they go ahead for 2019 that the film will have a massive taint around it that won't help at the BO.

    The film is starting to feel like an awkward turkey and audiences can sniff a cash grab. If Eon go ahead, they will need something BIG to distract people from all the noise surrounding the film currently.

    You need some big marquee names like Angelina Jolie, Gary Oldman, Meryl Streep, etc to save this film.

    Currently, it's 'selling factor' is diminishing rapidly.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,984
    It's sad to thing that if they go ahead for 2019 that the film will have a massive taint around it that won't help at the BO.

    The film is starting to feel like an awkward turkey and audiences can sniff a cash grab. If Eon go ahead, they will need something BIG to distract people from all the noise surrounding the film currently.

    You need some big marquee names like Angelina Jolie, Gary Oldman, Meryl Streep, etc to save this film.

    Currently, it's 'selling factor' is diminishing rapidly.

    I seriously doubt most people would even be aware of the Boyle thing that that alone would impact the box office. Most audiences aren't even aware of who's directing these Bond films as they've never been promoted as vehicles for big name directors. It's the same with Marvel. Edgar Wright leaving Ant-Man was a big deal among cinephiles, but I doubt most audiences that went to see that were ever aware of his involvement let alone who he is.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 870
    It's really hard for me to imagine Maryl Streep in a Bond film.
  • Posts: 6,672
    It's sad to thing that if they go ahead for 2019 that the film will have a massive taint around it that won't help at the BO.

    The film is starting to feel like an awkward turkey and audiences can sniff a cash grab. If Eon go ahead, they will need something BIG to distract people from all the noise surrounding the film currently.

    You need some big marquee names like Angelina Jolie, Gary Oldman, Meryl Streep, etc to save this film.

    Currently, it's 'selling factor' is diminishing rapidly.

    I disagree, sir. There's no need for big stars. A damned good film will do. I mean, this is Bond; it's a brand name. If the film is good, word will get around and people will watch it. Stars are a bonus inducement.

    It's sad to thing that if they go ahead for 2019 that the film will have a massive taint around it that won't help at the BO.

    The film is starting to feel like an awkward turkey and audiences can sniff a cash grab. If Eon go ahead, they will need something BIG to distract people from all the noise surrounding the film currently.

    You need some big marquee names like Angelina Jolie, Gary Oldman, Meryl Streep, etc to save this film.

    Currently, it's 'selling factor' is diminishing rapidly.

    I seriously doubt most people would even be aware of the Boyle thing that that alone would impact the box office. Most audiences aren't even aware of who's directing these Bond films as they've never been promoted as vehicles for big name directors. It's the same with Marvel. Edgar Wright leaving Ant-Man was a big deal among cinephiles, but I doubt most audiences that went to see that were ever aware of his involvement let alone who he is.
    I agree with this, as well.
  • BOND is the STAR. Most big tentpole films today have well known actors in them but outside of their tentpole films they have problems opening a film at the box office. A bit like the STAR WARS, MARVEL franchises. Its the Franchise that is the star. STAR WARS or a MARVEL film would open to huge numbers no matter who was in it. There were no "big" stars in Rogue One for example but it still made a huge amount at the box office based on brand name alone. The last few BOND films have had well known and respected actors in them. When was the last time that people flocked to a film because Javier Bardem or Christophe Waltz was in it. They have been in other films but I don't think that audiences flocked to them because they were the star. Even DC has not had a huge hit outside of the Bond franchise recently.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 4,400
    I think Eon should entertain the prospect of giving up their November 2019 release date. There are numerous reasons why they should do this:

    1. They’ll need a new director who should be allowed enough time to create develop the script.
    2. The marketplace is overly crowded in November 2019.
    3. Both Wonder Woman 1984 and Terminator will be competing for much of the same audience as Bond.

    Furthermore, a 2020 release doesn’t necessarily mean a year’s delay. It could be a matter of months. Many huge movies have moved away from the Thanksgiving/Christmas and summer periods over the last few years. The success of these films speak for themselves.

    • Batman v Superman opened in March 2016.
    • Kong: Skull Island open in March 2017.
    • Black Panther opened in February 2018.
    • X-Men: Dark Phoenix will open in February 2019.
    • Captain Marvel will open in March 2019.

    Big franchise films opening earlier in the year will only become more frequent. It’s a good way to avoid the competition and ensure a longer play in theatres as there is virtually nothing else in your way.

    If Bond kept it’s 2019 release date, it’ll have to compete with a flock of new entries including Star Wars Episode IX and Jumanji over the coming weeks. Delaying to March 2020 makes the most commercial and creative sense.

    The only obvious downside is the limitations it presents to Oscar prospects. But this only really became a norm in the Sam Mendes era. Bond could own March if Eon got the idea of Oscars out of their head (plus, if the film is good enough, it’ll still have buzz going into Oscar season).
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    edited September 2018 Posts: 732
    I can more than live without the Oscars if they are won by „songs“ like WOTW. Take a breath and think about Roger Deakins not winning for Skyfall and Sam Smith winning for SP. To me, this is all nonsense.

    Anyway: I will go and see a new Bond film any time but prefer fall/winter. What you say makes perfect sense in terms of commercial considerations - even I doubt Bond will have to fear any of it‘s competition in general.
  • SeanCraig wrote: »
    I can more than live without the Oscars if they are won by „songs“ like WOTW.

    Anyway: I will go and see a new Bond film any time but prefer fall/winter. What you say makes perfect sense in terms of commercial considerations - even I doubt Bond will have to fear any of it‘s competition in general.

    There's always a fear that audiences grow either disinterested or apathetic and decide not to turn up. The Star Wars franchise had to deal with that situation earlier this year with Solo. That was a fun film but there was a general 'meh' response from audiences who are now oversaturated with choice. They can just stay at home and watch Netflix, Amazon, Hulu or HBO. Why bother going to the cinema unless it's an 'event' film?

    Bond has always been 'event' cinema. However, you don't want to take that title for granted as it only got that title from the audience.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    I can more than live without the Oscars if they are won by „songs“ like WOTW.

    Anyway: I will go and see a new Bond film any time but prefer fall/winter. What you say makes perfect sense in terms of commercial considerations - even I doubt Bond will have to fear any of it‘s competition in general.

    There's always a fear that audiences grow either disinterested or apathetic and decide not to turn up. The Star Wars franchise had to deal with that situation earlier this year with Solo. That was a fun film but there was a general 'meh' response from audiences who are now oversaturated with choice. They can just stay at home and watch Netflix, Amazon, Hulu or HBO. Why bother going to the cinema unless it's an 'event' film?

    Bond has always been 'event' cinema. However, you don't want to take that title for granted as it only got that title from the audience.

    Solo bombed for several reasons. It starred a rather unknown actor in an iconic role played by a beloved actor; it came out shortly after another SW movie which was not very received in first place, it got little to no advertising and it was surrounded by a negative buzz (the main actor needed an acting coach, the directors were fired).

    Comparing Bond 25 to Solo is not fair. I think the only two movies Bond 25 might compete with Bond are Star Wars 9 (but that comes 1+ month after Bond, and The Force Awakens did not prevent SPECTRE from being a commercial success; plus they may have a different audience) and Wonder Woman since the first one, afaik, was well acclaimed.

    Terminator may be somewhat successful because of Schwarzy and Hamilton coming back and Cameron producing, but the last three Terminator movies all bombed and the first two were not hugely successful to begin with.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 7,995
    Walecs wrote: »
    .

    Terminator may be somewhat successful because of Schwarzy and Hamilton coming back and Cameron producing, but the last three Terminator movies all bombed and the first two were not hugely successful to begin with.

    Not to be picky as I agree with Terminator not being a huge threat - at least with current expectations - but T2 was a massive success. It was the highest grossing film of '91, and at the time, was the third highest grossing film ever.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    I stand corrected.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Walecs wrote: »
    .

    Terminator may be somewhat successful because of Schwarzy and Hamilton coming back and Cameron producing, but the last three Terminator movies all bombed and the first two were not hugely successful to begin with.

    Not to be picky as I agree with Terminator not being a huge threat - at least with current expectations - but T2 was a massive success. It was the highest grossing film of '91, and at the time, was the third highest grossing film ever.

    I think I only ever saw a bigger crowd outside the cinema for Robin Hood, Star Wars and Avatar.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 7,995
    Walecs wrote: »
    .

    Terminator may be somewhat successful because of Schwarzy and Hamilton coming back and Cameron producing, but the last three Terminator movies all bombed and the first two were not hugely successful to begin with.

    Not to be picky as I agree with Terminator not being a huge threat - at least with current expectations - but T2 was a massive success. It was the highest grossing film of '91, and at the time, was the third highest grossing film ever.

    I think I only ever saw a bigger crowd outside the cinema for Robin Hood, Star Wars and Avatar.

    Terminator will never be that successful ever again, methinks. Lightning in a bottle.
  • Posts: 9,694
    Will there be a box office in 2119 ;)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,285
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Will there be a box office in 2119 ;)

    At that point, I've no clue, but I figure we'll eventually reach a period in time where you can watch new releases day one from your house. They've dabbled in the idea before so it's only a matter of time.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Will there be a box office in 2119 ;)

    At that point, I've no clue, but I figure we'll eventually reach a period in time where you can watch new releases day one from your house. They've dabbled in the idea before so it's only a matter of time.

    Straight into your brain.
Sign In or Register to comment.