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

11415171920172

Comments

  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,811
    I'm happy with what we get. 24 films to watch whenever we want, a 25th film coming out early next year. Why is that not enough?
    As many others have stated, film making has changed over the years. The films that Cubby and Harry produced in the sixties, one per year later progressed to every other year, and then after LTK have been on a infrequent release rate. And deep down, honestly...I'm fine with that.
    I'm happy that EON is still a family business with Broccoli and Wilson at the helm.
    I'm happy that they still have ultimate control of the series and haven't sold out.
    I'm happy we still get a new Bond film, that is made to be the best it possibly can be. (Despite not all fans liking the finished film, you cant please everyone after all.)
    I'm happy that the films haven't been sold to a major studio, to be churned out as often as possible, and in doing so, eventually losing their identity and charm.
    I'm happy with the James Bond series as it is.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I believe I really did comment on that, @GertGettler, just two posts above.

    Ah sorry @DarthDimi :-). I'm just a bit worried about the future of the Bond-franchise....
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I believe I really did comment on that, @GertGettler, just two posts above.

    Ah sorry @DarthDimi :-). I'm just a bit worried about the future of the Bond-franchise....

    People have been saying that since the 60s.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    Benny wrote: »
    I'm happy with what we get. 24 films to watch whenever we want, a 25th film coming out early next year. Why is that not enough?
    As many others have stated, film making has changed over the years. The films that Cubby and Harry produced in the sixties, one per year later progressed to every other year, and then after LTK have been on a infrequent release rate. And deep down, honestly...I'm fine with that.
    I'm happy that EON is still a family business with Broccoli and Wilson at the helm.
    I'm happy that they still have ultimate control of the series and haven't sold out.
    I'm happy we still get a new Bond film, that is made to be the best it possibly can be. (Despite not all fans liking the finished film, you cant please everyone after all.)
    I'm happy that the films haven't been sold to a major studio, to be churned out as often as possible, and in doing so, eventually losing their identity and charm.
    I'm happy with the James Bond series as it is.

    I respect that @Benny :-). Though I happily say 'let's agree to disagree'. You make it sound like a bad thing if the franchise is sold out (something I don't want either). What I do want is a more stable, lean and practical movie company overtaking duties from the mess that MGM/Annapurna/UA is at the moment. The ownership of Bond is a complex thing. What if I say that EON simply keeps their part of the Bond-franchise, while MGM/Annapurna/UA is being taken over fully by Universal Pictures so that Universal takes over ownership of the Bond-parts that are owned by MGM? What's wrong with a much simpler, leaner, practical organisation of the Bond-franchise?

    EON Productions Ltd. (Danjaq Inc.) maintains ownership of their parts of the Bond-brand.
    Universal Pictures gets the ownerships previously owned by MGM and stands in -Always- for both production, marketing and distribution costs. All investment costs under 1 banner.

    What's so wrong about that?

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited September 2019 Posts: 7,999
    I'm sure EON would love to break free from MGM and be partnered with a stronger studio.

    It's a shame MGM has been in such lousy shape. One that always gets me is how Ted Turner acquired the rights to all their pre-1986 films and sold it to WB! So much history, many of their prime eras, no longer under their ownership. Sure, they may have United Artists and Orion, but still!
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    edited September 2019 Posts: 431
    RC7 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I believe I really did comment on that, @GertGettler, just two posts above.

    Ah sorry @DarthDimi :-). I'm just a bit worried about the future of the Bond-franchise....

    People have been saying that since the 60s.

    The worries in the 2010's have become more urgent and profound though. The worries in the 60's existed because there was no precedent. Bond then was what Marvel is now: Top of the bill franchise that, indeed, got everyone worried because it was such a winning formula. Those worries mostly existed out of its own success. Worries today, also my worries, are caused by deeper, more worrying factual problems with the Bond-franchise at large. As I tried to point out.

    One thing we do agree on: We all keep 'worrying' about "No Time To Die" being a good Bond-film or not. Speculation about the upcoming Bond-film is what enhances all the fun that we have as Bond-fans ;-). But that's bseides the point in this topic off course.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    I'm sure EON would love to break free from MGM and be partnered with a stronger studio.

    It's a shame MGM has been in such lousy shape. One that always gets me is how Ted Turner acquired the rights to all their pre-1986 films and sold it to WB! So much history, many of their prime eras, no longer under their ownership. Sure, they may have United Artists and Orion, but still!

    Yeah exactly @MakeshiftPython . All this recent stuff going on with 'Billion Dollar Girl Megan Ellison' of Annapurna (thus United Artists Releasing) makes me sigh. If only…...if onlyyyy……MGM and Annapurna would be bought over in full by a company like Universal. It would cause so much more stability.

    However, there were rumours that Gary Barber, former head of MGM, wanted exactly that: selling MGM. And that actually EON was against something like that. If that is true, then Barbara & Michael mostly prey on such a 'divide-and-conquer' (or 'divide-and-status-quo') situation where all they care for is maintaining the current situation so they basically stay the more powerful heads of the franchise.

    It makes sense from the perspective of Barbara's and Michael's bank accounts. But it's not a healthy long-term strategy for the Bond-franchise.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I believe I really did comment on that, @GertGettler, just two posts above.

    Ah sorry @DarthDimi :-). I'm just a bit worried about the future of the Bond-franchise....

    People have been saying that since the 60s.

    The worries in the 2010's have become more urgent and profound though. The worries in the 60's existed because there was no precedent. Bond then was what Marvel is now: Top of the bill franchise that, indeed, got everyone worried because it was such a winning formula. Those worries mostly existed out of its own success. Worries today, also my worries, are caused by deeper, more worrying factual problems with the Bond-franchise at large. As I tried to point out.

    One thing we do agree on: We all keep 'worrying' about "No Time To Die" being a good Bond-film or not. Speculation about the upcoming Bond-film is what enhances all the fun that we have as Bond-fans ;-). But that's bseides the point in this topic off course.

    Let’s see how NTTD goes down before we start acting like the franchise is in its death throes. These films will continue to happen, regardless. That much is certain.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    edited September 2019 Posts: 431
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I believe I really did comment on that, @GertGettler, just two posts above.

    Ah sorry @DarthDimi :-). I'm just a bit worried about the future of the Bond-franchise....

    People have been saying that since the 60s.

    The worries in the 2010's have become more urgent and profound though. The worries in the 60's existed because there was no precedent. Bond then was what Marvel is now: Top of the bill franchise that, indeed, got everyone worried because it was such a winning formula. Those worries mostly existed out of its own success. Worries today, also my worries, are caused by deeper, more worrying factual problems with the Bond-franchise at large. As I tried to point out.

    One thing we do agree on: We all keep 'worrying' about "No Time To Die" being a good Bond-film or not. Speculation about the upcoming Bond-film is what enhances all the fun that we have as Bond-fans ;-). But that's bseides the point in this topic off course.

    Let’s see how NTTD goes down before we start acting like the franchise is in its death throes. These films will continue to happen, regardless. That much is certain.

    The franchise currently is not in its death throes. Otherwise we wouldn't have this production NTTD being filmed at this very moment. But this is also a discussion about the long-term longevity of the franchise (Where does the franchise stand in 5, 10 or even 15 years from now?). But I do agree with our notion: Let's see how NTTD goes down eventually :-) \:D/ .
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    There was a time people were convinced the Bond series was dead post LTK.

    No franchise ever stays dead, unless it's THE LONE RANGER.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,447
    Just to be clear; are we talking about the franchise or the film series? Because those two things are not the same!

    Personally, I hate the fact that people keep calling it a "franchise". It reduces the Bond legacy to a patented brand, to a "business" without the art. Said business, by the way, is still very healthy. The Bond brand sells hardcore. People keep buying Blu-ray discs of Goldfinger for example. Anything with the 007 logo on it sells better than without it, from perfume to lunch boxes. The "franchise" is a pretty solid thing.

    The film series, by contrast, is more fluid and susceptible to an audience's taste, sensitivities and mood swings. The series also represents the "art" that goes into the filmmaking.

    So can we please stop referring to the film series as a franchise?
  • RC7RC7
    edited September 2019 Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I believe I really did comment on that, @GertGettler, just two posts above.

    Ah sorry @DarthDimi :-). I'm just a bit worried about the future of the Bond-franchise....

    People have been saying that since the 60s.

    The worries in the 2010's have become more urgent and profound though. The worries in the 60's existed because there was no precedent. Bond then was what Marvel is now: Top of the bill franchise that, indeed, got everyone worried because it was such a winning formula. Those worries mostly existed out of its own success. Worries today, also my worries, are caused by deeper, more worrying factual problems with the Bond-franchise at large. As I tried to point out.

    One thing we do agree on: We all keep 'worrying' about "No Time To Die" being a good Bond-film or not. Speculation about the upcoming Bond-film is what enhances all the fun that we have as Bond-fans ;-). But that's bseides the point in this topic off course.

    Let’s see how NTTD goes down before we start acting like the franchise is in its death throes. These films will continue to happen, regardless. That much is certain.

    The franchise currently is not in its death throes. Otherwise we wouldn't have this production NTTD being filmed at this very moment. But this is also a discussion about the long-term longevity of the franchise (Where does the franchise stand in 5, 10 or even 15 years from now?). But I do agree with our notion: Let's see how NTTD goes down eventually :-) \:D/ .

    Personally I’m happy the way EON operate. Where the franchise stands in 10-15 years is not really our concern, nor should it be theirs to a certain extent. They function in quite a reactive way, which is perfectly suitable given this is a franchise built on event movies, not an entire universe built to prop up myriad commercial ancillary channels.

    Look at DC’s grand plan, absolutely shot to sh*t and SW, while the numbers might look ok, they’re way short of Disney’s projections and there is a growing feeling that post-ROS the trilogy will be seen as a relative failure.

    EON have played it very efficiently, not tying themselves to any long term plan. Nobody knew pre-NTTD whether we’d even be getting another DC vehicle. It’s smart, because they can gauge reaction and course correct without looking like they’ve abandoned their ‘grand plan’.

    I hope they continue to be reactive, just a little bit more frequently.

    Also, Marvel is an exception and a pointless barometer.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    edited September 2019 Posts: 431
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Just to be clear; are we talking about the franchise or the film series? Because those two things are not the same!

    Personally, I hate the fact that people keep calling it a "franchise". It reduces the Bond legacy to a patented brand, to a "business" without the art. Said business, by the way, is still very healthy. The Bond brand sells hardcore. People keep buying Blu-ray discs of Goldfinger for example. Anything with the 007 logo on it sells better than without it, from perfume to lunch boxes. The "franchise" is a pretty solid thing.

    The film series, by contrast, is more fluid and susceptible to an audience's taste, sensitivities and mood swings. The series also represents the "art" that goes into the filmmaking.

    So can we please stop referring to the film series as a franchise?

    I was always referring to the whole shabang: films anddd brand. When I wrote this article https://spycommandfeatures.wordpress.com/bond-confronting-changing-media/, I had to take into account the entire (overly) complex organization and financial/legal structure of the franchise. If only only legal issue arises, if only one distribution partner is absent (MGM can't distribute), then Bond films can't be made. So I'm afraid you have to look at the franchise at large if you want to have a proper financial (profits & losses) discussion about it. Therefore, the franchise and the film series are inextricably linked….if you like it or not. Without a film, the franchise doesn't earn as much money as during production of a film. Without aspects of the organizational/legal structure of the franchise not being in place properly, no film will be produced.

    Regarding the brand....I'm afraid it's way more fluidic than you make it look like. BluRay's hardly sell anymore. The Bond-brand (merchandise) isn't as succesful as for instance Disney and Marvel merchandise. Bond focuses, more than Marvel, on older people too. Soo the lucrativity of the franchise is also a debatable aspect.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    As above can we quit using Marvel as a barometer. It doesn’t occupy the same space. It’s a useless conversation.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    RC7 wrote: »
    I hope they continue to be reactive, just a little bit more frequently.

    We agree on that.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    Marvel is mostly aimed at families, something the Bond series has gotten away for quite awhile now.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    Marvel is mostly aimed at families, something the Bond series has gotten away for quite awhile now.

    Perhaps……they should get back into that field a bit more again? Just a bit?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    Marvel is mostly aimed at families, something the Bond series has gotten away for quite awhile now.

    Perhaps……they should get back into that field a bit more again? Just a bit?

    I really don't think they should. I like that the Bond films have lately skewed towards adults. Leave it to Marvel to draw the kiddies.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Marvel is mostly aimed at families, something the Bond series has gotten away for quite awhile now.

    Perhaps……they should get back into that field a bit more again? Just a bit?

    I really don't think they should. I like that the Bond films have lately skewed towards adults. Leave it to Marvel to draw the kiddies.

    They can’t compete. Marvel is perfectly geared to modern kids. They want everything yesterday and Marvel is in the unique position to give them that. Even the Lego DB5 wasn’t aimed at kids. The Bond movies are still event movies for families, but they’re not made to shift toys and games. There’s nothing to be gained from chasing that market and EON know that.

    They could certainly exploit the IP better, but it’s hard for the IP alone to deliver numbers. It needs to be a perfect storm, where the licensee is delivering something brilliant regardless of IP - as happened with Rare when they delivered the phenomenon that was GE64.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    What content is in the movies isn’t important for Bond to attract a younger audience. Video games are.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    For Bond on video games, GE64 has kind of been both a blessing and a curse. It certainly helped the 007 brand, but at the same time most of the developers since then have been trying to chase its success. First person shooter is frankly an unsuitable genre for Bond. METAL GEAR SOLID 3: SNAKE EATER is possibly the best Bond video game never made. Much more emphasis on tactical espionage and less on pumping bad guys full of bullets.
  • Posts: 1,314
    @GertGettler I do think a little perspective brother would go a long way. You seem to be repeatedly worried/concerned etc about things beyond your control. The last two bond films inflationary adjusted are up there with the biggest box office ever for the series. And they’re making another. Can’t really be any more positive than that.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    Matt007 wrote: »
    @GertGettler I do think a little perspective brother would go a long way. You seem to be repeatedly worried/concerned etc about things beyond your control. The last two bond films inflationary adjusted are up there with the biggest box office ever for the series. And they’re making another. Can’t really be any more positive than that.

    The whole forum exists on interest about things that our most definitely beyond your, our control no? Production diaries for instance. We love it. But it's beyond our influence. Same with this topic. Box office figures are also beyond our control. But may I be allowed to be fascinated, interested in film entertainment business at large, and more specifically about finances?

    About inflation adjustments: necessary precaution to look into box office grosses when you compare different (historical) box office years yes. But still, it's about grosses, about ticket sales. And doesn't say much about return-on-investment or sheer profits. The latter is the big bottleneck of the Bond-films at the moment. Let's hope NTTD becomes a critically acclaimed and financially acclaimed Bond-flick.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    DAD : Flop
    C R : Hit
    QOS : Flop
    SF : Hit
    looking at bond's History & Photos and BTS footage it looks like we are in for a treat & something unique.
    As for bond26 and beyond I suppose there is a thread for that.
    I still think it can gross a billion easily.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,447
    Wait. QOS a flop? I must have missed that memo.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Wait. QOS a flop? I must have missed that memo.

    According to critics for me it is still awesome ;)
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    edited September 2019 Posts: 431
    DAD : Flop
    C R : Hit
    QOS : Flop
    SF : Hit
    looking at bond's History & Photos and BTS footage it looks like we are in for a treat & something unique.
    As for bond26 and beyond I suppose there is a thread for that.
    I still think it can gross a billion easily.

    If the following happens (more or less), I would be relatively happy (if a were the CFO):

    Investments (excluding the lucrative indirect sponsorship deals):
    $0195 Million: full production budget ("SPECTRE" was close to $300 Million)
    $0115 Million: full marketing & distribution budget ("SPECTRE was close to $200 Million)
    $0310 Million: TOTAL investment costs

    Sales (world wide box office gross)
    $0160 Million: box office gross China
    $0245 Million: box office gross US/Canada
    $0620 Million: box office gross Rest of the world
    ▄ $1025 Million/$1.025 Billion: TOTAL global box office gross

    Profits (taking into account distribution of the profits among players)
    ▄ $1025 Million ─ $0310 Million = $0715 Million TOTAL profit
    ▄ $0715 Million x 0,35 (35%) = $0250.25 Million for Universal (taking into account Universal might have a better deal with MGM/UA/EON than Sony's lacklustre 25%)
    $0715 Million x 0,65 (65%) = $0464.75 Million for EON/MGM/UA
    ▄ ($1025 Million : $0310 Million) x 100% = 331% ROI (all costs)
    ▄ ($1025 Million : $0195 Million) x 100% = 526% ROI (excl. marketing & distribution)

    After thoughts
    ▄ An ROI of 331% means the film made/earned 3,3 times its original budget to almost 'break even'
    ▄ The above would be, in my opinion, rather realistic, slightly above-positive calculations of the real-time profits of "No Time To Die".
    .
    .
    .
    Just to compare it with "SPECTRE", which IMO was a dire affair financially:

    Investments (excluding the lucrative indirect sponsorship deals):
    $0300 Million: full production budget
    $0200 Million: full marketing & distribution budget
    $0500 Million: TOTAL investment costs

    Sales (world wide box office gross)
    $0160 Million: box office gross China
    $0084 Million: box office gross US/Canada
    $0597 Million: box office gross Rest of the world
    $0881 Million: TOTAL global box office gross

    Profits (taking into account distribution of the profits among players)
    ▄ $0881 Million ─ $0500 Million = $0381 Million TOTAL profit
    ▄ $0381 Million x 0,25 (25%) = $0095.25 Million for Sony Pictures (Amy Pascal, dear o dear, WTF did you do)
    $0381 Million x 0,75 (75%) = $0285.75 Million for EON/MGM
    ▄ ($0881 Million : $0500 Million) x 100% = 176% ROI (all costs)
    ▄ ($0881 Million : $0300 Million) x 100% = 294% ROI (excl. marketing & distribution)

    After thoughts
    ▄ An ROI of 176% means the film barely broke even, and actually lost on many aspects quite a lot of money. Hence we talk about a 'financial flop'.
    ▄ This is surely not something we would like to see with "No Time To Die".


    So let's hope NTTD manages to scratch the $1 Billion mark, though I think it won't surpass "Skyfall". Then, if the investments/costs are like I portrayed above, then "No Time To Die" is on its way to become an important, positive result for all players involved, MGM, EON Productions, UA Releasing and especially for Universal Pictures. I wouldn't be surprised that there's a bit more leverage with both UA releasing, Universal and MGM to drag EON Productions in a new Bond film much sooner than EON perhaps wants. But it could happen :-). Here's to some exciting months ahead for "No Time To Die".
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    edited September 2019 Posts: 431
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Wait. QOS a flop? I must have missed that memo.

    For movie bosses, QOS was close to, or actually was a 'financial flop'. Its budget was increaed tremendously, while it didn't outgross CR. It's ROI-figure was also dire to say the least. In comparison, "Deadpool" really was the "Dr. No" of recent years within the action/semi-Marvel-universe/R-rated genre.
    YqFKpbq.png
    FVnm7hx.jpg
  • Posts: 1,314
    @GertGettler
    Absolutely it’s all beyond my control- that’s why I don’t spend time worrying about it. If NTTD id good then I’m happy. If not I’ll move on.


    ROI is a stat that isn’t as persuasive as you think. Films cost more to make sure, but what would any sane business person want - a 50% positive return on investment on skyfall, or 100% return on investment on Dr no.

    50% of a lot is more than 100% of a little.

    FYI - here’s eons published reports and accounts. Publicly available from companies house...

    https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00697555/filing-history
  • I'm sure EON would love to break free from MGM and be partnered with a stronger studio.

    It's a shame MGM has been in such lousy shape. One that always gets me is how Ted Turner acquired the rights to all their pre-1986 films and sold it to WB! So much history, many of their prime eras, no longer under their ownership. Sure, they may have United Artists and Orion, but still!

    It was a smidge more complicated.

    Turner bought MGM in a deal financed with a lot of debt.

    Turner figures it can't service all that debt. Sells the studio back to Kirk Kerkorian, but keeps the film library. It uses that library for programming, first on TNT channel, later to get TCM started in 1994.

    It wasn't until the 1990s that Turner sold itself to Time Warner, then the parent company of Warner Bros.
Sign In or Register to comment.