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

1122123125127128172

Comments

  • Maybe you should take a closer look at what I wrote.
  • Posts: 7,500
    But we don't know it's in the red. People are speculating wildly with numbers!
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Beside the fact that we don't have a clear idea of how much money Bond will lose after its theatrical release, it's impossible and not fair to judge its performance without taking the current situation into consideration.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,664
    jobo wrote: »
    But we don't know it's in the red. People are speculating wildly with numbers!

    And not even intelligent or informed speculation.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 2,015
    To have an idea of how well NTTD is doing in Germany, the cumulative figures in its 4th week-end is 4.4 M of viewers (a figure that allows to compare the past a bit more easily than with money, because there is no mechanical inflation).
    That's more than the cumumative figure of the 4th week-end for QOS, CR, DAD, TWINE, TND, that's a bit more than GE, and since then only SP and SF are above it, and well, there was no pandemic then !
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    So NTTD is officially the highest grossing film in Italy. In 2012 and 2015 both SF and SP ended up at #6 so that's quite impressive.

    VERY BAD news from China, on the other hand. Pre-sales are abysmal so there's no way NTTD is gonna make $50 million there. In China without a strong marketing there's no way to make good money, and NTTD is clearly not putting so much efforts like SP did.

    So most likely NTTD won't be able to outgroos F9 globally.
  • jobo wrote: »
    But we don't know it's in the red. People are speculating wildly with numbers!
    People are speculating with the numbers being given. The same way anyone can look at numbers compare and contrast. The production budget is estimated to be at least $250M. If we look at the budgets of the last 3 which were around $220M(QoS), $200M(SF) and $245M(SP) it's not unreasonable to believe the numbers floating around for NTTD being $250M are accurate or at the very least close enough. At the end of the day even if NTTD had the same budget as QoS, as of now and based on early projections it's still not a certainty for the film to breakeven THEATRICALLY. I'm pointing this out as a mere observation, looking at numbers from a commercial standpoint.
    Again, I've stated this film is in the same boat as every other pandemic film but based on reported numbers it's doing very well internationally. However, if you're going to look at the numbers, you have to look at them against the reported costs and as a whole not just the revenue made in agreeable markets.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,664
    Who paid for those budgets? And did QOS lose money?
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 328
    Who paid for those budgets? And did QOS lose money?

    It's a bit immaterial who paid for the budgets. The fact is these investments were made to get the films produced. The expectation is that the film performs well enough to generate a worthwhile return, like any good business sets out to do.
    QoS theatrically made $590M and had a budget of $220M. Let's say the film had a marketing budget of $150M (there's no way its coming in less than that) that would mean QoS just about broke even. Obviously I'm only accounting for the theatrical component here and not ancillary products like home media etc.

    Again, my stance on this is purely observational. There's nothing anyone here should be worrying about. Bond 26 is coming and NTTD is performing better than most in this pandemic era.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 1,314
    I mean really it’s absolutely ludicrous that Quantum of Solace cost nearly a quarter of a billion dollars.

    Absolute waste and bloat
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,273
    Minion wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    If NTTD did flop massively, it may put the brakes on the whole series, which I definitely don't want to happen.

    Well, you can calm down then, relax, and pour yourself a glass of wine: NTTD isn't a flop.

    Too early for a glass of wine. I'm just about to hit the gym.

    Don’t forget to mask-up.

    No masks here mate. UK is fairly relaxed with gyms and masks policy.

    Probably explains why our daily infection rate is shocking... ;)
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,664
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Who paid for those budgets? And did QOS lose money?

    It's a bit immaterial who paid for the budgets. The fact is these investments were made to get the films produced. The expectation is that the film performs well enough to generate a worthwhile return, like any good business sets out to do.
    QoS theatrically made $590M and had a budget of $220M. Let's say the film had a marketing budget of $150M (there's no way its coming in less than that) that would mean QoS just about broke even. Obviously I'm only accounting for the theatrical component here and not ancillary products like home media etc.

    Again, my stance on this is purely observational. There's nothing anyone here should be worrying about. Bond 26 is coming and NTTD is performing better than most in this pandemic era.

    No, it does matter. Heineken isn't getting money back. They paid a bunch of money to be part of the movie. So did a bunch of other companies. Much of those budgets are paid by people for marketing purposes, and that money doesn't have to be made back at the box office to break even.

    And no, the producers didn't lose money on QOS and then spend a similar amount on SF. They didn't barely break even (at best) on SP and then make a movie that has to outgross it to break even. This whole analysis is stupid.
  • Posts: 372
    A budget of 250 millions $ does not, at any point, means the movie had to roll 250 millions $ in the bank during it's production.

    Let's say the promotion is done with partners inhouse, (the distributor, or inside), the promo budget could be 100 millions $, but in reality, it would have cost a tenth of that.

    Products placements, clothing placements, means if the costume and accessories budget is say, 30 millions $, the real amount would be closer to a quarter of that.

    Let's say the director is paid 5 millions... maybe he only gets 2 millions upfront, and the rest is guaranteed on the tickets sold, beginning with 200 millions at the B.O. So his salary is 5, but only 2 is given to him.

    You can go on and on... When the public figures are given at 250 millions, it means the movie production value is this... but the real money spent to get this value is probably around 125 millions, or less.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,664
    +1

    Here's an easier example. Let's say Bond 26 costs $1 billion to produce and market, and that money is 100% supplied by product placement and endorsements.

    Then it makes $1.5 billion at the box office.

    The producers will have hundreds of millions in profit, the marketers will have got what they want, and a bunch of geniuses on the internet will be talking about how it didn't "break even".
  • Matt007 wrote: »
    I mean really it’s absolutely ludicrous that Quantum of Solace cost nearly a quarter of a billion dollars.

    Absolute waste and bloat

    Yep, all the on-location filming they did contributed heavily to the budget, which is why they were determined to try and be a bit more economical with the next film. SF makes a $Billion and then the budget gets bigger again with SP and NTTD.
  • Posts: 625
    Stamper wrote: »
    A budget of 250 millions $ does not, at any point, means the movie had to roll 250 millions $ in the bank during it's production.

    Let's say the promotion is done with partners inhouse, (the distributor, or inside), the promo budget could be 100 millions $, but in reality, it would have cost a tenth of that.

    Products placements, clothing placements, means if the costume and accessories budget is say, 30 millions $, the real amount would be closer to a quarter of that.

    Let's say the director is paid 5 millions... maybe he only gets 2 millions upfront, and the rest is guaranteed on the tickets sold, beginning with 200 millions at the B.O. So his salary is 5, but only 2 is given to him.

    You can go on and on... When the public figures are given at 250 millions, it means the movie production value is this... but the real money spent to get this value is probably around 125 millions, or less.

    Correct.
    And the production company gives the highest number possible for the budget, so that the win will be as low as possible to avoid paying too many taxes.
    So everything, that can be put into the production cost will end up in there.
  • 9IW9IW
    Posts: 59
    Film financing is too complex for these simple analyses. Substantial portions of both the revenue and expense sides are variable, not fixed. Many of those items have both fixed and variable components. The manner and amount the investors are paid depends on the performance of the film. Same for the product placement revenue. Box office receipts are variable depending upon both the location of the BO and the date the ticket is sold. EON has a fixed guaranteed fee and a variable share. Others may have a similar deal. It is a dynamic budget and impossible to quantify in the simple terms being thrown around.

    Profitability is a moving target as well. EON will profit. Universal will likely profit. MGM and investors may not. Or, all three of those statements are false.

    Saying “NTTD is a huge hit, therefore profitable” is wrong. Saying “NTTD lost money, therefore a flop” is wrong. The film is a huge hit. And may lose money. This is Hollywood.
  • Posts: 625
    9IW wrote: »
    The film is a huge hit. And may lose money. This is Hollywood.

    As did "The World Is Not Enough".
    Many fans tend to forget, that that movie lost money.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,664
    Jan1985 wrote: »
    9IW wrote: »
    The film is a huge hit. And may lose money. This is Hollywood.

    As did "The World Is Not Enough".
    Many fans tend to forget, that that movie lost money.

    I never knew it lost money!
  • Posts: 309
    matt_u wrote: »
    So NTTD is officially the highest grossing film in Italy. In 2012 and 2015 both SF and SP ended up at #6 so that's quite impressive.

    VERY BAD news from China, on the other hand. Pre-sales are abysmal so there's no way NTTD is gonna make $50 million there. In China without a strong marketing there's no way to make good money, and NTTD is clearly not putting so much efforts like SP did.

    So most likely NTTD won't be able to outgroos F9 globally.

    It sucks because reports were that NTTD was going to have a splashy promotional tour in China prior to the pandemic. It is what it is. Post pandemic, a Chinese release wasn't guaranteed. I mean, I don't think Marvel will have any films premier in China this year, save for Spider-Man (which is not confirmed either way). There's a point where you have to cut your losses and make what you can. No one is at fault.

    I still hope NTTD can hit $700M WW.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Burgess wrote: »

    I still hope NTTD can hit $700M WW.

    Yeah me too.

    Now Bond stands at $525 million. North America, China and Australia will provide something like another $75 million. So it needs another $100 million from the rest of the world to hit that milestone. I honestly think it won't be able to do it.
    F9 grossed $200 million in China. That's the only reason why Bond won't be able to ougross that Vin Diesel/John Cena nonsense.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    NTTD makes F9 look like Hey Duggee. Embarrassing film.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Last F&F film I watched was like ten years ago.
  • Posts: 131
    matt_u wrote: »
    Last F&F film I watched was like ten years ago.

    The last good one was Fast Five, which came out in 2011, so I guess it figures ;)
    The rest have skated on accumulated fanbase goodwill and, I suppose, on an ongoing appetite for increasingly implausible stunts.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    I stopped watching after Furious 7, mainly due to them simply not having the same heart after Paul Walker was no longer a part of them. The films simply don't work without him. The most recent few (including Hobbs & Shaw in this) have been mind-numbingly dull.
  • If No Time To Die reaches 650 to 750 million world wide, it is considered at least a financial failure. It needs at least 800 million for MGM/EON to break even...
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    It looks like a of people work at MGM...

    MI6HQ says $918 mil. Variety says $800 mil.

    Truth is no one knows exactly.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    Armchair accountants gonna armchair.
  • Posts: 131
    I stopped watching after Furious 7, mainly due to them simply not having the same heart after Paul Walker was no longer a part of them. The films simply don't work without him. The most recent few (including Hobbs & Shaw in this) have been mind-numbingly dull.

    I absolutely agree, Paul Walker was the heart of those films, and the friendship between Dom and Brian was the central axis of the bigger "family" throughout, which is the reason I am also very partial to Fast & Furious aka part 4. Furious 7 was the last one I watched at the cinema, for the same reason. I watched the others including F9 on a small screen, without really paying attention. All stunts, not much soul.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 7,500
    Minion wrote: »
    Armchair accountants gonna armchair.


    Not that I have anything against armchair accountants. Many of them are *lovely people...
Sign In or Register to comment.