It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
@Daltonforyou
"No Time to Die" received a positive reception from audiences, with an 88% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. Critics also generally praised the film, giving it an 84% score on Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes also notes a 88% "Popcornmeter" score based on over 10,000 verified ratings. Some audience reviews on MovieTickets specifically highlight the film as a great ending to Daniel Craig's run as James Bond.
No Time to Die (2021)"
Anecdotally, I've mainly heard glowing reviews.
This film gets pissed on by the Bond die-hards, which is their opinion.
I just can't stand when they equate their opinion as facts.
And there we go about opinion being fact.
Thanks Deke. You never fail...
@peter
Most people who saw NTTD didn't give it a score on Rotten tomatoes. Your mistake is assuming that registered users of Rotten Tomatoes are representative of the global Audience that saw the movie. I'm sure you're also aware that theres many people who saw the movie who aren't Bond die-hards, who didn't like the movie all too much.
No need to get passive-aggressive defending your movie.
No Time To Die also received a CinemaScore grade of A-, and 83% “recommend”/63% “definitely recommend” on PostTrak - both of these audience polling scores tend to indicate a generally positive audience response (the A- grade is also fairly common for Bond films polled since CinemaScore started, with only three scoring higher than A- and four scoring lower), though the 63% “definitely recommend” is a little on the lower side.
The film also received pretty good legs at the US box office with a 2.915x multiplier, and is still the third highest-grossing film ever at the British box office.
@Daltonforyou
Your assumption of passive aggressive is silly.
I was merely giving you an archived snap shot.
Also, when a film is released and makes over $700 million bucks, that’s repeat business.
When it was approaching $800 million, during a pandemic, with an older skewing audience, that’s objectively speaking, boffo business.
No need for ad hominems. Thank you!
EDIT, nice find @K2WI …problem is, objective numbers, box office that represent strong repeat business will never be enough when people hate something (or, for whatever their reasoning, they need people to agree with their opinions).
Numbers are not emotional. Numbers don’t lie.
NTTD did damn fine business, especially for a fifth film with the same actor in the role.
🤷♂️
And the fifth did not do any better.
Numbers can lie because you can cherry-pick any data you want.
Wow Deke. Excellent work. No one was cherry picking anything, but you certainly are because SF was an outlier. Bond films don’t usually, or ever, make a billion-plus.
So you’re projecting onto others what you’re actually doing: cherry-picking without all the data.
@DEKE_RIVERS — you never fail me, do you (as in predictable). Stop trying to be a troll-contrarian.
And NSNA is calling your name again!
That's my point. I'm cherry picking.
Why can't they make a billion dollars? I'm sure EON would have liked to repeat the success.
Why? I dunno @DEKE_RIVERS , that’s a completely different conversation. That’s called, “ moving the goal posts”.
But a bigger why that you should ask yourself: why’d you continue trying to engage someone like me in some- what’d you call this?- debate? Conversation? Why, Deke, when it’s clear I just don’t want to chat with you, debate, or argue?
In fact, can you stop replying to my posts? It’s clear you’re not going to have an intelligent discussion, just an antagonistic one. And that’s a waste of my time, and yours.
Hug a family member.
You are the one who replies to my posts!
@Mendes4Lyfe , but with Punisher joining arguably the biggest comic book IP at the moment, Spider-Man, the expectation is SM is gonna go darker. Not R-rated dark, but significantly (if they keep true to the Punisher character).
But I can’t disagree with what you’re saying in a way; they need to re-launch and get butts in seats. *New* butts in seats, and the safest way of doing that is what they did do with the first three Holland-SM— fun for the whole family.
That is the clearest way of nailing the four quadrants, so on that I agree with you, @Mendes4Lyfe .
I just hope that if they’re moving in this direction (and I think they may be, hence my shot in the dark theory that King, or a King-like director may end up getting the gig), is that they can do it with all the class that James Bond deserves (also why I think King could be the director to launch Bond 26).
From my own personal experience I found most casual viewers actually thought it was quite good. Maybe not everyone’s favourite Craig Bond film, but most people I know who I’ve spoken to about it would say it’s one of the better Bond films.
I know it annoys some of us here - really, I do - but some of us need to get a grip and understand NTTD wasn’t a failure in this regard, even if it’s not our cup of tea.
Hmm? You know what, the way you put makes me think Paul King could have something. I think of the fabarage egg scenes in Octopussy, he could probably do well with the kind of class, tone, sophistication of that. If they are going for broad, then a lot of the humour in the paddington films is not far off a Roger Moore lighter style of Bond.
Inherently, Bond is spectacular and has that tinge of absurdity. They’re crowd pleasers by nature. Any director will understand that.
Personally, I’d like to see what happens if a director used to dealing with more character based films were tasked with making that ‘crowd pleaser’ of a Bond film. Arguably that’s what happened with Lewis Gilbert, Martin Campbell, and Sam Mendes.
Wait, don't you argue that the last 3 Bond films have plenty of humour in them, and are more or less "classic" Bond? So if you're saying you want to see a lighter film from someone with more dramatic credentials, then the question is what would you be looking for that Sam Mendes or Cary Fukunaga didn't already deliver? Because, trying to look at it from your perspective (that those films have plenty of classic moments and light touches) that's exactly what they are.
Nope.
"'No Time To Die' earns an A- Cinemascore. This compares to 'Casino Royale' (A-), 'Quantum of Solace' (B-), 'Skyfall' (A), and 'Spectre' (A-)."
https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/q4dv4o/no_time_to_die_earns_an_a_cinemascore_this/
I think you’d get a Bond film with humour, spectacle, and potentially an interesting approach to direction and character. Every director and Bond film is different so I don’t see the worry about doing ‘more of the same’. A lot of this depends on how they develop the story I suspect.
Fair enough, I just thought it was interesting how you said "personally I'd like to see what happens if..." that would appear to imply a novel approach or a break from what we've seen, when really you would just like to see them carry on exactly as they have been doing.
Perhaps it’s just bad wording. I think to some extent EON always did it (even Young kind of fits that description). I think there’s a good reason. I think in tandem with the directors own creative vision it gives something interesting.
But ultimately, as I said, I think it’s about development and story.
So there was something about the story of the last 3 films which made them darker than your average "classic" Bond. Glad to finally have that sorted.
The real issue is when the tone keeps shifting dramatically from film to film; like starting in Wright territory and suddenly veering into Villeneuve’s lane, or vice versa. That kind of inconsistency can make the whole franchise feel disjointed. So for me, it’s about picking a lane and driving it well.
Yes. I don’t think I ever denied that 😂
Worth saying the director will, to some extent, be involved in the story development (I presume anyway). So it’s not unrelated.
Wait, really? So all those times you said that the last Bond films had plenty of humorous moments and light touches, and you couldn't tell what "classic" Bond meant anyway, or how it was in any different, you were all the while fully willing to acknowledge on some level that these stories were cut from different cloth and darker by the nature they were written?
Fine, I'll be the worse Bond. Then make it better.
Yes, I’d say they’re films with quite a lot of humour and spectacle, and the filmmakers went into them wanting to entertain their audiences and make… well, James Bond films. SF-NTTD also give Bond personal obstacles that you could say are unique to the series (although they have ideas from previous Bond films and Fleming and use these consciously) and are made to give these stories a compelling dramatic element. A lot of the storytelling choices in these films are darker in tone and fatalistic. Which isn’t unprecedented for Bond between books and films, or at least this can be argued.
I guess what I’m saying is a Bond film can have ‘serious’ (I’d say interesting rather than serious though) ideas in there and be escapist and fun… in fact that’s kind of ideal. They can veer quite far into darkness and still have those qualities as blockbusters.
I think the Bond formula is continuously readapted for each individual Bond adventure, so perhaps that had something to do with that conversation you’re referencing about classic Bond films? It’s not uncommon for me to reevaluate many of my opinions on films anyway, but I don’t know the context for that off the top of my head. I think that was what I was getting at though.