 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The worst thing I can say about No Time To Die is that it had kind of a "David Arnold lite" sound for much of it. I would have rather had Arnold score it instead, but what can you do? I wasn't quite about the quotes from OHMSS either. "Good To Have You Back" in particular seemed to have no reason to use the theme.
I liked most of it as an entertaining marriage between the Zimmer sound and the Bond sound, but I have to say my shoulders slumped a little when I heard both the descending BLACK RAIN motif (which I learned from one of the recent Note for Note releases actually predates BLACK RAIN) and yet another play on the seemingly ubiquitous Gandalf's gone motif from FOTR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
To paraphrase something James Southall said in his SKYFALL review, I think what I really want is for guest Bond composers to find a way to have the composer's voice AND to sound like a Bond score at the same time (which SKYFALL does).
A weird thing about NO TIME TO DIE, is that the first half of the album sounds like Bond music (although I wouldn't necessarily think that it was Zimmer in a blind taste test -- probably because he didn't actually write much of it himself!), whereas the last part of the album is PURE Zimmer, in a greatest hits kind of way.
I don't know... I think the movie is good, and that the music generally feels "right" in it. It seems to take influence from the Arnold and Newman scores from the earlier Craig movies, in order to make it all sound connected, which was probably the right thing to do as well. I've listened to the album several times, and I like it well enough. I neither think it's the greatest Bond score ever written, nor is it the worst.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This movie is huge. A lot of Oscar nominations are coming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 8, 2022 - 3:30 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
TheAvenger
(Member)
|
Saw the film yesterday. Boring, overlong movie, boring score, narcotic title song. The final battles seemed to last forever. For such a long movie there was too little of a story. Yawn. Wasted money. 
I agree with you on everything you’ve said (although you forgot to mention humourless too). You said there was “too little story” and aim impressed you could find any story at all. I still don’t know what the bad guy’s master plan was.
But be careful, there is a very small contingent in this thread who will lambast you for having such an opinion, or say you don’t know what you’re talking about, or worse just get plain personal like one particular waste-of-ejaculate has done with me.
But that aside, the fact is that this film has been massively divisive both amongst Bond fans and the general public. Last time I checked it was under-performing at the box office although in fairness that could be a multitude of reasons (Covid in particular) so isn’t really a true reflection on how popular or not the film is.
What I personally hope for though is that Eon will take the next Bond (character and movie) in a very different direction, and re-introduce some of the elements that made the Bond series great before those elements were stripped away when 007 becomes James Bourne. I’m not suggesting the series go all Diamonds Are Forever again but something along the lines of Goldeneye would be terrific - a hard Bond for sure, but one that didn’t spend the entire move perpetually depressed or habitually resigning or getting thrown out of the Secret Service. Bring back the gadgets (not an invisible car but something!), have some inventive action sequences (can’t recall a single one in NTTD that didn’t look like something I had seen before in other movies) and please, please, bring back some humour. I’m not suggesting Moonraker style pigeons but at least a lightness of touch that, say, Brosnan had and which Daniel Craig lacked entirely.
Will this happen? Who knows? Eon have been very good at re-inventing the series when they re-cast so I’m hopeful, plus it’s kind of hard to see them going any darker than the last few movies. So fingers crossed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saw the film yesterday. Boring, overlong movie, boring score, narcotic title song. The final battles seemed to last forever. For such a long movie there was too little of a story. Yawn. Wasted money.
I agree with you on everything you’ve said (although you forgot to mention humourless too). You said there was “too little story” and aim impressed you could find any story at all. I still don’t know what the bad guy’s master plan was.
But be careful, there is a very small contingent in this thread who will lambast you for having such an opinion, or say you don’t know what you’re talking about, or worse just get plain personal like one particular waste-of-ejaculate has done with me.
But that aside, the fact is that this film has been massively divisive both amongst Bond fans and the general public. Last time I checked it was under-performing at the box office although in fairness that could be a multitude of reasons (Covid in particular) so isn’t really a true reflection on how popular or not the film is.
What I personally hope for though is that Eon will take the next Bond (character and movie) in a very different direction, and re-introduce some of the elements that made the Bond series great before those elements were stripped away when 007 becomes James Bourne. I’m not suggesting the series go all Diamonds Are Forever again but something along the lines of Goldeneye would be terrific - a hard Bond for sure, but one that didn’t spend the entire move perpetually depressed or habitually resigning or getting thrown out of the Secret Service. Bring back the gadgets (not an invisible car but something!), have some inventive action sequences (can’t recall a single one in NTTD that didn’t look like something I had seen before in other movies) and please, please, bring back some humour. I’m not suggesting Moonraker style pigeons but at least a lightness of touch that, say, Brosnan had and which Daniel Craig lacked entirely.
Will this happen? Who knows? Eon have been very good at re-inventing the series when they re-cast so I’m hopeful, plus it’s kind of hard to see them going any darker than the last few movies. So fingers crossed.
„waste of ejeculate“.
Really?
Mods, is that okay for you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 8, 2022 - 4:07 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mephariel
(Member)
|
Saw the film yesterday. Boring, overlong movie, boring score, narcotic title song. The final battles seemed to last forever. For such a long movie there was too little of a story. Yawn. Wasted money.
I agree with you on everything you’ve said (although you forgot to mention humourless too). You said there was “too little story” and aim impressed you could find any story at all. I still don’t know what the bad guy’s master plan was.
But be careful, there is a very small contingent in this thread who will lambast you for having such an opinion, or say you don’t know what you’re talking about, or worse just get plain personal like one particular waste-of-ejaculate has done with me.
But that aside, the fact is that this film has been massively divisive both amongst Bond fans and the general public. Last time I checked it was under-performing at the box office although in fairness that could be a multitude of reasons (Covid in particular) so isn’t really a true reflection on how popular or not the film is.
What I personally hope for though is that Eon will take the next Bond (character and movie) in a very different direction, and re-introduce some of the elements that made the Bond series great before those elements were stripped away when 007 becomes James Bourne. I’m not suggesting the series go all Diamonds Are Forever again but something along the lines of Goldeneye would be terrific - a hard Bond for sure, but one that didn’t spend the entire move perpetually depressed or habitually resigning or getting thrown out of the Secret Service. Bring back the gadgets (not an invisible car but something!), have some inventive action sequences (can’t recall a single one in NTTD that didn’t look like something I had seen before in other movies) and please, please, bring back some humour. I’m not suggesting Moonraker style pigeons but at least a lightness of touch that, say, Brosnan had and which Daniel Craig lacked entirely.
Will this happen? Who knows? Eon have been very good at re-inventing the series when they re-cast so I’m hopeful, plus it’s kind of hard to see them going any darker than the last few movies. So fingers crossed.
„waste of ejeculate“.
Really?
Mods, is that okay for you?
The film wasn't even underperforming. It earned $770 million in the pandemic era.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of things are factoring into the box office of films these days and I'm frankly surprised Spider-Man is actually doing THIS much business, considering how contagious this wave of Covid is. But, yeah, not only is Spider-Man a larger draw, there's a huge amount of interest in the multiverse and how and if Marvel is tying together all of the legacy films. It's also a more upbeat and fun ride than NTTD.
I loved NTTD and I will admit I'll revisit it less often than a film like No Way Home because NWH is legitimately a lot of fun and all of the Easter eggs make rewatching rewarding. This is very much the "Endgame" of Spier-Man films and hits he feels in a different and less sad and final way than NTTD.
I think a shake up is going to happen in the 007 films either way. The change in actor always brings a change in focus and tone. It's a time to refresh and revitalize. And, again, while I have zero problems with the Daniel Craig films (other than the need to retcon Blofeld into the overall mastermind who is also Bond's wacky foster brother), I think making them fun thrill rides again would be great. I do give the Craig's credit for not going out in over the top "parasurfing off melting ice caps" craziness. Some folks may not like the super serious tone but at least the 5 films stayed reasonably consistent instead of changing every film.
But sure, I'm all for fun. These days, I think we need it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The film wasn't even underperforming. It earned $770 million in the pandemic era.
But if you look at Trade sources, it is suggested that the film needs US$900m to break even - just break even. So on that basis I’m afraid NTTD is under-performing financially.
And I accept (and said as much in my original post) that the figures are always going to be skewed because of the pandemic. But Spider-Man: No Way Home was released in the pandemic era too and that has annihilated No Time To Die at the box office. That you might kind of expect anyway - Spidey is a bigger box office than Bond. But it’s also worth mentioning that NTTD didn’t perform that much better than F9.
I appreciate that the above figures don’t reflect what the film has earned from streaming and Blu Ray sales and I’m sure those will push the movie into profit. So yes, NTTD is hardly going to be considered a flop Whether it will be make a huge profit remains to be seen but if it doesn’t, will that be the catalyst for Eon to shake up the formula or will they stick with the current style on the basis that NTTD’s box office was damaged by the pandemic and the multiple delayed releases. Only time will tell.
IF and I say IF this fact is even true, this is everything massively wrong with the film industry expectation these days. If a film bringing in 770 is considered a flop (or needs 900m to even break even, a massive risk) that's just absolutely ridiculous. I frankly though don't even know where that number comes from - the budget of the movie was only $250-300 million. And I find it hard to believe distribution and advertising costs are going to be 3x the cost of making the movie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 9, 2022 - 10:30 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mephariel
(Member)
|
The film wasn't even underperforming. It earned $770 million in the pandemic era.
But if you look at Trade sources, it is suggested that the film needs US$900m to break even - just break even. So on that basis I’m afraid NTTD is under-performing financially.
And I accept (and said as much in my original post) that the figures are always going to be skewed because of the pandemic. But Spider-Man: No Way Home was released in the pandemic era too and that has annihilated No Time To Die at the box office. That you might kind of expect anyway - Spidey is a bigger box office than Bond. But it’s also worth mentioning that NTTD didn’t perform that much better than F9.
I appreciate that the above figures don’t reflect what the film has earned from streaming and Blu Ray sales and I’m sure those will push the movie into profit. So yes, NTTD is hardly going to be considered a flop Whether it will be make a huge profit remains to be seen but if it doesn’t, will that be the catalyst for Eon to shake up the formula or will they stick with the current style on the basis that NTTD’s box office was damaged by the pandemic and the multiple delayed releases. Only time will tell.
That is not how it works. Circumstances matters. Demographics matter. For example, Dune probably didn't hit its break even point with $396 million. But it was enough to get a sequel going because you build upon your foundation. Even without streaming, Dune was mostly likely facing an uphill battle to break even. Insiders said that Warner was happy with $300 million even though that was far from making a profit.
Spider-Man is an franchise that is far more popular among young people than No Time to Die. James Bond films geared towards the older audience, and they were far less likely to go into the movie theaters during the pandemic. I don't think you can compared the appeal level of the two franchises. This is the same with Fast and Furious. Both F7 and F8 earned more than $1 billion at the box office worldwide, more than the previous 2 Bond film before the pandemic era. The Fast and Furious franchise has wide appeal around the world due to its diverse cast. So beating F9 actually is quite a feat.
With that said, yes, Eon will most likely shake up the formula in some ways. Not necessarily because No Time to Die is a failure, but because franchises need to evolve. I would imagine at minimum, Bond would be younger. Bond needs to appeal this generation of moviegoers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 9, 2022 - 12:02 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
SchiffyM
(Member)
|
IF and I say IF this fact is even true, this is everything massively wrong with the film industry expectation these days. If a film bringing in 770 is considered a flop (or needs 900m to even break even, a massive risk) that's just absolutely ridiculous. I frankly though don't even know where that number comes from - the budget of the movie was only $250-300 million. And I find it hard to believe distribution and advertising costs are going to be 3x the cost of making the movie.
They way overspent on No Time to Die in my opinion. But to vaguely answer your question, the accounting is more complicated than that. Movie theaters take a cut of the take (a relatively small take, but when you're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, it's not insignificant). Some profit participants (producers, actors, director) get "first dollar gross points," meaning they are paid a percentage of every dollar the film takes in. (These replaced profit participation for people who had the power to demand it, because the studios had perfected the art of creative accounting that proved no film had ever made a profit.) Residuals are owed to hundreds of creative participants for on-demand and disc releases (and further venues down the line). Sometimes, loans are taken out to finance the film, and there is interest owed on those loans. Advertising (which you mention) is significant, and in this case, most of the ad campaign had to be run twice, a year apart. Some corporate sponsors may have had deals with a deadline – that is, say, Land Rover's contract for placing their cars in the film, in exchange for money and promotion, may have had an expiration date (under normal circumstances, not a problem to make) because they don't want to be stuck pushing last year's models. (I'm making up that particular instance, but I know that sort of thing has been an issue with some films delayed by the pandemic.)
I didn't especially enjoy No Time to Die, but in a normal way people don't enjoy movies. That is, it didn't offend me, it didn't rape my childhood. I just found it an overlong, muddled, joyless drag.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But sure, I'm all for fun. These days, I think we need it.
Amen to that, Scott.
Have fun, absolutely. But not by calling me a „waste of ejaculate“ anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 10, 2022 - 1:23 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Coco314
(Member)
|
IF and I say IF this fact is even true, this is everything massively wrong with the film industry expectation these days. If a film bringing in 770 is considered a flop (or needs 900m to even break even, a massive risk) that's just absolutely ridiculous. I frankly though don't even know where that number comes from - the budget of the movie was only $250-300 million. And I find it hard to believe distribution and advertising costs are going to be 3x the cost of making the movie.
They way overspent on No Time to Die in my opinion. But to vaguely answer your question, the accounting is more complicated than that. Movie theaters take a cut of the take (a relatively small take, but when you're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, it's not insignificant).
Actually, if I am not mistaken, the Movie theaters take a big, not a relatively small cut of the take (Gross as reported). In the US, the studio gets slightly above 50% of the gross, for foreign countries it is 40% except China which lets only only 25% (that is why domestic gross is so important). So for the 774 M$ worldwide gross of NTTD (160 US + 548 Foreign +65 China), the studio makes thus around only 315 M$ .
If you take into account the marketing, participations and others as reported by Schiffy, you see why such big blockbusters might need additional incomes through Home Entertainment, VOD etc so get out of the red.There are detailed explanations of the various costs/incomes for "Spectre" (that turned a healthy 98 M$ in profit) available at this page: https://deadline.com/2016/03/spectre-profit-box-office-2015-james-bond-1201723528/ , if you're interested in that sort of things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 10, 2022 - 1:33 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
This is correct, theaters and distributors take a lot of the box office, and marketing is often extremely expensive. The typical formula is that a film needs to gross 2.5 -3X the cost of production before it reaches an actual profit. This Bond film was very expensive, as stated, something around $250 million, it would be a gross around $750 million to break even. Sadly, these kinds of films are becoming dominant, the theater is filled with this, while smaller films disappear quickly or go directly to streaming.
Agreed NTTD is a drag, spectacularly non-fun, for something that cost that much
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
