Jump to content

Eric Prime

NO TIME TO DIE WEEKEND THREAD | Bond 56M, Venom 32M

By Eric Prime, in Numbers and Data

Recommended Posts

Recommended

Posted by Water Bottle,

Whoops. Sorry guys, weekend was busy and stuff.   But sale will be live for the whole week:   GOLD ACCOUNT FOR $007 FOR ONE MONTH!
Recommended by Water Bottle
  • Astonished

3 reactions

Go to this post
Darth Homer Box Office Gold

Darth Homer

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Chicago said:

 

No

 

Yeah the last thing British (or any Bond fan for that matter) wants most is Bond to become Americanised. If we allowed the young American millennials and Gen Zers to have their way with Bond he'd probably lose all his masculinity. We would just be left with a woke/cringe inducing Bond, or even a Jane Bond, we don't want this

 

Either that or they'd milk it for all it's worth with spinoffs every year to the point of killing it 

 

Okay, bring back Lazenby then. The kids will love him!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


John Marston Global Phenomenon

John Marston

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Ronin46 said:

 US opening mediocre dont make the overall numbers bad either.


 

look I liked the movie, but if you think the studio is going to be happy or not notice a weak domestic gross and this being one of the lowest attended Bond movies, I don’t know what to say 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chicago Box Office Gold

Chicago

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, Let There Be Legion said:

Uhhhhh...   

 

You *are* aware of the current state of the wizarding world franchise, right?

 

Its lowest grossing spinoff was still twice as successfull as one of Star wars' Spin off movies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites






Ipickthiswhiterose Box Office Gold

Ipickthiswhiterose

Posted
Posted

I think it's going to be very difficult to move Bond forward from here. Not because of the BO of this film because that international market is excellent but because the gritty-reboot factor is going to be impossible to enact and they're gong to have to think a bit more out of the box in terms of where they take the tone from here.

 

All three of the last New-Bond launches have been done as a 'gritty reboot' of the franchise on the basis this represents a deviation from what came before. With Dalton it was true, Brosnan got away with it because Goldeneye came after a considerable hiatus and the popular consciousness was still more dominated by Moore than Dalton, Craig got away with it because Brosnan's last 2 movies were increasingly whimsical in tone with a poorly received final film broadly seen as too silly.

 

But the constant distancing-from-the-past is a dangerous game as best manifested by the contemporary perception of Brosnan's era. It has been wild to see the difference between how Brosnan's era was perceived at the time (very positive) with how it has been increasingly seen in the Craig era (where it seems to have been retrospectively seen more and more negatively by fandom and more importantly general audiences). Throwing your own legacy under the bus either in fandom (to prioritise how amazing the current Bond is seen as) or outside it (to appear contemporary and moving with the times) is going to catch up with a series eventually. 

 

To summarise, we are now in a scenario where of the last 11 Bond films, 9 have leaned 'gritty and serious' and only 2 have leaned 'adventurous and fun'. And of the 2 'adventurous and fun' movies, one of them is seen as being awful and the other is unfairly best known for a supposedly silly Bond girl, despite having one of the best female characters in any Bond movie. I think that is a shame, and runs the risk of ending up stripping the movies of a key element of their appeal.

 

I don't think it's outrageous to suggest that the next three Bond movies could really benefit from being much more 'standard' movies with an emphasis on the template, fun locations, silly villains with ostentatious bases and a lighter tone. The Austin Powers special. Pure luxury movies. I think that's the only direction to go from where we are. But firstly this risks being accused of 'mcu-ifying' the movies in some quarters and secondly given the norm that has been set with the Craig era, I can't quite see how that won't alienate much of the new audience from the last 14 years. 

 

It's going to be extremely hard to move on from the Craig era I think. They need to think outside the box, which is a curious project for a series that's whole success is largely predicated on being in the box.

 

The Doctor Who parallels are considerable. David Tennant was near impossible to follow. Moffatt initially managed it, but only by repeatedly iterating that Matt Smiths' Doctor and his companions were EVEN MORE IMPORTANT than the last, but that just kind of kicked the can down the road and eventually found its way to Capaldi where despite his being brilliant the audience just ran out of juice, and Who has ended up in reboot purgatory, with perceptions it peaked long ago, ever since. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites




wildphantom Box Office Gold

wildphantom

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Ipickthiswhiterose said:

I think it's going to be very difficult to move Bond forward from here. Not because of the BO of this film because that international market is excellent but because the gritty-reboot factor is going to be impossible to enact and they're gong to have to think a bit more out of the box in terms of where they take the tone from here.

 

All three of the last New-Bond launches have been done as a 'gritty reboot' of the franchise on the basis this represents a deviation from what came before. With Dalton it was true, Brosnan got away with it because Goldeneye came after a considerable hiatus and the popular consciousness was still more dominated by Moore than Dalton, Craig got away with it because Brosnan's last 2 movies were increasingly whimsical in tone with a poorly received final film broadly seen as too silly.

 

But the constant distancing-from-the-past is a dangerous game as best manifested by the contemporary perception of Brosnan's era. It has been wild to see the difference between how Brosnan's era was perceived at the time (very positive) with how it has been increasingly seen in the Craig era (where it seems to have been retrospectively seen more and more negatively by fandom and more importantly general audiences). Throwing your own legacy under the bus either in fandom (to prioritise how amazing the current Bond is seen as) or outside it (to appear contemporary and moving with the times) is going to catch up with a series eventually. 

 

To summarise, we are now in a scenario where of the last 11 Bond films, 9 have leaned 'gritty and serious' and only 2 have leaned 'adventurous and fun'. And of the 2 'adventurous and fun' movies, one of them is seen as being awful and the other is unfairly best known for a supposedly silly Bond girl, despite having one of the best female characters in any Bond movie. I think that is a shame, and runs the risk of ending up stripping the movies of a key element of their appeal.

 

I don't think it's outrageous to suggest that the next three Bond movies could really benefit from being much more 'standard' movies with an emphasis on the template, fun locations, silly villains with ostentatious bases and a lighter tone. The Austin Powers special. Pure luxury movies. I think that's the only direction to go from where we are. But firstly this risks being accused of 'mcu-ifying' the movies in some quarters and secondly given the norm that has been set with the Craig era, I can't quite see how that won't alienate much of the new audience from the last 14 years. 

 

It's going to be extremely hard to move on from the Craig era I think. They need to think outside the box, which is a curious project for a series that's whole success is largely predicated on being in the box.

 

The Doctor Who parallels are considerable. David Tennant was near impossible to follow. Moffatt initially managed it, but only by repeatedly iterating that Matt Smiths' Doctor and his companions were EVEN MORE IMPORTANT than the last, but that just kind of kicked the can down the road and eventually found its way to Capaldi where despite his being brilliant the audience just ran out of juice, and Who has ended up in reboot purgatory, with perceptions it peaked long ago, ever since. 


to be fair, they’ve managed to reinvent him for new audiences for 60 years, over 25 films, so I think Bond has earned the benefit of the doubt he’ll be just fine. 
 

Nobody does it better. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites




MCKillswitch123 Summer Tentpole

MCKillswitch123

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Chicago said:

 

No

 

Yeah the last thing British (or any Bond fan for that matter) wants most is Bond to become Americanised. If we allowed the young American millennials and Gen Zers to have their way with Bond he'd probably lose all his masculinity. We would just be left with a woke/cringe inducing Bond, or even a Jane Bond, we don't want this

 

Either that or they'd milk it for all it's worth with spinoffs every year to the point of killing it 

 

 

Kids these days, they really come up with moronic things to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites




Chicago Box Office Gold

Chicago

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, charlie Jatinder said:

since you said so far, Venom 2 ww will be over NTTD. 

I beg to differ. 

 

3 minutes ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

 

Kids these days, they really come up with moronic things to say.

 

Hush child, you know it's true

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Eric Prime Global Phenomenon

Eric Prime

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Guys we get it. 

 

Nobody is saying James Bond is over or that the franchise is dead. Nobody's saying that the film is a flop. However, it is in fact possible to walk and chew gum here. You can acknowledge the strong global total the film will earn while also acknowledging mediocre US numbers.

 

I'm also unsure why people here are upset about suggestions on what Eon should do for the next one to improve box office. If you don't agree with it, that's fine, but like...why would people not do that? Even if NTTD grossed more than Skyfall we would probably discuss what new ideas or changes should be done for the next Bond actor.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites




charlie Jatinder Global Phenomenon

charlie Jatinder

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Chicago said:

I beg to differ

In 3 markets Venom 2 has opened so far, its handily ahead NTTD. Of course none of them is Europe and other than Italy, Spain & France neither will really get close to NTTD as well but that can be easily set off by just China.

 

V2 will be targeting $800-900M WW, NTTD most likely be $750M+.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.

  I accept