JAMES BOND: NO TIME TO DIE starring Daniel Craig (2021) 2 2

[▫️]

Spoiler

And what’s up with that misleading title, because apparently he found the time.

 

Edited November 21, 2021 by ▫️

[Get Marwood & I]

On 11/21/2021 at 4:58 PM, ▫️ said:

Well they showed him alive laying on the back of the wolf. Oh wait, that was Liam Neeson in The Grey. Sorry.

We could've done with him, the Neeson.

I will look for you. I will find you. And I will rewrite your deeply unsatisfactory ending. 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 11/21/2021 at 5:01 PM, ▫️ said:

And what’s up with that misleading title, because apparently he found the time.

No time to die like the present. 

[Bosco685]

 

[Larryw7]

So another reboot after this one? Maybe a return to the old formula? I think I would like to see a Sean Connery/Timothy Dalton style 007 again.

[Gatsby77]

On 11/23/2021 at 5:17 AM, Larryw7 said:

So another reboot after this one? Maybe a return to the old formula? I think I would like to see a Sean Connery/Timothy Dalton style 007 again.

?

To me, the Craig Bonds were absolutely a return to the Connery/Dalton style -- a welcome breather after the constant comedy and camp of the Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan runs.

What changes would you like to see?

Edited November 23, 2021 by Gatsby77

[Gatsby77]

Oh - hey. 

It's just Variety noting that the latest James Bond film was so expensive it needed ~$900 million for a theatrical break-even and won't hit that.

May lose the studio close to $100 million, despite being the highest theatrical grosser of the year so far.

Hmm...

https://variety.com/2021/film/news/no-time-to-die-highest-grossing-movie-losing-money-blockbusters-1235111919/

[▫️]

On 11/23/2021 at 8:51 PM, Gatsby77 said:

Oh - hey. 

It's just Variety noting that the latest James Bond film was so expensive it needed ~$900 million for a theatrical break-even and won't hit that.

May lose the studio close to $100 million, despite being the highest theatrical grosser of the year so far.

Hmm...

https://variety.com/2021/film/news/no-time-to-die-highest-grossing-movie-losing-money-blockbusters-1235111919/

Pretty sad when a film needs close to a billion dollars to break even. Seems unreal.

[Bosco685]

On 11/23/2021 at 12:51 PM, Gatsby77 said:

Oh - hey. 

It's just Variety noting that the latest James Bond film was so expensive it needed ~$900 million for a theatrical break-even and won't hit that.

May lose the studio close to $100 million, despite being the highest theatrical grosser of the year so far.

Hmm...

https://variety.com/2021/film/news/no-time-to-die-highest-grossing-movie-losing-money-blockbusters-1235111919/

Or from your superhero tagline...

I posted this the other day in the coronavirus thread. You may have missed this from the article.

Quote

“Unnamed and uninformed sources suggesting the film will lose money are categorically unfounded and put more simply, not true,” MGM spokesperson said in a statement. “The film has far exceeded our theatrical estimates in this timeframe, becoming the highest grossing Hollywood film in the international marketplace and passing ‘F9’ to become the highest grossing Hollywood film since the pandemic. With the PVOD release of the film already doing stellar home viewing business, all while continuing to hold well theatrically, ‘No Time To Die’ will earn a profit for MGM, both as an individual film title and as part of MGM’s incredible library.”

 

MGM clearly isn’t conceding that “No Time to Die” is a financial disappointment, but their contention is disputed by others with knowledge of Bond’s budget and with a deep understanding of what a film of that scope and scale needs to earn to get into the black.

I don't see how they can see that with more than one release schedule change.

[Bosco685]

 

[Gatsby77]

On 11/23/2021 at 1:17 PM, Bosco685 said:

Or from your superhero tagline...

I posted this the other day in the coronavirus thread. You may have missed this from the article.

I don't see how they can see that with more than one release schedule change.

Not the point. It cost - after interest expense due to repeated delays - more than $300M - plus marketing. - meaning it needed ~$900M to break even *theatrically* - which it won’t hit.

Admitting you need to add in PVOD, DVD, or future streaming licensing to actually turn a profit = admitting you lost money theatrically. 

[Bosco685]

On 11/23/2021 at 7:04 PM, Gatsby77 said:

Not the point. It cost - after interest expense due to repeated delays - more than $300M - plus marketing. - meaning it needed ~$900M to break even *theatrically* - which it won’t hit.

Admitting you need to add in PVOD, DVD, or future streaming licensing to actually turn a profit = admitting you lost money theatrically. 

I think you need to recognize something.

These marketing figures that get thrown around - they are guesstimates. At times informed guesstimates. But guesstimates nonetheless. The only ones that truly know those figures and can also account for any product placement offsets are the studios, marketing partners (who will know just their portions of the bills) and the studio accountants.

Stating something repeatedly so as to convey a thing is fact probably comes from PR 101. Get over it.

[Larryw7]

On 11/23/2021 at 6:44 AM, Gatsby77 said:

?

To me, the Craig Bonds were absolutely a return to the Connery/Dalton style -- a welcome breather after the constant comedy and camp of the Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan runs.

What changes would you like to see?T

They were much better than the Moore Bond films for sure. But now that Craig is gone, they can't reboot the series with the same style or a Craig clone. I think the films should move in the direction of the older productions with Bond as an already established character who has great adventures without creating the kind of continuity that the Craig films have. Don't have Bond being too old for his job by the third movie. More Goldfinger and From Russia With Love, and less Quantam of Solace and Spectre. 

[▫️]

On 11/24/2021 at 9:17 AM, Larryw7 said:

They were much better than the Moore Bond films for sure. But now that Craig is gone, they can't reboot the series with the same style or a Craig clone. I think the films should move in the direction of the older productions with Bond as an already established character who has great adventures without creating the kind of continuity that the Craig films have. Don't have Bond being too old for his job by the third movie. More Goldfinger and From Russia With Love, and less Quantam of Solace and Spectre. 

Agreed, a younger established Bond between 30 - 35 years of age. Maybe a more solemn cynical Bond that blends elegance and ruthlessness better than his prior iterations. 

[Gatsby77]

On 11/24/2021 at 1:17 AM, Larryw7 said:

They were much better than the Moore Bond films for sure. But now that Craig is gone, they can't reboot the series with the same style or a Craig clone. I think the films should move in the direction of the older productions with Bond as an already established character who has great adventures without creating the kind of continuity that the Craig films have. Don't have Bond being too old for his job by the third movie. More Goldfinger and From Russia With Love, and less Quantam of Solace and Spectre. 

Ahh...that makes sense.

I agree - I'd rather see a return to the standalone films that are closer in tone to From Russia With Love and Casino Royale than the weaker Craig entries you cited.

Also - fun fact, per the novels the mandatory retirement age for a 00 is 45 years old.

[Gatsby77]

On 11/23/2021 at 7:53 PM, Bosco685 said:

I think you need to recognize something.

These marketing figures that get thrown around - they are guesstimates. At times informed guesstimates. But guesstimates nonetheless. The only ones that truly know those figures and can also account for any product placement offsets are the studios, marketing partners (who will know just their portions of the bills) and the studio accountants.

Stating something repeatedly so as to convey a thing is fact probably comes from PR 101. Get over it.

I'm confused.

Are you arguing the film doesn't need to have hit ~$900M to break even theatrically?

Or that production costs + interest delays didn't push the cost to $300M+ before marketing expenses?

The Hollywood Reporter isn't a random internet tabloid - moreover, nothing in the (nearly year later) Variety piece contradicts it.

"However, the movie cost more than $250 million to produce, at least $100 million to promote and tens of millions more to postpone over 16 months."

When the best an unnamed MGM spokesperson can say is that PVOD sales and residuals will eventually push the film into the black, it definitionally means it didn't break even theatrically.

[▫️]

On 11/24/2021 at 2:50 PM, Gatsby77 said:

I'm confused.

Are you arguing the film doesn't need to have hit ~$900M to break even theatrically?

Or that production costs + interest delays didn't push the cost to $300M+ before marketing expenses?

The Hollywood Reporter isn't a random internet tabloid - moreover, nothing in the (nearly year later) Variety piece contradicts it.

"However, the movie cost more than $250 million to produce, at least $100 million to promote and tens of millions more to postpone over 16 months."

When the best an unnamed MGM spokesperson can say is that PVOD sales and residuals will eventually push the film into the black, it definitionally means it didn't break even theatrically.

I don’t mean to answer for Bosco but here’s my take. I don’t know if the film needs to make nearly a billion to break even. The only people who would know are the ones who wrote the checks. And the variety article names “insiders” and “other industry sources” for their information. Not one named source. Of course that means nothing and if the movie did indeed lose money, it may be in their best interest to downplay it as opposed to tarnishing the brand. I don’t know enough about the industry but I do know the movie made its production budget and marketing back. The only question is how much was the cost of delaying the movie for 16 months? 

[Bosco685]

On 11/24/2021 at 6:50 AM, Gatsby77 said:

I'm confused.

Are you arguing the film doesn't need to have hit ~$900M to break even theatrically?

Or that production costs + interest delays didn't push the cost to $300M+ before marketing expenses?

The Hollywood Reporter isn't a random internet tabloid - moreover, nothing in the (nearly year later) Variety piece contradicts it.

"However, the movie cost more than $250 million to produce, at least $100 million to promote and tens of millions more to postpone over 16 months."

When the best an unnamed MGM spokesperson can say is that PVOD sales and residuals will eventually push the film into the black, it definitionally means it didn't break even theatrically.

I'm sure you are confused. Especially when in your own mind you have been proclaiming how much this film was going to lose.

One thing THR is not accounting for that is always a big balance sheet credit across the Bond franchises is product placement revenue. Like Disney who started the trend decades ago, Eon Productions makes this a focus of all its planning.

The modernization of James Bond’s brand partnerships

Quote

With the latest Bond film, the long-delayed “No Time to Die” coming out on Oct. 8, the franchise has once again inked a slew of product placement deals ranging from cars and alcohol to watches and fashion. But while James Bond was once associated with a certain kind of old school luxury appeal — yachts and expensive Swiss watches  — in recent years he has been moving into the modern era. That’s included replacing British brands with American ones, replacing heritage brands with newly established competitors and even entering the wild futuristic world of NFTs.

 

While Bond, as played by Daniel Craig in “No Time to Die,” will still sport some of his classic brands, like the Omega watches he’s worn for decades along with storied British companies like knitwear brand N. Peal, there will also be some new additions. For one notable example, the movie will feature bags from Michael Kors, marking the first appearance by any of the brands under the American company Capri Holdings in a Bond film.

Some of the brands:

Quote

The brand’s Bancroft satchel will be carried in the film by the character Moneypenny, played by Naomie Harris. A special Bond-themed collection of the bag became available online and in select Michael Kors stores on Sept. 30, as well as on the dedicated 007 online store run by MGM where many of the film’s brand partners can be shopped. In a press statement, designer Michael Kors called the collection a “perfect marriage of film and fashion.” 

 

Wearing American brands isn’t entirely new for Bond — he wore Tom Ford in the film “Skyfall,” for instance — but what’s more notable is the shift away from older heritage brands and toward younger, newer, hipper brands that appeal to a younger audience. 

And with No Time To Die you have a few companies driving the brand placement as a strategy.

Quote

For instance, in Craig’s first appearance as Bond in “Casino Royale”, he famously wore a powder blue swimsuit by the nearly-70-year-old La Perla. But in the subsequent years, Orlebar Brown, a brand founded in 2007, has been Bond’s preferred swimsuit provider. Similarly, Tom Ford, founded in 2005, replaced the nearly 150-year-old British brand Turnbull & Asser as the provider of Bond’s dress shirts. Michael Kors, founded in 1981 and targeting consumers ages 25-45, is slightly on the older side, but much younger than Globe Trotter, a British bag brand featured in older Bond movies that was founded in 1897.

 

According to Dorian Banks, CEO of Cover Technologies, which develops blockchain and NFT technology, the strategic move here is for both the producers of the new Bond film (a co-production between Amazon, its subsidiary MGM and the Broccoli family) and the associated brands to reach a younger audience.

And with the Bond brand especially, other companies rushed in to be part of this.

Quote

With “Bond” as one of the most highly desirable product placement spots in entertainment, surveying which brands are showing up in the films also says something about the brands featured.

 

“Obviously, the producers won’t give a spot to just any brand,” said Christopher Olivola, associate professor of Marketing at Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business. “But it shows you who can afford a spot in a Bond film right now, who can spend to put themselves on the same level as these big heritage brands like Omega.”

So yes, I feel like THR shorted its own analysis by not taking the full film balance sheet into consideration.

[Bosco685]

On 11/24/2021 at 7:20 AM, ▫️ said:

I don’t mean to answer for Bosco but here’s my take. I don’t know if the film needs to make nearly a billion to break even. The only people who would know are the ones who wrote the checks. And the variety article names “insiders” and “other industry sources” for their information. Not one named source. Of course that means nothing and if the movie did indeed lose money, it may be in their best interest to downplay it as opposed to tarnishing the brand. I don’t know enough about the industry but I do know the movie made its production budget and marketing back. The only question is how much was the cost of delaying the movie for 16 months? 

If with a brand new franchise via Man of Steel can bring in $170M in product placement revenue, imagine what the end film of a sub-franchise Bond film brings up so brands can convey how cool they are to younger audiences.

Bond = 

[The Brain]