No you are not alone. It seems the general consensus around here is that there is a genuine possibility No Time To Die will miss 2020 entirely and there is the possibility of it being released directly to on-demand/Blu-ray if the pandemic drags on too long with a smaller scale theatrical release thereafter. Of course, this is all speculation.
1 Like
Not in the least defeatist - itās realistic. The entire world is fighting with a phenomenon thatās bound to cost lives and wreak havoc on social life for months, maybe years even. The November date was chosen as a tentative first response to this. But thereās ample evidence weāre all going to be busy with watching out for a return of Covid by then. I suspect NO TIME TO DIE will either move further into the future - or trying out a completely new model to market the film.
2 Likes
No Time to Die was intended to be one of most successful Bond films ever, making over a billion dollars. I will speculate, as I so often do, that Barbara was hoping to put Eon on the market soon afterwards, and use the box office receipts of the film to prove just how profitable the brand can be.
Of course, things have now changed, and the film could become the first Bond entry to go straight to streaming - as has already been discussed here.
I reckon Eon will allow that to happen - but only this once, in order to test the waters for a digital television series, as Disney+ has managed so successfully with The Mandalorian, which could supplement the ongoing theatrical releases.
People have obviously responded well to the idea of exploring Bondās history - if itās positioning Casino Royale as his first mission or returning to his childhood home in Skyfall. We also know that Michael G Wilson was interested in having Bond as a rookie, just out of the army, during the pre-production of The Living Daylights, so maybe this is an opportunity to do that at last.
Putting aside your odd fixation with Eon selling Bond;
Wouldnāt that be deciding to set fire to the boat whilst itās sinking?
Itās not a solution, itās just a new problem.
1 Like
Where in the world does this come from? And where in the world is there even the support for it to be an occasional, much less an often considered speculation?
Family for 60 years. Other family members coming up through the ranks.
Since weāre in the world of unlikely outcomes, letās say that BB is looking to wrest the other 50% from MGMās clammy hands too.
2 Likes
It all comes from his weird obsession to Bond being sold to Disney, having a movie every other year, half a dozen spinoffs and a Bond series streaming on Disney+. Itās the desire of Bond going the Winnie-the-Pooh or Marvel road, up to the point that within five years, the Bond universe will have rendered unrecognizable to what it once was. The audience would soon be oversaturated and fed up with all of that and the Bond franchise would die the very moment when it doesnāt make enough money any more to keep Walt Disneyās cryogenic frozen head alive.
3 Likes
The true reason they bought Fox - Futurama rumbled their lords masterplan!
1 Like
Disney in now no longer in a position to buy another franchise. Their stock has dropped. Their income has dropped. They are in danger of being bought out by Apple.
3 Likes
The movie will come out when it comes out. Iām at peace with that. Iām not going to wish my life away as every minute of every day is worth savouring. It can be very difficult at times, but a zero negativity mindset is what I always strive for. Nowās the time to really walk that talk.
1 Like
I also donāt see why thereās still an obsession with trying to start Universes on screen. MCU has been successful but theyāre the only ones who really made it work. DC is still on shaky ground (their biggest successes have come from distancing themselves from the DCEU), Star Wars is up in the air and Universalās Dark Universe crashed and burned spectacularly. In most cases itās the fact they want to be universes that work to their determent with more emphasis on setting up a later film than telling a good story. I also believe that most audiences can only cope with one cinematic universe in terms of time and remembering continuity. And since Marvel already hooked people before ācinematic universeā had become part of our collective vocabulary thereās not much left for anyone else.
I also believe that a Bond cinematic universe would never work. You simply canāt build a universe around a single character. Marvel works because they already had a diverse slate of characters to play with. With a hypothetical āBond Universeā youād have Bond then trying to force a bunch of supporting characters into lead roles they were never designed for. Or worse, using each Bond film to set up potential spin-offs for the Bond girls, allies or villains.
I do wonder about Bondās future at streaming a streaming service and the idea does have me concerned. Cinematically the producers have been trying new things with the films. I worry that at Disney+ or Netflix the brief would be to recreate that feeling of finding a Bond film on TV and going āitās one I havenāt seen beforeā and play everything safe and familiar.
3 Likes
Very true - but the reason Disneyās stock price plummeted isnt going to change by Apple owning it. Disneyās sources of income require theatres, shops and amusement parks. Who owns them isnt a going to change the fact none of those are viable for the foreseeable future, as Apple will know.
2 Likes
Well said.
And letās be honest: the concept of a ācinematic universeā is nothing else but BRANDING. Another way to maximize the appeal of one product by implying the consumer has to buy everything else just to get the optimal satisfaction.
So IĀ“m glad that nobody but Marvel has succeeded at this. It will probably be just one fashion studios were chasing back in the old days. In the new world budgets will have to come down, thereĀ“s just no way around that. And maybe that actually is for the better. More interesting stories due to less financially overblown risks.
1 Like
To be clear, my āweird obsessionā, is just wishful thinking, and playful at that, which is why I poke fun at myself for it. Itās just something to talk about as thereās so little else to say regarding NTTD without actually seeing it.
It simply comes from wanting more than two Bond films a decade, which Iām sure many others would like too. In the early 90s, such a gap was considered a big deal for fans, and an existential threat to its future. Now it happens after almost every film and Eon seem relaxed about it.
Also, I donāt want a Bond universe. That suggests a Moneypenny TV series or a Felix Leiter film.
This was was just an idle suggestion about whether a short series seeing Bond as a twenty-something rookie would be something Eon/MGM would be interested in following Disneyās success with The Mandalorian, and after positive audience response to dipping into the characterās history in Casino Royale and Skyfall. Seems reasonable enough to me.
Thatās what businesses do all the time: they see what has worked for others and try it for themselves. Itās why DC made the Justice League film. Itās why Marvel themselves made Iron Man. It was also why there were so many spy films out during the Bond mania of the '60s.
I donāt really need more Bond films more regularly. Iāve only ever seen Spectre once and that was in the cinema (I loved the first half, up to standing in the desert, but the rest was meh), and Iāve never seen Skyfall on DVD or television either. I donāt care for Daniel Craig as Bond at all, so Iām not even excited about NTTD. I have plenty to keep me stoked with watching old films and TV series like The Saint and The Avengers, reading so many great thrillers, and creating my own, brand new characters in my writing.
The reason I mention a sale at all is because of occasional rumours, including this latest one from January:
I suppose if anyone missed that, they wouldnāt appreciate the context from which Iām basing my speculations.
The reason Iām on this forum is less because Iām interested in the current era and more because of so many interesting, articulate views from so many nice people.
On the subject of a future sale, Iāll promise to button it from now on 
No need to button it - but there is a need to understand where such rumours originate and who is putting a spin on them for what purposes. The weak link in the Bond franchise is not Eon house but MGM. They need a proper basis for operations as a studio - or finally get off the potty.
The problem is, whatever MGM does or does not, Eon has few means of influencing it. At a guess one can surmise that they would vastly prefer having a partner studio not being in dire need of 007 and not sailing from cliff to reef to maelstrom like Scylla&Charybdis Lines.
So all these rumours and reports do have a grain of truth - and that can be easily found by looking in whose interests they are, whose stock can be expected to go up if people read themā¦
3 Likes
Regarding the MGM problem - Interstellarās production went from dead in the water when Spielberg left, to a studio offering them ludicrous amounts of extra money, just by the producer suggesting the writer ask his brother if he was interestedā¦aforementioned brother has made clear he would like the job of directing Bondā¦Wbās coffers may be more amiable if Eon offer Chris Nolan the job - given WB has been very keen to keep Nolan films entirely under the WB banner.
Before people react against Nolan directing a Bond film, donāt let perfect become the enemy of good. If youāre one of those who has strong anti-Nolan feelings, look at it as a bit discomfort the allows for a more stable future in the long run. No more 4 years of MGM scrounging for money every other filmā¦
2 Likes
I would say the Fast and Furious franchise is setting themselves up for a cinematic universe. Not that Iāve ever seen any of them.
As I was reading this thread, the question occurred to me whether there will be any more cinematic universes post-pandemic. What will moviesāand art in generalālook like post-pandemic? After WWII, new genres flourished in film and other art formsāa worldwide cataclysm had changed peopleās aesthetic tastes and desires. It will be interesting to see how works of art made pre-pandemic, but released/experienced post-pandemic, will be received.
5 Likes
I think you are onto something here. Wasnāt it post WW2 that Noir flourished? Along with the horror genre which again exploded again after Vietnam?. Iām an interested amateur in regards cinema, it does strike me that the idea of cinematic universes will seem trite and gimmicky post covid 19. People will perhaps want comfort , escapism and stories that deal with people as well as spectacle. Perhaps streaming is where the superhero movie will naturally belong in this new world and āwater coolerā movies be they whichever genre will be the new cinematic model, Hopefully it will lead to a burst of creativity such as happened post WW2.
2 Likes
After 9/11 there seemed to be a need for super heroes (although curiously not for my favourite, Superman). But terrorism and a pandemic are two different beasts. A hero in a costume might look silly now. A hero in a labcoat not so much.
I hope there will be a resurgence of heroes who have intelligence and wit, human beings who donāt resort to lies but to reason. Scientists, journalists, public servants who want to save people, not their personal interests.
4 Likes
Smallville benefited hugely for the need for Superman - it was one of the few times in history that the characters blatant propaganda style elements didnāt rub many the wrong wayā¦
2 Likes