55 replies to this topic

[001carus]

I've heard from a few posters on the forum that Quantum of Solace may be dramatically shorter than Casino Royale? Has this been discussed or confirmed anywhere that Forster is aiming for this? Is there any truth to this statement?

I personally hope for at least 120 minutes, but a length of CR or longer would be even better in my opinion. I know a lot would claim run time doesn't make a great film, and others probably think a shorter movie will keep pacing tighter etc, but I believe that if there's enough substance, a long movie is critical to make a true epic.

So does anyone have any information to support or debunk these claims, and how do you think Quantum of Solace's run time will shape?

[Moderator's Note: Poll added]

Edited by Qwerty, 02 July 2008 - 07:30 PM.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

Running times never bother me, now my poor bladder after a jumbo drink is another story. I know lots of people, general movie fans I mean, had complained about CR's running length. But to me, I wouldn't cut a frame, it's all good. Theater chains usually complain about running times because the longer the movie, the less they can show it in a day, thus less ticket sales.

I remember the first time I saw CR, there were these kids in front of me, they got up and left before Venice! They thought the movie was over.

But anyway, on topic. I don't know what the plans are for Quantum of Solace's actual running time. I would not mind it to be the same as CR.

[Germanlady]

Forster always claimed it to be just under 2 hours, which I think, is a bit short. I would want it to be like 125 minutes, which might be 10 minutes longer, than we can expect it to be now.

How about a poll to see what fans think and maybe have EON see it, too.

[001carus]

Running times never bother me, now my poor bladder after a jumbo drink is another story.

Hehe, I know what you mean.

I know lots of people, general movie fans I mean, had complained about CR's running length. But to me, I wouldn't cut a frame, it's all good. Theater chains usually complain about running times because the longer the movie, the less they can show it in a day, thus less ticket sales.

Well that's true but that's also a bit of a cop out. If the movie's good enough to be watched, then the ticket sales will come in. Movies like Meet the Spartans that go for 72 minutes doesn't mean it'll get a raving box office, and from what I know, it didn't.

I remember the first time I saw CR, there were these kids in front of me, they got up and left before Venice! They thought the movie was over.

Haha. What a downer. Wouldn't they have been devastated when they found out the actual ending to the movie they missed. Tbh though, during the whole Venice section before the climax, I thought the movie may have ended there too. But, obviously, that was a pretty foolish assumption...

But anyway, on topic. I don't know what the plans are for Quantum of Solace's actual running time. I would not mind it to be the same as CR.

Thanks for that.

-------------------------

Forster always claimed it to be just under 2 hours, which I think, is a bit short. I would want it to be like 125 minutes, which might be 10 minutes longer, than we can expect it to be now.

How about a poll to see what fans think and maybe have EON see it, too.

I agree with you that just under 2 hours is a bit short, and certainly, 125 would be great. A poll is also a good idea... but, I'm new here, sorry. Any help to throw one in would be great.

Edited by 001carus, 02 July 2008 - 01:10 PM.

[Agent 76]

They could make a Bond movie with a running time of 5 hours, that I'd still be seeing it .

[Skudor]

Forster says he's aiming for just under two hours... but they've just started post production so we'll see what they end up with.

[001carus]

Forster says he's aiming for just under two hours... but they've just started post production so we'll see what they end up with.

Hmmm... to be honest, I don't think I'm liking that direction. I'm sure it'll be fine no matter what the run time, and I don't want to sound like a long movie whore, lol.

But hopefully there will be a few too many shots of Daniel Craig looking pissed that Marc won't want to cut out, hehe.

[Mister Asterix]

I think Casino Royale proved Eon is willing to make films just the length they need to be. If they stick to that I’ll be happy with most any length.

[Skudor]

It's an interesting equation though - that there's twice as much action (ok - so we don't take Wilson literally here, but at least there's more) and at the same time almost 20 minutes less running time (assuming they stick to 120). Doesn't leave a lot of room for anything but action...

[Mister Asterix]

It's an interesting equation though - that there's twice as much action (ok - so we don't take Wilson literally here, but at least there's more) and at the same time almost 20 minutes less running time (assuming they stick to 120). Doesn't leave a lot of room for anything but action...

Well, look at just looking atone thing, the gambling scene. Casino Royale

[Skudor]

It's an interesting equation though - that there's twice as much action (ok - so we don't take Wilson literally here, but at least there's more) and at the same time almost 20 minutes less running time (assuming they stick to 120). Doesn't leave a lot of room for anything but action...

Well, look at just looking atone thing, the gambling scene. Casino Royale’s non-action poker has been replaced in Quantum of Solace with...

Spoiler

the horse race

...action.

True - I also expect there is less need to spend time on the love story element. There's less of a romantic relationship to establish.

And it is possible to drive the story through action, which is where I see the most scope for improvement for a movie like this. Intergrating the action organically with the story rather than pasting it onto it like in TWINE.

[SPOTTER]

I did remember an early interview with Forster when he said that he'd like to make the film extacly 2 hours but since then he has stated that it could be a little less. I'm definetly one for a longer the better Bond film as long as the plot is strong and the action doesn't drag. I'd be happy if it was 2 hours though but not anything less.

[doubler83]

Running times never bother me, now my poor bladder after a jumbo drink is another story.

I was watching Bourne Ultimatum at the cinema, and dumbo here had an extra large Coke (because I'm thirsty like that) before hand and hadn't gone to the toilet before the movie.

Anyway, long story short, I soon got the feeling that I needed to make a visit to the little boy's room during the car chase scene but I didn't really want to miss anything. So I'm sitting there absolutely dying to go to the toilet, and I'm getting ready to just piss myself. I'm not bothered. I'm having too much fun watching the film.

I managed to hang on until the end though. I'm proud of that. But that was only 115 minutes or something.

Moral of the story. Don't be greedy.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

Running times never bother me, now my poor bladder after a jumbo drink is another story.

I was watching Bourne Ultimatum at the cinema, and dumbo here had an extra large Coke (because I'm thirsty like that) before hand and hadn't gone to the toilet before the movie.

Anyway, long story short, I soon got the feeling that I needed to make a visit to the little boy's room during the car chase scene but I didn't really want to miss anything. So I'm sitting there absolutely dying to go to the toilet, and I'm getting ready to just piss myself. I'm not bothered. I'm having too much fun watching the film.

I managed to hang on until the end though. I'm proud of that. But that was only 115 minutes or something.

Moral of the story. Don't be greedy.

Yes, I learned my lesson after I missed a crucial scene in Lord of The Rings. I couldn't help myself there was running water in too many scenes, fountains, streams, and so on, had to run for the little girl's room, came back and my sister told me what I missed.

Now I can last a film, but once the credits roll, out of my way!

[Shrublands]

Running times never bother me, now my poor bladder after a jumbo drink is another story.

I was watching Bourne Ultimatum at the cinema, and dumbo here had an extra large Coke (because I'm thirsty like that) before hand and hadn't gone to the toilet before the movie.

Anyway, long story short, I soon got the feeling that I needed to make a visit to the little boy's room during the car chase scene but I didn't really want to miss anything. So I'm sitting there absolutely dying to go to the toilet, and I'm getting ready to just piss myself. I'm not bothered. I'm having too much fun watching the film.

I managed to hang on until the end though. I'm proud of that. But that was only 115 minutes or something.

Moral of the story. Don't be greedy.

Hitchcock always said that the length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder.

Basic principal of film making.

[Skudor]

Running times never bother me, now my poor bladder after a jumbo drink is another story.

I was watching Bourne Ultimatum at the cinema, and dumbo here had an extra large Coke (because I'm thirsty like that) before hand and hadn't gone to the toilet before the movie.

Anyway, long story short, I soon got the feeling that I needed to make a visit to the little boy's room during the car chase scene but I didn't really want to miss anything. So I'm sitting there absolutely dying to go to the toilet, and I'm getting ready to just piss myself. I'm not bothered. I'm having too much fun watching the film.

I managed to hang on until the end though. I'm proud of that. But that was only 115 minutes or something.

Moral of the story. Don't be greedy.

Hitchcock always said that the length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder.

Basic principal of film making.

Tell that to Peter Jackson!

[marktmurphy]

Feel free to worry about it- I won't.

I remember the first time I saw CR, there were these kids in front of me, they got up and left before Venice! They thought the movie was over.

Fair enough; should have finished there, really.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

Feel free to worry about it- I won't.

I remember the first time I saw CR, there were these kids in front of me, they got up and left before Venice! They thought the movie was over.

Fair enough; should have finished there, really.

I always imagine their puzzled faces after seeing it on dvd or cable. You mean it didn't end with him winning the game, getting the girl and going on vacation?

[Simon]

So long as it is roughly 2 hours, I am sure it's fine. It is only when the film is slimmed down to an hour 30 that I get the 'value for money' sensation kicking.

So long as the story is there to substantiate it, that is the most important factor.

To wit, TWINE felt like it lasted a day and a half, but it was shorter than CR. The proof is in the figgy duff.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

I know lots of people, general movie fans I mean, had complained about CR's running length. But to me, I wouldn't cut a frame, it's all good. Theater chains usually complain about running times because the longer the movie, the less they can show it in a day, thus less ticket sales.

Well that's true but that's also a bit of a cop out. If the movie's good enough to be watched, then the ticket sales will come in. Movies like Meet the Spartans that go for 72 minutes doesn't mean it'll get a raving box office, and from what I know, it didn't.

Yes, unfortunately it's a business that needs to make money. Back in the day you had Lawrence of Arabia so long it had an intermission. Again I wouldn't snip one frame of that! Ah well. . .

I remember the first time I saw CR, there were these kids in front of me, they got up and left before Venice! They thought the movie was over.

Haha. What a downer. Wouldn't they have been devastated when they found out the actual ending to the movie they missed. Tbh though, during the whole Venice section before the climax, I thought the movie may have ended there too. But, obviously, that was a pretty foolish assumption...

They were amusing. They said of LeChiffre "That's the bad guy. You can tell by his hair. . ."

-------------------------

Forster always claimed it to be just under 2 hours, which I think, is a bit short. I would want it to be like 125 minutes, which might be 10 minutes longer, than we can expect it to be now.

How about a poll to see what fans think and maybe have EON see it, too.

I agree with you that just under 2 hours is a bit short, and certainly, 125 would be great. A poll is also a good idea... but, I'm new here, sorry. Any help to throw one in would be great.

I wish I knew how to post a poll. I'm new too.

[Skudor]

I wish I knew how to post a poll. I'm new too.

Only Moderators can do that.

[Publius]

Dr. No through Goldfinger are all under two hours, and yet they're among my favorites in the series and the ones I want to see them emulate most. I've also seen many severely long movies that I don't find any good (like Lord of the Rings), so I think they should strive to keep them short and sweet.

The average run time for a Bond movie, by the way, is 125 minutes. That's probably my ideal.

[dodge]

Dr. No through Goldfinger are all under two hours, and yet they're among my favorites in the series and the ones I want to see them emulate most. I've also seen many severely long movies that I don't find any good (like Lord of the Rings), so I think they should strive to keep them short and sweet.

The average run time for a Bond movie, by the way, is 125 minutes. That's probably my ideal.

I agree, always excepting the amazingly exceptional OHMSS. 140 mins and not a second too long.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

I wish I knew how to post a poll. I'm new too.

Only Moderators can do that.

What a relief. I was worried it was yet another thing this blonde can't figure out how to do!

[tdalton]

I agree with those that are saying that less than 2 hours is too short. As far as CASINO ROYALE being too long, I actually find myself in the opposite camp on this one. For what EON was trying to do with that film, I actually found CASINO ROYALE too short, and would have very much liked to have seen another half an hour added to the Venice part of the film to further develop the relationship between Bond and Vesper as well as the Gettler character.

[DamnCoffee]

I actually found CASINO ROYALE too short, and would have very much liked to have seen another half an hour added to the Venice part of the film to further develop the relationship between Bond and Vesper as well as the Gettler character.

That would be brilliant!


As for Quantum of Solace, I wouldn't mind for it to be the same length, or if not longer than it's predecessor. But I find it strange that Forster wants it to be exactly two hours long, even before the film wrapped.

[tdalton]

I actually found CASINO ROYALE too short, and would have very much liked to have seen another half an hour added to the Venice part of the film to further develop the relationship between Bond and Vesper as well as the Gettler character.

That would be brilliant!


As for Quantum of Solace, I wouldn't mind for it to be the same length, or if not longer than it's predecessor. But I find it strange that Forster wants it to be exactly two hours long, even before the film wrapped.

I find that strange as well. A film that has a similar running time to CASINO ROYALE would be preferable, IMO, but it doesn't look like we're going to get that, unfortunately.

[K1Bond007]

Hitchcock always said that the length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder.

Basic principal of film making.

Tell that to Peter Jackson!

Hitchcock was only right back in his day. Today it's an incredibly different audience, most of them armed with a pause button. In the theater sure, but you know when it comes out on DVD we all want the extended edition. The only worry with runtime is making it short enough that it doesn't feel like it drags. If you can make a 4 hour movie like Peter Jackson and nobody complains about the run time (and I don't think anybody has ever complained about LOTR's 3 hours and the extended editions close to 4 hours) then you're golden.

[Harmsway]

I agree, always excepting the amazingly exceptional OHMSS. 140 mins and not a second too long.

Actually, I think OHMSS is way too long, padded out with extraneous action and other assorted sequences. As is, the film should have been edited down to a lean, mean 2 hours. Ideally, the film should have gotten a complete rewrite before anything went before a camera to make the love story something substantial.

[Publius]

I agree with those that are saying that less than 2 hours is too short. As far as CASINO ROYALE being too long, I actually find myself in the opposite camp on this one. For what EON was trying to do with that film, I actually found CASINO ROYALE too short, and would have very much liked to have seen another half an hour added to the Venice part of the film to further develop the relationship between Bond and Vesper as well as the Gettler character.

I would have been very happy with that if it was a DVD-only extended version. My preference for ~2 hour movies applies to seeing them in theaters or watching them casually. Still, I think if you wanted to include more of a love story in Casino Royale, the better approach would have been to trim some of the action, particularly the Body Worlds and Miami airport sequence.

(and I don't think anybody has ever complained about LOTR's 3 hours and the extended editions close to 4 hours)

*raises hand and probably some people's ire*