55 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

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.

That would definitely be my preference for furthering the development of the love story between Bond and Vesper. If I were somehow given the ability to make my own version of the film, it would have started (after the title sequence) with Bond already in Montenegro, and the Poker game would commence soon after that. Much of what follows would be more or less what we got in the film, except there would be probably another hour of footage filmed in Venice that would further develop Bond and Vesper's relationship, as well as Gettler's involvement in the storyline.

I would only have just gone ahead and extended the film to about 2 hours and 50 minutes in my original post because I was trying to stick with what EON was going for with the film, which was a film that was way too front-loaded with action. I would much rather, though, completely get rid of the first hour of the film (save for the PTS) and begin the film when Bond and Vesper arrive in Montenegro.

[Qwerty]

I've just added a poll.

[Agent 76]

If QoS has the same lenght as Casino Royale, I don't mind at all.

[DamnCoffee]

I've just added a poll.

Thanks for that.

I've voted for 'Wishing it would be the same length as 'Casino Royale' or longer' with an fair balance of character development and action.

[Qwerty]

I have no problem with the reported two hours exactly run time. It's really all about the content of the film = whether it requires 115 or 125 or 140 minutes, etc... It seems like Forster knows exactly what he needs for Quantum of Solace.

[Harmsway]

My only concern with running time isn't that the film is too short for what it needs to accomplish. There was no reason that this film would have to be as long as CASINO ROYALE was.

But I am worried about the amount of action Forster has thrown in here. If this really is a story-driven film, it has a ton of action. And maybe he's pulled it off, and the action organically reises out of the story and characters. Not impossible, by any stretch. But I don't want to have so much faith in Forster that I check any doubts at the door. Greater directors than he have been tripped up before, and Forster's record is hardly spotless.

We'll see. I'm hoping for the best.

[Blofeld's Cat]

"I have no preference"

As long as it is the right length for the movie. Whether it is 90mins or 190mins I'll be happy.

But, only as long as the 90mins does not seem like it should be 190mins, or that the 190mins doesn't seem like 1900mins.

[00Twelve]

My only concern with running time isn't that the film is too short for what it needs to accomplish. There was no reason that this film would have to be as long as CASINO ROYALE was.

But I am worried about the amount of action Forster has thrown in here. If this really is a story-driven film, it has a ton of action. And maybe he's pulled it off, and the action organically reises out of the story and characters. Not impossible, by any stretch. But I don't want to have so much faith in Forster that I check any doubts at the door. Greater directors than he have been tripped up before, and Forster's record is hardly spotless.

We'll see. I'm hoping for the best.

Me too, dude, me too. I'm a little worried about all the action in a two-hour film as well, but I'm pretty sure the script will be better than TND (well, not a difficult feat, that, but you get the idea).

I'd love there to be an untidy end, and a resolution in the next film. But I'm prepared for whatever they've got coming.

[DaveBond21]

2 hours 5 minutes seems to be the average for a Bond movie and I think that is perfect. I think OHMSS and Casino Royale had to be longer because of their storylines but maybe QoS doesn't have to be.

By the way, I remember one kid leaving to go to the toilet, during Casino Royale, as Mr White's car drove through his gate!! He came back in time to see the end credits!!! LOL

[ImTheMoneypenny]

I've just added a poll.

Thanks! I voted CR length or more.

[The Richmond Spy]

I have no preference. I guess more minutes equals more Bond and if it's good Bond then that's more good Bond! There aren't a lot of things in this world I enjoy more than good Bond...so longer would be better. But if it really is just extra fluff with a J.W. Pepper-type scene...is it really better?

[001carus]

I've just added a poll.

Thanks for throwing that in.

I don't know... this may seem a little superstitious or something, but all my favourite movies run over two hours, including Casino Royale. The really epic movies to me have always been of considerable length, and since QoS is the first straight up sequel to a bond movie, I feel it's important to feature substantial run time.

[Double-0-Seven]

I voted for the "no preference" option.

The running time is not a big issue for me. As long as the film as a good pace and flows smoothly then I don't think the running time should really matter. I'll take quality over quantity.

[DaveBond21]

I don't know how Marc Forster can know it's going to be 2 hours, before he has done the editing?? I don't really know how it all works but surely he would have a better idea now, rather than when he came out with that quote.

[Bondian]

I don't know how Marc Forster can know it's going to be 2 hours, before he has done the editing?? I don't really know how it all works but surely he would have a better idea now, rather than when he came out with that quote.

That's a good question, my friend. Perhaps it's down to the studio or the production company?

Maybe it's down the amount of popcorn availability in theaters/cinemas.

[sharpshooter]

I voted ‘Two hours sounds perfect to me’. Even if it is doesn’t sound perfect to some of you, it is what we are getting. If Forster makes his screen time count and he propels the story forward, I think we’ll get a rapid paced thriller. Whether that contains character development remains to be seen.

[Shadow Syndicate]

"Wishing it would be the same length as 'Casino Royale' or longer"

Im the lucky 13th...woot! I caught us up
But seriously...I could never understand it when people say "God...that movie was just waay to long", or "Every song on that album was at least 5 miniutes, waaay too long". I mean what does it matter? As long as it stays a good movie, doesn't start lagging or sucking, I couldn't care less...it could run half the night, I'd be cool with that. It's like complaining your swedish massage was too long, or your beer was too large or your car is too fast

[HH007]

I voted "no preference." Whatever running time works for the filmmakers, works for me as well.

[Bondian]

Maybe they could do two versions. One for the kids and one for those who have bladder problems.

[DR76]

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...

I have to admit that I find that a little disturbing.

[The Richmond Spy]

No one prefers the shorter film? Aren't there any TND fans on this thread?

[deth]

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...

I have to admit that I find that a little disturbing.

quite.



anyway, I'll always be one who think the more Bond, the better. Hell, I'd love a 3 hour Bond film.

[Publius]

No one prefers the shorter film? Aren't there any TND fans on this thread?

Yes, but that fell short of two hours by a single minute, which is good enough for me.

Interestingly, when TND came out it was the shortest Bond movie since Diamonds Are Forever, and other than those two only Dr. No through Goldfinger and You Only Live Twice clock in at under two hours.

[DaveBond21]

Famous US movie reviewer, Leonard Maltin, always complains that Bond movies go on far too long - even The Living Daylights, never mind OHMSS and CR.

[Qwerty]

No one prefers the shorter film? Aren't there any TND fans on this thread?

Tomorrow Never Dies' run time perfectly suits that film, in my opinion.

[DaveBond21]

No one prefers the shorter film? Aren't there any TND fans on this thread?

Tomorrow Never Dies' run time perfectly suits that film, in my opinion.

I only wish there was an extra 5 minutes of Bond and Wai Lin getting to know each other before setting off in the boat at the end.