401 replies to this topic

[casinoroyale11234]

drum roll....















104 minutes

Edited by casinoroyale11234, 27 August 2008 - 12:41 AM.

[Invincible1958]

Thats a whole HOUR SHORTER THAN CR!!!

No, it's not. It's only 40 minutes shorter. If it's true, then that's the runtime that "Dr. No" and "Goldfinger" have.
But I don't think, that it's true.

But I don't mind. You can make great movies that run 104 minutes.

[casinoroyale11234]

what was i thinking? Ha Ha. But still there is so much going on in the movie I can't imagine that short of a movie

[Captain Tightpants]

It's IMdB. The name has become synonymous with "crap". It's like that guy who claimed to have all those spoilers; he's probably making things up so that people will pay attention to him.

Besides, Forster has always maintained that the film will clock in somewhere around the two-hour mark. It won't be as long as CR, but it sure as hell won't be one hour and forty minutes.

[casinoroyale11234]

He also says his source is:
It's about to go on sale in cinemas in UK this week. Inside knowledge

[Captain Tightpants]

He also says his source is:
It's about to go on sale in cinemas in UK this week. Inside knowledge

That's what they always cite: a relation working for EON or the distributor; I'm not sure if it's the same guy, but there was one user claiming a rough cut had a ninety-minute runtime and that the editors were hard-pressed to draw it out any further. However, it was entirely too soon for anyone to be seeing a rough cut as filming had only jsut finished. Likewise someone who was claiming that two friends saw the whole film because they were marketing a "Bond Girl" perfume; why the hell would two people unrelaated to the production see a whole cut of the film when they're marketing a product that they already have twenty-one established films to refer to?

The only people you should believe are Marc Forster, the producers Daniel Craig, and nyone who is actually a part of the production crew; none of this "my brother works for this guy who is a part of this process" stuff.

[casinoroyale11234]

He also says his source is:
It's about to go on sale in cinemas in UK this week. Inside knowledge

That's what they always cite: a relation working for EON or the distributor; I'm not sure if it's the same guy, but there was one user claiming a rough cut had a ninety-minute runtime and that the editors were hard-pressed to draw it out any further. However, it was entirely too soon for anyone to be seeing a rough cut as filming had only jsut finished. Likewise someone who was claiming that two friends saw the whole film because they were marketing a "Bond Girl" perfume; why the hell would two people unrelaated to the production see a whole cut of the film when they're marketing a product that they already have twenty-one established films to refer to?

The only people you should believe are Marc Forster, the producers Daniel Craig, and nyone who is actually a part of the production crew; none of this "my brother works for this guy who is a part of this process" stuff.

True... by the way the perfume guys read the script, they didn't see the movie.

[Leon]

True... by the way the perfume guys read the script, they didn't see the movie.

They claim...

[Captain Tightpants]

True... by the way the perfume guys read the script, they didn't see the movie.

They claim...

Yeah, I have to ask ... why the hell do they need to see the script to marke perfume? I mean, at most, the perfume might be placed witin a scene, but they' only need to see that particular scene to know how it plays out in case they want to work something of the like into their advertising campaign.

The QUANTUM OF SOLACE script is under heavy lock and key. I read somewhere that each copy is watermarked with the name of the person it was issued to, so tht if it shows up somewhere it should - like, say, the interweb - ten the porducers know who it belonged to. And they don't just leave the things lying around for anyone to find them, either; it wouldn't surprise me if all non-essential scripts (ie not the ones owned by the likes of Craig and Kurylenko and Amalric) had to be returned at the end of each day of filming, and that the actors of minor characters were only given the scenes they appear in and maybe the scenes imemdiately before and after so that they know what the general feel of their scene is.

So with all the security, why the hell would those two guys get to see the entire script? Given that it was a supposedly-negative review, I think someone was just stirring the pot.

[Mister E]

IMDB credibity =

[zencat]

A 104 min running time is not impossible. Didn't Forster say in an interview that it would be under 2 hours no matter what?

[Mister E]

A 104 min running time is not impossible. Didn't Forster say in an interview that it would be under 2 hours no matter what?

That could easily mean 115 minutes.

Edited by Mister E, 27 August 2008 - 01:50 AM.

[Publius]

Mister E, I respectfully disagree.

IMDB credibility =

[Mister E]

Mister E, I respectfully disagree.

IMDB credibility =

[deth]

A 104 min running time is not impossible. Didn't Forster say in an interview that it would be under 2 hours no matter what?

indeed he did.

[Qwerty]

A 104 min running time is not impossible. Didn't Forster say in an interview that it would be under 2 hours no matter what?

Yep - "just under two hours..."

...which leads me to believe this 104 minutes report isn't true. I'm personally expecting Quantum of Solace to be just what Forster said: on or around that 120 mark.

[Blofeld's Cat]

104 mins plus title/end credits, perhaps.

[SecretAgentFan]

Even if it were 104 minutes - I know many great films that are even under 104 minutes. So, no worries here. I´m confident that Forster delivers a knockout film.

Which reminds me - how about a ranking for length?

1. 145 - CR
2. 140 - OHMSS
3. 134 - DAD
4. 134 - TB
5. 133 - LTK
6. 131 - OP
7. 130 - GE
8. 128 - TWINE
9. 127 - FYEO
10. 126 - TLD
11. 125 - AVTAK
12. 125 - TSWLM
13. 125 - DAF
14. 122 - MR
15. 120 - TMWTGG
16. 119 - TND
17. 116 - LALD
18. 116 - FRWL
19. 113 - YOLT
20. 109 - DN
21. 106 - GF

I hope the runtimes are more or less correct (quickly assembled from the internet). But in that case, QOS would be the shortest Bond film ever. However, with 106 minutes GF was no slouch. So, short does not mean bad at all.

[Captain Tightpants]

It depends largely on pacing, I guess. The Dark Knight ran for two and a half hours, but it didn't feel like it.

That said, there's a lot of content in Quantum of Solace. So much so that I don't think it can be covered in just one hour and forty minutes.

[Jim]

It depends largely on pacing, I guess. The Dark Knight ran for two and a half hours, but it didn't feel like it.

True. It felt like four and a half.

Films are too long. One hour forty minutes sounds fine to me.

[SecretAgentFan]

Right, Captain. 104 minutes would be a hell of a ride.

On the other hand, Jim´s also right. How lovely it would be if a film these days were just telling its story clean and simple. The elephantitis of film length is something that started in the 90´s, I guess.

[Col. Sun]

It depends largely on pacing, I guess. The Dark Knight ran for two and a half hours, but it didn't feel like it.

True. It felt like four and a half.

Films are too long. One hour forty minutes sounds fine to me.

I heard a few weeks back from someone working on the film that it was way under 2 hours and that the action is short and sharp and the film is a very taut thriller.

I think the 104 min running time may be correct or at least very close.

[Captain Tightpants]

Ever seen The Third Man? That clocks in at about two and a half hours and it feels too long. I could have cut about forty-five minutes of it and still come up with a cohrent story. The emphasis on running time is in the interests of making a film that is tightly plotted. Personally, I felt The Dark Knight was timed very well. The only reason why I felt it was a litte long the first time I saw it was because it started at 11.30pm.

Serious films tend to run to about two hors these days. Kids films rarely go over ninety minutes - eighty is what they tend to stick to - because there's only so long that kids will reman interested. Comedies fall into the 90-100 minute window because they don't want to go on for too long lest they overstay their welcome. I can't count the number of films I've seen in the genre that have just drawn out the one joke they're built around for far too long. But films with more complicated plots tend to indulge a little longer, because plot needs to be fully explored.

Take The Dark Knight for instance. Some people have said that you could cut the Hong Kong sequence without affecting the film because the story doesn't truly being until Bruce Wayne returns to Gotham, but I think otherwise: rather than simply say "your guy ran away and Batman brought him back; now you'll have to turn to me" - which is lazy exposition at best - Nolan showed us why the mod turned to the Joker, and it' always better to show than to tell.

That's why I think Quantum of Solace is going to need more than a pithy 104 minutes' run time: having watched some of Forster's previous films I noticed that he tends to show us things as opposed to telling us that they have already happened.

[SecretAgentFan]

Umm, to cut 40 minutes out of THE THIRD MAN could be considered blasphemy by some, dear Captain...

In my opinion, it is not the length that should adhere to the plot´s demands. It is the plot that should be told as cleanly and directly as possible. Some films are so bloated with plot that they, of course, take more time to finish. But the art is in constructing a plot that can be told without excessive running time.

Having said that, I´d prefer a Bond film that is to the point instead of one that has an over-elaborate plot. In the end, this is supposed to be a spy-yarn, not a realistic treatise on the complexities of espionage.

So, 104 minutes or not - 104 minutes is plenty for a good film.

[avl]

Even if it were 104 minutes - I know many great films that are even under 104 minutes. So, no worries here. I´m confident that Forster delivers a knockout film.

Which reminds me - how about a ranking for length?

1. 145 - CR
2. 140 - OHMSS
3. 134 - DAD
4. 134 - TB
5. 133 - LTK
6. 131 - OP
7. 130 - GE
8. 128 - TWINE
9. 127 - FYEO
10. 126 - TLD
11. 125 - AVTAK
12. 125 - TSWLM
13. 125 - DAF
14. 122 - MR
15. 120 - TMWTGG
16. 119 - TND
17. 116 - LALD
18. 116 - FRWL
19. 113 - YOLT
20. 109 - DN
21. 106 - GF

I hope the runtimes are more or less correct (quickly assembled from the internet). But in that case, QOS would be the shortest Bond film ever. However, with 106 minutes GF was no slouch. So, short does not mean bad at all.

Thats an interesting list and brings into focus for me that I think the majority of Bond films are just too long. So 2 hours or under, short and sharp sounds good to me

[DamnCoffee]

I'm not bothered with the length at all, if the film is of a really high standard and compelling, I dont care if it's 90 minutes or 190 minutes.

[Icephoenix]

Well The Bourne Supremacy only has a runtime of 104 minutes, so it's not impossible to deliver a good movie within that time frame.

[Jim]

Well The Bourne Supremacy only runs for 104 mins, so it's not as if a good movie cannot be delivered within those confines.

They're copying Bourne! They're copying Bourne! They're copying Bourne! Fact!

Etc., yawning.

[Icephoenix]

I'm not sure if that is what my post came off like, but I only mentioned the Bourne Supremacy because it was the first movie I thought of when I heard of the possible 104 minute runtime.

[Jim]

I'm not sure if that is what my post came off like, but I only mentioned the Bourne Supremacy because it was the first movie I thought of when I heard of the possible 104 minute runtime.

No, sorry - was simply anticipating some of the inevitable reaction to your message.