401 replies to this topic

[Elmason]

Quality not quantity I say.......unfortunately we will only be able to judge the former in a few weeks.

[sorking]

I realy do not know how they will compress everything 104 minuets. Looking back at CR, it was a long movie but it was nessesary inorder to fit in the key parts, and so the audience could develope an atachment to vesper.

She doesn't show up until 50+ minutes into the film - her appearance to her death is shorter than the total runtime of QoS by about 20 minutes.

Edited by sorking, 22 September 2008 - 08:04 PM.

[DaveBond21]

This is interesting. I agree that many of the Bond films feel a bit too long at 2 hours 8 mins, but 104 minutes is pretty short.

But I don't care, as long as it's a great movie. I am just being selfish when I say I want to see as much Bond as possible! I think I'd have been happier if he'd said 115 minutes, but really who cares?

It will be the shortest 007 film, but hey, maybe it's going to be one of the best.

[MarcAngeDraco]

For all the talk of bringing Forster in to develop characters/plot, I don't see how there's going to be much time for that in between all of the action scenes in only 106 minutes... but I guess time will tell...

Of course, I didn't think CR was any too long...

[Invincible1958]

For all the talk of bringing Forster in to develop characters/plot, I don't see how there's going to be much time for that in between all of the action scenes in only 106 minutes... but I guess time will tell...

I don't think that the action scenes will be that long.
If you have 35 minutes of action in the film, you still have over 1 hour of non-action.

[DLibrasnow]

I remember that noted Bond historian the late John Brosnan would often comment that the newest Bond movie [insert name here] was about 20 minutes too long.
I am glad they are not trying to pad this movie out to make the two hour mark. I trust Forster to put together a great lean movie. Quality over quantity and not overstaying your welcome.
On another positive mark this will allow theaters to put on more showings of QoS. If you recall the long length of Casino Royale was blamed (here on CBn) for the movie losing out to "Happy Feet"

[Pierce - Daniel]

From all we can gather the action of the film is breif and very quick, it feels more argressive and is cut quickly. CR took it's time on the action really carving the scenes out till we reached the apex, eg the embassey in Madagascar and the tanker in Miami. Here I think it is created for impact. From what I can gather the film does hae more action then CR:
-Car chase
-Siena chase
-Boat chase
-Plane chase
-Greene's hideout

How does this work then: First 10 mintues would be PTS and MTS. Then the next 10-15 minutes will be the Siena chase, then Haiti for 15-20 minutes then the next 10 minutes Bond goes to see Tosca in Austria. That's just the first 45 minutes. Then Bond goes to Mi6 and sees Mathis and gets his mission or 5 minutes if that. That leaves us with little under an hour of Bond in Boliva, the party scene, meeting Fields, understanding Camille. Thant seems good enough to me.

[CamExam]

Im really starting to have my doubts about this movie. First a crap theme, now this? I mean come on! 106 minutes?! Thats just rediculous!! Im very dissapointed.

Edited by CamExam, 22 September 2008 - 09:25 PM.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Forster had better deliver an exceptional film with all the changes he's bringing in. Short action films is such an American notion that I'm worried QOS will lack on the plot development. You can't make it too short if Bond is supposed to go from Italy to Austria to Haiti to Bolivia. No matter how tight the action sequences are, there's at least three chases in the film!
I have this fear QOS will turn out another TND. In both cases, a classic espionage thriller helmed by UK-formed Campbell leading a team of Bond veterans is followed up by a shorter action filmed helmed by an American filmmaker who's given liberty to choose more than just his own DP and editor. Eon should plan ahead two or three films at a time, instead it would appear considering there's no material left to mine from. instead, it would appear they pretty much play it by ear. Whatever happened to Purwis and Wade writing 22 immediately after CR? In the end, they waited until the last minute and Haggis couldn't really complete his rewrite. This shouldn't have happened given they supposedly always wanted a trilogy with an arch. Now MGW is hinting at 23 being a standalone film.

Edited by Donovan Mayne-Nicholls, 22 September 2008 - 10:41 PM.

[DamnCoffee]

Im really starting to have my doubts about this movie. First a crap theme, now this? I mean come on! 106 minutes?! Thats just rediculous!! Im very dissapointed.

Why, I can believe that Forster can wrap up a story in 106minutes. I have faith in the guy.

[dinovelvet]

THIS IS A NON-SPOILER THREAD, thank you very much

[Pierce - Daniel]

I do feel that this may be slightly below par compared to CR, but the trailer was fantastic.....so...I'll wait till next month

[Gabriel]

Gosh! What a bunch of naysayers there are knocking around on here. Some truly magnificent films have come out of Hollywood down the years. Storytelling style has evolved to be a lot faster as audiences have become more cine-literate down the years. It's more damning if filmmakers are incapable of turning in a good film at under two hours!

There's an unfortunate expectation developed over the last decade that movies have to be two and a half hours to be any good. That's patently nonsense and has landed us with years of clumpy, draggy, self-important so-called epics. While I'm all in favour of films running long if entirely necessary, I'd rather see a film that is 106 minutes of dynamite action adventure with a good plot and good characters than a bloated draggy mess. I liked Casino Royale a lot, but many people, including me, felt that the last 20 minutes or so were entirely unnecessary.

For all the guts the producers showed in revamping Bond, they felt it necessary to tack on an OTT action scene at the end of the film, where a more Vertigo-esque betrayal and suicide scene might have arguable been more exciting.

Once again, it's time for the CNB-ers to shut up and let the world wait and see what the film's like before condemning it!

[DR76]

Forster had better deliver an exceptional film with all the changes he's bringing in. Short action films is such an American notion that I'm worried QOS will lack on the plot development.

There is no definite "AMERICAN NOTION" on the running time of an action film.


There's an unfortunate expectation developed over the last decade that movies have to be two and a half hours to be any good.


Really? I haven't heard of such a thing. The problem I have with "QoS" is that it is only 106 minutes, which means that the entire story might be at least 100 minutes, with 5 or 6 minutes of end credits. This is a movie that is shorter than CR, yet is supposed to have more action sequences. This unpleasantly reminds me of "THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM", which seemed filled with more action sequences than necessary. And its thin plot - with bad continuity issues - did not help. I will give "QoS" a chance, but right now I don't have much faith in it.

Edited by DR76, 22 September 2008 - 10:09 PM.

[Gabriel]

Oh! Here's a way to make QoS longer: include a pointless 'Moneypenny and M at MI-6' scene. This can be followed by a sequence with Bond and Q swapping stupid remarks while Q's inventions telegraph all the action scenes for the rest of the film.

Later on, we include an unnecessary Casino scene, so Bond can wear a tux and order a Vodka Martini, shaken, not stirred. Then we can finish the film with a coda where the MI-6 team find Bond bonking the female lead in an exotic place in an exotic location and Q/M/Bond/Moneypenny makes a crass double entendre before the end titles kick in.

There we go: a two hour-plus film that's weighed down by a pile of !

Edited by Gabriel, 22 September 2008 - 10:06 PM.

[Double-0-Seven]

106 minutes works for me. I'll gladly take quality over quantity. With the quick pace I'll be excited to see how all the action unfolds. While I personally do not feel that Casino Royale was too long, I know movies do not have to be long to be good. As long as Forster gives us a quality Bond film, the length should not matter.

I agree with Gabriel's reasoning for the shorter run time. If you included a Moneypenny and Q scene, as well as other "traditional" Bond scenes, you would have a film that is over two hours. Cutting these out just makes the film more to the point, thus the shorter running time.

[danslittlefinger]

Hmmm...6 months intensive filming and nearly breaking his neck for 104 minutes????


I had dental surgery that lasted longer than that.

I would love to know how that breaks down...$13 million salary = 104 minutes..could do the math but can't be arsed.

What's next? Half an hour?

I guess quality better than crap quantity..that sustains me.

[DR76]

Oh! Here's a way to make QoS longer: include a pointless 'Moneypenny and M at MI-6' scene. This can be followed by a sequence with Bond and Q swapping stupid remarks while Q's inventions telegraph all the action scenes for the rest of the film.

Later on, we include an unnecessary Casino scene, so Bond can wear a tux and order a Vodka Martini, shaken, not stirred. Then we can finish the film with a coda where the MI-6 team find Bond bonking the female lead in an exotic place in an exotic location and Q/M/Bond/Moneypenny makes a crass double entendre before the end titles kick in.

There we go: a two hour-plus film that's weighed down by a pile of !

One, there were no Moneypenny or Q scenes in "CASINO ROYALE". The two characters were barely present in the other long Bond film - "ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE". Two, the casino sequences were NOT unecessary. They played an important part in the story. The casino scenes in Montenegro were the conerstone in CR's entire story.


I wouldn't have minded "QUANTUM OF SOLACE" shorter running time, if Wilson and Broccoli had not promised more action sequences. Unfortunately, they have. And all this does is remind me why I found "THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM" rather unsatisfactory. Hell, "THE BOURNE SUPREMACY" at least had more of a plot and wasn't so highly depended upon action sequences.

Edited by DR76, 22 September 2008 - 10:31 PM.

[Chief of SIS]

Can someone please reassure me that this movie will be epic by giving me an example of a movie that is awesome that is only 106 minutes? For some reason 106 minutes is bad news to me...I guess it's in God's hands now

[007forever]

I kind of agree with the gentleman above me.

I was the first one to stand up in the very beginning to say that "just under 2 hours" is too short for a Bond film.

I was disagreed on by majority of the CBNers then.

Now I've really got what I bargained for (NOT!)

AGAIN, CR, for me, didn't even feel like long enough, I can not imagine myself sitting down for a Bond film, only to get up before the cushion's warm.

[DR76]

I was the first one to stand up in the very beginning to say that "just under 2 hours" is too short for a Bond film.

A Bond movie just under two hours doesn't bother me.

A Bond movie with a running time of 100 to 106 minutes, with more action sequences than was shown in its longer predecessor . . . does.

[belvedere]

I just don't see what the big deal is about the short running time... After all, Ian Fleming's Quantum of Solace was a short story...

[dinovelvet]

Can someone please reassure me that this movie will be epic by giving me an example of a movie that is awesome that is only 106 minutes? For some reason 106 minutes is bad news to me...I guess it's in God's hands now

Well, take GOLDFINGER, chop out the irrelevant (and nonsensical) scene of Oddjob taking the car to get crushed, and you've got about 106 minutes. How's that?

I'm not thrilled about the short runtime either, and I still wish it'd be longer, but Forster sure has been talking a good game lately with his desire to get back to the feel of the early Connery films, so I'm going to wait and see if he's put his money where his mouth is.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Quantum of Solace = "measure of comfort" = quality of comfort.

106 minutes, if handed correctly can make the movie feel like it is only 86 minutes instead of a meandering and laborious 186 minutes.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

If you check the deleted scenes for TND, you'll find there wasn't any extra plot development that was taken out due to pacing reasons, just dumb jokes which were better out of the film. And TND was longer than QOS.
Before that, the last Bond under two hours was DAF and in their desire to deliver a shorter film after OHMSS, they left the film with some annoying plot holes in it. Before that, YOLT was't precisely a very well plotted film either.
The fact the first three Bonds were under two hours is no guarantee for QOS. After TB, a formula was established that a satisfying Bond film should have a relatively complex plot that cannot be shoehorned into less than two hours.

[DLibrasnow]

Whatever happened to Purwis and Wade writing 22 immediately after CR? In the end, they waited until the last minute and Haggis couldn't really complete his rewrite.

Actually MGW said at the Oct. 14, 2005 press conference that introdiced Danial Craig as the new 007, that work was already well underway on the script for Bond 22. The only thing one can assume is that the script produced was thrown out. Haggis could not complete his polish because of the writers strike, which cannot be laid solely at the feet of MGW and Babs.

[Royal Dalton]

Oh! Here's a way to make QoS longer: include a pointless 'Moneypenny and M at MI-6' scene. This can be followed by a sequence with Bond and Q swapping stupid remarks while Q's inventions telegraph all the action scenes for the rest of the film.

Later on, we include an unnecessary Casino scene, so Bond can wear a tux and order a Vodka Martini, shaken, not stirred. Then we can finish the film with a coda where the MI-6 team find Bond bonking the female lead in an exotic place in an exotic location and Q/M/Bond/Moneypenny makes a crass double entendre before the end titles kick in.

There we go: a two hour-plus film that's weighed down by a pile of !

One, there were no Moneypenny or Q scenes in "CASINO ROYALE". The two characters were barely present in the other long Bond film - "ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE". Two, the casino sequences were NOT unecessary. They played an important part in the story. The casino scenes in Montenegro were the conerstone in CR's entire story.

He was being sarcastic.

He'll probably be a bit disappointed when those characters turn up in the Craig era.

[.0.0.7.]

Oh! Here's a way to make QoS longer: include a pointless 'Moneypenny and M at MI-6' scene. This can be followed by a sequence with Bond and Q swapping stupid remarks while Q's inventions telegraph all the action scenes for the rest of the film.

Later on, we include an unnecessary Casino scene, so Bond can wear a tux and order a Vodka Martini, shaken, not stirred. Then we can finish the film with a coda where the MI-6 team find Bond bonking the female lead in an exotic place in an exotic location and Q/M/Bond/Moneypenny makes a crass double entendre before the end titles kick in.

There we go: a two hour-plus film that's weighed down by a pile of !

Casino Royale went a long way toward reducing the numbing parade of bullets and explosions of the Brosnan-era climaxes -- though interestingly, could not do away with it completely as most reviewers felt that the Venice climax felt a little long.

If QoS feels crisp and exciting at 106 minutes, then by all means keep it at 106 minutes.

[AngryPolarBear]

Since we haven't seen film, we can only speculate if the runtime will fit the story. I have confidence that Forster knows what he's doing, and I see no reason why I should stay negative until the credits roll on the screen.

[Royal Dalton]

Whatever happened to Purwis and Wade writing 22 immediately after CR? In the end, they waited until the last minute and Haggis couldn't really complete his rewrite.

Actually MGW said at the Oct. 14, 2005 press conference that introdiced Danial Craig as the new 007, that work was already well underway on the script for Bond 22. The only thing one can assume is that the script produced was thrown out. Haggis could not complete his polish because of the writers strike, which cannot be laid solely at the feet of MGW and Babs.

Purvis and Wade have got the principal writing credit on the film. So, a good deal of what they wrote must have made it through to the final shooting script.