401 replies to this topic

[sorking]

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.

Not every scene cut from TND was included on the DVD. The Stamper pain/pleasure stuff was definitely filmed (note how the edit avoids shots that go too close on his differently-coloured eyes).

I've got the TND final shooting script and it's got no reference whatsoever to Stamper's predicament. It definitely was in the script at some earlier point but how do you know it was actually filmed?

The eye stuff's a give-away, just because if his back-story was gone, so would be the make-up effect. (Ooh, my grammar kinda went wonky there!) But also, a few years ago I worked in around Pinewood/Shepperton and had a couple of drinks/chats/lunches with a few current or former crew members and department heads. One guy still had, at that time, the 'gold' that was built for the theft from the Chinese - sat in his storage! They'd had it made, and then it was cut.

I don't doubt the likelihood of some (or even most) of the scenes were dropped during shooting. The script was in ridiculous flux, after all, so they may have done one or two pieces and then packed it in. (I never asked about heavy specifics for fear of seeming to fannish.)

Not sure when the final script is dated, but presumably if truly final, it's close to the end of shooting?

(I've kinda wandered us from the 'QoS runtime' point, haven't I!)

[HildebrandRarity]

You gotta love Bond fans. They all get excited over the littlest of things.

Bondoholics or Bondophiles NEED to fret over something or other.

If it's not about not having "Bond, James Bond" thrown into the dialogue, then it's on to not having Q giving out the gadgets.

If it's not about how poor the song is sung, then it's about James not saying "Vodka Martini...Shaken, Not Stirred" with a smiley face.

If it's not about Moneypenny not being in the film, then it's about no nude dancing girls in the titles.

If it's not about the poster design not being up to snuff, then it's about the run time being 3 or 4 minutes shorter than easier going films of the early 1960s.

You gotta love James Bond fans.

[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.

Purwis & Wade delivered their draft so late there's no way they started the actual writing immediately after done with CR and that was really a missed opportunity. Bond scripts should be written way in advance of filming in order to do as little rewriting during filming. The script writing scenario for QOS also smells suspiciously of the TND chaos, where more writers than ever before had to be brought to polish the mess before it was too late.

So, you are saying that Michael G. Wilson - the producer of the James Bond movies - didn't know what he was talking about when he said that work had started on the Bond 22 script BEFORE Casino Royale started filming?! Don't you think he would be in a position to know that sort of information.

[007forever]

You gotta love Bond fans. They all get excited over the littlest of things.

Bondoholics or Bondophiles NEED to fret over something or other.

If it's not about not having "Bond, James Bond" thrown into the dialogue, then it's on to not having Q giving out the gadgets.

If it's not about how poor the song is sung, then it's about James not saying "Vodka Martini...Shaken, Not Stirred" with a smiley face.

If it's not about Moneypenny not being in the film, then it's about no nude dancing girls in the titles.

If it's not about the poster design not being up to snuff, then it's about the run time being 3 or 4 minutes shorter than easier going films of the early 1960s.

You gotta love James Bond fans.

Was this a poem?

Nicely written with rhyme

I like it

[NMMan]

Less Run Time = More Viewings = More $$$$$ = No more taking a backseat to a bunch of Penguins

This time it's personal.

Penguins

Oh hell yeah!

[Harmsway]

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.

It's something like that.

P&W's draft was somewhat tossed aside. I don't know what's up with the screenplay credits, but both Forster and Haggis have alluded to the fact that they tossed P&W's material away. So maybe enough of their ideas got into the final script to get a credit, but the details are all much different from what they originally accomplished.

[freemo]

They should all be 106 minutes.

[CamExam]

They should all be 106 minutes.

You wouldnt say that if QoS wasnt 106 minutes

[triviachamp]

As I and many others have said I hope the 106 minutes is a sign of a lean, trim picture as supposed to a thin script or loads of bad scenes.

[Bondian]

A shorter Bond should mean a tigher movie, but more 'extras' on the DVD.

This would be nice but if they follow the Casino Royale DVD blueprint (bare bones disc first followed by more elaborate disc), we will be waiting two more years for those extras. Assuming they even include them.

I recon the lack of stuff on the first ever Bond on Blu-Ray was just because of that. We may see a 'fully well stocked' Quantum of Solace the first time around. But who knows. Even with the new previous catalogue of films of Blu-Ray are being released with the same faults from the UE's.

I know for fact that there's many many hours of actual footage in every Bond film that could be included. But like George Lucash. Why show 'everything' when you can include it when the time is right. Maybe once the films are finished and no more.

You gotta love Bond fans. They all get excited over the littlest of things.

Bondoholics or Bondophiles NEED to fret over something or other.

If it's not about not having "Bond, James Bond" thrown into the dialogue, then it's on to not having Q giving out the gadgets.

If it's not about how poor the song is sung, then it's about James not saying "Vodka Martini...Shaken, Not Stirred" with a smiley face.

If it's not about Moneypenny not being in the film, then it's about no nude dancing girls in the titles.

If it's not about the poster design not being up to snuff, then it's about the run time being 3 or 4 minutes shorter than easier going films of the early 1960s.

You gotta love James Bond fans.

Just can't believe that Weird Al isn't doing the titles.

[Donovan]

As I and many others have said I hope the 106 minutes is a sign of a lean, trim picture as supposed to a thin script or loads of bad scenes.

Especially boring unoriginal action sequences.

[ElFenomeno]

The Kite Runner
Runtime:
128 min

Stranger Than Fiction
Runtime:
113 min

Finding Neverland
Runtime:
106 min

Monster's Ball
Runtime:
111 min


some movies Marc did. there's no doubt these movies have a good story and good characters but none of them have these huge action set-pieces.
but i'm sure and confident he can pull it off.

[SecretAgentFan]

I still can´t believe that some people think a longer runtime means a better film.

Cut to the chase. Or the emotional impact, that is.

QOS will surely be a fast and intense ride and not a bloated fanboy exercise.

[Mr Ashdown]

William Goldman makes an excellent point in "Adventures in the Screentrade". I don't have a copy of the book to hand, so I'll paraphrase.

"North by Northwest". The denoument. Cary Grant is hanging off Mount Rushmore, in serious peril. The bad guys are winning. They have the McGuffin. They have the love interest, they are about to kill Cary Grant.

We need to get from there to Cary Grant and the love interest as happy newly weds about to start a new life, now that the McGuffin is in safe hands and the bad guys have been dealt with.

How long do you reckon it takes to do this?

Hitchcock did it in *thirty seconds*.

I've no worries about a lean, mean sequel to "Casino Royale". Daniel Craig can say more with one look than most actors say with ten minute soliloquies. And if the action is brisk and heart-stopping, then that's better than languid and self-indulgent.

Bond films are supposed to kick , not sit around on them.

Edited by Mr Ashdown, 23 September 2008 - 07:09 AM.

[stamper]

I think what Michael Wilson meant at the Oct. 14, 2005 press conference that introduced Daniel Craig as the new 007 was more like that they had mapped out the outline of episode 2 already ie they wrote CR knowing full well that QOS would be the second chapter in the story. For all we know, it was a four pages document or a treatment. P&W probably then at to work to make it a screenplay and that's why it was delivered late.

[SecretAgentFan]

William Goldman makes an excellent point in "Adventures in the Screentrade". I don't have a copy of the book to hand, so I'll paraphrase.

"North by Northwest". The denoument. Cary Grant is hanging off Mount Rushmore, in serious peril. The bad guys are winning. They have the McGuffin. They have the love interest, they are about to kill Cary Grant.

We need to get from there to Cary Grant and the love interest as happy newly weds about to start a new life, now that the McGuffin is in safe hands and the bad guys have been dealt with.

How long do you reckon it takes to do this?

Hitchcock did it in *thirty seconds*.

I've no worries about a lean, mean sequel to "Casino Royale". Daniel Craig can say more with one look than most actors say with ten minute soliloquies. And if the action is brisk and heart-stopping, then that's better than languid and self-indulgent.

Bond films are supposed to kick , not sit around on them.

Exactly!

[Shot Your Bolt]

Like I said before, I much prefer a shorter run-time. I forgot how many times I glanced at me watch watching Thunderbore. Even some of my fave Bond films like TSWLM and especially CR run a little long. A tight, lean Bond film works just fine to me.

Edited by Shot Your Bolt, 23 September 2008 - 07:23 AM.

[Captain Tightpants]

I have to admit, I am a little disappointed that the film is clocking in fourteen minutes short of the two-hour mark, but then I suppose that can also be a good thing; it prevents the film from being long-winded.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Quantum of Solace will be the minisode of the Bond franchise. Sony will have it up on Minisode Network before too long.

[Elvenstar]

My feeling was expressed by others. Now it’s uncertainty and I’ll wait for November and see.

I wish they had alot better dialogue between Vesper and Bond at the hospital, it was the film's worst.

Oh.True. Still remember everybody laughing at this dialog which was supposed to be sincere and moving… The acting was but the dialog. Brrrr!

Actually, the casino sequences didn't seem that long upon the viewings after the first. The casino moments kept being interrupted by other action or dramatic scenes.

Agreed. The pacing in this film is excellent IMHO. I didn’t want that to end. (I know it sounds silly )

It wasn't too long for me. Even OHMSS is slightly longer than CR. And I consider those two movies to be the best of the Bond series.

When I asked them (the kids) what they thought of the film they all said that it was too long, so hopefully they won't have the same complaint with QOS.

I expected that won’t be this film’s target audience. But they bring money, that’s certain.

the poison scene and suck lark could have been left out.

WHAT! It was 1 of the best scenes in CR.

And its a clever ploy, from Eon to abruptly end the movie on a note, keeping the audience wanting more!

Clever guys indeed! I will feel this for sure. Maybe too much action won’t be that much after all. Not much action and not much character development may result in a film that gives not much pleasure…
I hope it’s not the case with Qos.

"so it's much of a more compact emotional intense journey than Casino, which, I think, had more reflective moments maybe."

I like reflective moments.

On the bright side, a shorter run time would mean more showings, therefore more revenue, so it's a near-safe bet that QOS will surpass CR in grossing

WE ALL know that QOS is going to be dynamite, whether its 104 mins, or 4 mins (ok possibly not 4 mins, the awful AWTD will be the only minus in this film).
Watching Daniel Craig punch, kick and shoot his way to revenge for 104 mins is going to put QOS up there with CR, since Marc Forsters visual style and direction will be something of a triumph over Campbell's somewhat bland and by-the-book way of doing things.
Running time will mean nothing to all of us on the 31st October, or 15th nov to all you yanks (ha ha ha). These forums will be ablaze with praise for the 22nd james bond film.

Thanks for this post. In the moment of despair I really need something like this post to lift me up. Now I wait for always-brilliant post from Col.Sun. Pleeese! Something positive from inside required!

From all we can gather the action of the film is breif and very quick, it feels more argressive and is cut quickly

Pleeease, no quick cutting!

quality over quantity

I may be too greedy to desire quality AND quantity.
Ah, I want CR part 2. Can’t help it, that’s my problem…

Finding Neverland
Runtime:
106 min

Interesting, I didn’t know this film was that short…

[SecretAgentFan]

Quantum of Solace will be the minisode of the Bond franchise. Sony will have it up on Minisode Network before too long.

[Invincible1958]

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.

Roger Spottiswoode (from Canada) and Marc Forster (from Germany) do not have the same background - even if they both make movies in the USA.
The main difference is, that Spottiswoode was way over the top of his career when he did TND while Forster is still uprising.

According to the Wikipedia site, Joshua Zetumer is listed as one of the screenwriters. But the IMDB site doesn't list him.

But he will be credited. I saw some call sheets, and he is listed on there. It will be "Neil Purvis & Robert Wade and Paul Haggis and Joshua Zetumer".

[Skudor]

106 mins. Wow, that's short. The US cut will no doubt be 99mins once they've cut out all the sex and nudity

It's not the quantity that matters - it's the quality. There's no five minute Q scene, or two minutes of Moneypenny banter. There's no need to establish a Bond/Vesper relationship. There's no card game. It's only a quarter of an hour shorter than CR, which was the longest Bond film ever. This is not a big deal!!!

[kneelbeforezod]

106 minutes??? Surely not, there must be some mistake. So we are going from epic (CR) to minimovie, what is it then a Disney?

I can't believe it that can't be right, who is going out for the evening to the cinema when you will spend more time finding a seat and watching the ads and trailors than the actual movie?

A worrying thought just occurred that perhaps it's so crap they have had to cut most of it out.

How insightful... yes... the running time must mean the film is crap!

Some of you are acting like the film is 89 minutes long or something. Its an HOUR AND FORTY SIX MINIUTES, you do get that right? Its a perfectly fine, standard length for a film. Some films are an hour and a half!

[dee-bee-five]

If it's not about the poster design not being up to snuff, then it's about the run time being 3 or 4 minutes shorter than easier going films of the early 1960s.

Oh, come on now, be fair. I haven't had a wink of sleep all weekend because of fretting over the shorter running time. I mean, who could sleep when there was that worry...?

[SPOTTER]

QOS 106 mins!

I was initially quite dissapointed but having had time for it to sink in I think that could be a very good running time. Up until last year I always thought that all of the Bond films were always two hours or over so I never realized that GF was only about 1 hour forty five mins and that is a great film. I really love Thunderball as well but if I'm being honest with myself that is possibly too long.

I think a lot of people on here, including myself wanted a longer film because we've all waited so long for the next installment that you want it to be as long as possible but I think it will be fine. If the movie is good it won't matter.

[Sir James Moloney]

It won´t be about the size of it but the number of times you put it into action for your viewing pleasure
...
wait, that didn´t come out well did it?

Edited by Sir James Moloney, 23 September 2008 - 12:38 PM.

[sorking]

Some useful runtimes:

Lethal Weapon 110 minutes.
The Usual Suspects 106 minutes.
Ghostbusters 105 minutes.
Toy Story 81 minutes.
Leon (The Professional) 110 minutes.
Robocop 102 minutes.
The Italian Job 99 minutes.
I Am Legend 101 minutes.

Now, you don't have to love all these movies, but it's fair to say that they're mainstream fare that all contain action AND character work

There are good and bad long films and good and bad short films, but a duration of under two hours is not an automatic guarantee that there 'isn't room' for action and/or substance.

Edited by sorking, 23 September 2008 - 12:56 PM.

[Pierce - Daniel]

Leon is sooooo amazing

[Publius]

some movies Marc did. there's no doubt these movies have a good story and good characters but none of them have these huge action set-pieces.

I don't think QoS will have the huge action set-pieces of CR. It looks like we're getting action in smaller, more rapid-fire doses.

A worrying thought just occurred that perhaps it's so crap they have had to cut most of it out.

That would be logical... if it wasn't for the fact that Forster was aiming for a run time under two hours anyway.

Also, the rumors of this run time started weeks ago (when editing was still ongoing). I'd be surprised if even all the deleted footage would bring this movie up to two hours.

Some of you are acting like the film is 89 minutes long or something. Its an HOUR AND FORTY SIX MINIUTES, you do get that right? Its a perfectly fine, standard length for a film. Some films are an hour and a half!

Exactly! I don't have a problem with people being disappointed with this shorter run time or even being worried by it, but there's no reason for apocalyptic rhetoric. Most major movies, whether action or character pieces, run this long!

If Goldfinger and The Bourne Supremacy can be great and run 108 minutes, I'm sure QoS will be fine, especially considering it doesn't have the 5 minutes of Q/Moneypenny that GF has.

Some useful runtimes:

Lethal Weapon 110 minutes.
The Usual Suspects 106 minutes.
Ghostbusters 105 minutes.
Toy Story 81 minutes.
Leon (The Professional) 110 minutes.
Robocop 102 minutes.
The Italian Job 99 minutes.
I Am Legend 101 minutes.

Now, you don't have to love all these movies, but it's fair to say that they're mainstream fare that all contain action AND character work

There are good and bad long films and good and bad short films, but a duration of under two hours is not an automatic guarantee that there 'isn't room' for action and/or substance.

I think Leon is the most reassuring one. Other movies that have similar run times:

The Spy Who Came in from the Cold - 112 minutes (although not nearly as much action as we'll see in QoS, it also has far more character study)

A Fistful of Dollars - 102 minutes

Hero (2002) - 99 minutes, or 107 minutes for the extended edition