401 replies to this topic

[Col. Sun]

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.

Absolutely agree that 106 mins in a good length and most films clock in between 90 min and 105 mins or so.

And QOS doesn't have the padding, as you rightly say, no Q scenes, no Moneypenny banter which adds 5 mins or so to most Bond films.

QOS is also hitting the ground running. We're straight into the plot and action from the first frame, so again it's not slowed down by major set-up scenes, which for example CR had plus the last film also had to introduce a totally new, revamped Bond character. Not so this time. QOS will rock!

[stamper]

Can anyone confirm if it is 106mn with the end credits, or without ?

I mean, you can deduct at least 10 to 12mn of end credits from any film these days to find the exact story running time.

[Col. Sun]

Can anyone confirm if it is 106mn with the end credits, or without ?

I mean, you can deduct at least 10 to 12mn of end credits from any film these days to find the exact story running time.

End credits, by and large aim to full between 3 to 5 mins, some run longer obviously. The Bond's always try to get them as tight as possible, for example when I worked on License To Kill (which was 19 years ago!!!) the end roller had all the main crew, units etc. etc. but we got it paced to about 2 1/2 mins if I recall correctly. And we had a huge crew.

It's very possible the final running time with end credits wasn't included, Forster may have commented on the film's length as measured by the editors with the front titles in place but ends still to come, as the end credits are the very last thing to get cut onto a film in most cases. So the final running time maybe 110 mins or so. I was told by a couple of people on the film the final time was 108 mins. But let's face it 106 mins, 108 mins, 110 mins -- there ain't much in it to worry about.

[Skudor]

When kids want their candy they get greedy and forget how sick too much of the good stuff would make them. My major gripe with so many of the Bond films is that they drag at the end and feel too long, so this is a very encouraging sign!

[Safari Suit]

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.

Totally agree

[bond 16.05.72]

Not that EON or Forster should be bothered by critics but it was their biggest bug bear of CR, personally it never dragged for me, maybe it could have had some of it trimmed but I don't see a problem with my favourite Bond film.

I think this running time is quite brave and audacious of Forster and this should be a real tight film, I'll be tempted to rejoin the cue again if it's as good as it looks.

[Judo chop]

I'll be tempted to rejoin the cue again if it's as good as it looks.

What do you mean?

[bond 16.05.72]

I'll be tempted to rejoin the cue again if it's as good as it looks.

What do you mean?

My plan is to see it on the Thursady if it opens early and than with my Wife on the Saturday but if I'm so impressed I may well go for the next immediate showing afterwards, the shorter running time will no doubt zip by so fast that I will probably want to see it immediatley again, although I wouldn't have done that kind of thing for decades.

[DR76]

It's very possible the final running time with end credits wasn't included, Forster may have commented on the film's length as measured by the editors with the front titles in place but ends still to come, as the end credits are the very last thing to get cut onto a film in most cases. So the final running time maybe 110 mins or so.

Or it could be 100 or 101 minutes, with 5 or 6 minutes of end credits.

When kids want their candy they get greedy and forget how sick too much of the good stuff would make them. My major gripe with so many of the Bond films is that they drag at the end and feel too long, so this is a very encouraging sign!

I have yet to see a James Bond movie that dragged at the end. Neither OHMSS or CR felt that way to me. In fact, both are rather fast paced, considering how long they are.

After reading some of these posts, I get the feeling that many are waxing lyrical over the shorter running time, because they don't want to harbor any doubts about the film's story.

Edited by DR76, 23 September 2008 - 09:45 PM.

[sorking]

After reading some of these posts, I get the feeling that many are waxing lyrical over the shorter running time, because they don't want to harbor any doubts about the film's story.

Where others are harbouring doubts because they don't know much about the film's story.

Is it really fair to dismiss some common-sense thinking - about capable filmmakers, about the nature of film storytelling - as wilful ignorance? Aren't those who think it's not a problem likely to be just as capable of fully-reasoned logic as those who think it's a sign for concern?

As I said in my couple of posts:

- It's not like quality action/character work hasn't been done within this kind of duration.

- The storytelling structure of CR means all best are off - new things are being done. Cramming a formula Bond picture into that time might be tricky (though not really). But this is a direct sequel, and in storytelling terms actually the third part of the story - structurally, and in terms of content, it's not just reasonable, it's positively appropriate.

My own take is that some people need to look at what's been said elsewhere and consider the suggestions being made. But I wouldn't say 'they are choosing not to because they wish to stay angry'. Why must either side be in denial?

[DaveBond21]

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.

Good list, thanks for this. Helps get the timing in perspective.

The Usual Suspects seemed to be exactly the right length to me. Ghostbusters seems a little short these days when I see it, but again, it is certainly not rushed.

[sharpshooter]

As long as it doesn't feel rushed, the run time is fine by me. If you took out the overlong and questionable airport and tanker scenes from CR, the weakest segments of the film, the film would be cut down considerably. And I think the film would be better for it. QoS has the potential to be leaner and meaner.

[double o ego]

After reading some of these posts, I get the feeling that many are waxing lyrical over the shorter running time, because they don't want to harbor any doubts about the film's story.

As opposed to throwing the baby out with the bath water because the idea of a shorter running time ultimately equates to a crappy film?

[007Bond007]

ALthough there probably certain that the run timeis 106 minuets, i still dont believe it i just really hope it will be longer.

[sharpshooter]

i still dont believe it i just really hope it will be longer.

You better start believing, it is confirmed.

[dee-bee-five]

A film should run for no more or less than the length of time its story takes to tell most effectively. A set time formula should have no place in the crafting of a well-told story. Surely no-one would criticise an excellent novel running at 200 pages because it wasn't told in 250?

[ImTheMoneypenny]

A film should run for no more or less than the length of time its story takes to tell most effectively. A set time formula should have no place in the crafting of a well-told story. Surely no-one would criticise an excellent novel running at 200 pages because it wasn't told in 250?

I haven't been worried by the running time at all as well. We're in good hands, people.

I told my sister of the shorter run time. She's not a Bond fan, she goes to see my movies because I go see her movies, anyway, she liked the idea of a shorter time. It means I can go see it more because we don't have to think about how long we're in the theatre (we ride bikes) since it's across town, and it puts us home at a decent time. So shorter time = multiple viewings weekend after weekend, maybe the same day if I can get away with it!!

When I saw CR the kids in front of me got up and left when Bond and Vesper were in Venice. They thought the movie was over, Bond won, got the girl, happily ever after, the end.

[stamper]

Am I one of the few who think that the whole Haggis bragged "you need a third act" was a fluke, and that CR should have ended as it did pre-Haggis involvement, ie closer to the way it ends in the novel ?

Because quite frankly, I don't give a toss about the third act, as long as the ending is there (Bond towering over Mr White). Should I start a poll about this ?

[avl]

It's very possible the final running time with end credits wasn't included, Forster may have commented on the film's length as measured by the editors with the front titles in place but ends still to come, as the end credits are the very last thing to get cut onto a film in most cases. So the final running time maybe 110 mins or so.

Or it could be 100 or 101 minutes, with 5 or 6 minutes of end credits.

When kids want their candy they get greedy and forget how sick too much of the good stuff would make them. My major gripe with so many of the Bond films is that they drag at the end and feel too long, so this is a very encouraging sign!

I have yet to see a James Bond movie that dragged at the end. Neither OHMSS or CR felt that way to me. In fact, both are rather fast paced, considering how long they are.

After reading some of these posts, I get the feeling that many are waxing lyrical over the shorter running time, because they don't want to harbor any doubts about the film's story.

Gosh, so many drag at the end.

TSWLM, TMWTGG, MR, OP and TND spring immediately to mind. Spectacle over story.

[DLibrasnow]

I am sure at some point that a special extendded cut will appear on DVD/Blu-Ray.

[sorking]

I am sure at some point that a special extendded cut will appear on DVD/Blu-Ray.

I'm pretty sure it won't - they're not always forthcoming with deleted scenes (none at all on DAD?), and even when they do, they've never been integrated into the film. CR is a case in point - arguably it'd sell better as an extended cut rather than a more extras-filled double-dip, but they've chosen to leave the film as it is. And fair enough, really.

[Shot Your Bolt]

When kids want their candy they get greedy and forget how sick too much of the good stuff would make them. My major gripe with so many of the Bond films is that they drag at the end and feel too long, so this is a very encouraging sign!

Completely agree. Sometimes it feels like I'm forcing my way through Bond films(Dr.No, Thunderbore), and even some of my favorites like TSWLM and CR seem to stretch it a bit(too much of a good thing).

I much prefer a shorter run time for Bond films actually.

[DR76]

blank

Edited by DR76, 24 September 2008 - 05:42 PM.

[double o ego]

If Goldfinger and The Bourne Supremacy can be great and run 108 minutes

I have never thought that GOLDFINGER was great. And as much as I like THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, I always feel as if the story could be more, whenever I watch it.

The fact is, GF by fans and the casual cinema audience rate and recognise GF as one of the best Bond films and even more a very popular film in it's own right. Take into account it's short running time compared to most of the films in the Bond series and it's clear that a movie that is under 2 hours doesn't equate to all things being a catastrophe.

[DR76]

If Goldfinger and The Bourne Supremacy can be great and run 108 minutes

I have never thought that GOLDFINGER was great. And as much as I like THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, I always feel as if the story could be more, whenever I watch it.

Gosh, so many drag at the end. TSWLM, TMWTGG, MR, OP and TND spring immediately to mind. Spectacle over story.

Rarely have I ever come across any criticisms about the running times of other Bond films, until some fans began complaining about QoS's short running time. Now, it seems like many fans are claiming that a shorter running time is better, so that they can psyche themselves up to openly accept QoS without any qualms. The more posts I read about how wonderful or superior a shorter running time is, the more my suspicions grow. It almost seems like a propaganda campaign.

The fact is, GF by fans and the casual cinema audience rate and recognise GF as one of the best Bond films and even more a very popular film in it's own right.

Well . . . that's nice. Thankfully, GOLDFINGER is no DR. NO, but I don't think it's great, either.

Edited by DR76, 24 September 2008 - 05:36 PM.

[Harmsway]

GOLDFINGER has its issues, but it still is one of the better ones. I'd actually argue that one of its problems is that it's overlong, even with such a short running time.

Rarely have I ever come across any criticisms about the running times of other Bond films, until some fans began complaining about QoS's short running time.

Nah, these complaints about pacing issues have been around forever. It's only that because of this topic, a lot of fans have begun to talk about them in more focused discussion, but I've seen comments like this for ages.

Here's my stance: There's not a single Bond film that doesn't suffer from some pacing issues.

[DR76]

GOLDFINGER has its issues, but it still is one of the better ones. I'd actually argue that one of its problems is that it's overlong, even with such a short running time.

Rarely have I ever come across any criticisms about the running times of other Bond films, until some fans began complaining about QoS's short running time.

Nah, these complaints about pacing issues have been around forever. It's only that because of this topic, a lot of fans have begun to talk about them in more focused discussion, but I've seen comments like this for ages.

In my personal opinion, the best Bond movie was OHMSS. And it had a running time of 140 minutes. It didn't need to be under two hours to be great in my eyes.

[double o ego]

If Goldfinger and The Bourne Supremacy can be great and run 108 minutes

I have never thought that GOLDFINGER was great. And as much as I like THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, I always feel as if the story could be more, whenever I watch it.

Gosh, so many drag at the end.

TSWLM, TMWTGG, MR, OP and TND spring immediately to mind. Spectacle over story.

I have rarely come across any complaints about the running times of other Bond films, until the news of QoS's running time was announced and some fans began to complain. It seem as if many fans are now claiming that a shorter running time is better, so that they can psyche themselves up to openly accept with QoS without any qualms. The more posts I read about how wonderful a shorter running time is, the stronger the excuses become.

So, whining and declaring the movie to be a failure is a better and more suitable solution?? People here have substantated why and where shorter films have succeeded. Had the runtime not even been mentioned, I wonder if any of us would have really noticed how short the film's run time is. To me, all the Bond films feel as though they have the same run time, I don't notice it because I'm too busy paying attention to the film and not the minutes ticking away on my watch. If people find comfort or need to seek reassurance by looking at other movies with similar run times that happen to be widely regarded as good movies, why should it be an issue?? Imo, whining and declaring the movie to be a failure when one hasn't seen the finished product but have seen impressive tidbits here and there is somewhat irrational. With fanboys scrutinising everything to the last detail, I actually applaud the intelligence and the rational minds of those willing to think outside the box with a clear head instead of spearheading for the movie to be a disaster because, the movie is a few minutes shorter than some of the better movies in the series.

Edited by double o ego, 24 September 2008 - 05:43 PM.

[Germanlady]

Gernot of the James Bond Club Germany was invited to London and has posted the following. They were told not to give spoilers, of course...

http://www.jamesbond...h...asc&start=0

der tag in london war natuerlich unglaublich, leider kann ich euch derzeit keine details erzaehlen, aber soviel sei verraten: freut euch auf november, die sequenzen, die ich gesehen habe, waren fantastisch! james bond is back!

The day in Lon don was unbelievable, unfortunately I cannot tell any details. but so much: you can really look forward to november, the sequences I saw were fantastic. James Bond is back.

und du darfst mir noch etwas glauben: die szenen, die wir gesehen haben, waren ohne übertreibung EINFACH GEIL. da war alles dabei, humor, düster, spannend, 1a-action und tolle atmoshpährische locations...

..and you may believe this: the scenes we saw, were without exaggeration just WOW. There was all - hunor, dark, exciting and great atmospheric locations.

[double o ego]

Did he get to see the whole film or certain scenes?