401 replies to this topic

[DR76]

So, whining and declaring the ovie to be a failure is a better and more suitable solution??

Why not? If a fan doesn't like the idea of a Bond around 100 minutes or so, that fan doesn't like it. Makes more sense to me than declaring that the movie will be the best Bond film ever, because of its shorter running time.

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.

So what? There are a good number of movies that are over two hours long and they are pretty damn good. Look, if a fan has qualms about QoS' running time, then he or she does. I don't care if some critic - who apparently has seen only scenes from the movie - liked it. If they have qualms, then they have qualms. There is no need to browbeat these fans into accepting QoS as the greatest Bond movie ever made (before we have even seen it), just because there have been some complaints about the running time.

Just be patient and wait for the movie to come out. If those who are waxing lyrical over the movie prove to be justified in their opinion, then they do. If those who are complaining about the running time, maintain this complaint after the movie is released, then allow them to do so. Please.

Edited by DR76, 24 September 2008 - 05:53 PM.

[double o ego]

So, whining and declaring the ovie to be a failure is a better and more suitable solution??

Why not? If a fan doesn't like the idea of a Bond around 100 minutes or so, that fan doesn't like it. Makes more sense to me than declaring that the movie will be the best Bond film ever, because of its shorter running time.

At 110 minutes, I wonder how many of those fans think GF is the best Bond movie or better yet, how many of them think GF is at least one of the best in the series?
Heeps and heeps of praise was given to the trailer and tv spots and now because the film clocks in at 106 to 110minutes, the film is going to be a failure? I don't quite understand that sort of reasoning.

Edited by double o ego, 24 September 2008 - 05:51 PM.

[DR76]

At 110 minutes, I wonder how many of those fans think GF is the best Bond movie or better yet, how many of them think GF is at least one of the best in the series?

Who cares? There are still a number of fans who think otherwise. Just allow those fans who have doubts about QoS's running time to have them. Why can't this be allowed? These fans will have the opportunity to change their minds, once the movie is released. And if they don't change their minds about the running time, then they don't. What is with the great propaganda campaign about how QoS is going to be better than the other Bond movies, because it has the shortest running time? That does not make any sense to me.

[double o ego]

At 110 minutes, I wonder how many of those fans think GF is the best Bond movie or better yet, how many of them think GF is at least one of the best in the series?

Who cares? There are still a number of fans who think otherwise. Just allow those fans who have doubts about QoS's running time to have them. Why can't this be allowed? These fans will have the opportunity to change their minds, once the movie is released. And if they don't change their minds about the running time, then they don't. What is with the great propaganda campaign about how QoS is going to be better than the other Bond movies, because it has the shortest running time? That does not make any sense to me.

This is what you said,

"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."

I'm responding to this particular comment because here, it sounds like you're begrudging those who think a shorter running time is better and now, in your latter posts you're playing both sides of the fence.

Edited by double o ego, 24 September 2008 - 06:08 PM.

[DR76]

"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."

I know exactly what I had said and I'm standing by it. Why are certain fans assuming that QoS is going to be the best Bond movie ever, because of the shorter running time? I've asked this question several times and all I get are evasions. People either insult me or insult others who question the running time or go into some rapture on how QoS "tighter story" will blow the other Bond movies out of the water. Why? Why are fans not allowed to question or have qualms about the movie's running time?

Edited by DR76, 24 September 2008 - 06:21 PM.

[Germanlady]

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

Since he talked about sequenmces, I guess, they were shown different scenes - but it seems, that most, who over the last couple of weeks saw the films or scenes, said it was fantastic.

[double o ego]

Fine. Why are some fans certain that QoS is going to fail due to having a shorter running time? Why?

[DR76]

Since he talked about sequenmces, I guess, they were shown different scenes - but it seems, that most, who over the last couple of weeks saw the films or scenes, said it was fantastic.

Do you know if he and these other people have seen the entire movie?

[double o ego]

"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."

I know exactly what I had said and I'm standing by it. Why are certain fans assuming that QoS is going to be the best Bond movie ever, because of the shorter running time? I've asked this question several times and all I get are evasions. People either insult me or insult others who question the running time or go into some rapture on how QoS "tighter story" will blow the other Bond movies out of the water. Why? Why are fans not allowed to question or have qualms about the movie's running time?

I don't know where you're getting this from but for those defending the shorter running time are merely expressing their optimism and based on what we've seen thus and know thus far, there's a lot to be optimistic about. As for what you said in your post I quoted, are you sure you know what you said because you seem to be of the mind that i's ok to doubt this film based on it's running time but you don't understand why people are being optimistic based on the same reasons. I and others have proided sufficient eidence as to why we're hopeful that QoS will be a good movie and if you still can't see it then, there's nothing I or anyone else can do to make it clearer for you.

[sorking]

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.

So what? There are a good number of movies that are over two hours long and they are pretty damn good. Look, if a fan has qualms about QoS' running time, then he or she does. I don't care if some critic - who apparently has seen only scenes from the movie - liked it. If they have qualms, then they have qualms. There is no need to browbeat these fans into accepting QoS as the greatest Bond movie ever made (before we have even seen it), just because there have been some complaints about the running time.

Just be patient and wait for the movie to come out. If those who are waxing lyrical over the movie prove to be justified in their opinion, then they do. If those who are complaining about the running time, maintain this complaint after the movie is released, then allow them to do so. Please.

Did you see me browbeat with that list? Because I thought I said in that post almost exactly the same thing you've just said: "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."

All I did was provide a few useful facts for context, where some said there wasn't time to do the whole thing in the running time. I didn't say the film would or wouldn't succeed, only that it's success was not rendered any more or less likely by the reveal of a runtime.

People can believe whatever they like - but when they express that opinion publicly, they're offering the query up for debate. I don't believe offering a contrary opinion along with a few facts and theories somehow makes one side unreasonable. Indeed, I think the only unreasonable thing is to ignore established facts in pursuit of a point.

Still, if my bringing those facts into play in the interests of a wider discussion offended you, I can only apologise.

[Publius]

Makes more sense to me than declaring that the movie will be the best Bond film ever, because of its shorter running time.

I haven't seen anyone declaring it the best Bond film ever (predicting it will be, a few have), let alone because of its run time. What I have seen is people saying they think this is a good sign considering Forster has been aiming for a taut, 60s-inspired thriller since the very beginning. If he had promised an epic, there would be reason for alarm, but all along he's said "under two hours." Not only does he seem to have gotten what he wanted, it also shows he hasn't been afraid to sacrifice tradition (in this case, longer run times) for the sake of the story he wants to tell.

I don't have a problem with people being disappointed or even a little concerned about the run time, but I have been trying to dispel the panic some are gripped with. Given the talents involved and what we've seen/heard of the movie, I just don't see the justification for the hysteria a select few have engaged in. I haven't seen any browbeating by the other side, just some logical appeals for others to calm down. It's not like we've started doing this yet.

[sorking]

I don't have a problem with some people being disappointed or even a little concerned about the run time, but I have been trying to dispel the panic some people are gripped with.

This is a good point, actually - some were concerned and wanted those concerns allayed. If realising films like Leon or The Usual Suspects achieved a lot with similar runtimes helps calm some hard-to-describe panic, so much the better. For those people, it's not a failing to say "Thanks, that helped me get some perspective." Even if it is the internet.