401 replies to this topic

[Icephoenix]

Ah, no worries Jim Good point - I hope I haven't cried havoc and unleashed the dogs of Bourne.

[MarkA]

Ever seen The Third Man? That clocks in at about two and a half hours and it feels too long

First of all The Third Man is a 104 mins long the same as QoS is said to be and that my friend is a masterpiece. Don't you just hate people that put forth an opinion with duff facts

[Captain Tightpants]

Ever seen The Third Man? That clocks in at about two and a half hours and it feels too long

First of all The Third Man is a 104 mins long the same as QoS is said to be and that my friend is a masterpiece. Don't you just hate people that put forth an opinion with duff facts

Are we talking about the same The Third Man? Because I saw it last year in film class; lecture started at 12pm, finished at 12.30, and we didn't leave until 3pm when we watched the film. Maybe it was with that god-awful score comprising of just one zither that made it so unwatchable for me.

[Col. Sun]

Ever seen The Third Man? That clocks in at about two and a half hours and it feels too long

First of all The Third Man is a 104 mins long the same as QoS is said to be and that my friend is a masterpiece. Don't you just hate people that put forth an opinion with duff facts

Are we talking about the same The Third Man? Because I saw it last year in film class; lecture started at 12pm, finished at 12.30, and we didn't leave until 3pm when we watched the film. Maybe it was with that god-awful score comprising of just one zither that made it so unwatchable for me.

The Third Man is 104 min approx. The score is fantastic. I guess there's no accounting for taste. The film's brilliantly written, acted and directed.

As for QOS. Asked about a bit. Does seems it's something like 1 hour 50 mark in length, titles and all included.

[MarkA]

The Third Man is 104 min approx. The score is fantastic. I guess there's no accounting for taste. The film's brilliantly written, acted and directed.

[Pierce - Daniel]

What?
No way! This can't be true! The film surely could not work properly if it only runs for an hour and a half! I mean that would be the point when Bond kills Obanno in CR, the moment Vesper and Bond fall for each other. What the hell is happening? The film must just be action scene after action scene, with a little dialogue now and then. Make the movie at least 2 hours.

[SecretAgentFan]

What?
No way! This can't be true! The film surely could not work properly if it only runs for an hour and a half! I mean that would be the point when Bond kills Obanno in CR, the moment Vesper and Bond fall for each other. What the hell is happening? The film must just be action scene after action scene, with a little dialogue now and then. Make the movie at least 2 hours.

Love the irony on this board.

And Captain Tightpants - the zither music of THE THIRD MAN may not be our personal favorite but it definitely fits into the Vienna atmosphere and works extremely well. To each his own, of course, but THE THIRD MAN is one of those classics that you can´t hate without getting hatemail. Would be the same as if someone said: Yeah, these Bond films would be okay, if they were just a 45 minutes series. And please, don´t use this awful musical theme with the horns - so tacky...

[MarkA]

No way! This can't be true! The film surely could not work properly if it only runs for an hour and a half! I mean that would be the point when Bond kills Obanno in CR, the moment Vesper and Bond fall for each other. What the hell is happening? The film must just be action scene after action scene, with a little dialogue now and then. Make the movie at least 2 hours.

Where is the sense in this argument? A film should be the length it takes to tell it's story successfully. Who knows until you have seen it whether QoS works absolutely brilliantly at 104mins. To compare it to another film telling a different story at a different length is pointless. Wait and see. There are so many films that are too long anyway. Dare I say it Casino Royale being one of them. Us Bond fans can wallow in the length but the general consensus of opinon with the public and critics is, it was too long.

[Mister Asterix]

No way! This can't be true! The film surely could not work properly if it only runs for an hour and a half! I mean that would be the point when Bond kills Obanno in CR, the moment Vesper and Bond fall for each other. What the hell is happening? The film must just be action scene after action scene, with a little dialogue now and then. Make the movie at least 2 hours.

Where is the sense in this argument? A film should be the length it takes to tell it's story successfully. Who knows until you have seen it whether QoS works absolutely brilliantly at 104mins. To compare it to another film telling a different story at a different length is pointless. Wait and see. There are so many films that are too long anyway. Dare I say it Casino Royale being one of them. Us Bond fans can wallow in the length but the general consensus of opinon with the public and critics is, it was too long.

Where is the sense in any argument here? It’s all based on a post on IMDb. Well, my wife, Morgan Fairchild (yeah, that’s it), told me the film will run 113 minutes 12 seconds. And she told on my yacht.

You believe me, right?

[Judo chop]

No way! This can't be true! The film surely could not work properly if it only runs for an hour and a half! I mean that would be the point when Bond kills Obanno in CR, the moment Vesper and Bond fall for each other. What the hell is happening? The film must just be action scene after action scene, with a little dialogue now and then. Make the movie at least 2 hours.

Where is the sense in this argument? A film should be the length it takes to tell it's story successfully. Who knows until you have seen it whether QoS works absolutely brilliantly at 104mins. To compare it to another film telling a different story at a different length is pointless. Wait and see. There are so many films that are too long anyway. Dare I say it Casino Royale being one of them. Us Bond fans can wallow in the length but the general consensus of opinon with the public and critics is, it was too long.

Where is the sense in any argument here? It’s all based on a post on IMDb. Well, my wife, Morgan Fairchild (yeah, that’s it), told me the film will run 113 minutes 12 seconds. And she told on my yacht.

You believe me, right?

It seems sensible enough.

What's the running time of your yacht?

[Jim]

my frend has scene it and it wz 10 minnits long LOL LMAO!!!!!! and it wz the best 1 u ever sore.

[Royal Dalton]

[Matt_13]

my frend has scene it and it wz 10 minnits long LOL LMAO!!!!!! and it wz the best 1 u ever sore.

Brilliance.

[Mister E]

my frend has scene it and it wz 10 minnits long LOL LMAO!!!!!! and it wz the best 1 u ever sore.

Dud I saw it at my friends hous an it wuz lik the best Bond evr. He knows someon at eon.

[double o ego]

Generally speaking, aren't the first few Bond movies of the 60s regarded as the more serious and less silly movies of the series? They just so happen to be the shortest and forster did say he wants qos to harken back to that style.

[Ace Roberts]

Generally speaking, aren't the first few Bond movies of the 60s regarded as the more serious and less silly movies of the series? They just so happen to be the shortest and forster did say he wants qos to harken back to that style.

Exactly, it's not like these movies are made by trained monkeys - these are professionals who spent a lot of time laying out and refining the story to meet a particular content and visual style. Let's reserve judegement until we see the film on whether it's too short or contains too much action.

[Zorin Industries]

I hate to tell some of you, but IMDB is not the last word in movie data. As someone who has a CV on there, it is the exact opposite.

[JimmyBond]

At the moment I'm just going to trust that these guys know what they're doing. I'm not going to pass judgement on the runtime (true or not) until I see how well the movie plays.

[doubler83]

I'd be more worried if the running time was 80 minutes.

[Mr_Wint]

You can't compare with the first Bondmovies because now we have much more action. Now, I don't know the length of each action scene, but 104 minutes are way too short for QOS.

Anyway, I don't think it is true that EON would aim for something that short... but then again, they cast Craig as Bond and he is merely 5' 10"

[Mister E]

You can't compare with the first Bondmovies because now we have much more action. Now, I don't know the length of each action scene, but 104 minutes are way too short for QOS.

Anyway, I don't think it is true that EON would aim for something that short... but then again, they cast Craig as Bond and he is merely 5' 10"

And the literary Bond was 6' so not a huge difference.

[spynovelfan]

1. 145 - CR
2. 140 - OHMSS
3. 134 - DAD
4. 134 - TB
5. 133 - LTK
6. 131 - OP

Interesting. Thunderball feels much longer to me than either OHMSS or CR.

Incidentally, can't we just stop discussing things posted on IMDB? It really is just 'somebody somewhere in the world claimed, with no evidence at all to back it up, that the film will be 104 minutes long'. People are claiming all sorts of nonsense all day long on the internet. Perhaps we should wait for a credible source or some evidence before discussing such points. Just a thought from another nut on the net.

[JackWade]

I don't buy it. I just don't see this film coming in at under 120 minutes with all the stuff going on.

[stromberg]

Golden Rule: IMDB is not a source.

[doubler83]

Maybe they meant 140 minutes...

[Blofeld's Cat]

1. 145 - CR
2. 140 - OHMSS
3. 134 - DAD
4. 134 - TB
5. 133 - LTK
6. 131 - OP

Interesting. Thunderball feels much longer to me than either OHMSS or CR.

I agree, and to me it's all the slow underwater stuff that seems to make Thunderball drag.

Golden Rule: IMDB is not a source.

Unless you are on the sauce.

[JimmyBond]

Maybe they meant 140 minutes...

Kinda goes against what Forster said about it being around 2 hours.

[Blofeld's Cat]

I find it hard to believe at this early stage (it's not even September yet) that a runtime has been locked in. That would mean that all editing and almost all post-production is now complete. Two months before release!? I doubt it very much.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

I don't buy it can be that short. DN and GF are extreme cases in that they among the earliest entries in the series. Since then, Bond plots have tended (with very exceptions) to be too complicated to reduce to under 120 minutes. TND was the first one in over two decades and it didn't have any subplots and very few supporting characters. the deleted scenes in the UE show that, even if everything had been included, it'd have been a short film.
Bond titles have always run for three minutes, even after the songs started exceeding that running time (TLD onwards) and the end titles of the later fims clock around four minutes (OHMSS indeed remains a longer film than CR, the latter just has more credits). Even assuming 104 minutes stands for the rough running time minus titles, it'd still be shorter than TND and I honestly doubt this one's plot is as basic. I hope that if it's really that short, it'll mean shorter/tighter action scenes and more plot. Otherwise, we're in more trouble than I thought and it goes to confirm my fears about Bond going Hollywood, TND director British only in nationality, all his career made in Hollywood, American DP, North American editors; QOS director European (not even British) only in nationality, all his career made in Hollywood (didn't even study cinema in Europe), American DP and editors, result: standard Hollywood blockbuster shot in the UK but not truly a British film, shorter running length with a cut-to-the-chase approach. I really hope they bring back Lamont (his absence I find unforgivable since it wasn't due to him being unavailable) and Kleinman for 23. The Bonds were a series and have now truly become a franchise. Sad.

[casinoroyale11234]

I don't buy it can be that short. DN and GF are extreme cases in that they among the earliest entries in the series. Since then, Bond plots have tended (with very exceptions) to be too complicated to reduce to under 120 minutes. TND was the first one in over two decades and it didn't have any subplots and very few supporting characters. the deleted scenes in the UE show that, even if everything had been included, it'd have been a short film.
Bond titles have always run for three minutes, even after the songs started exceeding that running time (TLD onwards) and the end titles of the later fims clock around four minutes (OHMSS indeed remains a longer film than CR, the latter just has more credits). Even assuming 104 minutes stands for the rough running time minus titles, it'd still be shorter than TND and I honestly doubt this one's plot is as basic. I hope that if it's really that short, it'll mean shorter/tighter action scenes and more plot. Otherwise, we're in more trouble than I thought and it goes to confirm my fears about Bond going Hollywood, TND director British only in nationality, all his career made in Hollywood, American DP, North American editors; QOS director European (not even British) only in nationality, all his career made in Hollywood (didn't even study cinema in Europe), American DP and editors, result: standard Hollywood blockbuster shot in the UK but not truly a British film, shorter running length with a cut-to-the-chase approach. I really hope they bring back Lamont (his absence I find unforgivable since it wasn't due to him being unavailable) and Kleinman for 23. The Bonds were a series and have now truly become a franchise. Sad.

Wow this pessimism is getting ridiculous. All this over a claim from IMDb, the most unreliable site on the web claiming the runtime is a 104 minutes, GF was 106 and it was one of the greatest Bond films ever made. Relax and watch the movie, then you can complain about how terrible things are. It seems that every time there is a change people flip out and lose faith in the series. This is disgusting.

Edited by casinoroyale11234, 28 August 2008 - 03:16 AM.