401 replies to this topic

[Mister E]

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.

Thank you for this sensible post. People relax ! You are getting up in arms about something from IMDB ! As for Peter Lamont, I was never broken up about his departure. Before CR, he hadn't decerated a good set in over twenty years.

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

Now it isn't impossible. If you put any film in words it would seem alot longer then it is on film. 115 to 120 minutes is a realistic amount of time.

Edited by Mister E, 28 August 2008 - 03:25 AM.

[Double-0-Seven]

While the iMDB is hardly a credible source for reliable information, 104 minutes would work for me. As long as it is a solid film then the running time isn't a huge deal to me. Forster said that he was aiming for around the two hour mark and the style of the early Bond films. 104 minutes would make sense for both of those goals.

[Germanlady]

While the iMDB is hardly a credible source for reliable information, 104 minutes would work for me. As long as it is a solid film then the running time isn't a huge deal to me. Forster said that he was aiming for around the two hour mark and the style of the early Bond films. 104 minutes would make sense for both of those goals.

No, it doesn´t. 104 minutes is hardly within the two hour mark. And didn´t they (imbd) talk about short, sharp action sequences? Well, we do know, the first action sequence is around 15 minutes - hardly short. Its all b*** IMO.

[NVT]

umm, there is no way he could know the exact runtime. The film is still in post-production, then it gets reviewed by individual countries broadcasting certifications board, who may decide if there is to much violence etc for the target age certification. Depending on how that goes the producers may have to edit or re-shoot some things.

[Col. Sun]

While the iMDB is hardly a credible source for reliable information, 104 minutes would work for me. As long as it is a solid film then the running time isn't a huge deal to me. Forster said that he was aiming for around the two hour mark and the style of the early Bond films. 104 minutes would make sense for both of those goals.

No, it doesn´t. 104 minutes is hardly within the two hour mark. And didn´t they (imbd) talk about short, sharp action sequences? Well, we do know, the first action sequence is around 15 minutes - hardly short. Its all b*** IMO.

It was me who said the action is short and sharp, in this forum. I gather from people I know who were on the original shoot and also others close to the post-production now that the action has been cut tight and that the film is very taut and suspenseful. I don't believe the pre-title seq. is 15 mins (as was perhaps suggested); from my understanding, and this is not something that's been said explicitly to me, the opening seq. is tighter and shorter than that. I do know the film is under two hours and quite a bit under -- so the 104 mins claim may be true or very close to the actual running time.

There was another comment that they may re-cut or re-shoot after the censors look at the film, but any cuts would be minor trims here and there or slight sound re-mixes to tone down violent impacts etc.

[ElFenomeno]

i want a longer movie.
it's not like we see a bond movie every month

Edited by ElFenomeno, 28 August 2008 - 07:44 AM.

[Col. Sun]

i want a longer movie.
it's not like we see a bond movie every month

Hey, don't worry, some of the best Bonds, Dr. No, FRWL, GF have been around the 1 hour 45 min/50min mark and it looks like QOS is a similar length.

I have a feeling Forster always intended the film to be tight and he constantly referenced the early Connery films as his inspiration and I think that includes the same, tight thriller pacing those films had.

The word in the industry is that it's a very good and stylish film.

[double o ego]

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.

Regardless of the source of the info regarding the film's running time, I think that, his complaint regarding the Bond film's now being too Holywood is true and a very valid concern and is a huge factor in how these movies turn out. I watched Octopussy last night for the 1st time in a long time and the film is just so incredibly British (the way Bond movies should be)and it was a breath of fresh air from the hollywoodised bs that we get in the latter films.

[Publius]

If this is true, and presuming QoS is a good movie, I wonder what the effect will be on its commercial success. It'll definitely help it in the US, I think.

[JackWade]

The word in the industry is that it's a very good and stylish film.

Well that's very good to hear.

[Invincible1958]

i want a longer movie.
it's not like we see a bond movie every month

What do you think Star Wars-fans, Indy-fans or Batman-fans say? They only got 4 to 6 movies all together, and not 22 and counting.

[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.

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.

Regardless of the source of the info regarding the film's running time, I think that, his complaint regarding the Bond film's now being too Holywood is true and a very valid concern and is a huge factor in how these movies turn out. I watched Octopussy last night for the 1st time in a long time and the film is just so incredibly British (the way Bond movies should be)and it was a breath of fresh air from the hollywoodised bs that we get in the latter films.

Thank God there's still some old school fans out there. I've been a Bond fan for 25 years now and honestly, the only time I had reservations about the forthcoming film was TND so I resent all these people assuming that one "flips out" every time there's a change. I championed GE when nobody was giving an f about the future of Bond movies, I supported CR from the very start, etc.
Since the internet started, there's this new breed of "fan" who thinks because they're bought the dvd boxsets it means they're hardcore! The kind of people who consider Benson's books "awesome" and protest because the other continuation novels haven't been reprinted (a true fan rejoices at the fact of something being hard to find). As I've said before, if you're not an Anglophile, you can hardly call yourself a true Bond fan. I don't think QOS will be awful but I truly believe MGW and BB have finally sold out to Hollywood. Admit it, everybody: MF was Sony's idea and after having watched a second film by him (Stranger Than Fiction, which at least was decent unlike that godawful Finding Neverland) I still fail to see why anybody thought him suitable to direct a Bond. It's the way Hollywood thinks: the director's just an employee and as such he may be hired for any type of film regardless of his qualifications. Just as Fleming was a thriller writer, Bond directors should be picked on similar criteria. Sony's Amy Pascal probably never forgave the Broccolis for going with DC instead of CO even after CR became a success (I'm sure they're convinced it was a hit because of themselves only and not Eon's 40-year-plus experience) and now she's getting back at them. MGW is getting old (look at his comments about a hiatus before 23, considering the four-year wait before CR) and I guess he does no longer have the strength to keep fighting back. BB belongs to a completely different generation and it seems to me she's really focused on business, even at the expense of artistic quality (her reasons for MF helming QOS are exactly the same as LT for DAD, verbatim: he's one of the finest filmakers ou there, blah blah). If Cubby were alive today, he'd never hired an American to direct (ask Spielberg). Even after he moved back to the US, he kept the films British, he kept bringing the same crew film after film (Gaffer John Tythe had retired by the late 80's but he'd come out of retirement for Eon). You felt this was a body of work by the same team, a true series.

[Germanlady]

You post sounds like one, that just switches everything to the dark side. Everything that makes perfect sense to a lot of people, like the choice of MF. If BB was just after the money, she wouldn´t have gone with the bold (at that time)decision of DC or with an artsy director like MF now - never mind who wanted him. I think they really grew some balls and play the game, they actually want. Nothing wrong with that - au contraire, I would say. ...and you can read everywhere, that the crew has remained the same in many departments - may they be British, American or whatever. ...and the old days of CB are over. Having it his way altogether wouldn´t work anymore.

Edited by Germanlady, 28 August 2008 - 05:41 PM.

[Mister E]

MGW is getting old (look at his comments about a hiatus before 23, considering the four-year wait before CR) and I guess he does no longer have the strength to keep fighting back.

Micheal has done alot of work. You are not considering the fact that he is re-booting the series and that is a process that isn't going to take one film. Cubby never did something like this before.

If Cubby were alive today, he'd never hired an American to direct (ask Spielberg).

Moore actually adressed why Cubby never hired Speilberg recently, it wasn't because he was American it was because he asked for too much money.

You felt this was a body of work by the same team, a true series.

One of the reasons why the series felt became so tired. Dick Maibaum and Maurice Binder seemed all tired by the 1980's. They basically started repeating themselves and then worse, the mudane directon pushed the series into further mediocrity. Mikey and Babs are doing the right thing by keeping people close by but every now and then, replace people so things won't get boring.

Edited by Mister E, 28 August 2008 - 05:49 PM.

[Jim]

Thank God there's still some old school fans out there. I've been a Bond fan for 25 years now

Me too. I want my party, and I want it now. I am owed it.

and honestly, the only time I had reservations about the forthcoming film was TND so I resent all these people assuming that one "flips out" every time there's a change.

Actually, this is the one time I have no trepidation at all. I trust them now more than ever.

I championed GE when nobody was giving an f about the future of Bond movies, I supported CR from the very start, etc.

OK.

Since the internet started, there's this new breed of "fan" who thinks because they're bought the dvd boxsets it means they're hardcore! The kind of people who consider Benson's books "awesome" and protest because the other continuation novels haven't been reprinted (a true fan rejoices at the fact of something being hard to find).

Oh, not this again. I do hate this "I'm a bigger fan than you because I simply happen to be closer to the grave" nonsense.

As I've said before, if you're not an Anglophile, you can hardly call yourself a true Bond fan.

Hm. I'm not totally convinced Ian Fleming was an anglophile. Plenty of veiled criticisms of Britain, and spending half the year in Jamaica, are both, at the very least, suggestive. If you're a phile of "rather ridiculous portrayal of Britain for tourists" then I suppose it's OK. The Britain depicted in the Bond films is nothing like the reality.

I don't think QOS will be awful but I truly believe MGW and BB have finally sold out to Hollywood.

Oh, come on. American films produced by Americans. The British have been employees. Bond kept MGM going for decades. It's a cornerstone of Hollywood.

Admit it, everybody: MF was Sony's idea and after having watched a second film by him (Stranger Than Fiction, which at least was decent unlike that godawful Finding Neverland) I still fail to see why anybody thought him suitable to direct a Bond. It's the way Hollywood thinks: the director's just an employee and as such he may be hired for any type of film regardless of his qualifications. Just as Fleming was a thriller writer, Bond directors should be picked on similar criteria.

I'm not admitting something I don't know. The collective cvs of Gilbert, Glen, Apted, Spottiswoode and Tamahori don't immediately scream Bond film to me.

Sony's Amy Pascal probably never forgave the Broccolis for going with DC instead of CO even after CR became a success (I'm sure they're convinced it was a hit because of themselves only and not Eon's 40-year-plus experience) and now she's getting back at them.

Probably. But equally, without proof to the contrary, probably not.

MGW is getting old (look at his comments about a hiatus before 23, considering the four-year wait before CR) and I guess he does no longer have the strength to keep fighting back. BB belongs to a completely different generation and it seems to me she's really focused on business, even at the expense of artistic quality (her reasons for MF helming QOS are exactly the same as LT for DAD, verbatim: he's one of the finest filmakers ou there, blah blah).

This could be true but might also be utterly offensive guesswork. And Albert Broccoli wasn't some sort of Mother Teresa figure, surely?

If Cubby were alive today, he'd never hired an American to direct (ask Spielberg). Even after he moved back to the US, he kept the films British, he kept bringing the same crew film after film (Gaffer John Tythe had retired by the late 80's but he'd come out of retirement for Eon). You felt this was a body of work by the same team, a true series.

If Broccoli were alive today he'd be making the same tired old rubbish that blighted the 1980s; whilst on a personal level it would be appalling to suggest I am glad he has gone, that he has gone has allowed them to blossom. Why would one want an 80 year old gaffer? It's not a charity. The films became incredibly lazy and it was all on a downward spiral.

[JimmyBond]

MGW is getting old (look at his comments about a hiatus before 23, considering the four-year wait before CR) and I guess he does no longer have the strength to keep fighting back.

Micheal has done alot of work. You are not considering the fact that he is re-booting the series and that is a process that isn't going to take one film. Cubby never did something like this before.

If Cubby were alive today, he'd never hired an American to direct (ask Spielberg).

Moore actually adressed why Cubby never hired Speilberg recently, it wasn't because he was American it was because he asked for too much money.

You felt this was a body of work by the same team, a true series.

One of the reasons why the series felt became so tired. Dick Maibaum and Maurice Binder seemed all tired by the 1980's. They basically started repeating themselves and then worse, the mudane directon pushed the series into further mediocrity. Mikey and Babs are doing the right thing by keeping people close by but every now and then, replace people so things won't get boring.

It's so funny, I read your thread in the LTK forum and can't believe we disagree so much about it.

Yet I read your posts here and love it, this is everything I would have said Well done Mister E, you continue to be one of my favorite posters on this board.

[Mister E]

Well done Mister E, you continue to be one of my favorite posters on this board.

Thank You.

[MarkA]

If Broccoli were alive today he'd be making the same tired old rubbish that blighted the 1980s; whilst on a personal level it would be appalling to suggest I am glad he has gone, that he has gone has allowed them to blossom. Why would one want an 80 year old gaffer? It's not a charity. The films became incredibly lazy and it was all on a downward spiral.

I agree totally with the above statement. There was never a more old, tired, lazy and old fashioned decade for Bond than the 80's. We have improved by leaps and bounds since then. Bond is now relevant again. Indy is now the tired old fashioned one.

[Col. Sun]

Well done Mister E, you continue to be one of my favorite posters on this board.

Thank You.

CR turned Bond around. I think BB and MGW were waiting for the right moment, when they were powerful enough as producers to drive forward a their vision of Bond. CR and QOS (we hope) is that vision.

Brosnan's era made it possible because how ever way one cuts it, his films made BUCKS and were popular with a wide audience.

Without the safer, popular Brosnan films behind them BB and MGW would not have been able to persuade their investors to back an outsider like Craig or a return to Fleming's Bond.

And, back to the running time -- I hear it's about 108 mins with end credits. Not quite locked yet, but near as damn it.

[Mister E]

Well done Mister E, you continue to be one of my favorite posters on this board.

Thank You.

CR turned Bond around. I think BB and MGW were waiting for the right moment, when they were powerful enough as producers to drive forward a their vision of Bond. CR and QOS (we hope) is that vision.

Brosnan's era made it possible because how ever way one cuts it, his films made BUCKS and were popular with a wide audience.

Without the safer, popular Brosnan films behind them BB and MGW would not have been able to persuade their investors to back an outsider like Craig or a return to Fleming's Bond.

And, back to the running time -- I hear it's about 108 mins with end credits. Not quite locked yet, but near as damn it.

Yes the safe approach was best in that time but they could have made them better. Brosnan's Bond's films had lots of good ideas but they were muddled in explosions.

[Captain Tightpants]

I was just over at IMdB looking to see what the latest bout of insanity was, and noticed that someone made a post in the thread about the running time which may actually be an explanation. The second trailer for the film is apparently one minute and forty-four seconds long, which comes out as 104 seconds. He suggested the original poster screwed up and misinterpreted the 1:44 runtime for the trailer as being one hour forty-four - or one hundred and four - minutes for the actual film.

[DaveBond21]

I can imagine the movie running just over 2 hours, and that is probably the best run time for a Bond movie (CR aside).

[Mister E]

I can imagine the movie running just over 2 hours, and that is probably the best run time for a Bond movie (CR aside).

I think two hours is just fine for a Bond movie. I think most of them run too long because they usually have alot of filler.

[DaveBond21]

I can imagine the movie running just over 2 hours, and that is probably the best run time for a Bond movie (CR aside).

I think two hours is just fine for a Bond movie. I think most of them run too long because they usually have alot of filler.

Agreed. Normally it's one too many action set-pieces.

[Publius]

I can imagine the movie running just over 2 hours, and that is probably the best run time for a Bond movie (CR aside).

I think two hours is just fine for a Bond movie. I think most of them run too long because they usually have alot of filler.

Agreed. Normally it's one too many action set-pieces.

The whole concept of a "set-piece" is often the problem in the first place. If an action sequence can be described as such after the fact, that's fine, but actually making the film with that mentality usually leads to trouble.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Thank God there's still some old school fans out there. I've been a Bond fan for 25 years now

Me too. I want my party, and I want it now. I am owed it.

and honestly, the only time I had reservations about the forthcoming film was TND so I resent all these people assuming that one "flips out" every time there's a change.

Actually, this is the one time I have no trepidation at all. I trust them now more than ever.

I championed GE when nobody was giving an f about the future of Bond movies, I supported CR from the very start, etc.

OK.

Since the internet started, there's this new breed of "fan" who thinks because they're bought the dvd boxsets it means they're hardcore! The kind of people who consider Benson's books "awesome" and protest because the other continuation novels haven't been reprinted (a true fan rejoices at the fact of something being hard to find).

Oh, not this again. I do hate this "I'm a bigger fan than you because I simply happen to be closer to the grave" nonsense.

As I've said before, if you're not an Anglophile, you can hardly call yourself a true Bond fan.

Hm. I'm not totally convinced Ian Fleming was an anglophile. Plenty of veiled criticisms of Britain, and spending half the year in Jamaica, are both, at the very least, suggestive. If you're a phile of "rather ridiculous portrayal of Britain for tourists" then I suppose it's OK. The Britain depicted in the Bond films is nothing like the reality.

I don't think QOS will be awful but I truly believe MGW and BB have finally sold out to Hollywood.

Oh, come on. American films produced by Americans. The British have been employees. Bond kept MGM going for decades. It's a cornerstone of Hollywood.

Admit it, everybody: MF was Sony's idea and after having watched a second film by him (Stranger Than Fiction, which at least was decent unlike that godawful Finding Neverland) I still fail to see why anybody thought him suitable to direct a Bond. It's the way Hollywood thinks: the director's just an employee and as such he may be hired for any type of film regardless of his qualifications. Just as Fleming was a thriller writer, Bond directors should be picked on similar criteria.

I'm not admitting something I don't know. The collective cvs of Gilbert, Glen, Apted, Spottiswoode and Tamahori don't immediately scream Bond film to me.

Sony's Amy Pascal probably never forgave the Broccolis for going with DC instead of CO even after CR became a success (I'm sure they're convinced it was a hit because of themselves only and not Eon's 40-year-plus experience) and now she's getting back at them.

Probably. But equally, without proof to the contrary, probably not.

MGW is getting old (look at his comments about a hiatus before 23, considering the four-year wait before CR) and I guess he does no longer have the strength to keep fighting back. BB belongs to a completely different generation and it seems to me she's really focused on business, even at the expense of artistic quality (her reasons for MF helming QOS are exactly the same as LT for DAD, verbatim: he's one of the finest filmakers ou there, blah blah).

This could be true but might also be utterly offensive guesswork. And Albert Broccoli wasn't some sort of Mother Teresa figure, surely?

If Cubby were alive today, he'd never hired an American to direct (ask Spielberg). Even after he moved back to the US, he kept the films British, he kept bringing the same crew film after film (Gaffer John Tythe had retired by the late 80's but he'd come out of retirement for Eon). You felt this was a body of work by the same team, a true series.

If Broccoli were alive today he'd be making the same tired old rubbish that blighted the 1980s; whilst on a personal level it would be appalling to suggest I am glad he has gone, that he has gone has allowed them to blossom. Why would one want an 80 year old gaffer? It's not a charity. The films became incredibly lazy and it was all on a downward spiral.

Being "closer to the grave" at least gives you some perspective on things. I recall after the scepticism towards GE (do we really need another Bond movie?), everybody had really high hopes about TND and we really know how that ended. There's a tendency in younger generations to like change for change's sake (a short attention span thing) and get all hyped about all things new for 15 minutes before they debut. One of my mates is as much a senior citizen as I (36) and will get hyped for every bloody blockbuster just to have an "it was good while it lasted" attitude 10 minutes later.
Incidentally, you don't need to be an Anglophile if you're actually English. It's characteristically English to b%tch and moan at themselves but that doesn't make them any less so. This is completely unlike, say, Americans.
If it were for investors, yes, there's never been such a thing as a British film. Americans have always had the British industry by the balls from the start but to call Bond films American shows little knowledge of what makes a film British. The nationality of a film comes from those involved at an artistic level. By the same token, Brits would have to cahnge their nationality to Arab.

[Eddie Burns]

It is a bit pointless really arguing over whether an anglophile is a real bond fan and anyone who isn't, frankly isn't a real fan. Just enjoy the movies and let it be.

I'm still skeptical about the running time. There is no point in comparing todays movies with those of the sixties. For one thing, I never believed that Dr. No and Goldfinger were under two hours until I saw the running times. Thats because they take their time to tell the stories and build the characterization without the burden of an action scene every 5 minutes (something i liked about Casino Royale). I'm sure if they did, they wouldn't have been so short.

The perfect Bond movie in my eyes that was ahead of its time in terms of story and action was OHMSS. It doesn't feel longer than CR but it is. And it satisfies both the action crowd and the story crowd with an equal quality execution of both.

A solid two hours for QoS would be perfect. Just perfect.

[JimmyBond]

I recall after the scepticism towards GE (do we really need another Bond movie?), everybody had really high hopes about TND and we really know how that ended.

It became Pierce Brosnan's best James Bond film. Sorry, anything after that is of no interest to me because it's clear I share nothing of your opinion.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

I recall after the scepticism towards GE (do we really need another Bond movie?), everybody had really high hopes about TND and we really know how that ended.

It became Pierce Brosnan's best James Bond film. Sorry, anything after that is of no interest to me because it's clear I share nothing of your opinion.

Hey, if you're going to quote at least have the effort of READING what you're quoting. I loved GE and I thought it was clear I didn't share this scepticism. Unless of course, you're REALLY saying TND became PB's best (gasp!). If so, it's very difficult QOS could disappoint you.

[Publius]

Unless of course, you're REALLY saying TND became PB's best (gasp!).

He is, and he's not the only one who thinks so.