401 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Well, 104 minutes is still a perfectly hefty, respectable length for a film, is it not? Some people are reacting as though Eon has given us a Mack Sennett short.

[Mister Asterix]

[TOPICS MERGED AND RETITLED]

[Harmsway]

Well, 104 minutes is still a perfectly hefty, respectable length for a film, is it not? Some people are reacting as though Eon has given us a Mack Sennett short.

I know. 104 minutes is a really decent runtime, with plenty of time for QUANTUM OF SOLACE's story to unfold. I don't really get the worry.

[JimmyBond]

Plus if we go by the IMDB (assuming it's true) the poster explains it's not really "wall to wall action" anyways. Sounds like we'll get plenty of action scenes, but in short bursts, rather than the drawn out set pieces we had in the Brosnan era.

[Loomis]

The thing is, if Broccoli, Wilson, Forster and co. had wanted a two-and-a-bit-hour running time for their Bond film, they could have had it. Heck, after the spectacular success of CASINO ROYALE, I daresay they could have had a three-hour running time had they pushed for one. It's not as though they've been somehow thwarted into making a compromised flick that shortchanges the viewer.

I think it's pretty clear that QUANTUM OF SOLACE has the running time it has because that's precisely the running time that the filmmakers felt appropriate for the story. They obviously didn't require a longer one, otherwise they would have had it. So what's to worry about? If anything, we should surely be happy that they're evidently not padding the thing out.

[JimmyBond]

Some people are never happy.

[HildebrandRarity]

But where did the $210 million go? If titles and end credits amount to 7 to 8 minutes, then we're left with a 1h 36m movie. So...where did the $210 million go?

[Mister Asterix]

But where did the $210 million go? If titles and end credits amount to 7 to 8 minutes, then we're left with a 1h 36m movie. So...where did the $210 million go?

Well, it’ll be exciting to find out.

[Matt_13]

Well the film hasn't been classified yet and even if this is true, 144 minutes is a solid enough run time for a thriller. No worries here.

[Loomis]

Where is this figure of $210 million coming from? And why are you asking where it went when none of us has even seen the movie?

If QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a spectacular, lavish flick with gorgeous cars, clothes, locations, sets, etc., coupled with terrific action scenes (be they many short action scenes or just a few long ones or whatever combination of whatever), then it'll be obvious where the money went.

[[dark]]

Well the film hasn't been classified yet and even if this is true, 144 minutes is a solid enough run time for a thriller. No worries here.

104 minutes (1 hour, 44 minutes), not 144 minutes (2 hours, 24 minutes).

[Matt_13]

Well the film hasn't been classified yet and even if this is true, 144 minutes is a solid enough run time for a thriller. No worries here.

104 minutes (1 hour, 44 minutes), not 144 minutes (2 hours, 24 minutes).

Whoops, switched the 0 with a 4 but thats what i meant, an 1:44 is a perfectly fine run time for a movie so long as it's a GOOD 1:44.

[double o ego]

Plus if we go by the IMDB (assuming it's true) the poster explains it's not really "wall to wall action" anyways. Sounds like we'll get plenty of action scenes, but in short bursts, rather than the drawn out set pieces we had in the Brosnan era.

That's how OHMSS played out and that movie is magnificent.

[dinovelvet]

Hmm I am officially "concerned" now.

Even through all the production of CR, with Craig-gate and bad buzz, I believed in it.

All through the production of QOS to fdate, I believed in it, when others were questioning Forster, the "twice the action" buzz, and the trailer itself.

This short runtime really throws me for a loop though. Factor in 4 minutes for the end credits, and 3.5 minutes for the title song/credits, and you're left with about 96 minutes of actual film. There's a strong possbility of a "Is that it?" vibe when the Bond theme starts blaring out at the end. The "Goldfinger was short too" argument just isn't sticking, for me. I dunno, I guess somehow I was automatically expecting QOS to be just as epic as CR, and this short runtime suggests more of a throwaway effort.

Hrrrrm, anyway we've got the new trailer arriving in the next few days, so I can probably get excited about it again. But my brow is officially furrowed right now.

[Harmsway]

There's a strong possbility of a "Is that it?" vibe when the Bond theme starts blaring out at the end.

Not if the story's been taken to completion, which by all means it should be.

I dunno, I guess somehow I was automatically expecting QOS to be just as epic as CR, and this short runtime suggests more of a throwaway effort.

Since when does quality content necessitate a long runtime?

[Col. Sun]

But where did the $210 million go? If titles and end credits amount to 7 to 8 minutes, then we're left with a 1h 36m movie. So...where did the $210 million go?

What? Where did the money go? Guess what, it went on huge, complex stunts, numerous international locations, VFX, cast, SFX, and everything else required.

You really think it's just down to paying for seconds and minutes of on screen time?

[Royal Dalton]

If we're to believe what the preview chap said he was told the other day, there are probably going to be some alterations to the current cut of the film. So, I doubt there's an official running time yet.

In any case, even factoring in the titles, 90-odd-minutes still leaves more than enough time for a decent plot to play out.

[Judo chop]

This would make it the shortest Bond yet, and by a decent chunk of time, no?

Of course this wouldn't mean it's too short to be any good, but if in fact QOS turns out to be a very good piece, it could leave us longing for a little more. Hardly a 'complaint'.

[Harmsway]

This would make it the shortest Bond yet, and by a decent chunk of time, no?

Shortest Bond yet by a few minutes.

[Johnboy007]

Well if for some reason it turns about to a miserable failure, at least it'll be mercifully short and not drag on for ages. Still, 104 isn't bad considering it's supposed to be a direct follow-up. Theoretically they won't need as much exposition time and can just jump right in.

[Mister Asterix]

I’m not terribly worried. If MTV editing had had it’s influence on the early Bond films they’d’ve been about an hour and ten.

[triviachamp]

This would make it the shortest Bond yet, and by a decent chunk of time, no?

Shortest Bond yet by a few minutes.

Don't forget the end credits today are lot longer. Hopefully this means the film is leaner and doesn't have as much filler.

Interesting that this would make it 40 minutes shorter that CR!

[Matt_13]

Well if for some reason it turns about to a miserable failure, at least it'll be mercifully short and not drag on for ages. Still, 104 isn't bad considering it's supposed to be a direct follow-up. Theoretically they won't need as much exposition time and can just jump right in.

Exactly what I was thinking, just didn't know how to word it.

[JackWade]

and since Bond isn't art...

That's not true. Bond films are art. But are Bond films high art?

As for 104 minutes, I like it. CASINO ROYALE did seem to be a wee bit lengthy. Hopefully QUANTUM will feel more slim and tidy.

[jaguar007]

The first 4 bond movies are some of the shortest in the series and yet, are widely regarded as some of the series' best. Here's hoping QoS can match that trend. The story is what counts the most and a brilliant Bond story can be told in 104mins, easily.

Dr No 110 min
FRWL 115 min
GF 110 min
TB 130 min.

If this is correct, QoS will be 11 min shorter than FRWL and 6 min shorter than Dr No and GF. The last BOnd movie to be under 2 hrs is TND, and I thought character development suffered in that film.

Bond movies don't come out every year - I want to enjoy each one for as long as possible

[Mister Asterix]

Bond movies don't come out every year - I want to enjoy each one for as long as possible

Look at it this way. You’ll be able to watch it more often.

[The Dove]

www.quantumofsolaceisnotaproperbondfilmbecauseitsonly104minuteslong.com ??

[Ace Roberts]

I remember reading how Paul Haggis struggled over the ending of CR and wrote the third act (sinking house in Venice) toward the end of his contribution time - as part of his final polished draft. I'm speculating he did not have that luxury with QoS because of the writer's strike - and because of that this film (possibly) lacks a lengthy ending set-piece of a similar vein. This is pure speculation on my part and "might" be one of the reasons for the shorter running time.

[Mister Asterix]

I remember reading how Paul Haggis struggled over the ending of CR and wrote the third act (sinking house in Venice) toward the end of his contribution time - as part of his final polished draft. I'm speculating he did not have that luxury with QoS because of the writer's strike - and because of that this film (possibly) lacks a lengthy ending set-piece of a similar vein. This is pure speculation on my part and "might" be one of the reasons for the shorter running time.

Sorry, but didn’t Haggis immediately offer a ‘third act’ for Casino Royale replacing P&W’s ending. I don’t recall Haggis saying he ‘struggled’ with it.

And Haggis turned in a complete script before the strike, the only thing missing were dialogue and character tweaks. ‘The polish’ as they say. Polishes don’t include set pieces.

[Pierce - Daniel]

Well the bbfc have not put anything on their site, so the 12a rating is already thrown into doubt, not to say the film won't be rated 12a, but the bbfc haven't even rated it yet. It is likely the film will likely run for at least 1hr 24. That's as long as the first 3 Bonds. Forster has been committed to a film running under 2 hours. So he clearly has an understanding of the script and an understanding of the way his film ran.