401 replies to this topic

[dinovelvet]

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.

Now its down to 84 minutes?

Ehh, why don't EON just cut it down to 25 minutes. That way we can squeeze it in to a lunch break.

[Mister E]

I think 104 minutes is just fine. Really, alot of Bond movies have been too long because they wanted to stuff in usually lame action sequences. 104 minutes sounds like they are really trimming the fat this time.

[Joe Bond]

I'm actually not worried about the runtime and going by the imdb review they were going to tighten the actions scenes so were not in for another TND where they did the opposite and I remember when the run time for CR came out and everyone was worried about it being the runtime too. Plus a good example for me of a movie that did not feel rushed was I Am Legend which has a run time around 100 minutes and I did not feel it ended too soon.

Runtimes listed are always aproximations and can always of by a couple of minutes both ways so I could definantly see this movie getting a 108 min. runtime.

To answer the "where did the budget go questions" well it will probably reflect the locations and some of the new technolgy they used like the 360 degree camera they used for the plane sequenses which according to the imdb reviewer puts the viewer right in the middle of the plane action and the special camera they used for the car chase.

[Blofeld's Cat]

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.

Now its down to 84 minutes?

Ehh, why don't EON just cut it down to 25 minutes. That way we can squeeze it in to a lunch break.

But imagine alllll the deleted scenes that'll be included on the DVD!

[Loomis]

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?

Quite. All the indications are that we're just a few weeks away from being shaken and stirred by one of the highest-quality Bond outings ever. It amazes me that people are getting so hung up on the running time, which in any case seems to me to be of perfectly respectable length.

I mean, we get that fascinating IMDb review promising wonderful things (fair enough, it hasn't been proven true, but then again it does look as though it may very well be for real), and yet all people are talking about are the gunbarrel and running time. Amazing.

[Mister E]

It amazes me that people are getting so hung up on the running time,

People get hung up about everything around here.

[[dark]]

I mean, we get that fascinating IMDb review promising wonderful things (fair enough, it hasn't been proven true, but then again it does look as though it may very well be for real), and yet all people are talking about are the gunbarrel and running time. Amazing.

Speaking of the IMDb review, for those of us too scared to click into the spoiler forum, can someone explain how this IMDb poster claims he saw Quantum of Solace?

[quantumofsolace]

he or she claims to have seen the film at a public test screening in London.

Edited by quantumofsolace, 06 September 2008 - 12:54 AM.

[Publius]

I wonder how many minutes QoS saves by not having the obligatory Q and Moneypenny scenes. Easily five. I'm looking forward to a Bond film that's all thriller and no filler.

[dinovelvet]

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?

Quite. All the indications are that we're just a few weeks away from being shaken and stirred by one of the highest-quality Bond outings ever. It amazes me that people are getting so hung up on the running time, which in any case seems to me to be of perfectly respectable length.

I mean, we get that fascinating IMDb review promising wonderful things (fair enough, it hasn't been proven true, but then again it does look as though it may very well be for real), and yet all people are talking about are the gunbarrel and running time. Amazing.

Well like I said earlier, the running time is the one and only thing I've lodged a complaint about thus far. I'm a Bond fan...well, fanboy if you must. No interest in Batman, Indy (well, I was interested until I heard how bad it was), so Bond is pretty much IT for me in 08. The fact that its the shortest Bond film ever made instantly sets off an alarm bell for me. I can't explain it exactly. Maybe size does matter to me

Anyway, the imminent new trailer will hopefully snap me back into full-on drooling anticipation mode. Either that, or, it'll be proof that Craig is gayz and Forster is bald clooless hak!

[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.

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

I wasnt trying to imply that one was better than the other, just putting things in perspective.

[sharpshooter]

I could not care less of this run time. The run time we have here is decent. It is how the film feels. If, when I watch the film, enjoy myself, I will not be bothered in the slightest if it is 6 minutes shorter than Doctor No. I'm sure they have made the pace correct according to what the film is, not for what something else is.

[Mister E]

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.

I wasnt trying to imply that one was better than the other, just putting things in perspective.

Actaully it sounds more like FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and that had far better pacing then OHMSS.

[Invincible1958]

I don't think that this film is already rated. Because special effects and the music score are definitely not finished by now. So the whole movie isn't finished yet. So it can't be rated.

And about the run-time. I think the final cut also will only be finished in mid-October (in about 6 weeks). There won't be a real running time and rating before mid-October, I think.

By the way: the running time of the 3 shortest 007 adventures on PAL-DVD:

DN: 105 minutes 12 seconds
GF: 105 minutes 26 seconds
FRWL: 110 minutes 15 seconds

That is with 25 pictures per second. On NTSC they a longer, because NTSC only shows 24 pictures per second.

Edited by Invincible1958, 06 September 2008 - 01:43 AM.

[HildebrandRarity]

I don't really believe the 104 minute run time because this Bond movie is about both character and action. I think what was seen on the test viewing (if at all) was 104 minutes but WITHOUT the titles and end credits. So, I think we're looking at a 111 to 112 minute run time (including song and end titles) at a minimum, imo.

[Mister E]

I don't really believe the 104 minute run time because this Bond movie is about both character and action.

That is never any indication of running time.

[kneelbeforezod]

I don't think that this film is already rated. Because special effects and the music score are definitely not finished by now. So the whole movie isn't finished yet. So it can't be rated.

Yeah but even if it isn't rated, Odeon are hardly taking a risk by saying its 12A. They know, and everyone in the business knows, that they will deliver a 12A product. In the unlikely event that it was given a 15, they would cut it until it was 12A.

[AgentBentley]

104 minutes looks short, but it's the feel when you're watching it that counts.

If you're feel you're getting value for money, nothing's rushed but nothing's put in that doesn't belong there either, then the length won't matter.
Some short movies feel way too long, and some long ones are just right.

[Col. Sun]

I don't think that this film is already rated. Because special effects and the music score are definitely not finished by now. So the whole movie isn't finished yet. So it can't be rated.

Yeah but even if it isn't rated, Odeon are hardly taking a risk by saying its 12A. They know, and everyone in the business knows, that they will deliver a 12A product. In the unlikely event that it was given a 15, they would cut it until it was 12A.

The film can be rated before the final sound mix is complete. The producers re-submit the final film as well, and they may have to make a few changes to the sound, i.e. reduce impact hits etc. if the censors think they make the visuals appear too violent for the 12a.

Odeon have been given technical specs by Sony. Format, ratio and length -- which is 104 mins. They will have timed that to include the end titles as well. The film may actually end up being 105 mins or there abouts, but either way the film is def under 2 hours.

[richyawyingtmv]

I don't think that this film is already rated. Because special effects and the music score are definitely not finished by now. So the whole movie isn't finished yet. So it can't be rated.

And about the run-time. I think the final cut also will only be finished in mid-October (in about 6 weeks). There won't be a real running time and rating before mid-October, I think.

By the way: the running time of the 3 shortest 007 adventures on PAL-DVD:

DN: 105 minutes 12 seconds
GF: 105 minutes 26 seconds
FRWL: 110 minutes 15 seconds

That is with 25 pictures per second. On NTSC they a longer, because NTSC only shows 24 pictures per second.

What are you on about?

Firstly, PAL video runs at 25fps, NTSC runs at 30fps. Get your facts straight. And speaking as someone who knows a huge deal about how the film industry works, many, many films are rated way before the musical score and special effects are finished. Sure, the film will go in for another evaluation afterwards, but I've seen many screeners with effects unfinished (greenscreen) and no music - even temp music from other films in certain instances!

Edited by richyawyingtmv, 06 September 2008 - 08:57 AM.

[Invincible1958]

Firstly, PAL video runs at 25fps, NTSC runs at 30fps.

Wouldn't movies on NTSC then be shorter than on PAL? But it's the other way round.

Goldfinger (PAL-DVD): 105:26
Goldfinger (NTSC-DVD): 109:52

So how can the NTSC-version be longer when they show 6 frames more per second?

I found the answer:

Film (in the cinema) has 24 frames per second
PAL runs at 25 fps
NTSC runs at 29,97 fps

"Framerate conversion

There is a large difference in framerate between film, which runs at 24.0 frames per second, and the NTSC standard, which runs at approximately 29.97 frames per second.

Unlike the two other video formats, PAL and SECAM, this difference cannot be overcome by a simple speed-up.

A complex process called "3:2 pulldown" is used. One film frame is transmitted for three video fields (1.5 video frame times), and the next frame is transmitted for two video fields (1 video frame time). Two 24 frame/s film frames are therefore transmitted in five 60 Hz video fields, for an average of 2.5 video fields per film frame. The average frame rate is thus 60 / 2.5 = 24 frame/s, so the average film speed is exactly what it should be. There are drawbacks, however. Still-framing on playback can display a video frame with fields from two different film frames, so any motion between the frames will appear as a rapid back-and-forth flicker. There can also be noticeable jitter/"stutter" during slow camera pans."

So the NTSC-DVD got almost 30 fps, but has the same runtime as the film in the theatre. If they would speed up the movie to 30 fps, it would be much shorter than the PAL-version.

[zencat]

104 minutes looks short, but it's the feel when you're watching it that counts.

If you're feel you're getting value for money, nothing's rushed but nothing's put in that doesn't belong there either, then the length won't matter.
Some short movies feel way too long, and some long ones are just right.

Well put AgentBentley.

[HildebrandRarity]

I don't really believe the 104 minute run time because this Bond movie is about both character and action.

That is never any indication of running time.

O I understand that. But modern cinematic history would suggest that an 'action/adventure' film which seeks to provide a credible portrayal of character arc resolutions needs more than just 1h 36mins (after taking 7-8 minutes away for Main and End titles in the case of James Bond movies).

It's not just Goldfinger or From Russia With Love we're talking about. We're talking about a character-building journey for Bond...and then there's Camille's story to be intertwined in all that.

How can you portray these journeys credibly? Remember, we're talking about a James Bond film, not an art-house drama. We're talking about a movie which, in terms of bread and butter, primarily targets 'the action/adventure demographic' first and foremost. So how do you portray the stories credibly in just over 1h 30mins?

Kill Bill, for instance, required 2 'movies'...

The Dark Knight and Casino Royale (and OHMSS), bonafide classics of their genres, required nearly an hour more than what's being suggested for Quantum...

Then look at Attack Of The Clones/Revenge Of The Sith and The Bourne Supremacy/Ultimatum. You can argue about the quality of the above movies, but we're talking about a credible resolution of character arcs.

I'm looking forward to Quantum...have been since the end of Casino Royale, in fact...so it'll be interesting to see how credible the character arc comes off IF (*if*) the run time is only 1h 36mins.

We'll see in a couple of months, won't we?

[Safari Suit]

The run time, if it is correct, is fine, there have been many films in the blockbuster category over the last two or three years, possibly even including CR, that would have been a lot better IMO if they had been 20-30 minutes shorter.

[Publius]

The Dark Knight and Casino Royale (and OHMSS), bonafide classics of their genres, required nearly an hour more than what's being suggested for Quantum...

CR had an official run time of 144 minutes, 40 minutes more than what's being suggested for QoS, not an hour. And we don't know whether that speculative 104 minutes includes the titles or not, which means the difference could be as little as 30 minutes. CR needed those extra 30 minutes because it had three major action set-pieces and a love story. According to the same shadowy sources giving us this 104 minute figure, the action in QoS is a lot tighter (and thus probably shorter), and obviously there isn't a romance to develop, so 30 more minutes might have been unnecessary padding.

[Harmsway]

Kill Bill, for instance, required 2 'movies'...

I love KILL BILL, but its running time was more out of indulgence than dramatic necessity.

The Dark Knight and Casino Royale (and OHMSS), bonafide classics of their genres, required nearly an hour more than what's being suggested for Quantum...

You can make a strong case for THE DARK KNIGHT, CASINO ROYALE, and ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE all being overlong. Indeed, I'll make it. At the script stage, all of those films could have been conceivably streamlined into much shorter affairs.

[Gobi-1]

If the movie is great I won't care but right now a 104 minute running times makes me feel slightly cheated. Especially if the end credits are included in the estimate. That would mean the actual film would only be a little over an hour and half.

Personally I'd rather a film be too long then too short.

[jaguar007]

What killed the movie THe Golden Compass was that they put a 2 1/2 hr movie into less than 2 hrs. The movie felt rushed and moved too quickly. The difference of course with QOS is that they are not following a book-so maybe the story and pacing will be fine. I still would prefer around 2hrs (or just over).

[HildebrandRarity]

Kill Bill, for instance, required 2 'movies'...

I love KILL BILL, but its running time was more out of indulgence than dramatic necessity.

The Dark Knight and Casino Royale (and OHMSS), bonafide classics of their genres, required nearly an hour more than what's being suggested for Quantum...

You can make a strong case for THE DARK KNIGHT, CASINO ROYALE, and ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE all being overlong. Indeed, I'll make it. At the script stage, all of those films could have been conceivably streamlined into much shorter affairs.

Well, we would agree, then, that The Dark Knight, Casino Royale and On Her Majesty's Secret Service are classics of their genres. Indeed, epics of their genres. But if you trimmed them, I still think they'd be 2h to 2h 5mins...not 1h 36 mins. And what about the character arcs of James Bond and Camille? I imagine that Bond's character development involves his interaction with Camille? How do you credibly (and the operative word is "credibly") portray the character arc resolutions in an 'action' movie in 1h 36 mins?

[Mister E]

Kill Bill, for instance, required 2 'movies'...

I love KILL BILL, but its running time was more out of indulgence than dramatic necessity.

The Dark Knight and Casino Royale (and OHMSS), bonafide classics of their genres, required nearly an hour more than what's being suggested for Quantum...

You can make a strong case for THE DARK KNIGHT, CASINO ROYALE, and ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE all being overlong. Indeed, I'll make it. At the script stage, all of those films could have been conceivably streamlined into much shorter affairs.

Well, we would agree, then, that The Dark Knight, Casino Royale and On Her Majesty's Secret Service are classics of their genres. Indeed, epics of their genres. But if you trimmed them, I still think they'd be 2h to 2h 5mins...not 1h 36 mins. And what about the character arcs of James Bond and Camille? I imagine that Bond's character development involves his interaction with Camille? How do you credibly (and the operative word is "credibly") portray the character arc resolutions in an 'action' movie in 1h 36 mins?

Now this is just a guess but I think since Bond's character will still be developing into the next film, there is going to be alot of baggage left over and the interaction is probably going to be fairly intense.

Edited by Mister E, 07 September 2008 - 01:38 AM.