401 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

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.

What's their genre? While THE DARK KNIGHT is undoubtedly a newborn classic of the superhero genre, I don't think CASINO ROYALE or ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE really step up as classics of the espionage genre on the whole. They're definitely classics of the Bond franchise, but that's about as far as their reputation extends.

But if you trimmed them, I still think they'd be 2h to 2h 5mins...not 1h 36 mins.

Perhaps so.

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?

Without much trouble, I'd imagine. Because the character arcs of Bond and Camille, without having to get too in-depth, probably won't require much "talking" scenes, as it were. Bond's character arc sounds to be more internalized and subtle, the kind of thing that will be slowly built up in the movie, in action scene and non-action scene alike.

And I don't really imagine his relationship with Camille will need tons of screentime to reach the desired effect, either. From what we can tell, Camille doesn't have much of a character arc on her own, though she does contribute to Bond's arc, but only by setting an example. This can be accomplished without oodles of screentime... indeed, a few striking moments would do the trick.

[MicroGlobeOne]

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...

It's a fair point. I'm eager to learn of the actual runtime for Quantum of Solace, but it would be fair to say that each film demands its own runtime. The subject and scope of a film's plot will dictate its own length to astute filmmakers, and that can be dramatically different from film to film. That being said, and with genre considerations aside, there is no way that a story such as The Dark Knight could have been told at a lesser length. For that level of scope, depth, and impact, the longer running time is absolutely necessary. I am not worried, regardless of rumors. Casino Royale earned the runtime it deserved, and I trust that Forster will ensure that runtime that his film deserves.

[dinovelvet]

OK its conspiracy theory time.

QOS supposed runtime is 1 hour 44 minutes, according to absolutely nobody officially connected to Sony pictures or EON productions.

Remember the recent trailer thread where it was posted that the BBFC video trailer for QOS was, drum roll...1 minute 44 seconds long?

http://commanderbond.net/article/5443

Kind of a strange coincidence, isn't it? Did some Odeon lackey misread that information?

Edit - Oh, Tightpants already discussed this earlier in the thread. Still, worth repeating

[Harmsway]

OK its conspiracy theory time.

QOS supposed runtime is 1 hour 44 minutes, according to absolutely nobody officially connected to Sony pictures or EON productions.

Remember the recent trailer thread where it was posted that the BBFC video trailer for QOS was, drum roll...1 minute 44 seconds long?

http://commanderbond.net/article/5443

Kind of a strange coincidence, isn't it? Did some Odeon lackey misread that information?

Edit - Oh, Tightpants already discussed this earlier in the thread. Still, worth repeating

Yeah. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case and the film is closer to 2 hours. But I'm not stressed either way.

[HildebrandRarity]

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.

What's their genre? While THE DARK KNIGHT is undoubtedly a newborn classic of the superhero genre, I don't think CASINO ROYALE or ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE really step up as classics of the espionage genre on the whole. They're definitely classics of the Bond franchise, but that's about as far as their reputation extends.

It's been said that James Bond movies are of a genre unto itself. They are not really of the 'espionage genre'. I'd say they don't really belong to one specific genre. They're arty and semi-fanatasy to near full fantasy and are beyond being merely 'action-adventure'. In any case, CR and OHMSS are classics of their genre.

OK its conspiracy theory time.

Remember the recent trailer thread where it was posted that the BBFC video trailer for QOS was...1 minute 44 seconds long?

Did some Odeon lackey misread that information?

It's less 'conspiracy theory' than it is pure stupidity on the part of said 'lackey'.

[Safari Suit]

While THE DARK KNIGHT is undoubtedly a newborn classic of the superhero genre, I don't think CASINO ROYALE or ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE really step up as classics of the espionage genre on the whole.

I'm not saying I disagree, but what would you consier to be classics of the espionage genre?

[DamnCoffee]

I would say North by Northwest was one.

[tdalton]

OK its conspiracy theory time.

QOS supposed runtime is 1 hour 44 minutes, according to absolutely nobody officially connected to Sony pictures or EON productions.

Remember the recent trailer thread where it was posted that the BBFC video trailer for QOS was, drum roll...1 minute 44 seconds long?

http://commanderbond.net/article/5443

Kind of a strange coincidence, isn't it? Did some Odeon lackey misread that information?

Edit - Oh, Tightpants already discussed this earlier in the thread. Still, worth repeating

Yeah. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case and the film is closer to 2 hours. But I'm not stressed either way.

Hopefully this turns out to be the case. While I'm certainly not opposed to a shorter Bond film (and some of the best films have been amongst the shortest in running time), it would be nice to see the film be close to two hours with ticket prices being as high as they have become. It's not going to be much of an issue to me if the film actually is 104 minutes, but I would prefer to see the film coming in at closer to two hours in running time.

[chriso]

104 minutes? Hope that's not true because the run time of CR was perfect. Perhaps they wanted to show us the important things (like a pilot movie) of Bond's personality in CR and now they haven't so much story to tell but more action sequences.

[Captain Tightpants]

I'm still having a little trouble swallowing the notion that it clocks in at 104, which just seems a little light for a Bond film. Sure, the likes of Goldfinger did it, but I've been keeping up with everything related to Quantum of Solace - except that IMdB review - and it strikes me that they have a hell of a lot to cover in the film. It might not be of The Dark Knight in terms of proportions, but I doubt one hundred and four minutes will be enough to cover it all. There's a lot that could be done with the extra fifteen minutes to round it up to two hours.

[Zorin Industries]

104 minutes is perfect.. if it's been well plotted and the narrative arcs justify it.

Less is indeed Moore. Satisfying bedroom bound Bond fans is not the objective when making a piece of mainstream cinema. Sorry.

[Shot Your Bolt]

a short running time never stopped Goldfinger from being the best Connery film. Hell, even Casino Royale runs a little long, particurly in that Casino act. The action within didn't affect the actual narrative.

-James Bond gets poisoned, run around looking stupid, goes outside to his car, tries and fails to get his heart back and running, Vesper saves him, and he goes RIGHT BACK TO DOING WHAT HE WAS DOING BEFORE. If you take that scene out, it would have no affect on the story.

-James Bond fights the African warlord dude in the stairs. Not only does the ruthless warlord stop from cutting off that girl's arm(for no other reason besides the fact thats its a PG-13 movie I'd wager), but after Bond kills him and the "Blood on my fingers, aw Bond you're so sensitive to things", he goes RIGHT BACK TO DOING WHAT HE WAS DOING BEFORE, and Vesper goes RIGHT BACK TO DOING WHAT SHE WAS DOING BEFORE. He plays cards, she sits and watches. She's still doubtful of his skills, hell she doesn't even give him money to keep playing.

-Big giant fight at the end. Cool? Hell yes. Necessary? Not exactly. It feels like its from a Brosnan Bond film(who I love, but this is another beast entirely). I guess Campbell felt that last 30 mins were pretty slow with all the "Hey look, Bond is happy now!" scenes. But again, I think the ending in the book was better, with Vesper leaving a suicide note. My friend asked "WTF is going on" in the underwater Vesper scene. I know it was suicide, but the way it was filmed looked like Bond was just incompetent.

THAT said, Casino Royale is ****ing amazing and its in my top 5, but it definitely FEELS like the longest Bond film...although I swear Thunderball and The World is Not Enough is longer.

[Captain Tightpants]

104 minutes is perfect.. if it's been well plotted and the narrative arcs justify it.

Less is indeed Moore. Satisfying bedroom bound Bond fans is not the objective when making a piece of mainstream cinema. Sorry.

But under that logic, two hours is also perfect, if it's been well plotted and the narrative ars justify it. The same can be said for a film of any run time, be it one hour or four: as long as the pacing is spot on, however long the film runs for is enough time. And I don't think any one film has been universally accepted as doing that,

[Col. Sun]

104 minutes is perfect.. if it's been well plotted and the narrative arcs justify it.

Less is indeed Moore. Satisfying bedroom bound Bond fans is not the objective when making a piece of mainstream cinema. Sorry.

But under that logic, two hours is also perfect, if it's been well plotted and the narrative ars justify it. The same can be said for a film of any run time, be it one hour or four: as long as the pacing is spot on, however long the film runs for is enough time. And I don't think any one film has been universally accepted as doing that,

I agree. And apparently QOS has an excellent pace but still loads of drama and character stuff.

I know people working on the film, wrapping it up right now, and the word is excellent. It's meant to be very taut, Craig is apparently superb and really shows more of Bond's inner battles. And the film is definitely under 2 hours.

Odeon will take technical specs from Sony. The running time may be a fraction off by a few minutes until the very final specs are given, but 104 mins seems realistic. I was told the film was running 108 mins, and that was a few weeks back.

[Safari Suit]

104 minutes is perfect.. if it's been well plotted and the narrative arcs justify it.

Less is indeed Moore. Satisfying bedroom bound Bond fans is not the objective when making a piece of mainstream cinema. Sorry.

But under that logic, two hours is also perfect, if it's been well plotted and the narrative ars justify it. The same can be said for a film of any run time, be it one hour or four: as long as the pacing is spot on, however long the film runs for is enough time.

I think that's what he's saying.

[HildebrandRarity]

... apparently QOS has an excellent pace but still loads of drama and character stuff.

I know people working on the film, wrapping it up right now, and the word is excellent. It's meant to be very taut, Craig is apparently superb and really shows more of Bond's inner battles. And the film is definitely under 2 hours.

I was told the film was running 108 mins, and that was a few weeks back.

Exciting post. Thanks. 108m > 1h 48min. And, if you add in Main titles and end credits, then that 108m 'film time' would mean about 115m 'movie time'. Which is very good. 1h 55min. Or if you are Joe and Jane Public and don't want to stay all the way to the end credits, then 1h 52min. Perfect.

[EyesOnly]

108 minute film is nothing to complain about. Remember, big things come in small packages.

[Publius]

-James Bond gets poisoned, run around looking stupid, goes outside to his car, tries and fails to get his heart back and running, Vesper saves him, and he goes RIGHT BACK TO DOING WHAT HE WAS DOING BEFORE. If you take that scene out, it would have no affect on the story.

Well, Le Chiffre trying to have Bond killed demonstrates his mounting desperation (spurred on by the African warlord scene you mention below). Notice that Bond beating back the poison comes right before the last hand in the game. The scene might have been embellished a bit, but at its core it's straight from the novel.

-James Bond fights the African warlord dude in the stairs. Not only does the ruthless warlord stop from cutting off that girl's arm(for no other reason besides the fact thats its a PG-13 movie I'd wager), but after Bond kills him and the "Blood on my fingers, aw Bond you're so sensitive to things", he goes RIGHT BACK TO DOING WHAT HE WAS DOING BEFORE, and Vesper goes RIGHT BACK TO DOING WHAT SHE WAS DOING BEFORE. He plays cards, she sits and watches. She's still doubtful of his skills, hell she doesn't even give him money to keep playing.

I think that scene more than any other sold the relationship between Bond and Vesper. It wasn't an immediate change, but it signaled the beginning of her falling in love with him. Hell, Vesper's refusal to give Bond the extra money, given what we now know about her, could have just been her attempt at protecting him rather than any concern about his reckless playing.

[kneelbeforezod]

-James Bond fights the African warlord dude in the stairs. Not only does the ruthless warlord stop from cutting off that girl's arm(for no other reason besides the fact thats its a PG-13 movie I'd wager), but after Bond kills him and the "Blood on my fingers, aw Bond you're so sensitive to things", he goes RIGHT BACK TO DOING WHAT HE WAS DOING BEFORE, and Vesper goes RIGHT BACK TO DOING WHAT SHE WAS DOING BEFORE. He plays cards, she sits and watches. She's still doubtful of his skills, hell she doesn't even give him money to keep playing.

I think that scene more than any other sold the relationship between Bond and Vesper. It wasn't an immediate change, but it signaled the beginning of her falling in love with him. Hell, Vesper's refusal to give Bond the extra money, given what we now know about her, could have just been her attempt at protecting him rather than any concern about his reckless playing.

Yeah. And to be honest, anyone that thinks that scene is extraneous just doesn't "get it" in my opinion. Its pretty important to the film.

[marygoodnight]

2 hrs or more or it sucks !! who cares what marc forster wants

[DamnCoffee]

who cares what marc forster wants

I do. Forster has some really good movie under his belt. I'm really excited to see his take on a Bond movie.

[marygoodnight]

who cares what marc forster wants

I do. Forster has some really good movie under his belt. I'm really excited to see his take on a Bond movie.

So if he says the film will be 90 minutes you would settle for it?

[Loomis]

I would. And I'd even settle for it at 80 minutes, as long as Forster and co. had made a great movie.

[gkgyver]

I like that. At least my local CineStar won't have a reason to squeeze in an intermission then.
They've been doing that for every bigger movie, and it completely sucks.

[Col. Sun]

... apparently QOS has an excellent pace but still loads of drama and character stuff.

I know people working on the film, wrapping it up right now, and the word is excellent. It's meant to be very taut, Craig is apparently superb and really shows more of Bond's inner battles. And the film is definitely under 2 hours.

I was told the film was running 108 mins, and that was a few weeks back.

Exciting post. Thanks. 108m > 1h 48min. And, if you add in Main titles and end credits, then that 108m 'film time' would mean about 115m 'movie time'. Which is very good. 1h 55min. Or if you are Joe and Jane Public and don't want to stay all the way to the end credits, then 1h 52min. Perfect.

Actually the editors measure the film to the exact frame and add in the front and end credits even before they have them cut into the film because they know the length they will be as they are being made by the VFX companies. So 104 mins or 108 mins, which ever it is in the end, includes all the titles.

[stamper]

-James Bond gets poisoned, run around looking stupid, goes outside to his car, tries and fails to get his heart back and running, Vesper saves him, and he goes RIGHT BACK TO DOING WHAT HE WAS DOING BEFORE. If you take that scene out, it would have no affect on the story.

I think it would, it would make the card game tedious and boring without those respirations, it would kill the rythm of the movie.

-James Bond fights the African warlord dude in the stairs. Not only does the ruthless warlord stop from cutting off that girl's arm(for no other reason besides the fact thats its a PG-13 movie I'd wager), but after Bond kills him and the "Blood on my fingers, aw Bond you're so sensitive to things", he goes RIGHT BACK TO DOING WHAT HE WAS DOING BEFORE, and Vesper goes RIGHT BACK TO DOING WHAT SHE WAS DOING BEFORE. He plays cards, she sits and watches. She's still doubtful of his skills, hell she doesn't even give him money to keep playing.

I knew something was wrong with this broad.

-Big giant fight at the end. Cool? Hell yes. Necessary? Not exactly. It feels like its from a Brosnan Bond film(who I love, but this is another beast entirely). I guess Campbell felt that last 30 mins were pretty slow with all the "Hey look, Bond is happy now!" scenes. But again, I think the ending in the book was better, with Vesper leaving a suicide note. My friend asked "WTF is going on" in the underwater Vesper scene. I know it was suicide, but the way it was filmed looked like Bond was just incompetent.

Same, this is placed here for rythm, as were the distractions from the game in the novel.

[SecretAgentFan]

I would. And I'd even settle for it at 80 minutes, as long as Forster and co. had made a great movie.

Exactly. Longer is not always better. A tight fast moving successor to the more epic CR would be very welcome.

[Zorin Industries]

2 hrs or more or it sucks !! who cares what marc forster wants

Oh dear. Another fan who doesn't get it.

What Marc Forster wants is more important than any other decision affecting his Bond film.

What a facile comment.

[Col. Sun]

2 hrs or more or it sucks !! who cares what marc forster wants

Oh dear. Another fan who doesn't get it.

What Marc Forster wants is more important than any other decision affecting his Bond film.

What a facile comment.

Absolutely. Well said. What nonsense to say a film under 2 hours is gonna suck! Where is the logic, sense in such a statement?

Anyway, Odeon are now showing the running time as 108 mins, which is what I was told a few weeks back.

[Publius]

Absolutely. Well said. What nonsense to say a film under 2 hours is gonna suck! Where is the logic, sense in such a statement?

Anyway, Odeon are now showing the running time as 108 mins, which is what I was told a few weeks back.

Maybe they're just reading this board and going with the most credible-sounding inside scoop.