401 replies to this topic

[Col. Sun]

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.

Wouldn't that be crazy!

My info is far from dead on, just a passing comment from someone involved.

Just looked though and saw UCI are also showing 108 mins. Either way, we'll know for sure within the next couple of weeks once Sony give final specs.

[Mister Asterix]

A few points:

1) Does anyone remember all the reviews that loved Casino Royale but thought it too long. I seem to remember ‘twenty minutes too long’ being said a lot. I don’t agree — as I’m sure many of you don’t — but that was a prevailing feeling.

2) The trend in the last two Bond films has been for the titles to advance the story. So I wouldn’t say you can automatically knock those three and a half minutes out.

3) As I spoke of earlier, if Goldfinger had been edited in the in the post MTV world it could’ve been about 85 to 95 minutes.

In other words, just wait and see.

[Mister E]

Really sad how people are whining about the running time.

[Pierce - Daniel]

I guess the shock reaction is that it's under 2 hours, when CR we had a 2hr 20min ride. If the film is as good as Col. Sun says it is, then once the reviews hit and the film opens in 7 weeks we'll see. I think that it it takes 108 minutes to tell the story then so be it.
I also argree that all DN, FRWL and GF could easily be tightened up to last 80-90 minutes. Surely QOS will work as an improvement to CR?

[Zorin Industries]

A few points:

1) Does anyone remember all the reviews that loved Casino Royale but thought it too long. I seem to remember ‘twenty minutes too long’ being said a lot. I don’t agree — as I’m sure many of you don’t — but that was a prevailing feeling.

2) The trend in the last two Bond films has been for the titles to advance the story. So I wouldn’t say you can automatically knock those three and a half minutes out.

3) As I spoke of earlier, if Goldfinger had been edited in the in the post MTV world it could’ve been about 85 to 95 minutes.

In other words, just wait and see.

Don't panic Mister Asterisk, but I am going to agree with you (I think!).

I do feel ROYALE was twenty minutes too long. I don't know where removing that would leave the film's final running time, but the film was still laying the ghosts of Brosnan to rest in parts (i.e. the African chase - great stuff, but narratively superfluous and repeated in a more immediate and story-specific way later in Miami).

I don't know when Odeon and IMDB became the last word in film trivia. Both have proved themselves to be anything but... if my local Odeon is anything to go by (four screens showing HANNAH MONTANA IN 3D all day but none showing FLASHBACKS OF A FOOL even once...etc).

[Mister E]

I guess the shock reaction is that it's under 2 hours, when CR we had a 2hr 20min ride. If the film is as good as Col. Sun says it is, then once the reviews hit and the film opens in 7 weeks we'll see. I think that it it takes 108 minutes to tell the story then so be it.
I also argree that all DN, FRWL and GF could easily be tightened up to last 80-90 minutes. Surely QOS will work as an improvement to CR?

As has it been said before, you could have trimmed CR before. My version of the first half would have been more of a taunt thriller and shorter but with juicier content, no cell phones or the nonsense that went on in The Miami Airport.

[PPK_19]

As has it been said before, you could have trimmed CR before. My version of the first half would have been more of a taunt thriller and shorter but with juicier content, no cell phones or the nonsense that went on in The Miami Airport.

Hmmm yes the Miami sequence could have been changed a lot to cut down the vast running length of CR. 108 mins as a running time for QOS is more or less ample time for Bond's no-holds-barred revenge mission. Anyone who says this is too short clearly don't realise most films clock in to around 100 mins anyway.

[SecretAgentFan]

I guess the shock reaction is that it's under 2 hours, when CR we had a 2hr 20min ride. If the film is as good as Col. Sun says it is, then once the reviews hit and the film opens in 7 weeks we'll see. I think that it it takes 108 minutes to tell the story then so be it.
I also argree that all DN, FRWL and GF could easily be tightened up to last 80-90 minutes. Surely QOS will work as an improvement to CR?

As has it been said before, you could have trimmed CR before. My version of the first half would have been more of a taunt thriller and shorter but with juicier content, no cell phones or the nonsense that went on in The Miami Airport.

I liked the Miami Sequence just fine. And the cell phone-lead was perfectly handled, a good and contemporary way for Bond to find out what was going on. Having Bond stop the terrorist attack on the plane was important for the plot and ending it with Bond/Craig´s sardonic smile as the terrorist blew up was a typical Bond moment.

What made the movie long was the whole card game sequence. Let´s face it - people sitting around a table and playing poker is just not that cinematic. Of course, they had to break it up with the fight and the shower scene and the poisoning. But this whole part of the film basically is just a confrontation between Bond and the main villain which was handled much faster and efficient in other Bond films. (But don´t get me wrong - I think they did this as efficient as they could and I do enjoy the whole thing.)

The other reason for CR´s length is of course the Bond-in-hospital sequence. It can be compared to the "We have all the time in the world"-sequence in OHMSS. These sequences are nice and great - but they are additions for a Bond film and make it longer than usual.

[Mister E]

I liked the Miami Sequence just fine. And the cell phone-lead was perfectly handled, a good and contemporary way for Bond to find out what was going on. Having Bond stop the terrorist attack on the plane was important for the plot and ending it with Bond/Craig´s sardonic smile as the terrorist blew up was a typical Bond moment.

The cell phone tracking was a cheat. Bond simply went from cell phone to cell phone to track people down. There are smarter ways of unfolding a plot and the writers choose the dumbest. As I suggested in my review, they should have made Bond find that small red herring that he usually notices. Also the antics at the airport was typical Brosnan but just slightly less ridiculous.

What made the movie long was the whole card game sequence. Let´s face it - people sitting around a table and playing poker is just not that cinematic. Of course, they had to break it up with the fight and the shower scene and the poisoning. But this whole part of the film basically is just a confrontation between Bond and the main villain which was handled much faster and efficient in other Bond films. (But don´t get me wrong - I think they did this as efficient as they could and I do enjoy the whole thing.)

I don't mind the card game. I just wish they went into the atmosphere of the casino like they did in the novel, it ended up feeling more like the background then it should have been.

The other reason for CR´s length is of course the Bond-in-hospital sequence. It can be compared to the "We have all the time in the world"-sequence in OHMSS. These sequences are nice and great - but they are additions for a Bond film and make it longer than usual.

I wish they had alot better dialogue between Vesper and Bond at the hospital, it was the film's worst.

[BoogieBond]

Yeah, I was expected about 120 minutes. But I guess 108 lean mean focused minutes will be great by me.

CR was one of the longest Bond films. When you look at CR, you realise that certain scenes, such as the Card game with Le Chiffre and the romance afterwards with Bond and Vesper, even the Miami sequence add a lot of running time to the film, Maybe 25 minutes+. So I was expecting QOS to be 2 hours or so. But about 1 hr 48 mins seems pretty pacey.
From some of the snippets of info supplied, looks like the plot and character haven't been forsaken, but the action sequences are slightly shorter and more compact. Although will wait till Oct 31st to see for myself.

[Mister E]

From some of the snippets of info supplied, looks like the plot and character haven't been forsaken, but the action sequences are slightly shorter and more compact. Although will wait till Oct 31st to see for myself.

Which makes me think that they are drawing from FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE in terms of pacing.

[HildebrandRarity]

I'll quote myself from last week:

I say bull[censored] to the 1h 44min run time.

Given the long shoot and huge budget and all the "character-driven" and "packed-with-action" chatter from Forster and Wilson, I find it hard to believe Q0S will be less than a 1h 50min movie.

So I say bull[censored] to ODEON.

104 minutes? Bull[censored]!

[Pierce - Daniel]

CR could have done with tightening up during the script phase. The first hour didn't really need the Miami scene. Even though it is fantastic and awe-inspiring to watch. But if we're talking of cutting the film down this scene wouldn't have made it. Also the card game has come under fire, the poison scene and suck lark could have been left out. CR could have ran for a healthy 120 minutes or less. But it didn't becasue for Campbell the story he wanted to tell lasted 145 minutes, adn as the director he's allowed to have that right, as does Forster, if 108 minutes is enough time to tell the story then let it be. I still think this could be the best Bond film ever simply based on the trailer as well as the talent on show.

[stamper]

What made the movie long was the whole card game sequence.

Let me rephrase

What made the movie was the whole card game sequence.

Millions of people watch Poker channel day in day out. You don't think none of those did play anything in CR success, do you ?

[SecretAgentFan]

Billions of people don´t watch it at all. You don´t think that this factor was extremely important to the filmmakers?

[bonds_walther]

Crikey - the film is only going to be approximately 15 minutes short of 2 hours. That's not the end of the world. There are plenty of Bond films that would be all the better if the had 15 minutes (or so) of dross cut out.

I think this is more of a reaction to the fact that we were spoilt with 140 minutes of CR.

[JimmyBond]

Billions of people don´t watch it at all. You don´t think that this factor was extremely important to the filmmakers?

Possibly not. But I think adapting the book to film faithfully was important to the filmakers. Therefore leaving the card game in was a must.

Take out the card game and you might as well not be making Casino Royale in the first place.

[Publius]

I think this is more of a reaction to the fact that we were spoilt with 140 minutes of CR.

Actually, that brings up a good point. The last minute and a half of CR was really the first of QoS.

[Cody]

Official word

Marc Forster: So the movie is, you know, a little over an hour and forty minutes, so it's much of a more compact emotional intense journey

IGN interviewer: Indeed, given its current 106 minute running time, Quantum of Solace looks to be the shortest but most action-packed Bond movie yet.

[richyawyingtmv]

Sounds brilliant!

I trust Marc Forster on making everything nice and balanced, and it is shaping up to be a real good, lean, mean bond film.

[DamnCoffee]

Official word

Marc Forster: So the movie is, you know, a little over an hour and forty minutes, so it's much of a more compact emotional intense journey

IGN interviewer: Indeed, given its current 106 minute running time, Quantum of Solace looks to be the shortest but most action-packed Bond movie yet.

Awesome! I'm glad we have that outta the way.

Now we can concentrate on the movie.

[Sir James Moloney]

So 140 minutes from CR, plus 106 minutes from QOS, makes for 246 minutes of Bond cinematical experience, about 4 hrs of Bond in a row...love it

[shady ginzo]

There is something almost instincive about doubting the quality of a film with a reletivly "short" runtime. It doesn't make sense though (as several people have mentioned, 106 minutes is longer than the majority of cinematic releases) but in the wake of films like The Dark Knight and Casino Royale itself, I think people expect great movies to be accompanied by an obligatory two and a half hours sat in the cinema.

While I myself fell into the trap of considering the run-time a concern, I have come to think of the other "big picture" as M would say... as the first direct sequel in Bond's history, and following on from arguably the most artisticly valid Band film, Quantum could have easily added itself to the list of what i call "self indulging sequels" which trade off the popularity of the prior entry and offer nothing more than a protracted weak plot wrapped up in a pretty glossy finish and conciously "artsy" gaudiness. namely, The Matrix Reloaded and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead mans Chest, both of which suffered from high expectations and were the uncomfortable middle sections of trilogies. i know there's rumour that bond 23 will stand alone, but I suspect it will still form part of an ongoing development.

Forster's determination to lean the film down to under 2 hours is frankly refreshing and HOPEFULLY means the film is indeed trimmed of all it's excesses and is as brutal in its delivery as a revenge plot rightfully should be.

[QuantumOO7FSolace]

The confirmed time runs short sure, but hey what the hell! If it got, what it needs in terms of plot, character development, intrigue, thrill seeking action and otheer Bond related formulaic stuff we got accumstomed to, so what? And its a clever ploy, from Eon to abruptly end the movie on a note, keeping the audience wanting more! Thats a sort of marketing for the next installment! And remember, if you put, Casino Royale and Quantum Of Solace together, its supposed to run as one same film, picking up minutes after the preceding movie! Im also against the running time but there's not much, we can also do about it!

Edited by QuantumOO7FSolace, 22 September 2008 - 04:58 PM.

[chriso]

You're joking!? That's the shortest Bond movie ever. Why is the run time of QOS so short? Probably they cut all the good stuff because they don't want a movie which is two and half hours long...

[Royal Dalton]

Sounds good to me.

[Gabriel]

I think it's fantastic news! Most Bond films are way too long and could easily stand to lose twenty minutes to hal an hour!. It sounds like this will be an unpretentious, streamlined actioner that does its job and doesn't outstay its welcome. Happy happy happy!

[CamExam]

Wow, only 104 munites long?! Are you kidding me!!!??

[the villain's architect]

If it's just too short to show the

Spoiler

death of Camille and Mathis

then it's just long enough for me.

[Skudor]

Sure I'd like to gorge on piles of Bond candy minutes, but, frankly, I don't think a running time a little over 15 mins short of two hours is hardly a big deal. It's what happens during those minutes that matters.