401 replies to this topic

[Bondian]

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.

Exactly.

[Harmsway]

From the Cinematical interview, here's Forster's comments on the running time:

"So I hope, you know, like in the middle of Casino they had a very long card game which, which was, was ... and in this movie it's shorter and doesn't have that type of card game where you sort of reflect more because the story didn't require it. 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 than Casino, which, I think, had more reflective moments maybe."

[Judo chop]

"So I hope, you know, like in the middle of Casino they had a very long card game which, which was, was ... and in this movie it's shorter and doesn't have that type of card game where you sort of reflect more because the story didn't require it. 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 than Casino, which, I think, had more reflective moments maybe."

Intensity??

Who gives a crap about intensity?!? The song sucks!!

To be honest, I think QOS is going to be my 2nd or 3rd favorite Bond film. I think it’s going to beat out CR. Maybe not at first, but after time settles a few things. That is my vibe these days, though I remain mostly virginal. Excitement level has now peaked at 10.0.

How’s that for responding to 4 different threads in a single post!

[Publius]

People will be salivating for Bond 23. And I bet we're going to hear a lot of apologizing from many of those who complained about CR being too long.

[QuantumOO7FSolace]

From the Cinematical interview, here's Forster's comments on the running time:

"So I hope, you know, like in the middle of Casino they had a very long card game which, which was, was ... and in this movie it's shorter and doesn't have that type of card game where you sort of reflect more because the story didn't require it. 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 than Casino, which, I think, had more reflective moments maybe."

The movie straight forward then, all hands to guns all action movie! Not wasting a minute! The same people criticizing are the one who you will enjoy the movie in theaters, not worry about the running time! How many explosions can you behold at in a single movie anyway and this movie got loads of it plus stunt scenes after stunt! The running time is unimportant, the content is!
And i guess they have their reasons to do that as well!!!!!!

[Joey Bond]

I remember when I went to watch CR I ran into a couple of younger kids from my school, no Bond fans, just average movie goers. When I asked them what they thought of the film they all said that it was too long, so hopefully they won't have the same complaint with QOS.

On the bright side, a shorter run time would mean more showings, therefore more revenue, so it's a near-safe bet that QOS will surpass CR in grossing. I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes the second highest grossing Bond film after Thunderball, inflation adjusted!

[Publius]

I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes the second highest grossing Bond film after Thunderball, inflation adjusted!

That (beating Goldfinger) would take grossing like $900 million worldwide, so I don't think it'll do that well, but I can definitely see it hitting $700 million now (approx. third best). I'm probably going to up my predictions soon based on this confirmation of the run time -- plus the very excellent trailer and TV spots.

[sorking]

I've said it elsewhere but it won't prevent me bringing it up again - the act structure of Casino Royale is very, very usual. It's two movies in one, really, both with three acts.

Movie one shows Bond gaining his 00, undertaking his (first?) mission and seeing it through to conclusion: the prevention of a plot to blow up a plan for financial gain. As with Star Wars, say, he encounters the bigger villain (Le Chiffre in this case) only via those who work for him.

Movie two, obviously, is the adaptation of Casino Royale.

If you want to get all numbers-y (and that, obviously, is really no way to judge a creative endeavour) on my PAL DVD, film one is 52 minutes long. Making film two 1 hour 22 minutes (minus credits).

As far as I'm concerned, the 'Casino Royale' half of the movie is packed with substance - character depth, tension, conflict, emotion. This idea that somehow a talented director, with great writers and actors, can't successfully make a "third film" match the quality of that 1 hour and 22 minutes unless he pushes the runtime to two hours is crazy.

I'll be honest and say that I'd been feeling that QoS was going to feature a little less action than the last few films. (Wilson 'marketing' quote be damned.) But I also find myself heartened by that. I love the bit set-pieces in CR's first half, but it's the poisoning, the stairwell and the torture scenes that did the most for me. The sinking building was wonderfully shot, but was arguably unnecessary so late in the film - Vesper's betrayal was more important than killing a few more bad guys.

A brisk QoS runtime suggests confidence, not insecurity - a film that knows what it's doing, that isn't trying to fit two stories together. (CR's still great, don't get me wrong, but the duration was caused by the doubling-up.) The story may be more simple - tracing an organisation to its higher levels while seeing Bond paralleled in Camille - but that doesn't make it less intelligent. And it certainly doesn't leave it less substantial.

[doubler83]

I remember when I went to watch CR I ran into a couple of younger kids from my school, no Bond fans, just average movie goers. When I asked them what they thought of the film they all said that it was too long, so hopefully they won't have the same complaint with QOS.

I remember watching CR and some kids were there. When the movie first started all I heard from behind me was, "It's in black and white! that !"

They upped and left.

[Publius]

Well said, sorking.

I remember watching CR and some kids were there. When the movie first started all I heard from behind me was, "It's in black and white! that !"

They upped and left.

That my friends is the MTV generation we've been hearing so much about in the brouhaha over AWTD.

[marygoodnight]

ha ha ! all you posters who doubted that IMDB user have to eat crow now.lol

terrible theme song and shortest bond film ever this ones gonna suck big time.

[Publius]

terrible theme song and shortest bond film ever this ones gonna suck big time.

Yes, I'm sure the song will affect the rest of the movie it's attached to, and the four minutes QoS has less than Dr. No and Goldfinger will make all the difference in the world.

[Safari Suit]

And I bet we're going to hear a lot of apologizing from many of those who complained about CR being too long.

I don't follow.

[Publius]

And I bet we're going to hear a lot of apologizing from many of those who complained about CR being too long.

I don't follow.

I said "many" for a reason. I think a lot of the people who complained about CR's run time (a valid complaint) will say they prefer that to the brevity of QoS. Just wait for the reviews, you'll see what I mean.

[stamper]

I remember watching CR and some kids were there. When the movie first started all I heard from behind me was, "It's in black and white! that !"

They upped and left.

Astounding idiocy !

[YOLT]

CR was too long about 20 or 30 minutes long. However I would have prefered QS to be 10 min longer. I know I havent seen it, but 120 min and so has always been my taste. Something like a body-clock

[Mr. Blofeld]

I remember watching CR and some kids were there. When the movie first started all I heard from behind me was, "It's in black and white! that !"

They upped and left.

That my friends is the MTV generation we've been hearing so much about in the brouhaha over AWTD.

Thankfully, I am knowledgable enough to know that black-and-white does not automatically equal piss-old-and-shîtty...

[DamnCoffee]

I just look at it this way, Casino Royale was long due to the 40+ minute card game. Quantum of Solace doesn't have a card game, so It doesn't need to flesh out a story revolving around a casino. Quantum of Solace is bascially Casino Royale, minus the poker game.

[ElFenomeno]

so the longest Bond movie has as a direct sequel the shortest Bond movie ? w00t.

[DR76]

I never had a problem with CASINO ROYALE's running time. Nor have I ever had a problem with the earlier Bond films that were at least an hour and fifty or fifty-five minutes long.


I have a problem with QUANTUM OF SOLACE being only one hour and forty-four minutes long. I might as well watch some run-of-the mill crime drama. Talk about being cheap.

[PPK_19]

CR was 20 mins too long. I like the fact QOS clocks in at just over 1 hr 40 mins, i dont like most films to run over that time. I just hope QOS wont be action heavy, i have a feeling the reviews are going to mention not enough character development and too many explosions...or something like that.
Empire will give it 4 stars im sure

[DR76]

CR was 20 mins too long. I like the fact QOS clocks in at just over 1 hr 40 mins, i dont like most films to run over that time. I just hope QOS wont be action heavy, i have a feeling the reviews are going to mention not enough character development and too many explosions...or something like that.
Empire will give it 4 stars im sure

It wasn't too long for me. Even OHMSS is slightly longer than CR. And I consider those two movies to be the best of the Bond series.

One hour and forty-five minutes? I think my interst in QUANTUM OF SOLACE has disappeared.

I just hope QOS wont be action heavy

Both Broccoli and Wilson have promised that QoS will be more action oriented than CR. They just failed to mention that it would be the shortest film in Bond history.

Edited by DR76, 22 September 2008 - 07:18 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

One hour and forty-five minutes? I think my interst in QUANTUM OF SOLACE has disappeared.

Will the same thing happen with you from this section of the forums, then?

[zstoneVII]

my own personal opinion re: 106 mins. happy with it.

it is easy to run a film for so long to try emphasise the point in making e.g. CR and even Batman Dark Knight which is an excelent film but its impact and pace failed to sustain its whole duration and it can be said if trimmed slightly, it would be a better product

i hope that QoS will not have any excess...its focus is strictly on developing heavy character development without a feeling of it being too laboured on this. if it is too laboured, it loses its appeal and pace....you're more likely to leave the cinema with a wow if paced well with no excess weight as opposed to something that can start with a bang then maybe flag as it continues...CR being my point in making. a tremendous film but i think/hope QoS will identify this weakness

[HildebrandRarity]

He he. House boss say no problem. He say the Quantum Of Solace is a short story by Senor Ian of Fleming.

[Publius]

I have a problem with QUANTUM OF SOLACE being only one hour and forty-four minutes long. I might as well watch some run-of-the mill crime drama. Talk about being cheap.

One hour and forty-six minutes, if we're to go by this recent scoop. Compare to the one hour and fifty minutes of Dr. No and Goldfinger. Of course, if you hate those films, then me pointing that out is probably doing no good.

Anyway, the flame that burns twice as brightly burns half as long, and all that.

[Judo chop]

Being too long is a fair criticism of CR if one is a stickler for the principles of “good” movie making. ie) unnecessary footage = bad footage. But to be honest, the more I watch it on DVD, the less I care. Since I enjoy even the parts that are unnecessary, I can choose to dismiss that as a valid complaint. We can talk about the Bond films as critics, or as Bond fans. Sometimes opinions between the two will meet.

As a critic, I’m confident that the shortened running time for QOS will prove to be a very wise and purposeful direction to take. As a Bond fan, I’m very excited about what I’m going to get, but that excitement is laced with a little anxiety that I’ll be left wanting more of a good thing. On the bright side, I’m able to watch CR less often than I’d like because of it’s running time. With it’s shortened length, it’ll be easier to make QOS a weeknight treat.

I have a problem with QUANTUM OF SOLACE being only one hour and forty-four minutes long. I might as well watch some run-of-the mill crime drama. Talk about being cheap.

One hour and forty-six minutes, if we're to go by this recent scoop. Compare to the one hour and fifty minutes of Dr. No and Goldfinger. Of course, if you hate those films, then me pointing that out is probably doing no good.

I think I can safely speak for her when I say that Dr No is one of her four least favorite Bond films, and that Goldfinger is vastly overrated due mostly to a ridiculous exposition from the main villain.

[007Bond007]

I realy do not know how they will compress everything 104 minuets. Looking back at CR, it was a long movie but it was nessesary inorder to fit in the key parts, and so the audience could develope an atachment to vesper.

[PPK_19]

WE ALL know that QOS is going to be dynamite, whether its 104 mins, or 4 mins (ok possibly not 4 mins, the awful AWTD will be the only minus in this film).
Watching Daniel Craig punch, kick and shoot his way to revenge for 104 mins is going to put QOS up there with CR, since Marc Forsters visual style and direction will be something of a triumph over Campbell's somewhat bland and by-the-book way of doing things.
Running time will mean nothing to all of us on the 31st October, or 15th nov to all you yanks (ha ha ha). These forums will be ablaze with praise for the 22nd james bond film.

Edited by PPK_19, 22 September 2008 - 07:41 PM.

[Publius]

I realy do not know how they will compress everything 104 minuets. Looking back at CR, it was a long movie but it was nessesary inorder to fit in the key parts, and so the audience could develope an atachment to vesper.

I think you're looking at it backwards. They didn't compress everything to 106 minutes. They made the movie first (trying only to keep it from getting unwieldy), and then said "wow, it's 106 minutes, isn't that something." I'd be more worried if they grafted an unnecessary and intrusive 20 minutes on top of it.