93 replies to this topic

[The Dove]

http://www.empirecin...s/spectre/f4585

 

Spotted this tidbit via Twitter this morning and it seems as though the running time of SPECTRE will be 2 hrs and 35 mins (155 mins). Not sure if this is the final cut of the film but as it stands, it looks like SPECTRE is setting up to be the longest Bond film yet..

[univex]

And that´s just fine by me I know they´ll deliver. And it won´t be boring that´s for sure. And it won´t fly by like QOS. Brilliant day with brilliant news for us Bond fans. 

[HoneyDiamond]

Sounds good to me too. 

[Shrublands]

This is very believable. And it's interesting that last time, (early September before SF) Empire Cinemas were the first with an accurate running time.

[The Dove]

Exactly what I was hoping for myself..especially if they can get the right balance in the editing so that the last half an hour of the movie doesn't drag (my one main annoyance with Casino Royale), apart from the house sinking sequence of course. But then again that's how the story is itself.)

[tdalton]

I don't know if director's in today's climate know this, but it is possible to make a good film that doesn't eclipse the 2.5 hour mark, or even the 2 hour mark. 

[rubixcub]

I had a gut feeling this was going to be the case.  I was hoping I'd be wrong, but with Mendes back and clapperboard scenes numbering 197 or more, I figured this one would be longer rather than shorter, though it's still longer than I expected.

 

Dave

[Major Tallon]

It's the last Bond movie we're likely to have for three years.  It's ok by me if it's eight hours, ten minutes.

[Guy Haines]

As a veteran of Bond double bills at my local fleapit decades ago, I'm quite sure, even now I'm an old fogie, that I can sit through two hours and thirty five minutes!

[rteubler]

SPECTRE running time on 2 UK cinema booking websites show a running time of 160 minutes and 155 minutes. Wow!
http://m.empirecinem...site_id=&scope=
https://m.myvue.com/...spx?filmid=6571

[Orion]

I' quite liking this. I prefer watching longer movies in the cinema. It is one of those things you miss when you have two very young kids so all films you see struggle to hit 90 minutes,

[Simon]

I think films now have to be longer with the current and very successful trend in major serials that really do have the time to dig into a story.  Many of the Humans, 24, BBC4 foreign dramas, Homeland type serials can really explore many different threads and have it all hang together wonderfully.

 

My concern comes in whereby, for example, Skyfall is a long film of 'only' 2 and a bit hours and still have loose ends.

 

I hope this is a thoroughly engaging story that doesn't leave anything undone.  Poster rubbish notwithstanding, the perceived feel so far looks wonderful.

[Vauxhall]

Interesting. For some reason, I thought it would end up shorter than SKYFALL - which Mendes chopped a fair bit out of.

 

I need to remember not to order a large drink.

[kneelbeforezod]

Not sure I believe that running time. Nothing on the BBFC. I think it will be shorter, but I guess we'll see!

[sharpshooter]

I thought it would be about the same length as Skyfall.

[glidrose]

My bladder isn't happy about that running time.

[seawolfnyy]

Another behemoth, knowing the script, I expected this. I still firmly believe that Quantum of Solace would've been a better film with an extra 15-20 minutes of run-time.

[Bryce (003)]

Hmmm....If that's the case, we are *hopefully* in for an epic. Given the title and it's history for all of us, a longer film would seem to fit. Two things have occurred to me though - one good thing about L.A. traffic...Does give one time to think - on this matter.

 

If it matters.

 

In the Esquire interview, Craig mentioned something about Mendes only having until September 7th to have the film "locked". We're close, but not there yet. Also, as most major films have nearly 7-10 minutes of end credits, a run time for cinemas as opposed to the film itself does include that time. Just speculation and a theory, but it does factor in at some point and a "locked" film can still be trimmed down. 

 

Just speculation on my part, but I suspect it'll end up being under the 150 mark.

 

If not, then so be it and I'm always up for as much Bond as I can get as long as it keeps the pace up. With both CR and SF, I thought both did so with the ebb and flow of their stories. Then again, that was just my take. As the time draws near, I do plan to go through and watch all three again.

 

We'll see. 

[SecretAgentFan]

Considering that we don´t get a Bond film every two years anymore, overlength might compensate.

 

Sorry, being in an ironic mood this morning.

 

But really, judging from the reported struggle with the script issues, the desire of making everything bigger, Craig declaring "It´s SKYFALL times 10", the (for me) very underwhelming poster and now this very long running time, the final film might either be an epic masterpiece or a giant mess.

 

I wonder if the reveal of the title song and its performer will be adding to my feeling of "we had to make a new film and threw everything at it but the kitchen sink - like, you know, when we did DAD"...

[sharpshooter]

Both of the big Australian cinemas, Greater Union and Hoyts, have SPECTRE at 145 minutes.

 

Advanced tickets are on sale September 8, too. 

[Shrublands]

Apparently Sony Pictures Austria has said 147 minutes. 

[Professor Pi]

So it is a two parter--Bond 24 and 25 rolled into one!

[bond_azoozbond]

So it is a two parter--Bond 24 and 25 rolled into one!

Not necessarily.. But then I always think they wanna finish this story ASAP .. Maybe start with new idea on Bond 25 still with Craig ..

[Guy Haines]

We don't know that the new film's story was originally a two film story arc - three, if you add SF. But assuming it is, why try and compress these stories into one lengthy movie? A fresh start for Craig's Bond in the next film? Or a fresh start with a new actor in Bond 25?

And will this fresh start involve the organisation "SPECTRE"? Having waited so long, for legal reasons, to use that organisation and possibly its leader again, I can't believe it will definitely appear in only one movie, one it provides with the films title. Unless, of course, the idea is that Bond has been battling SPECTRE from the outset of the Craig era - he just didn't know it until now, and neither did we!

[thecasinoroyale]

Interesting! And, as you say Dove, as long as it doesn't drag it's heels to a conclusion like 'Casino Royale' did, I'll be happy with this runtime! More Bond for my pounds.

[Robinson]

My bladder isn't happy about that running time.

Just get a seat by the aisle and bring a friend/companion who can fill you in on what you missed. It's what I do (being 40+ is no joke).

[Shrublands]

 

My bladder isn't happy about that running time.

Just get a seat by the aisle and bring a friend/companion who can fill you in on what you missed. It's what I do (being 40+ is no joke).

I wonder of the original reports of the film being a two-parter has resulted in EON trying to cram both parts into SPECTRE.

 

 

My deep suspicion is that this is still the first of a two-parter. Eon etc saying it is not is a lie, they never wanted that talked about.

I'm convinced there will be more of  SPECTRE (and others from this film) in Bond 25.

[Harmsway]

My sense was that this would be shorter than Skyfall. I'm surprised at this news.

[rubixcub]

Lots of different runtime reports.  My bladder is also nervous.  I'll see it more than once, though.  And yes, QOS probably would've been better with another 15-20 minutes.

 

Dave

[bond_azoozbond]

Lots of different runtime reports. My bladder is also nervous. I'll see it more than once, though. And yes, QOS probably would've been better with another 15-20 minutes.

Dave

With the same movie extended yes , but having already its short they should've remove that boat action scene and use it to develop the story instead..