93 replies to this topic

[Shrublands]

 

Yep, I've paid £25 for the Royale Circle at Odeon Leicester Square. £9.80 sounds like a bargain.

£20 for me down in the cheap seats

 

 

At least Odeon has stopped the booking fee. 

 

Just 45 days to go, doesn't that sound good?

[stromberg]

 

Yep, I've paid £25 for the Royale Circle at Odeon Leicester Square. £9.80 sounds like a bargain.

£20 for me down in the cheap seats

 

And we don't have to bring our jewellery to rattle with

[thecasinoroyale]

45 days? Ooh that sounds brilliant.

[Matt_13]

MPAA rating is in: http://filmratings.c...pectre&x=52&y=8

[Tiin007]

MPAA rating is in: http://filmratings.c...pectre&x=52&y=8

 

So we get a "Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence, some disturbing images, sensuality and language."

 

Despite my limited knowledge of the plot and basic outline of the movie, I'm very tempted to speculate. Wonder what "some disturbing images" refers to....

[stromberg]

Despite my limited knowledge of the plot and basic outline of the movie, I'm very tempted to speculate. Wonder what "some disturbing images" refers to....

 

My knowledge is limited, too, but I suspect that it may have to do with the motion capture markers we saw in Waltz' face

 

[Tiin007]

 

Despite my limited knowledge of the plot and basic outline of the movie, I'm very tempted to speculate. Wonder what "some disturbing images" refers to....

 

My knowledge is limited, too, but I suspect that it may have to do with the motion capture markers we saw in Waltz' face

 

 

 

Great call. Upon first seeing the words "disturbing images," my thoughts were of Bardem's Silva revealing the effects of the cyanide. This would likely be similarly disturbing, and would (somewhat predictably) be reminiscent of Harvey Dent's transformation in The Dark Knight. 

[Guy Haines]

Despite my limited knowledge of the plot and basic outline of the movie, I'm very tempted to speculate. Wonder what "some disturbing images" refers to....

 
My knowledge is limited, too, but I suspect that it may have to do with the motion capture markers we saw in Waltz' face
 

That thought occured to me as well. I can't help wondering if one of the backstory references in this new film is how a certain criminal mastermind got a facial deformity - because there's no sign of any injury when Oberhauser (ESB?) say the "author of all your pain" line in the summer trailer.

[The Shark]

Despite my limited knowledge of the plot and basic outline of the movie, I'm very tempted to speculate. Wonder what "some disturbing images" refers to....

 

Perhaps something related to how Mr. Hinx deals with SPECTRE minions...

[thecasinoroyale]

Sensuality? Never seen that on a rating before regarding sex / love scenes. Very interesting.

Even 'Skyfall' only had the usual: "intense violent sequences throughout, some sexuality, language and smoking."

And that was with him getting it on in the shower with Severine.

[x007AceOfSpades]

Now that we have a rating, an official run time should follow soon.

[Cody]

Cinemark theatres have "150 minutes" on their SPECTRE listings.

[thecasinoroyale]

ODEON have reduced theirs to 150min now from 160 so maybe we've got it covered with 2hrs 30mins? People can't complain about that really, just minutes longer (minus credits) than 'CR' and 'OHMSS', considered two of the best Bond films in the series.

[the other fellow]

Two and a half hours?

 

Does this film actually have a plot?

[Tiin007]

ODEON have reduced theirs to 150min now from 160 so maybe we've got it covered with 2hrs 30mins? People can't complain about that really, just minutes longer (minus credits) than 'CR' and 'OHMSS', considered two of the best Bond films in the series.

 

I'm not sure why so many people are mentioning "minus credits" or "excluding credits" or "plus credits" etc... during this discussion.

 

Whenever a movie's runtime is listed (on a VHS, DVD, or Blu-Ray box, on wikipedia, on IMDB, and just about anywhere), the time listed is from start to finish- the entirety of the film. In other words, when we say that Casino Royale is 2 hours and 24 minutes, Skyfall is 2 hours and 23 minutes, and now SPECTRE is (possibly) 2 hours and 30 minutes, all of those times are INCLUDING the credits. Same goes for ever Bond film runtime.

 

In other words, "credits" should not be factoring into this discussion, as they are treated equally whenever a runtime is listed.

[thecasinoroyale]

I totally agree Tin, don't worry. I guess it's the Media-bod in me now and I can't help looking at a run time and taking off 6-10 minutes for credits. Don't know why. Doesn't matter for me personally as I always wait until the end for that full Bond experience.

 

But for those just film purists, some people I guess take out the extra minutes of closing credits to just focus on the film length itself.

 

And if you want to be REALLY picky, minus another 3.30mins approx. for the opening credits. Then you're looking at 'SPECTRE' clocking in at just 139mins approx.

[Tiin007]

I also stay until the end of the credits for every Bond film. Whenever I go with friends or my wife, they begin to get up as the credits begin, but I quickly insist that we stay until the credits finish. Makes it a completer Bond experience in my eyes, as well. 

 

And, as you've mentioned (in jest) deducting the length of the title sequence, let me share with you something that mortifies me. A close friend and I have been watching all 23 EON Bond films together, and whenever the title sequence begins, my friend proceeds to get up, do something in the kitchen, play on his iPhone, have a long conversation with me. It's as if our coveted title sequences are merely "filler" for him. Funny considering how many of us (myself included) anxiously anticipate each title sequence, making predictions in advance, and dissecting them on the forums once the new film is released. I guess reactions (or lack thereof) to Bond title sequences are what separates the true fans from the...well....casual fans 

 

Also, while we're on the topic of end credits, has anybody else noticed that the credits on Bond films have grown progressively longer over the years? Compare the credits to DN, FRWL, or GF to those of DAD, CR, or SF. It's really astounding. (I guess you may have had a point in subtracting credit time....)

[thecasinoroyale]

It's something so novel I think for the Bond films to still have the opening credits, something you don't have at all very much now in films. You don't even get the film title at times! At least Bond still remembers it's nothing but entertainment and acknowledges you ARE watching something fantastical. I guess it's part of what makes it unique.

 

And yes I agree about the length of credits - I guess it's just detailing every person involved in the film which I guess is nice to do. If you're the carpenter working in Pinewood for some sets, no dealings with Mendes, Craig etc or anything, seeing your name in the end credits on a Bond film must be a nice payoff.  Compared to the likes of 'Dr.No' however, it's amazing how much it's changed!

[RMc2]

Also, while we're on the topic of end credits, has anybody else noticed that the credits on Bond films have grown progressively longer over the years? Compare the credits to DN, FRWL, or GF to those of DAD, CR, or SF. It's really astounding. (I guess you may have had a point in subtracting credit time....)

 

It's not just Bond films...

 

I always mentally deduct end credits from a new (read: last 20 years) film's duration as cited on DVD sleeve/cinema guide. It does irritate me that filmmakers are often under pressure to keep things under an arbitrary length (usually 120, 135 or 150 mins) when that final length has to include 6-8 mins of credits.

 

I often wonder if some blockbusters' major plot holes or pacing problems are a direct result of having these massive end credits.

[ChrissBond007]

Interesting that Craig would have the three longest Bond films as well as the shortest one (although OHMSS might have been the longest if the end credits were as long as they are these days).

 

Well, the more Bond the better I guess. 

[The Dove]

Not 100% official as regards to an exact running time but I think we can safely say for certain that the film is at least 150 mins (2 and a half hours). Damn! I really wanted those 5 extra minutes that I initially saw..

[Matt_13]

Mendes says it's almost exactly as long as Skyfall. Curious to see how it all fits together, there certainly seems to be a lot going on.

 

http://www.timeout.c...-says-so-100215

[Vauxhall]

Fairly weird (and perhaps pointless) article.

SPECTRE only needs to be a couple of minutes longer than SKYFALL to be the longest Bond film. I think they're taking it a bit too literally!

[The Dove]

Yeah, I'm not sure how much validity I would put in this article. I'm still betting the film will be 2 hrs and 30 mins long..

[antovolk]

Invites to SPECTRE UK press screening going out - runtime is 148 minutes

 

 

https://twitter.com/...993519581491200

[Vauxhall]

Going for the record outright. They must have slowed down the end crawl.

 

Amazed we're just 10 days away now.

[Tiin007]

Not sure how I feel about this.

 

While I would welcome a return to the "just over two hours" model of Bond movie, I had hoped SPECTRE would be longer than 148 minutes, if for no other reason than to allow breathing room in between the action set pieces. I worry that, given the known action scenes in Mexico, Rome, Austria, Morroco, and London, there may not be enough time devoted to plot and character development. 

 

Still, I think going forward, the next couple Bond movies should aim to be between 120-130 minutes. 

[The Dove]

Ahh well.. 2 minutes shorter than the 150 mins we originally thought... Damn!.. The more of Bond, the better I say..

[Shrublands]

So Spectre was passed uncut by the BBFC today. 12A at 148mins.
 
But there is this bit of interesting information. 
 
 

Precuts information
During post-production, the distributor sought and was given advice on how to secure the desired classification. Following this advice, certain changes were made prior to submission
 
This film was originally seen for advice in an unfinished version. The company was advised it was likely to be classified 15 but that their preferred 12A could be obtained by making reductions in a scene of violence and in another scene showing the aftermath of a violent act. When the film was submitted for formal classification, acceptable reductions had been made in both scenes and the film was classified 12A.

 
http://www.bbfc.co.u...es/spectre-2015

[DamnCoffee]

Interesting. Probably a few cuts for violence here and there. Casino Royale had a few headbutts and things removed, and fight sound effects were reduced, too.

 

Spoiler

I wonder if Ms Swann getting smacked in the face by Bautista will make the final cut.