Reporting For Duty

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Facebook Sign In with Twitter

In this Discussion

Skyfall's running time

edited February 2012 in Skyfall Posts: 2,153
I havent seen a thread on here about this and feel this will be a big indication to what kind of a film we will get,compared to the 2.5 hours approx of CR and the 108mins running of QoS.
Does anyone have an idea of how long the film is meant to be and what would be your ideal running time ?
«134

Comments

  • Posts: 1,037
    One of the main weaknesses of QOS was it's short running time. IMO SF has to be at least 2hr to 2hr 15. Would love to see a 3 hour Bond epic but dont think it;ll happen due to cost and marketing reasons
  • edited February 2012 Posts: 4,925
    I think 110 - 120 mins is the ideal length for a Bond movie. CR was too long - they could have cut a load of scenes such as the Miami airport nonsense.
  • Posts: 12,907
    It's time for a two or near two hour film and I think that's what we'll get.
  • Personally, I want to to be the longest Bond film ever. I always preferred longer movies, as long as the story is good.
  • edited February 2012 Posts: 4,925
    LeChiffre said:

    One of the main weaknesses of QOS was it's short running time. IMO SF has to be at least 2hr to 2hr 15. Would love to see a 3 hour Bond epic but dont think it;ll happen due to cost and marketing reasons

    It's also down to the cinema chains - they want films that they can get 4 or 5 showings in for each day, which precludes longer running times. The French aren't happy, as you can imagine.

  • Getafix said:


    It's also down to the cinema chains

    Not really. If the final cut by Mendes is 3 hours long and EON is happy with that, they won't cut the movie just because the cinema chains are not happy with the lenght. Also, the 2 most successful movies of all time (Titanic & Avatar) are 194 and 162 minutes long.

  • Posts: 4,925
    Any way, it won't be 3 hours long as (as we all know) that is too long for an action/adventure/thriller. I reckon 2 hours max. Any longer and it'll probably start to drag. I'm confident that on this front at least Mendes and co know what they're doing. They admire FRWL, which is a classic, well-paced, nippy little Bond movie.
  • Posts: 5,991
    I think it will be somewhere between 2 - 2 1/2 hrs. I certainly do not want anything less than that, especially after having to wait 4 years to see the next installment!
  • Posts: 5,345
    2 hours and 28 minutes, that's what I want.
  • edited February 2012 Posts: 4,925
    2 hours, 12 mins, 0.07 seconds...
  • Posts: 296
    2Hr, 6 Mins
  • Posts: 1,051
    2hrs + QOS was too short.
  • Posts: 1,441
    Getafix said:

    I think 110 - 120 mins is the ideal length for a Bond movie. CR was too long - they could have cut a load of scenes such as the Miami airport nonsense.

    That and the whole last 30 minutes in Venice felt like it was tagged on by the writers at the last minute.

    115-120 minutes is perfect for Bond. That should be the standard.

  • 2 hrs will be just fine. Not too long & not too short.
  • Casino Royale wasn't too long. I think the movie could have ended just as Vesper died (a la OHMSS), but I never got bored. I'm hoping for a 140 minute Bond experience.
  • Posts: 4,605
    I hope it will be at least 2 hours and five minutes. Many of the Bond movies have this run time, and it is neither too long or too short. However, there are exceptions. DAD is 2 hours and 11 minutes or something like that, yet it passes like a blur, whereas TB, at 2 hours 10 minutes, drags on forever. Overall though, I want it to be long enough to enjoy, but not to where I'm ready to leave the theater. Of course, it's a Bond movie, so that'll never happen!
  • I really wasn't aware Quantum Of Solace was a mere One hour and 45 minutes in duration, you don't always count the times of movies when you sit through them although was (frustratingly) aware at time of viewing it was noticably shorter than previous 007 adventures, maybe in hindsight and taking into account it was a bit of a let down perhaps it was just as well, after all who wants to sit through a film that isn't up to much that just drags on

    For Skyfall, and I think we can expect a marked improvement from the last entry, I would maybe like to see something similar to Royale in terms of running time, it's a big event, lots of expectations etc, so surely they will make it a more lengthy one than last time out. Two hours 30 minutes seems appropriate enough, if it's as big an event as they are building up to then I wouldn't care too much if it went on for as long as Ben-Hur.
  • Posts: 1,051
    I'm one of those rare people who liked the Venice sequence of CR, I found the sinking house much better than the Raiders lite Miami Sky Plane sequence.

    2 hrs but nothing shorter, just felt short changed with QOS running time.
  • 2 hours and 20 mins seems right to me, I've always preferred longer movies.
  • I'll say it now that if Moonraker had been 3 hours long I most probably would of stayed with it if possible, ok it's a load of nonsense most of the time but IS a fun watch and lots to keep the interest. I don't know how they may have stretched the time in what to include but if filled in time wise with the rest of the content I would most likely sit through it all and be content enough. Maybe the men in white coats would be needed by the end but It's something I may have liked
  • Posts: 375
    134 minutes, 2h14m would be great for me. Long enough, but it doesn't drag.
  • Posts: 12,907
    Really, the film will be as long as it needs to, to cover the story. I would guess two hours but we'll see.
  • Posts: 1,504
    After a long 'un in the shape of CR followed by a very short 'un (by Bond film standards) in QOS, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Babs and Mikey encourage Mendes to deliver something around two hours this time. So I imagine SF'll be about average Bond film length...
  • Posts: 251
    Around the two hour mark give or take 10 minutes will do me
  • Posts: 1,070
    Mendes last movies (in minutes) were
    98 - Away we go
    119 - Revolutionary Road
    125 - Jarhead
    117 - Road to perdition
    122 - American Beauty

    Expect something similar for SF, around 120 minutes.
  • Getafix said:

    I think 110 - 120 mins is the ideal length for a Bond movie. CR was too long - they could have cut a load of scenes such as the Miami airport nonsense.

    I can't agree with you on the specific scene; the action at the airport explained why Le Chiffre needed to play the poker game to win his clients' money back. Without it the whole first half of the film would have been meaningless.
  • and there would of been no Director cameo either, unless they had fitted it in elsewhere. I wonder if Mendes will pop up somewhere in Skyfall. Said it before so long as the movie is fun and keeps the interest I'd be happy enough to remain seated for a while longer, I think we can expect a decent enough running time later this year
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!
    Posts: 9,393
    Sorry people, this is more or less covered here. Due to the specificity of the topic, however, I will keep this thread open.
  • I would like it around 2:10, including credits. Credits are much longer these days so this length wouldn't be too long if you count that.
  • Posts: 4,605
    AgentJM7 said:

    134 minutes, 2h14m would be great for me. Long enough, but it doesn't drag.

    Yeah, similar to DAD. Even though it isn't anyone's favorite around here, I did enjoy how the pace moved, and never gave a dull moment or too much movement, for that matter.
Sign In or Register to comment.