SPECTRE is too short (potential spoilers)

Just to get the ball rolling on this topic, my point is this.

People have made much about the fact that the running time for the film was long at 150 mins or so.

Also, those who have seen the film and are critical of it say that the relationships between the key characters progress too quickly and without full enough explanation, that some of the plot points are too contrived in order to drive the story on, and that the main plot 'maguffins' aren't compelling enough because we don't have long enough to understand their significance.

So, if you look at it my way, the story we see in 150 minutes in a single film should have been TWO films, the first called SPECTRE and the second called NINE-EYES, which would have provided 4 hours to build the necessary characterisations, relationships and let the plot unfold at a more natural pace.

I think the producers bottled it, for fear Mendes and Craig wouldn't stay the course.
«1

Comments

  • Posts: 74
    The movie is indeed too short. But this is because they cut down all the characterisationn parts to make it shorter and more action oriented.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited October 2015 Posts: 4,997
    The film isn't too short. BUT more characterisation would have been good. It's still a solid Bond film though. Blofeld is hardly used either.
  • I'd have liked this. To be honest, an extra 30 minutes would have been most welcome - 2.5 hours flew by
  • You need to consider people's bladders haha.

    The film tried to do way too much. Why not have one really good finale instead of two rather poor ones?
  • DariusDarius UK
    Posts: 354
    My observation is that SP tries to do too much and the result is that it doesn't cover all of its bases adequately in the time provided. My guess is that Ralph Fiennes agreed to reprise his role as M on condition that the character had a relevant and properly developed sub-plot (just guessing, mind). This means that if we remove the Max Denbigh/M sub-plot, or at least cut it right down, it would make little difference to the main plot and allow more room for exposition and, more importantly, for the drama to breathe.
  • Posts: 74
    You're right it's not too short, it's just that it lacks extra time for the characters, time that was scripted and shot and was then deleted at the editing stage.
  • NicNacNicNac Moderator
    Posts: 7,210
    You probably identify the problem with the film @Theojw71, but maybe you go too far in giving us the title of the follow up film and accusing the producers of 'bottling it'. I'm sure there is no scenario you can come up with that BB and MW didn't consider.
  • Posts: 11,425
    The film is definitely NOT too short. If there is a fault it is in the writing, directing and editing. Bond and Swann's 'relationship' is about as convincing as the most cursory Roger Moore or Brosnan era couplings. It's there because it has to be, not because anyone actually believes in it.

    Vespa Lynd was and remains the only convincing romantic relationship in the Craig era. That's probably the way it should be tbh.

    I personally found the pacing of the film quite odd. As with Skyfall I once again felt that Mendes just isn't very good at action or suspense.

    Having said that, overall, I think this is a better movie than SF. It's a reasonable mid ranker for me. I'd rank it third in the Craig era.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Getafix wrote: »
    The film is definitely NOT too short. If there is a fault it is in the writing, directing and editing. Bond and Swann's 'relationship' is about as convincing as the most cursory Roger Moore or Brosnan era couplings. It's there because it has to be, not because anyone actually believes in it.

    Vespa Lynd was and remains the only convincing romantic relationship in the Craig era. That's probably the way it should be tbh.

    I personally found the pacing of the film quite odd. As with Skyfall I once again felt that Mendes just isn't very good at action or suspense.

    Having said that, overall, I think this is a better movie than SF. It's a reasonable mid ranker for me. I'd rank it third in the Craig era.

    So by process of deduction you rate QOS higher than both SF and SP? (I seriously hope not higher than CR also?)

    I find this curious because although SF and SP are both flawed QOS is just as guilty at being poorly written (although at least QOS has a genuine excuse in this regard).

    Might I enquire as to your reasoning?
  • Posts: 251
    I agree with Theojw71, the film seemed to have a lot of gaps and was too short for the ground it tried to cover. I think it would have been better as a 3 hour epic, or stretched across two separate films - which I understand was the original idea. I had assumed that they simply decided to make the first one, rather than squash everything into one.
  • I don't think it was too short. It was near 150 mins. They just needed to cut back on the action a bit and give us a little character growth time. The film is too long really. Never have i ever been in a cinema and people have fallen asleep, until Spectre.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,432
    WaltherPPK wrote: »
    I don't think it was too short. It was near 150 mins. They just needed to cut back on the action a bit and give us a little character growth time. The film is too long really. Never have i ever been in a cinema and people have fallen asleep, until Spectre.

    Did people genuinely fall asleep, or is that bollocks?
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote: »
    The film is definitely NOT too short. If there is a fault it is in the writing, directing and editing. Bond and Swann's 'relationship' is about as convincing as the most cursory Roger Moore or Brosnan era couplings. It's there because it has to be, not because anyone actually believes in it.

    Vespa Lynd was and remains the only convincing romantic relationship in the Craig era. That's probably the way it should be tbh.

    I personally found the pacing of the film quite odd. As with Skyfall I once again felt that Mendes just isn't very good at action or suspense.

    Having said that, overall, I think this is a better movie than SF. It's a reasonable mid ranker for me. I'd rank it third in the Craig era.

    So by process of deduction you rate QOS higher than both SF and SP? (I seriously hope not higher than CR also?)

    I find this curious because although SF and SP are both flawed QOS is just as guilty at being poorly written (although at least QOS has a genuine excuse in this regard).

    Might I enquire as to your reasoning?

    QoS was personally the most enjoyable Bond cinema experience I'd had since TLD. While flawed, I felt that in spirit it was much closer to the early Bonds than all the Brosnan films and even the overlong CR. The pacing seemed about right for me. Despite being a fast paced movie I actually found the dramatic scenes and the dialogue a lot more satisfying than most other recent Bonds - the meeting with Mathis, Greene's party, Felix in the bar and on the plane, the chat in the cavern with Camille etc. And for me, the Tosca sequence is probably the best in a Bond movie since TLD.

    QOS definitely suffers from a glut of superfluous action sequences (particualrly the boat and plane sequences). Having said that, I personally think the car chase and Sienna chase are pretty good. It also has a decent little fight scene in Haiti.

    Although it seems to be received wisdom that QOS is profoundly flawed in terms of plot and script, I don't buy this. The plot is perfectly serviceable IMO, unlike in SF.

    I think Arnold also really hit his stride during the Craig era. CR and QoS are the best Bond scores since Barry.

    Add to this that Craig is still on the same excellent form that he showed in CR, great cinematography, the clear revenge element, better than usual production design, a satisfying baddy base denouement and its a very solid entry. I even think Mathieu Maleric as Greene is really good.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    WaltherPPK wrote: »
    I don't think it was too short. It was near 150 mins. They just needed to cut back on the action a bit and give us a little character growth time. The film is too long really. Never have i ever been in a cinema and people have fallen asleep, until Spectre.

    Did people genuinely fall asleep, or is that bollocks?

    100% honestly, there were two people asleep, only a few seats away from me. The reason i saw them is because one of them was snoring a bit. I figured he was taking the piss out of the film, looked over to see who it was and he and his female accomplice were both fast asleep.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,432
    WaltherPPK wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    WaltherPPK wrote: »
    I don't think it was too short. It was near 150 mins. They just needed to cut back on the action a bit and give us a little character growth time. The film is too long really. Never have i ever been in a cinema and people have fallen asleep, until Spectre.

    Did people genuinely fall asleep, or is that bollocks?

    100% honestly, there were two people asleep, only a few seats away from me. The reason i saw them is because one of them was snoring a bit. I figured he was taking the piss out of the film, looked over to see who it was and he and his female accomplice were both fast asleep.

    What a tool.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Getafix wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    The film is definitely NOT too short. If there is a fault it is in the writing, directing and editing. Bond and Swann's 'relationship' is about as convincing as the most cursory Roger Moore or Brosnan era couplings. It's there because it has to be, not because anyone actually believes in it.

    Vespa Lynd was and remains the only convincing romantic relationship in the Craig era. That's probably the way it should be tbh.

    I personally found the pacing of the film quite odd. As with Skyfall I once again felt that Mendes just isn't very good at action or suspense.

    Having said that, overall, I think this is a better movie than SF. It's a reasonable mid ranker for me. I'd rank it third in the Craig era.

    So by process of deduction you rate QOS higher than both SF and SP? (I seriously hope not higher than CR also?)

    I find this curious because although SF and SP are both flawed QOS is just as guilty at being poorly written (although at least QOS has a genuine excuse in this regard).

    Might I enquire as to your reasoning?

    QoS was personally the most enjoyable Bond cinema experience I'd had since TLD. While flawed, I felt that in spirit it was much closer to the early Bonds than all the Brosnan films and even the overlong CR. The pacing seemed about right for me. Despite being a fast paced movie I actually found the dramatic scenes and the dialogue a lot more satisfying than most other recent Bonds - the meeting with Mathis, Greene's party, Felix in the bar and on the plane, the chat in the cavern with Camille etc. And for me, the Tosca sequence is probably the best in a Bond movie since TLD.

    QOS definitely suffers from a glut of superfluous action sequences (particualrly the boat and plane sequences). Having said that, I personally think the car chase and Sienna chase are pretty good. It also has a decent little fight scene in Haiti.

    Although it seems to be received wisdom that QOS is profoundly flawed in terms of plot and script, I don't buy this. The plot is perfectly serviceable IMO, unlike in SF.

    I think Arnold also really hit his stride during the Craig era. CR and QoS are the best Bond scores since Barry.

    Add to this that Craig is still on the same excellent form that he showed in CR, great cinematography, the clear revenge element, better than usual production design, a satisfying baddy base denouement and its a very solid entry. I even think Mathieu Maleric as Greene is really good.

    I can't agree that the dramatic scenes were satisfying in QOS. The film had plenty of potential but sacrificed drama and character for, as you state, superfluous action scenes.

    The Mr White interrogation scene should be good but just as I'm settling down to enjoy it it's over within about 2 minutes of talking and we're thrust into another action scene. And this occurs repeatedly throughout the film.

    CR gets the balance of action and drama just right, although of course it is rather unbalanced with an action heavy first half before we get to to the actual plot of the book. That said the airport sequence is also largely superfluous as an action scene but CR comes closest for me to the balance achieved by OHMSS which is pretty much action free for the first half before layering it on in spades in the second half.

    For me the action in SF really isn't up to scratch for a Bond film. Apart from the PTS there isn't a lot to get excited about. SP does better in this regard and gets close to the CR/OHMSS balance of drama/action.

    QOS is just too breathless and action packed to give the good dramatic scenes (and it does have lots of good scenes) a chance to breath at all so, flawed as all the last 3 Craig films are, I would still have QOS bottom. Need to see SP a few more times to decide if it's better than SF but CR still indubitably Craig's best.
  • Posts: 251
    WaltherPPK wrote: »
    I don't think it was too short. It was near 150 mins. They just needed to cut back on the action a bit and give us a little character growth time. The film is too long really. Never have i ever been in a cinema and people have fallen asleep, until Spectre.

    There has been plenty of excellent mass-market 3-hour films on the past - Titanic, JFK, the Hobbit films etc.

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,997
    Stamper wrote: »
    You're right it's not too short, it's just that it lacks extra time for the characters, time that was scripted and shot and was then deleted at the editing stage.

    How does the finished film compare to the leaked script?? Are any notable scenes absent from the finished product?
  • Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    The film is definitely NOT too short. If there is a fault it is in the writing, directing and editing. Bond and Swann's 'relationship' is about as convincing as the most cursory Roger Moore or Brosnan era couplings. It's there because it has to be, not because anyone actually believes in it.

    Vespa Lynd was and remains the only convincing romantic relationship in the Craig era. That's probably the way it should be tbh.

    I personally found the pacing of the film quite odd. As with Skyfall I once again felt that Mendes just isn't very good at action or suspense.

    Having said that, overall, I think this is a better movie than SF. It's a reasonable mid ranker for me. I'd rank it third in the Craig era.

    So by process of deduction you rate QOS higher than both SF and SP? (I seriously hope not higher than CR also?)

    I find this curious because although SF and SP are both flawed QOS is just as guilty at being poorly written (although at least QOS has a genuine excuse in this regard).

    Might I enquire as to your reasoning?

    QoS was personally the most enjoyable Bond cinema experience I'd had since TLD. While flawed, I felt that in spirit it was much closer to the early Bonds than all the Brosnan films and even the overlong CR. The pacing seemed about right for me. Despite being a fast paced movie I actually found the dramatic scenes and the dialogue a lot more satisfying than most other recent Bonds - the meeting with Mathis, Greene's party, Felix in the bar and on the plane, the chat in the cavern with Camille etc. And for me, the Tosca sequence is probably the best in a Bond movie since TLD.

    QOS definitely suffers from a glut of superfluous action sequences (particualrly the boat and plane sequences). Having said that, I personally think the car chase and Sienna chase are pretty good. It also has a decent little fight scene in Haiti.

    Although it seems to be received wisdom that QOS is profoundly flawed in terms of plot and script, I don't buy this. The plot is perfectly serviceable IMO, unlike in SF.

    I think Arnold also really hit his stride during the Craig era. CR and QoS are the best Bond scores since Barry.

    Add to this that Craig is still on the same excellent form that he showed in CR, great cinematography, the clear revenge element, better than usual production design, a satisfying baddy base denouement and its a very solid entry. I even think Mathieu Maleric as Greene is really good.

    I can't agree that the dramatic scenes were satisfying in QOS. The film had plenty of potential but sacrificed drama and character for, as you state, superfluous action scenes.

    The Mr White interrogation scene should be good but just as I'm settling down to enjoy it it's over within about 2 minutes of talking and we're thrust into another action scene. And this occurs repeatedly throughout the film.

    CR gets the balance of action and drama just right, although of course it is rather unbalanced with an action heavy first half before we get to to the actual plot of the book. That said the airport sequence is also largely superfluous as an action scene but CR comes closest for me to the balance achieved by OHMSS which is pretty much action free for the first half before layering it on in spades in the second half.

    For me the action in SF really isn't up to scratch for a Bond film. Apart from the PTS there isn't a lot to get excited about. SP does better in this regard and gets close to the CR/OHMSS balance of drama/action.

    QOS is just too breathless and action packed to give the good dramatic scenes (and it does have lots of good scenes) a chance to breath at all so, flawed as all the last 3 Craig films are, I would still have QOS bottom. Need to see SP a few more times to decide if it's better than SF but CR still indubitably Craig's best.

    The airport chase sequence in CR always felt totally superfluous to me, although I realise it plays a convoluted role in the plot. At least the pointless action in QOS is over relatively quickly. The Miami airport section of CR feels like it goes on for 20-30 minutes.

    I'm not going to die in a ditch for QOS though. I just think it's an underrated Bond film and definitely better than SF. While I appreciate CR and think it's a really good entry I might be more inclined to actually watch QOS - flawed as it is, it contains more elements that I find genuinely enjoyable than CR.

    As someone who detested the Brosnan era in pretty much every conceivable way, the arrival of DC offered a way back into a series that I felt I might have fallen out of love with permanently. Craig has failed to deliver on his early promise IMO, but he's still a good Bond. And I think in terms of his performance I would agree that CR remains his best film.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,997
    In terms of his performance I would agree that CR remains his best film. I'm including Spectre in this too.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 1,644
    the story we see in 150 minutes in a single film should have been TWO films, the first called SPECTRE and the second called NINE-EYES, which would have provided 4 hours to build the necessary characterisations, relationships and let the plot unfold at a more natural pace.

    There were plans (or rumours?) to make two back-to-back films but Craig said no. He felt it would be too hard to make. That would be a 13/14 months filming schedule?! That's pretty long! Craig would have no social life for a year or more. Craig would never agree to that. He'd be completely exhausted.

  • NicNacNicNac Moderator
    Posts: 7,210
    WaltherPPK wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    WaltherPPK wrote: »
    I don't think it was too short. It was near 150 mins. They just needed to cut back on the action a bit and give us a little character growth time. The film is too long really. Never have i ever been in a cinema and people have fallen asleep, until Spectre.

    Did people genuinely fall asleep, or is that bollocks?

    100% honestly, there were two people asleep, only a few seats away from me. The reason i saw them is because one of them was snoring a bit. I figured he was taking the piss out of the film, looked over to see who it was and he and his female accomplice were both fast asleep.

    Maybe they had been up all the previous night making sweet luuurve. In which case you would fall asleep watching any film.
    Only ever once nodded off, it was a Harry potter film. It wasn't the film's fault, I was just knackered from a hard day...doing something I've long forgotten
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 1,644
    On the subject of people sleeping, I find that hard to believe. Why would anyone spend money to see a film and fall asleep? Heck, I'd stay awake just to get my money's worth! If I want to fall asleep I don't need to pay for it. :))

    This 'falling asleep in cinemas' sounds like an urban myth to me. ;)
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited October 2015 Posts: 9,117
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    On the subject of people sleeping, I find that hard to believe. Why would anyone spend money to see a film and fall asleep? Heck, I'd stay awake just to get my money's worth! If I want to fall asleep I don't need to pay for it. :))

    This 'falling asleep in cinemas' sounds like an urban myth to me. ;)

    Have genuinely only done it once. Went for a second viewing of The Phantom Menace as I was convinced it couldn't be as bad as I thought.

    It was.

    I dropped off during one of the interminable trade dispute scenes. Imagine my disappointment when I woke up and realised I'd only been out for about 10 minutes.

    I didn't make the same mistake with episodes 2 & 3. One viewing was more than enough!
  • fanbond123 wrote: »
    On the subject of people sleeping, I find that hard to believe. Why would anyone spend money to see a film and fall asleep? Heck, I'd stay awake just to get my money's worth! If I want to fall asleep I don't need to pay for it. :))

    This 'falling asleep in cinemas' sounds like an urban myth to me. ;)

    You should go to the cinema with my father. I swear the guy has got a medical condition that causes him to pass out at the movies. I can think of 4 movies, from the top of my head, that my father has fallen asleep in.
  • Posts: 10,867
    My wife regularly falls asleep watching films in the cinema, that's why she now
    waits to catch them on bluray. :)
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    RC7 wrote: »
    WaltherPPK wrote: »
    I don't think it was too short. It was near 150 mins. They just needed to cut back on the action a bit and give us a little character growth time. The film is too long really. Never have i ever been in a cinema and people have fallen asleep, until Spectre.

    Did people genuinely fall asleep, or is that bollocks?

    2 people actually fell asleep in my second viewing and it was a 18:30 showing.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,432
    In hindsight it doesn't surprise me, I suppose. When I hit the cinema it's an event for me, whether I go three times in the same day or once in a week. I get the impression some other people just inadvertently drift in, once the film has begun, and armed with a sodding three course meal. The UK cinema is home to some incredible specimens.
  • Posts: 1,644
    At least Peter 'Lord of the Rings' Jackson isn't directing a Bond film. It would last three hours and the extended Bluray/DVD cut would be four! :D
  • Posts: 1,055
    I actually could of handled Spectre being even longer...........maybe i was enjoying the film!
Sign In or Register to comment.