Should there be a 2 hour limit on Bond movie runtimes?

I think Dr. No and Goldfinger, for example, were masterpieces precisely because they were so clean, minimalist and just every aspect felt essential to the story. Scenes weren't added just because it would look cool. I'll also laud Quantum of Solace for being speedy having a "show - not tell" approach within it's limited dialogue.

Some movies like Casino Royale and OHMSS are justified in their longer run time because they have more of a story. Otherwise, the average Bond movie length seems to be 120-130 minutes and most could've stood a 15 minute cut.

from russia with love - curtail the catfighting scenes
thunderball - cut 1/3 of the underwater scenes
you only live twice - no need for the toy helicopter
live and let die - chase sequence was too elongated
man with the golden gun - this felt like an hour-long short film but with a bunch of random gags
spy who loved me - first half hour seems to introduce everything twice, and a chase scene could've been cut
moonraker - the entire first half just feels like it's random anyway, so cut anything from it
for your eyes only - less gags and less bibi.
a view to a kill - the horse subplot could've been cut in half
tomorrow never dies - some trimming here and there,
world is not enough - they spent 15 minutes destroying a caviar factory?
die another day - where do i begin?
«134

Comments

  • Posts: 10,496
    No
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,267
    Bond as a character accepts no limits, why should Bond as a film accept limits?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe People, both good and evil, really are people.
    edited December 2016 Posts: 6,185
    I am 100% in agreement with this. Most Bond films should be under 2hrs, with OHMSS and CR justifying a run time between 120 - 130 minutes. =D>
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,119
    No

    Well said ..
  • DragonpolDragonpol Schloss Drache.
    Posts: 12,084
    No.
  • Not a rigid rule but as a general guideline, 2 hours feels about right. I too prefer the more simple outings. But for me it actually has less to do with the runtime and more to do with the use of locations.
    The early connery films bar GF (which though I enjoy is not my favourite) have one location that features prominently. This allows the film to breathe a little and the location becomes a character in its own right. OHMSS is a great example of a film that where the location becomes its own character. I love it as a film despite its long runtime.
    The later outings have too much jet setting in my view and are poorer for it.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf England
    Posts: 3,551
    OHMSS, TB, CR etc. No.
  • Posts: 4,325
    No. Stop starting stupid threads @M16_Cart
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.
    Posts: 29,942
    I don't feel the films should be limited to two hours or less, or we wouldn't have gotten the likes of CR, OHMSS, etc. At the same time, the films shouldn't stretch to break records for having the longest running time - SP was pretty lengthy, and it felt like a 3-4 hour movie at times with how often it drags.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 5,920
    I don't want any limitations imposed, but they really should only release a longer film every once in a while. Mendes, in particular, has been guilty of overindulgence with the last two entries.
  • Posts: 219
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    No. Stop starting stupid threads @M16_Cart

    lower your salt intake.

  • If it's good, it's good.
  • DragonpolDragonpol Schloss Drache.
    Posts: 12,084
    If it's good, it's good.

    Indeed, my thoughts exactly, regardless of the length. OHMSS and CR needed more time for their particular stories to be told. Why limit everything to 2 hours or under?
  • Posts: 219
    I think less is more. A 400 page book isn't inherently better than a 300 page book.

    I think deleted scenes should be freely available, but fat should be trimmed nonetheless, just as it was in the 60's.
  • DragonpolDragonpol Schloss Drache.
    Posts: 12,084
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    I think less is more. A 400 page book isn't inherently better than a 300 page book.

    I think deleted scenes should be freely available, but fat should be trimmed nonetheless, just as it was in the 60's.

    Well, yes, there's m,ore than one way of looking at it. Quality, not quantity is how one might sum it up.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,119
    Responding to this thread is like voting for politicians... it only encourages them.

    Answer still no...
  • Posts: 532
    No. For those who need Twitter length films, they are called trailers.
  • DragonpolDragonpol Schloss Drache.
    Posts: 12,084
    CrabKey wrote: »
    No. For those who need Twitter length films, they are called trailers.

    Nice quote. :))
  • Posts: 10,496
    :))
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 3,737
    If it's good, it's good.

    Indeed.

    With the rate of Bond films nowadays, I kinda like the Bond pictures to be more of an event movie. It all depends on the execution, having said that.

  • MooseWithFleasMooseWithFleas Philadelphia
    Posts: 2,253
    Even after dozens of viewings of each Bond film, the only thing that can sometimes be too long in my mind are a few of the action scenes that I've seen so many times. But when seeing it for the first and second times in theaters, I never thought the scenes were too long because it was my first time viewing it. Now that I have many memorized, I'm waiting for each set piece and spot in the sequence, which is why they can occasionally get overlong.

    For many of the older films, the parts I enjoy most are the lengthy exchanges as Bond visits and investigates the villain HQ/Lair/Luxurious Home/etc. Those scripts just get better with age for me and I love them more upon each viewing, so I would say cutting any of that would be sin!

    The sweet spot seems to be 120-130 minutes. There needs to be a very unique story to justify 135-140 and beyond. SPECTRE didn't quite have that for me as I have a feeling a few of the chases will get a little old for me as I watch it over. Under 2 hours though almost always leaves me wanting more, as QoS seemed so short.
  • Posts: 10,140
    Not a limit? More of a minimum run time for me!
  • Most Bond films are not trying to be deep on an emotional or atmospheric level. I think therefore that it is perfectly reasonable for movies to be within the length of two hours. If you cannot tell a simple story in that runtime, less people will want to sit through it.
  • Posts: 4,325
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    No. Stop starting stupid threads @M16_Cart

    lower your salt intake.

    Now, now @M16_Cart calm down dear.
  • Posts: 10,496
    "Back to the salt mines " :D
  • edited December 2016 Posts: 4,325
    It's pretty salty in the salt mines, we'd all best lower our salt intake before @M16_Cart has a fit.
  • Posts: 10,496
    I thought having "a fit" was his permanent state ! :D
  • barryt007barryt007 Hunting Kara Milovy with a massive elephant gun.
    Posts: 15,337
    No...a Bond film can be as long or as short as is necessary...oh @tanaka123 be a good chap and pass me the salt for the chip on someones shoulder.
  • Posts: 4,325
    barryt007 wrote: »
    No...a Bond film can be as long or as short as is necessary...oh @tanaka123 be a good chap and pass me the salt for the chip on someones shoulder.

    Sorry I'm supposed to lower my salt intake, I've just donated it to the @M16_Cart Trolling Masterclass Conference 2016
  • Posts: 10,496
    Salt, like the grit in an oyster can sometimes produce a pearl ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.