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

1356711

Comments

  • Posts: 226
    Bond as a character accepts no limits, why should Bond as a film accept limits?

    The World is Not Enough and neither is an hour and 45 minutes.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I guess we all enjoy different things. I love the emotional vulnerability of Bond in
    OHMSS and CR, shown in the romantic sequences. With the older films I also
    Enjoy the longer establishing shots showing the exotic locations. Some will
    See this as padding but Fleming himself used to go in to detail on where he
    Had placed Bond, giving a feeling of almost being there for the reader. So I
    Regard these sequences as an almost cinematography nod to Fleming's writing.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Milovy wrote: »
    I think CR benefits from being 2:25. If it was less I can almost certainly guarenatee it wouldn't be as good.
    No way did the airport and sinking house sequences need to be so long. Same with the ponderous romance right after Mathis is arrested. At that point in the movie, you either buy that Bond and Vesper have feelings for each other or you don't. So just get on with it.
    All my problems with CR occur after Le Chiffre's death, so I agree.
    With the older films I also
    Enjoy the longer establishing shots showing the exotic locations. Some will
    See this as padding but Fleming himself used to go in to detail on where he
    Had placed Bond, giving a feeling of almost being there for the reader. So I
    Regard these sequences as an almost cinematography nod to Fleming's writing.
    I've always liked those sequences too, but at most they would add another 5 minutes to a film. They can easily be included again without much impact to the running time.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 676
    With the older films I also
    Enjoy the longer establishing shots showing the exotic locations. Some will
    See this as padding but Fleming himself used to go in to detail on where he
    Had placed Bond, giving a feeling of almost being there for the reader. So I
    Regard these sequences as an almost cinematography nod to Fleming's writing.
    You're right, stuff meant to build atmosphere shouldn't be considered padding.

    But you don't shorten a film by cutting establishing shots or butchering individual scenes to remove a few seconds, anyway. You do it by cutting or reworking entire scenes and ideas. For example, the sinking house in CR could have been half the length. And basically all the Andrew Scott stuff could be cut from Spectre, no one would miss it.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    CountJohn wrote: »
    Bond as a character accepts no limits, why should Bond as a film accept limits?

    The World is Not Enough and neither is an hour and 45 minutes.

    Just something else: if I remember correctly, TWINE was originally like 3 hours long and then they cut it down. Also that PTS is super bloated
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 2017 Posts: 7,966
    Has anyone noticed that films in general are getting shorter? Until a few years ago films seemed to be getting longer, and than there appears to have been a turning point and now they are moving in the opposite direction. The latest Pirates of the Caribbean is the shortest in the franchise history, which I think really speaks volumes. Perhaps the next Bond film will be shorter than SPECTRE, if this apparent trend holds true.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    I agree. There are a lot of Bond films that go on way longer than they need to.
  • I would LOVE to see a three-hour cut of TWINE. The film is perfect for me as is, but just for the experience I wouldn't mind seeing the extra fifty minutes.

    There's Renard's original introduction in Bilbao of course, and a discussion between Bond and Elektra as they drive through the oil fields in a jeep. Various snippets here and there, like an extension to Bond's scene with Dr. Warmflash and Bond and M heading into the command center before the pipeline scene.

    The biggest chunk missing, though, is from the MI6 HQ attack and Thames chase. Bond's conversation with M was longer, as was his running through MI6 after King and the river chase itself. When the decision was made to move this sequence to the PTS (a very wise decision IMO), they had to edit for length so the titles wouldn't appear 25 minutes in.

    Apted talks about the decision on the DVD/Blu-Ray: "I had to do some very, very tough cutting in that area so I could get a sequence that lasted probably no more than 15 or 16 minutes, which is still pretty long by Bond convention for a pre-title sequence. But nonetheless, a lot of stuff had to go out of that opening. There was nothing wrong, I didn't think, with the sequence with King and Bond chasing him—it was kind of exciting and all that—but it simply made that opening much, much more protracted than it needed to be. And I'm pretty pleased in fact that I made that decision. The film has a really strong start by putting the Bilbao and the Thames sequences together, and also there's a kind of crispness in the filmmaking, a sort of energy in it, which I liked."
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,914
    A long pre-title sequence that works very well. I recall sitting in the theater half-wondering if the projectionist forgot the titles sequence, when all hell broke loose from M's office of all places.

    Really love that, great sound and vision as well.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    Posts: 538
    TWINE's issue was focus - not length.

    It arguably had enough ideas to be longer movie. But it needed to decide whether it wanted to a comedy or a gritty action film.
  • Posts: 12,506
    I would hope for a 2 hour minimum run time to be honest.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 2017 Posts: 7,966
    Robertson wrote: »
    "Yes" is the only reasonable answer.

    Indeed.
  • edited June 2017 Posts: 170
    delete
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    CR is a breeze, while conversely QoS can be a slog. Arbritary time limits do nothing to increase the quality of a film. That's a fact.
  • edited June 2017 Posts: 170
    delete
  • RC7RC7
    edited May 2017 Posts: 10,512
    Robertson wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    CR is a breeze, while conversely QoS can be a slog. Arbritary time limits do nothing to increase the quality of a film. That's a fact.

    AVTAK is the only film over 120 minutes I can sit through. They need to cease making long films in general.

    Time Limit is not an indication of quality. This is just your personal opinion. By and large if the audience are invested in a film it's length is completely irrelevant. See QoS box office performance versus SF. Multiple repeat viewings meant SF had 'legs' and its run time was irrelevant. This isn't to say you can't deliver an equally successful film that is sub-120, but the aim is to deliver a well paced edit, not trim it to some arbitrary guidelines.
  • edited June 2017 Posts: 170
    delete
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,966
    Using boxoffice figures as proof of quality, lol.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,914
    At least 120 minutes is a good idea.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Using boxoffice figures as proof of quality, lol.

    Proof that millions of people were happy to sit through 140 mins and then do it all again. Proof that an arbitrary time limit is a non-starter.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,966
    RC7 wrote: »
    Using boxoffice figures as proof of quality, lol.

    Proof that millions of people were happy to sit through 140 mins and then do it all again. Proof that an arbitrary time limit is a non-starter.

    You might as well say acting is irrelevant because Fast and Furious makes a billion plus.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    Using boxoffice figures as proof of quality, lol.

    Proof that millions of people were happy to sit through 140 mins and then do it all again. Proof that an arbitrary time limit is a non-starter.

    You might as well say acting is irrelevant because Fast and Furious makes a billion plus.

    Different demographics. Bond films don't make a billion without doing something special. In SF case it resonated with the audience and critics. The 223 min run time had no impact.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,966
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Using boxoffice figures as proof of quality, lol.

    Proof that millions of people were happy to sit through 140 mins and then do it all again. Proof that an arbitrary time limit is a non-starter.

    You might as well say acting is irrelevant because Fast and Furious makes a billion plus.

    Different demographics. Bond films don't make a billion without doing something special. In SF case it resonated with the audience and critics. The 223 min run time had no impact.

    Of course it had an impact. They could fit more screenings in a day if the film was 20 minutes shorter, that's empirical.

    But the point is "people don't mind films being longer than they need to be, so there's no point in making them shorter" just doesn't work as an argument. It's also shortsighted.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Using boxoffice figures as proof of quality, lol.

    Proof that millions of people were happy to sit through 140 mins and then do it all again. Proof that an arbitrary time limit is a non-starter.

    You might as well say acting is irrelevant because Fast and Furious makes a billion plus.

    Different demographics. Bond films don't make a billion without doing something special. In SF case it resonated with the audience and critics. The 223 min run time had no impact.

    Of course it had an impact. They could fit more screenings in a day if the film was 20 minutes shorter, that's empirical.

    But the point is "people don't mind films being longer than they need to be, so there's no point in making them shorter" just doesn't work as an argument. It's also shortsighted.

    It had no impact on viewer appreciation. Plus, that isn't my argument. My argument is that there is no correlation between run time and quality of product. Make it as short or as long as you like. It's about storytelling. You pace it as you see fit and if the audience come along for the ride you've succeeded.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,966
    Nonsense.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Nonsense.

    Explain.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,966
    RC7 wrote: »
    Nonsense.

    Explain.

    Good pacing is a skill, just like any other aspect of cinema. The fact that Skyfall resonated in spite of its bad pacing says nothing of its importance. GoldenEye resonated in spite of it's poor (some say) score, but does that mean that a films score is irrelevant to the quality of the overall product? No.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    Nonsense.

    Explain.

    Good pacing is a skill, just like any other aspect of cinema. The fact that Skyfall resonated in spite of its bad pacing says nothing of its importance. GoldenEye resonated in spite of it's poor (some say) score, but does that mean that a films score is irrelevant to the quality of the overall product? No.

    I'm still waiting for the correlation between run time and quality/success.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 2017 Posts: 7,966
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Nonsense.

    Explain.

    Good pacing is a skill, just like any other aspect of cinema. The fact that Skyfall resonated in spite of its bad pacing says nothing of its importance. GoldenEye resonated in spite of it's poor (some say) score, but does that mean that a films score is irrelevant to the quality of the overall product? No.

    I'm still waiting for the correlation between run time and quality/success.

    You're making the assertion, not me. I'm still waiting for the proof that pacing is meaningless.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,368
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Using boxoffice figures as proof of quality, lol.

    Proof that millions of people were happy to sit through 140 mins and then do it all again. Proof that an arbitrary time limit is a non-starter.

    You might as well say acting is irrelevant because Fast and Furious makes a billion plus.

    Different demographics. Bond films don't make a billion without doing something special. In SF case it resonated with the audience and critics. The 223 min run time had no impact.

    No wonder I wasn't crazy about it, I missed the near-four hour cut of the film!
Sign In or Register to comment.