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

1235711

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,969
    Mine is lower, around 115 - 125. I like the movie that have a brisk pace, and feel succinct and snappy.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Mine is lower, around 115 - 125. I like the movie that have a brisk pace, and feel succinct and snappy.

    If Turner was Bond you wouldn't care what length it is.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Mine is lower, around 115 - 125. I like the movie that have a brisk pace, and feel succinct and snappy.

    If Turner was Bond you wouldn't care what length it is.

    Length might mean everything ;)
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    If it's well paced, you won't feel it's too long. I personally don't mind a Bond film running a little more than 2 hours.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,382
    I'm fine with 2 hours 10 minutes
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    I would love to see an epic 3 hour introspective character piece bond film that ponders, is slow, but truly analyzes Fleming’s character.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited July 2019 Posts: 7,969
    Does anyone else get the feeling that Bond 25 could be the longest Bond film ever? It seems like there is a lot of story to get through, many threads including how to end the series. I just wonder if they will have enough time for everything?

    I could see a 2 hour 40 minute movie, similar to Once upon A Time in Hollywood.
  • Posts: 17,241
    Does anyone else get the feeling that Bond 25 could be the longest Bond film ever? It seems like there is a lot of story to get through, many threads including how to end the series. I just wonder if they will have enough time for everything?

    I could see a 2 hour 40 minute movie, similar to Once upon A Time in Hollywood.

    Yes, and that worries me a bit.

    I've written about this in other threads, but I prefer the Bond films to be about two hours – give or take ten minutes. I like it when the films manages to be somewhat efficient; the longer films usually have sequences that feels too long, or that could have been dropped to give a better viewing experience. To bring in a comparison, I prefer the Bond films to be like three-minute pop songs you listen to again again, rather than the epic concept album songs that you only listen to now and then.

    You mention Tarantino, and I don't mind his films to be a bit longer because he's much better at creating tension with lengthy sequences; the dialogue in his films for example, are usually waaay above what we get with Bond these days.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    Yesterday, I watched a 4 hours 12 minutes cut of Once Upon A Time In America. It's not a fast film full of action, and yet I was hardly ever bored, if at all.

    The day before, I had been forced to sit through Brother Bear, which is only 85 minutes long but bored the hell out of me.

    I can safely say that Once Upon A Time In America, though three times longer, still felt like the shorter film.

    In the end, running length matters little; the density of quality, however, does. Ergo, CR, while a rather long Bond film, doesn't feel like one. TND, which I like but has a few dull spots, in my opinion, is 25 minutes shorter and yet feels a bit longer. Both films offer a lot of good stuff, but CR has a higher quality/min ratio than TND (again, in my opinion) and that's what I feel; the actual running length, not so much.

    So if Bond 25 blows me away with a strong narrative, great acting, marvellous visuals, exciting action scenes and a memorable score, I wouldn't mind a 150-minute film (though anything much longer than that would be so unprecedented in the series, it'd almost feel out of place for a Bond film). If, however, they syphon things down to another QOS, to barely 100 minutes, and if there's a good reason for that, I'm not sure I would mind either. SP, for example, is a film I really like--I'm one of those few notorious SP fans here--yet even I wouldn't be opposed to a cut with ten minutes or so trimmed off here and there.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,969
    Does anyone else get the feeling that Bond 25 could be the longest Bond film ever? It seems like there is a lot of story to get through, many threads including how to end the series. I just wonder if they will have enough time for everything?

    I could see a 2 hour 40 minute movie, similar to Once upon A Time in Hollywood.

    Yes, and that worries me a bit.

    I've written about this in other threads, but I prefer the Bond films to be about two hours – give or take ten minutes. I like it when the films manages to be somewhat efficient; the longer films usually have sequences that feels too long, or that could have been dropped to give a better viewing experience. To bring in a comparison, I prefer the Bond films to be like three-minute pop songs you listen to again again, rather than the epic concept album songs that you only listen to now and then.

    You mention Tarantino, and I don't mind his films to be a bit longer because he's much better at creating tension with lengthy sequences; the dialogue in his films for example, are usually waaay above what we get with Bond these days.

    Yes, I agree. SF and SP are a little difficult to rewatch because they are long and slow. Whereas I can put on LALD or Goldfinger anytime and just enjoy the romping adventure.

    But Bond 25 on paper seems very exposition heavy, without knowing how things will play out. There's a lot of characters, a lot of dynamics that need to be fleshed out in the film. Either they areskipping through stuff very quickly or the movie will be another lengthy 2 and a half hour affair.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    135-140 mins including credits is usually the sweet spot for me. Not too long but plenty of bang for your buck.

    Of course, there are some films that are gloriously long but never feel it, and films that are wonderfully short and play well because of their efficiency.

    But while that aforementioned 135-140 minute runtime is my preferred sweet spot, there is no right or wrong runtime. I rarely take issues with a film due to its length.
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 17,241
    Does anyone else get the feeling that Bond 25 could be the longest Bond film ever? It seems like there is a lot of story to get through, many threads including how to end the series. I just wonder if they will have enough time for everything?

    I could see a 2 hour 40 minute movie, similar to Once upon A Time in Hollywood.

    Yes, and that worries me a bit.

    I've written about this in other threads, but I prefer the Bond films to be about two hours – give or take ten minutes. I like it when the films manages to be somewhat efficient; the longer films usually have sequences that feels too long, or that could have been dropped to give a better viewing experience. To bring in a comparison, I prefer the Bond films to be like three-minute pop songs you listen to again again, rather than the epic concept album songs that you only listen to now and then.

    You mention Tarantino, and I don't mind his films to be a bit longer because he's much better at creating tension with lengthy sequences; the dialogue in his films for example, are usually waaay above what we get with Bond these days.

    Yes, I agree. SF and SP are a little difficult to rewatch because they are long and slow. Whereas I can put on LALD or Goldfinger anytime and just enjoy the romping adventure.

    But Bond 25 on paper seems very exposition heavy, without knowing how things will play out. There's a lot of characters, a lot of dynamics that need to be fleshed out in the film. Either they areskipping through stuff very quickly or the movie will be another lengthy 2 and a half hour affair.

    It's sure a puzzle to figure out how they are going to provide enough time for the characters, unless it's yet another lengthy adventure. We know very little though; some characters might have far less screen time than we are lead to believe or are guessing at this point.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 13,879
    Give me a 3 hour Bond film - the more Bond the better. I don't even care about pacing. Just...more Bond!
  • Posts: 299
    QBranch wrote: »
    Give me a 3 hour Bond film - the more Bond the better. I don't even care about pacing. Just...more Bond!

    Yes! (But only when story is good)
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    QBranch wrote: »
    Give me a 3 hour Bond film - the more Bond the better. I don't even care about pacing. Just...more Bond!

    +1
  • Posts: 12,506
    If the film grips you as with any other film? The length of the film will not matter. Personally I am hoping for at least 2Hrs 30Mins for the end of the DC era?
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 4,904
    I don't believe in hard run times for movies. Shoot as long a movie as you like. I only ask that your scenes advance the story, that you tell a coherent story and that you have a thrilling conclusion.

    I really enjoy the deleted scene features on some DVD's and BluRay's. For it shows you that the filmmakers made a right decision to edit out said scene. On the Bond side of things I know that AVTAK and TLD both show some deleted scenes. In both cases Glen or his editor made the right decision to leave it on the cutting room floor.

    TB had a great deal of unused footage but it would appear in those days when you cut the scene you destroyed the negative.

    In wrapping up, I hope Bond 25 has a satisfying conclusion to Daniel's run of being Bond.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    QBranch wrote: »
    Give me a 3 hour Bond film - the more Bond the better. I don't even care about pacing. Just...more Bond!

    +1

    +2
  • BondStuBondStu Moonraker 6
    Posts: 373
    Yeah. Must admit I prefer a two hour run time on any film really. That's what stopped me seeing the new Quentin Tarantino film at the flicks. Just gonna wait for that one to pop on Netflix or Now TV.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    BondStu wrote: »
    Yeah. Must admit I prefer a two hour run time on any film really. That's what stopped me seeing the new Quentin Tarantino film at the flicks. Just gonna wait for that one to pop on Netflix or Now TV.

    Every film is different because every story is different. You can't tell Once Upon a Time in America in 2 hours.

    Regarding the question of the topic, my answer is: are u kidding? :D
  • BondStuBondStu Moonraker 6
    Posts: 373
    @matt_u - I'm just old mate! I hate it when a film drags past two hours and I'm sitting there desperate for a piss! :))
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Oh, come on... :D
  • BondStuBondStu Moonraker 6
    Posts: 373
    matt_u wrote: »
    Oh, come on... :D

    It's true!
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    edited September 2019 Posts: 1,165
    Fun fact: If the final runtime of NTTD comes out to 2 hours. 40 minutes, which doesn't seem entirely unlikely, Craig will actually match Connery in terms of film time screen despite having one less movie.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    As others have echoed and I'm sure I've mentioned before, pacing is everything. I've seen three and a half hour films that flew by and 90-100 minute films that never seemed to end. I wouldn't mind a three hour Bond film, provided the pacing was on point and the acts were all tweaked excitedly enough in their own way to the point that the film never felt stale or overstayed its welcome.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    As others have echoed and I'm sure I've mentioned before, pacing is everything. I've seen three and a half hour films that flew by and 90-100 minute films that never seemed to end.

    You and me both.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,969
    I'm calling it now - Bond 25 will be the first Bond film to break the 2 and a half hour mark! It will be the longest of all the Bond movies to date. Theres so many characters and stories going on in one film for it to all get wrapped up before then. It really seems like one of the heftiest Bond films, and I wo der if there is any way they can pull it off, that will keep the majority of fans and audience happy. I think theres a good chances the film will remain devisive long after it is released.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    I'd like a three-hour Bond film about a business meeting. Call it IntroSpectre.
  • I agree with the comments on story and pacing being more important. That said, I find myself preferring the shorter films. I mean, there's nearly a 45 minute difference between QOS and SP and it really shows.

    The 3 hours some have mentioned is too much. I don't care what anyone says, once you get that long you can feel it no matter how good it is. LOTR is a perfect example. Highly liked, but damn, they are exhausting after watching one.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    JamesStock wrote: »
    I agree with the comments on story and pacing being more important. That said, I find myself preferring the shorter films. I mean, there's nearly a 45 minute difference between QOS and SP and it really shows.

    The 3 hours some have mentioned is too much. I don't care what anyone says, once you get that long you can feel it no matter how good it is. LOTR is a perfect example. Highly liked, but damn, they are exhausting after watching one.

    I find Fellowship an exhilarating watch, meanwhile QoS is a slog. You seem to be conflating pacing with running time. Pacing is concerned with story development, hence the length is relevant, which is why long form drama has exploded since the dawn of the SVODs.

    Nobody knows the story of NTTD so to make assumptions about it is naive. Let’s wait to see the film before we start critiquing how they balance the various threads - the threads that most have, thus far, invented in their own minds.
Sign In or Register to comment.