›

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

1…5791011

Comments

  • marcmarc Universal Exports
    Posts: 2,609
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    it found that, while the film took liberties with the time-frame of the house's collapse and sinking into the canal, it got it reasonably right.
    That may be true in its own right, but now I wonder about the canal depth. I've read that the average water depth in Venice is about 1.5 - 2 meters; max. 5m for the Grand Canal; only around Venice they can have 10m or more.
    But of course, it's James Bond, so they don't need to dot all the i's; I'm fine with that.

    The Miami Airport scene is good, but it could have been significantly better by being less frantic, IMO.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,996
    To rationalize the building, there is vertical drop and there is outright collapse of a structure. A collapse can leave it as flat as a pancake.

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,028
    Here's the video, for anyone interested:

  • AstonLotusAstonLotus
    Posts: 1,394
    The Miami airport scene is where i first realised that Daniel Craigs Bond runs like C-3p0.
  • marcmarc Universal Exports
    Posts: 2,609
    Thanks for the interesting video! But the way the sinking of the palazzo looks like in CR I still can't understand how it could be having a pancake collapse there. The video also says the balloons should have been much bigger.

    Craig was programmed by MI6; didn't know the 'C' in C-3p0 was for 'Craig'.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,028
    marc wrote: »
    Thanks for the interesting video! But the way the sinking of the palazzo looks like in CR I still can't understand how it could be having a pancake collapse there. The video also says the balloons should have been much bigger.

    Thin walls in a heavy building tend to not go well together. :P
  • petergreenhill5petergreenhill5
    Posts: 824
    From Russia With Love at 110 minutes is too long?? I disagree and love the girl fight scene.
  • bigladiesmanbigladiesman
    edited July 2020 Posts: 1,009
    As long as the movie is good, it can run until Sean grows a mane.

    I've watched 3 hour movies that can be seen like a breeze and 60 minute movies that are a real human endurance challange.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    bigladiesman wrote: »
    As long as the movie is good, it can run until Sean grows a mane.

    I've are 3 hour movies that can be seen like a breeze and 60 minute movies that are a real human endurance challange.

    +1
  • marcmarc Universal Exports
    Posts: 2,609
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    Thin walls in a heavy building tend to not go well together. :P
    Yes :--) but if there is a supposed pancake collapse going on in the 2-5 metres below the waterline, something of that must be visible just above the waterline IMO, but I don't see anything. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse I don't see how this could be going on in CR.

    While I like the basic 60s Connery espionage setting and the SPECTRE scheme sounds very interesting, FRWL still feels rather boring to me at times since I don't find the plot very entertaining, the location/atmosphere doesn't make up for that, and an impressive showdown with a big villain is missing; just an impressive henchman there.
  • AstonLotusAstonLotus
    Posts: 1,394
    The film should be as long or as short as the story demands.QOS having a short running time didnt prevent it from being one of the worst Bond films.
  • marcmarc Universal Exports
    Posts: 2,609
    Agreed. I wouldn't mind Bond films lasting for 5 or 10 hours, at least those from DN till TLD. But I'd probably appreciate if some 'boring' sequences were cut out (or replaced by better ones).
    While I also can see good reasons for filmmakers to try and cling to a certain time limit (with liberties), of course.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,022
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    The Miami airport scene is where i first realised that Daniel Craigs Bond runs like C-3p0.

    No Bond after Lazenby seemed to fair well with the running act:

    http://youonlyblogtwice.blogspot.com/2007/02/007-most-unintentionally-funny-bond.html
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,534
    I thought about this thread when I saw this:


    (some mild swearing)

    Makes me smile every time. :D
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited December 2020 Posts: 7,526
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I thought about this thread when I saw this:


    (some mild swearing)

    Makes me smile every time. :D

    Hah, that's great.

    Limiting a film's runtime is absurd. If you think Bond films are too long, that's because to you they *feel* too long, and arbitrarily capping the run time is *not* going to solve that problem.

    Octopussy makes me fall asleep (sorry), but Dances with Wolves and Lawrence of Arabia keep me captivated the entire time.

    So I guess I agree with the guy in the video.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,534
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    the guy in the video.

    David Lynch. ;-)
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    the guy in the video.

    David Lynch. ;-)

    Hah, apparently I know him by name only.
  • hegottheboot_hegottheboot_ USA
    Posts: 113
    With Bond the magic number is right at around 2 hours. Just under or over is where you need to aim combined with a proper editing and story rhythm to get you there.

    This hasn't happened in years. TND is so well edited as a tight 1hr 57m runtime that it plays all the better for it and the scripting troubles aren't as obvious. On the flipside GE was edited by Terry Rawlings and has his wonderful maze like way of editing. It moves more slowly but with an internal sort of rhythm that has a hypnotic quality. I think these were the last films in the series to have good editing.

    The Peter Hunt playbook needs to be nailed to the wall in the editing room. Bond has to move like no other film and EON simply doesn't do this anymore.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,969
    Yes, but TND is reheated Bond leftovers. Easily digestible but doesn't taste all that great.

    The runtime is dependent on the story. OHMSS and CR justified their longer runs, both epic and personal--for Bond. SP definitely not. SF is arguable--while epic, it's about M more than Bond, and at times it turns Bond into a strangely reflective person. It could have been trimmed by at least 15 minutes in the London section and at Skyfall.
  • BT3366BT3366
    edited January 2021 Posts: 1,882
    hegottheboot_ wrote: »
    With Bond the magic number is right at around 2 hours. Just under or over is where you need to aim combined with a proper editing and story rhythm to get you there.

    This hasn't happened in years. TND is so well edited as a tight 1hr 57m runtime that it plays all the better for it and the scripting troubles aren't as obvious. On the flipside GE was edited by Terry Rawlings and has his wonderful maze like way of editing. It moves more slowly but with an internal sort of rhythm that has a hypnotic quality. I think these were the last films in the series to have good editing.

    The Peter Hunt playbook needs to be nailed to the wall in the editing room. Bond has to move like no other film and EON simply doesn't do this anymore.

    Why did you skip over QoS, which is probably the shortest film in the series and one of the most divisive? Where do you stand on that film?
  • SomethingThatAteHimSomethingThatAteHim
    Posts: 532
    I cherish those superfluous 20 or so minutes that get sandwiched in the middle of most of these films where I get all sleepy. Helps keep each viewing fresh!
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    Posts: 538
    No Time to Die was 2h43m long but it goes by fast.

    I'll take back what I said. A long film can be justified if there's enough content, no filler and good directing.
  • BenjaminBenjamin usa
    Posts: 59
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    No Time to Die was 2h43m long but it goes by fast.

    I'll take back what I said. A long film can be justified if there's enough content, no filler and good directing.

    Well said.
  • mepal1mepal1
    Posts: 1,098
    Going into the film, i was expecting that due to the length of the film, it could be an uncomfortable sitting experience..........but no after a short while i really got into the film, and time whizzed by. No discomfort whatsoever. Mind you most UK cinemas nowadays in general have pretty good seats.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    Benjamin wrote: »
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    No Time to Die was 2h43m long but it goes by fast.

    I'll take back what I said. A long film can be justified if there's enough content, no filler and good directing.

    Well said.

    absolutely spot on!!!! =D>
  • sworddevil1sworddevil1 USA
    Posts: 526
    I will say this: NTTD was wayyyy toooo long. And the same for SP. I don’t believe in a time limit, but at the same time, a movie should not drag or become bloated. Tell the best story you can, in the shortest length that you can. SP was brutal. At least one half an hour should have been cut.
  • sworddevil1sworddevil1 USA
    Posts: 526
    Milovy wrote: »
    JamesBondKenya 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.
    Couldn’t disagree more about Casino. Those are quintessential scenes that allow the story to breathe and become the masterpiece it is. Sounds like you don’t like the film (which many say is the best Bond ever).
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited November 2021 Posts: 2,925
    Yes, exactly - these moments 'allow the story to breathe'. For CR, I'd've liked a longer montage of Bond and Vesper at Lake Como and 'floating around the world' - I really wanted the unused scene where they're on the yacht and Bond picks up Vesper and throws her into the sea, then dives in after her. Big disappointment when that wasn't among the special edition deleted scenes. For QOS, I'd've liked more of Bond and Mathis on the plane. Is it true that they originally planned to use that scene to have Mathis tell Bond the story of Masters and Rhoda, like the Governor did in the short story? For SF, I'd've liked a bit more of Bond and M, when they got out of the car in Glencoe. These wouldn't've been much more than beats, but they would've 'helped the story to breathe', I think.
  • cooperman2cooperman2 Uk
    Posts: 372
    I always remember a quote from Steven Spielberg, he said if a movie is over two hours long there better be a damn good reason why. Of course he himself has broken that rule now but all three original Indy films are under two hours. And Jurassic Park is only 2hrs 7 mins.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    I think NTTD proves that if the script and action is sound? Film length should not matter.
Sign In or Register to comment.