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

15681011

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited November 2021 Posts: 8,429
    B25 had a 'sound script'?

    News to me. 8-X
  • Posts: 1,394
    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.

    Yep.Definitely a lack of filmmaking efficiency in those films.CR earned its extra runtime.On the other hand,QOS could definitely have used an extra 20 mins or so to flesh out its storyline properly and not appear so rushed.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,232
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    I think NTTD proves that if the script and action is sound? Film length should not matter.

    Indeed. It doesn't matter. A film deserves the canvas it needs to get its story told.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,199
    I think fans put too much emphasis on "rules" and "traditions".

    I mean, a strict two hour limit?

    You people deserve to get angry every time they have the gun barrel change film to film.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,232
    I think fans put too much emphasis on "rules" and "traditions".

    I mean, a strict two hour limit?

    You people deserve to get angry every time they have the gun barrel change film to film.

    "Fire Barbara Broccoli", for short. ;-)
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,429
    The next Bond film should stick to a solid 2hrs run time, or 2hrs 15 at the absolute most.

    The movies drift along far too slowly nowadays, with plenty of unnecessary time spent establishing new scenery. The first 4 connery films are brillaintly paced, and they all fit snuggly around 2 hrs. A Bond film should have you glued to the screen from start to finish, not itching for a pee break.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited February 2023 Posts: 24,232
    The next Bond film should stick to a solid 2hrs run time, or 2hrs 15 at the absolute most.

    The movies drift along far too slowly nowadays, with plenty of unnecessary time spent establishing new scenery. The first 4 connery films are brillaintly paced, and they all fit snuggly around 2 hrs. A Bond film should have you glued to the screen from start to finish, not itching for a pee break.

    Why "should" the next Bond film be this or that? Where's the rulebook that says so? OHMSS, with its 142-minute running time, never feels too long to me. CR, at 144 minutes, doesn't feel too long either. An 85-minute Bond, meanwhile, can feel too long if it has nothing to offer.

    I have seen three-hour films that move like a speeding bullet, and 90-minute films that bore me to death. If they have a good script, let them select the canvas they need, whether it is 110 minutes or 170 minutes.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,429
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The next Bond film should stick to a solid 2hrs run time, or 2hrs 15 at the absolute most.

    The movies drift along far too slowly nowadays, with plenty of unnecessary time spent establishing new scenery. The first 4 connery films are brillaintly paced, and they all fit snuggly around 2 hrs. A Bond film should have you glued to the screen from start to finish, not itching for a pee break.

    Why "should" the next Bond film be this or that? Where's the rulebook that says so? OHMSS, with its 142-minute running time, never feels too long to me. CR, at 144 minutes, doesn't feel too long either. An 85-minute Bond, meanwhile, can feel too long if it has nothing to offer.

    I have seen three-hour films that move like a speeding bullet, and 90-minute films that bore me to death. If they have a good script, let them select the canvas they need, whether it is 110 minutes or 170 minutes.

    Yeah, but I'm talking specifically about the film to meet the moment in 2025. Four out of the past five bond films are over 2hrs 20 minutes, and most can be cut down significantly and they'd be better for it. If they want to freshen things up for the next outing one of the most obvious ways of doing that is scaling back and telling a smaller, more concise story, focusing on setting the tone just right for the next era of stories you want to tell. There's no sense in start off the era with an epic as it leaves them nowhere to "go" after that.
  • B26 should be a three hour epic
  • The trend for blockbuster movies is to be on the longer side. It's only animated/Disney films and the occasional MCU that are under 120 minutes.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,355
    The trend for blockbuster movies is to be on the longer side. It's only animated/Disney films and the occasional MCU that are under 120 minutes.

    +1. That's the era we are in.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited February 2023 Posts: 24,232
    It is a return to the old days, when films like Gone With The Wind, Ben-Hur and Cleopatra all ran for hours. I rather like an occasional "long movie". It is an experience, rather than some quick in-and-out. But long feature lengths can only be justified if the material is there.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,065
    Getting back to the thread title, no, there is absolutely no need to set any time limit for a Bond movie. Let it last as long for at it makes sense.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,232
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    Getting back to the thread title, no, there is absolutely no need to set any time limit for a Bond movie. Let it last as long for at it makes sense.

    Voila. This.

    Say you have just written the best Bond script in ages. It all congeals, fits, and works. But you end up with a 145-minute cut. No, some people say, cut 25 minutes out! That doesn't make any sense. All too often have studios destroyed perfectly good films because they wanted shorter cuts and pushed scenes out. For the life of me, I can't imagine losing 20+ minutes of OHMSS or CR, so I'm glad they went well over two hours. And as stated before, they have never felt like "looooong" films to me. TWINE, by contrast, does strain my patience at times, though it's 15 minutes shorter than the other two.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2023 Posts: 5,970
    Go for the runtime that most benefits the story trying to be told. Don't force it one way or the other.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,154
    Yes, exactly - no set time, each film should be as long as it needs to be to tell the story properly. I'd've loved another 30 minutes of QOS, but that's just because it's so great that when I watch it I don't want it to end! ;) QOS doesn't actually need another 30 minutes, it's perfectly realised as it is - it tells its story in under two hours like 'a bullet from a gun', as Forster said. That's what QOS needed. Other films should get the running time they need too.
  • Posts: 4,266
    A part of me likes the idea that a Bond film can be epic in terms of story, scope and even length. I think we’ll see Bond films continue to be around 2.5 hours.

    That said I think it really depends on the story.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,886
    th?id=OIP.AyOG-mqKgYuC5sGEhY2BWQHaFw&pid=15.1
  • I think the longer the movie can be the better decision if the writers are skilled enough if not it will just drag on. Movies shouldn't have an limit on how long they are.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited March 2023 Posts: 8,429
    It's getting out of hand these days, John Wick 4, Dune 2, Oppenhiemer all close to 3 hours long. It seems like the 2hr action film is a dying format which is kinda sad considering so many of the best popcorn films of all time are only 2 hrs or less.
  • John Wick 4, Dune and Oppenheimer are epics not a short action flick their ment to tell a longer story and development characters and a world more than just a simple storyline and a lot of fights.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited March 2023 Posts: 8,429
    John Wick 4, Dune and Oppenheimer are epics not a short action flick their ment to tell a longer story and development characters and a world more than just a simple storyline and a lot of fights.

    I mean, maybe Dune but Oppenhiemer is literally about one person, who is mostly known for being tied to one important event in history. I'm sure 20 years ago they could have found a way to tell his story in 2hrs without much difficulty.
  • John Wick 4, Dune and Oppenheimer are epics not a short action flick their ment to tell a longer story and development characters and a world more than just a simple storyline and a lot of fights.

    I mean, maybe Dune but Oppenhiemer is literally about one person, who is mostly known for being tied to one important event in history. I'm sure 20 years ago they could have found a way to tell his story in 2hrs without much difficulty.

    Though movies which are super long and about one person can be boring af.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    Though movies which are super long and about one person can be boring af.

    Yah, Nolan’s specialty!
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,065
    peter wrote: »
    Though movies which are super long and about one person can be boring af.

    Yah, Nolan’s specialty!
    @peter, I have a feeling we think alike most of the time.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    Lol @j_w_pepper ... I always appreciate the company!!
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,429
    It's seems like every big movie now is 2hrs 20 plus. Even the new Indiana jones, which has always been around the 2 hr mark.

    Dune, Oppenhiemer, John Wick, Mission Impossible, Bond 25...

    It feels like the conventions of pacing and cinema have been forgotten, and movies are becoming like an abbreviated season of TV.

    Films like From Russia With Love and Goldfinger are nice tight packages, what would adding in another hour of content really add? It would only detract from the pacing, the flow and the moments wouldn't hit as hard.

    We'll never know how much better SP could have been with 20 minutes of bloat chopped and a more climatic finale.
  • edited April 2023 Posts: 17,804
    More often than not, I look at the runtime of films these days before deciding if I want to watch them. There are a lot of films I've yet to see which I would like to watch, but the runtime of these productions keeps me from doing so. I'd love to watch The Irishman for example, but where the hell am I going to find an evening with 209 minutes to spare, and the motivation to sit in front of my screen for 3 hours plus? It's just not going to happen.

    My next film evening is likely to be spent watching Confess, Fletch. I was pleasantly surprised to see that it's only 98 minutes long.
  • mattjoesmattjoes THE MOONRAKER TAPES ARE LOST THE MOONRAKER TAPES ARE LOST
    Posts: 7,050
    More often than not, I look at the runtime of films these days before deciding if I want to watch them. There are a lot of films I've yet to see which I would like to watch, but the runtime of these productions keeps me from doing so. I'd love to watch The Irishman for example, but where the hell am I going to find an evening with 209 minutes to spare, and the motivation to sit in front of my screen for 3 hours plus? It's just not going to happen.
    I watched The Irishman in four parts.

    My next film evening is likely to be spent watching Confess, Fletch. I was pleasantly surprised to see that it's only 98 minutes long.
    That's a good movie.
  • Posts: 17,804
    mattjoes wrote: »
    More often than not, I look at the runtime of films these days before deciding if I want to watch them. There are a lot of films I've yet to see which I would like to watch, but the runtime of these productions keeps me from doing so. I'd love to watch The Irishman for example, but where the hell am I going to find an evening with 209 minutes to spare, and the motivation to sit in front of my screen for 3 hours plus? It's just not going to happen.
    I watched The Irishman in four parts.

    My next film evening is likely to be spent watching Confess, Fletch. I was pleasantly surprised to see that it's only 98 minutes long.
    That's a good movie.

    I often end up watching movies in two or three parts, depending on the length. I do feel it's not at all an ideal way of watching them though, as the "viewing experience" gets disrupted – and maybe I forget a few minor details before picking up the film again (usually the following day).

    I really hope I will like Confess, Fletch. I've always enjoyed the two Chevy Chase films, and I've read a few of the novels – Confess, Fletch included.
Sign In or Register to comment.