It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I'd like to know where...
Films like the dark knight or avengers are longer because they have more going on, and a lot more characters to flesh out, but I think all Bond fans are agreed that bond films at most should stick to 3 to 4 major characters per film (including bond and the villain), and the story should track bonds movements as directly as possible. No one likes the scooby gang playing too big a role to where they become equals with bond, its unnecessary.
I don't like to pin such things down and be completely strict about them. Let the filmmakers deliver their product: I will see whether I like it or not, even if it is three hours long.
Exactly. CR and OHMSS work well as long films. They have the material for it. TWINE is shorter than both, yet feels much longer. There's some tedium to work through in the middle.
In every scene. They are too long.
Very nuanced answer, as usual.
"Every scene." That includes everything with Paloma, which seems to have most fans screaming for more? That includes the car chase in the PTS? Was Bond taking too much time saying goodbye to Felix too?
Like @echo, I too would want to know where it is exactly that you would cut 20 minutes out of the film, @DEKE_RIVERS. (Try a few more sentences than usual, please. Thank you.)
I'm not going to disagree about the submarine ending at all. That climax never clicked with me. I'm not feeling any tension, and the set feels far too small to fit all the players (which is the nature of a sub, I guess.) Meanwhile, Christmas keeps shouting technical exposition at Bond who -- JAMES!!!!! I mean, no, not my favourite finale at all. ;-)
So, yes, you can cut everything.
Except that it is a PTS as it takes place before the title sequence.
Go on, have another go.
Anyway It's too long. Every single scene is too long. you name it. This movie is bloated as hell.
Kill your darlings!
If you don't like the actor playing James Bond, or the film's direction, an 85 minute 007 adventure would be too long; if you love the actor and the film's a 2hr 45 minute run time, it would be perfect.
Of course there shouldn't be a two hour limit. Tell the story you need and want to tell, and try and hit it out of the ballpark...
I'd prefer a two-hour Bond film, and I definitely preferred it when OHMSS was the only long Bond film, because it earned its length. But the industry trend seems to be longer.
When I was growing up, 3-hour films were rare. Now they're commonplace.
The benefit of a 3-hour movie is that it can be an immersive experience. Spending so much time with a story means that you can completely lose yourself in it. At the end of the ride, you may need a pause before returning to the real world. That's the ultimate escapist experience for me. Hence why I love good (!) lengthy films. After another viewing of Gone With The Wind, Ben-Hur, Spartacus, Dances With Wolves, Cleopatra, Lawrence Of Arabia, The Godfather or Quo Vadis, I'm feeling exhausted in a good way -- and yes, I selected relatively old films just to prove a point.
Closer to now, there's stuff like The Batman, Batman v Superman (ext. cut), The Justice League (Snyder Cut), The Lord Of The Rings and several other films. They, too, can really make for a great night of home cinema: you start watching after dinner and stop watching right before bedtime. You did more than simply watch a movie; you lived with it for a couple of hours. Again, I love that feeling.
Ergo, a lengthy Bond film, if done well, is something I would embrace.
I've given this some thought, but I'm not sure. CR, for example, is a pretty long Bond film, but that length is used well. We saw various facets of the new Bond at play: we got action, spy work, several casino scenes, romance, and more. If the plan is to introduce a new Bond, I want to get to know the new guy. I want the "full picture" before I return for a second adventure. So if any film in an actor's tenure is longer than 140 minutes, I'd say it should be the first one.
I have no problems with a shorter film, by the way. I'm nowadays glad that a film like QOS exists. Sometimes, a shorter Bond film fits the evening's planning better.
My point has always been that the length doesn't matter, as long as the material fits. 120 minutes can be too long, too short, or just right. At 125 minutes, TMWTGG is a bit too long for what it offers, at least in my opinion. At 130 minutes, TLD feels "just right". At 130 minutes, GE feels a bit short.
So rather than say that anything beyond 140 minutes requires trimming, I'd say: trim scripts that keep going with nothing more to say. If the next Bond film is "just right" at 150 minutes, make it a 150-minute film.
By the way, I'm not necessarily an advocate for long movies. Many films, even some that are shorter than 100 minutes, could benefit from losing a couple of minutes. Again, the material has to match the proper feature length. I occasionally welcome longer movies, yes, but only if they have something to offer. Boredom is a film's ultimate sin. An 85-minute film can be more boring than a 160-minute film, however. A Bond film should neither feel rushed, nor stretched beyond boredom; it should be just right. Quality matters, not the number of minutes.
I sort of see what you're saying, for me once you establish the type of story you're telling and the momentum of it you give the audience a subconscious set of expectations of how long it should take.
Ideally Casino Royale would be 5 minutes - 7 minutes shorter. I think the last action set piece could have been slimmed down considerably. There's never an occasion where I get to Le Chiffres death scene and think, what this needs now is a balls to the wall action finale. For me it's similar to the Connery dodging helicopter scene in FRWL, an unnecessary few minutes which makes an otherwise brilliant film just drag on that bit too long.
Skyfall I think could have 10 minutes cut, but mostly earns it.
SP is the first film which I think you could EASILY chop out 25 minutes, starting with the complete removal of Max Denbigh. People think the underwater scenes make TB slow and dull, wait until anytime we cut away from bond on his mission back to M and Denbigh having a sqaubble about the merits of espionage in the information age. When you think about it, the climax of the movie could have taken place at blofelds base, bond saves the girl, happily ever after, cut to Craig surprising Q with his "one more thing". That would have avoided the whole embarrassingly contrived part where Madeline randomly leaves bond in the street only so she can get captured and need rescuing 10 minutes later. Whatever way you slice it, SP is an absolutely mess of a script and a film, but once EON realised there were problems they should have just gutted everything and shot from the hip like they did with TND. If you took out Denbigh, the Scooby gang, the London Climax, blofeld and bond being related, and cut it down to 2 hrs this would be another TMWTGG or TND "a day in the life of Bond" type adventure and it would be ALOT better for it. In TND Paris' death has been staged to look like bond killed her, but bond kills stampers father figure instead, whereas in SP Bonds confrontation with Madelines own father is played back on the security footage, and bond is the one protecting her - we've come full circle. While the added emotionality and complexity to Skyfall worked in its favour (I'm still not a fan, but I can appreciate what the intent was even if its not my cuppa tea), it completely does the opposite for SP, it contrasts with the more classic, escapist, slightly winking storytelling they are clearly going for.
Bond 25 is a complete mess from start to finish, IMO the worst film in the franchise. I actually posited this in the "simple ranking of Bond films" thread the other day, but I actually believe DAD has more interesting stuff going on than Bond 25, and it overall better. I am going to write about this in detail in the "what Bond 25 should have been" thread when I get the time, but IMO the PTS should have ended with Madelines secret burning up into the air, and dissolving into the titles. Cut out all the vespers grave, phone call with blofeld, "as you're wife requested :D B-) " BS which is just hammy misdirection and plain stupid. That is the logical place to end it, we've seen the first notes of a backstory between Madeline and the villain, we're up to date with madeline and bond starting there life together. If you're going to set things up that Madeline and the Villain have a secret past, that needs to be played like hitchcocks dynamite under the table, or like Bond killing Anna's lover in TSWLM. Having them fall out and break up completely undercuts the tension you just established. What would have worked better, and this is going to sound hypocritical coming from me Mister "stick to formula", but to pull an OHMSS, and have the first act of the film be wildly different than we're used to. Arrive back in London, bond and madeline have bought a new apartment together she has begun decorating, but what about that secret... we discover there is a room left empty and Madeline and bond embrace, cut to a montage (set to "all the time in the world" if you must) of passionate lovemaking, followed by madeline in labour, baby shopping, bond awaking in the middle of the night to baby cries and stepping on a rattle, he's finally settled into a domesticated life. And then he's yanked back out of it when the other shoe finally drops, blofeld tells bond about madeline, and he rushes back home to find Madeline already gone.
I would completely remove the character of Nomi, I don't think they added much of anything, and expand more on Paloma. If you're going to deconstruct the bond girl, Paloma is a way better example and her and bonds dynamic is far more interesting than Nomi, because Paloma is basically the archetypal bond girl - young, capable but adventurous and just naive enough that she'd be exactly the type that bond would bed on a given afternoon, but it just so happens that bond has become used to being "taken" so instead of super smooth and seductive they just come off as awkward. The film doesn't explore this enough, and It's why I think she definitely should have stuck around until the climax instead of nomi. Essentially bond 25 should have been the story of Bond stepping back into the job, and part of him is rearing to go like slipping on a old pair of slippers but by the end he realises he's outgrown being a secret agent, he just wants his family back. I also wouldn't have bond die, but he captured, helpless and then M calls the order and the men in boiler suits come parachuting, scuba motoring in and save the day in a epic battle just like the old days, with a new rendition of the 007 theme. It's been since TLD we got to see one of those two armies facing off, and if there was ever a time to say "f*** it" and go balls to the wall, it would be with the 25th installment, as Craigs last hurrah. That would have had the cinemas bouncing in 2021, and gotten people more emotional and fist pumping than Craig running around on his own capping the occasional grunt.
GE is a good example.
GE doesn't feel short, the movie is long but "the story" is short. It's a "90-100 minutes movie".
Yes, it's easy to say you can lose 20mins, but it isn't as simple as that. I have an extensive background in film editing, and as many members here know, I was one of the assistant editors on LTK. The truth is, chopping deep into a narrative, like NTTD, in post production can actually be very harmful. Yes, scenes do get cut out and/or tightened up, that is very normal and essential part of the editing process, but the trick it Neve to compromise the narrative. I also worked on Superman 4, which really had 30 mins ripped out of the film very late in post production and anyone who has seen the truncated film know the last act make no sense at all, that's what can happen if you just pull screen out. But with NTTD, I do feel the last act which runs a bit too long, but cutting it down without losing narrative logic etc. would have been very hard indeed. In this particular case, the tightening up should have happened at the scriptwriting stage - as many know I am now a screenwriter and director - and it's far better to identity what might need to be more sharply told in the script stage because the writers and filmmakers have complete control at this stage. Easier and cheaper to adjust/re-write ink on paper than have to compromise the narrative once everything has been shot.
It all starts with the script.