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
The World is Not Enough and neither is an hour and 45 minutes.
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.
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.
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.
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
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."
Really love that, great sound and vision as well.
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.
Indeed.
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.
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.
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.
No wonder I wasn't crazy about it, I missed the near-four hour cut of the film!