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
If Turner was Bond you wouldn't care what length it is.
Length might mean 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes! (But only when story is good)
+1
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.
+2
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
It's true!
You and me both.
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.