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
In order to better understand this I think it's a good idea to slow down for a minute and take a look at the films duration as they progress. We start with three slight entries. Dr No, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger all fall under the 2hr mark. It's very difficult to outstay your welcome at this length. Then, the continued success meant they had to get bigger, grander and, yes, longer. Duration is important. Can you imagine Thunderball having the same epic feel if it where 1hr 50 like Dr No? Thunderball and On Her Majesty's secret service both clock it at over 2hrs and 10 minutes, with OHMSS being considerably longer at 2hrs 22 minutes. That is a mighty length for what is essentially a love story, but the producers were giddy on success and felt like they could do anything. Only OHMSS failed compared to the previous films. So what do they do? cut the length. And that's exactly what they did. The films dropped minutes like an ugly baby. In fact the next four entries came in snug at around the 2hr mark. Have to started to notice something interesting yet? even though they slashed the duration, the films of the seventies are all significantly longer an those early sixties ones. The standard has changed. Now 2hrs in the norm, not the formative 1hr 50 minutes. This is significant. With each new film, leading into the eighties the duration keeps going up. Not by much, jut a minute here, few there. By the time Moore leaves we're back up to 2hrs 10 minutes. That's Thunderball levels! But while Thunderball was an oddity in it's day, a freakishly long romp, now that's the new standard. In fact, for some reason this was how it stayed for a long time. 2hrs and 10 minutes just seemed to be the ideal length for a Bond film. There was very little deviation from this duration right the way through Dalton and Brosnan's tenure (the one notable exception being TND which came in at a spritely 2hrs and in my opinion that is the best thing about that film). And then once again, thing changed. Suddenly, character development was in vogue and that meant more minutes. And this time we're going big. Casino Royale is the single longest Bond film to date. It's two hours and twenty four minutes long. Two hours and twenty four minutes, for a film based on the shortest of the Bond novels. Two hours and twenty four minutes on a film where Bond has to win a card game. But it was massively successful and so a new standard length was set (QoS being an obvious outlier). Skyfall came very close to matching CR for length, and SPECTRE seems like another given all these huge action set piece's we're hearing about, atleast 4 different countries being filmed on location, an extensive cast, presumably a similar amount of time used for characterization as for action etc. I'm guessing we'll see a film somewhere between 144 and 150 minutes in length. That's my guess. Whatever the case, it'll certainly blow through that old Thunderball Benchmark for 'long' Bond film.
There's more process to it than merely looking at a seemingly ubiquitous trend. JW was around 2hrs, AOU around 2hr 20min, MM:FR around 2hrs, I think Ant Man is clocking in under 2hrs. An elongated run time does not necessarily signal better character or plot development, but then on the other hand neither does making a film shorter allow for it to be superior.
For example, The Matrix is the longest film of it's respective trilogy, yet it appears like the least bloated of the bunch because it's perfectly paced. On the flip side, Batman Begins is the shortest of it's respective trilogy, but in my opinion the best crafted of the bunch. The TDKR in particular showing that eking out a story over 2hr 45mins can add too much baggage. It's a careful balancing act. Making a film three hours doesn't make it epic, that's down to the content and how it's crafted.
For me, Bond should hit a sweet spot between 2hr - 2hr 30min (max). I don't see a three hour Bond film working. Whether it is more towards the former or the latter all depends on the story that is being told. Forster went into QoS wanting it to be a quick affair and knew that from the get go. With Mendes I assume his main goal is to make SP better than SF. I don't think he'll be aiming to make it the longest Bond movie, just the best one he can. I thought SF could have done with some trimming, but then OHMSS and CR are two of my favourites, so while I'd like a 2hr 20ish run time, I'll take a two hour film if its paced to perfection.
I see. For me run time is important and should be taken seriously along with any other aspect of filmmaking. It isn't just an arbitrary outcome. A lot of what a filmmaker is trying to say can be gathered from how long they choose to make their film. It's a creative choice like any other. Although DN and FRWL are two of my absolute favorites, I couldn't leave the cinema today having watched a Bond under 2hr 15 min without feeling shortchanged.
It's in flux. You have a rough idea based on the first draft of the script, I mean very rough (the whole one page = a minute rarely translates) from that point on it is constantly changing through production and post. Until the editor has a rough assembly in place it's hard for a director to see what is and isn't working. That may involve stretching some scenes, while trimming others. The first cut of Avengers: Age of Ultron was 3hr 30mins, the final cut is 2hr 21mins. That's a significantly different pair of films. SP won't be like this, because it doesn't have to accommodate a wider universe, but it's still something that won't be at the forefront of Mendes' thoughts until he sees how his film is working.
Feeling short-changed by a film's run time will come down to the film itself, not the run time. The same way you think of TB as being a benchmark for long Bond films, it's a bloated film.
That's the whole point of Thunderball, though. Let's think of it like a meal. If Goldfinger is everything perfectly balanced so no taste lingers too long, nothing is disagreeable, then Thunderball is like having 3 servings of the same meal in one sitting. of course such a meal would make you feel bloated afterwards. Thunderball is so resplendent through it's own disregard for any sense of measure. The film revels in it' own self indulgence, that's what makes it the benchmark. The length matches how the film behaves. It's a creative choice.
In twenty years time, having a Bond film be 2hrs 30min plus will feel completely natural, not 'bloated' at all. Again, if you follow the pattern through the years as I laid out, you can see we are headed there for yourself. Audiences are demanding greater length for increased satisfaction.
Unfortunately not my friend, only the Press badge. :)
Craig's 2nd Bond film: shortest Bond film of all time
Craig's 3rd Bond film: second longest Bond film of all time
Craig's 4th Bond film: second shortest Bond film of all time? :bz
My point is that every movie is different. It's about context. Hence the examples I gave. If you've got enough content to drive the story for 2:45 then it will work. If you're padding it out to give the illusion of scale, it won't.
We're interviewing Daniel Craig soon about SPECTRE and want to ask Mr 007 some questions straight from YOU - what do you want to ask him?
The BIG question; the fans want him to continue as Bond after SPECTRE.
Does Craig plan or hope to stay on for one more film with Bond 25?
I second this.
Also, what is his favourite Fleming novel.
Please rephrase it like this:
"Dear Mr Craig. Can you please continue playing 007 two more times after "SPECTRE"? We NEED you. You are the best." B-)
In comparison to your first three entries as James Bond, how tough/grueling/physically exhausting was the shoot for SPECTRE?
I don't see, how they can NOT answer that one. Its the elefant in the room and a great opportunity to the lay the rumors to rest and/or make whatever clarification without being the one, who make the big announcement as an answer to all the gossip. Lets hope, that's the plan.
October 12th. Google told me.
7 September 2012. (Although it was just a rumour at the time and not the official runtime.)
So what does this mean? That only these portions have 6K instead of 4K?
Could it mean certain sequences are in a Imax-esque larger ratio much like The Dark Knight & Rises?
I think that could very much be it yes. As opposed to SF, it seems SP now really seemed to be filmed with IMAX-equipment then...
That Arri camera isn't the IMAX version that will be used on Civil War and Avengers: Infinity War btw.
Basically - and I hope that's ok even tho it's from the leaks - they intended to shoot 3 of the major action set pieces with full 70mm IMAX cameras at 1.44:1, but Mendes backed out last minute - and they've decided to film those "IMAX" sequences at 1.85:1 with spherical as opposed to anamorphic lenses for the rest of the scenes - either with normal 35mm film, VistaVision, or this 6K ARRI digital camera it seems too.
Those sequences will I assume be "formatted for IMAX" at the IMAX Digital aspect ratio of 1.89:1 with the Blu-ray/home media version of the film hopefully having these sequences in fullscreen 16:9.
The final film DCP I assume will be delivered in 4K like Skyfall.
It's not IMAX, but it is a larger frame size. IIRC 6K Arri is 65mm (IMAX is a fraction below 70mm). When all said and done it depends where you view it.