›

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

1…567911

Comments

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,236
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Shaken_Not_Stirred wrote: »
    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.

    Oppenhiemer is literally about one person, who is mostly known for being tied to one important event in history.

    I don't think a film telling a story about what is known already is a good ethos. Oppenheimer's story is quite a grand one and one that goes beyond that singular event that he is known for.

    So while I take your point about runtimes, I don't think this particular film is a good example of what you're talking about. And it will be even less so if Nolan manages to pull it off (I'm not convinced he can, personally - but I will admire the attempt).
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,264
    I saw THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE yesterday. It's a three-hour long movie that never bores. Then I saw THE SEVENTH SEAL, which is about 90 minutes long, and boy did I feel the length of the movie! (It's a respectable movie, just very, very tedious at times.) So I still don't get people's fixation on runtimes. When a film provides the goods, even four hours of it fly by so to speak! (Zack Snyder's cut of JL being a personal example of such an experience.) When it doesn't, every second is a daunting task. Give me a great 180-minutes Bond film, and I'll praise it as a great Bond film, not as a long Bond film.
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 2,029
    A film needs to be as long as a piece of string. In other words, it needs to be as long as it needs to be. Short films can feel rushed undeveloped, while others start feeling overly long. An excellent film never feels too long. I don't believe a prescribed runtime is necessary. What is necessary is a great story told in the time it needs to be told.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,236
    quote-no-good-movie-is-too-long-and-no-bad-movie-is-short-enough-roger-ebert-8-56-81.jpg
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    edited April 2023 Posts: 701
    Eyebrow Cinema did a great video essay on this subject, and even mentions the quote above:
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,233
    Bond 26 should be 220 minutes long, just so Bond fans can keep clutching their pearls.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,264
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Bond 26 should be 220 minutes long, just so Bond fans can keep clutching their pearls.

    That post made me smile harder than when my son just projectile-vomited his food all over me. :-D
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,455
    Most bond films don't need to be over 2hrs 10 minutes. only OHMSS earns the extra time spent, because they had to really set up the love story for Tracy properly for the ending to have the right impact.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,264
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Most bond films don't need to be over 2hrs 10 minutes. only OHMSS earns the extra time spent, because they had to really set up the love story for Tracy properly for the ending to have the right impact.

    I am quite happy with the running times as they are, even the longer ones. I wish QOS had taken a bit more time to flesh a few things out, but I have no complaints otherwise. None of the Bonds feel too long or too short for me, to be honest.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,058
    My last viewing of Thunderball, on the big screen, was the most fun I've ever had with the movie. However, there were too scenes that I distinctly felt were too long, 1) the one where the Vulcan is underwater and they're nailing it to the bottom of the sea, then removing the bombs, etc., and 2) the underwater battle near the end.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,233
    TB could have easily been a leaner movie like GF.

    QOS really could have benefitted from even just being expanded into two hours. It just needed some breathing room. Things happen so quickly it never allows things to sink in.

    SKYFALL on the other hand is just perfectly paced, and I never feel a second is too long or too short.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,455
    there are now reports that disneys the little mermaid will be 135 minutes long! Please, this has gone too far.

    It seems like soon every film will be over 2 hrs.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,264
    Times have changed. I remember people complaining that films were over too fast.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    edited April 2023 Posts: 12,525
    Ideally it's nice to get both short and long films, along with short and long video games and other forms of entertainment. Lately they've definitely skewed on the long side, and while I don't think it often has an impact on the objective quality, what I can say is I generally find shorter things to be far more accessible and rewatchable / replayable / etc. For example, retro gaming to me is far more fun on average, because most of the big new games coming out are so huge and intimidating. They are still great games and have lots of good stuff, but it's so much easier and nicer for me to have a quick experience that I'll want to do over and over instead of one lengthy, demanding thing that there's a good chance I will not be wanting to return to.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,058
    There shouldn't be a 2 hour limit, but runtime definitely makes a difference in a film. It matters, not in terms of quality, but in the feel of it. A mixture of longer and shorter films is welcome.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,455
    mattjoes wrote: »
    There shouldn't be a 2 hour limit, but runtime definitely makes a difference in a film. It matters, not in terms of quality, but in the feel of it. A mixture of longer and shorter films is welcome.

    Indeed. Compare the early connerys with the later Craig films, you can feel the difference. Bond films have WAY too much bloat nowadays. Dr No through Thunderball move like a bullet by comparison.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited April 2023 Posts: 699
    I wouldn't want strict time limits because some stories just need a bit longer to tell. I never felt OHMSS's or CR's runtimes. The problem with the recent Bonds was that they were thin on plot and wasted so much time with overlong establishing shots, scenes of characters walking from point A to point B, and scenes of characters staring wistfully out at landscapes.

    The opening sequence of NTTD didn't need to be as long as it was, with Safin slowly approaching the Swann house. Someone savvier like Martin Campbell would have opened directly onto Safin chasing Madeline with her family having already being killed, and we'd still understand what the scene is about without the pedantic buildup and expository dialogue.

    Stuff like this is why Bond movies need action directors (guys who understand pacing and economical storytelling) behind the cameras, not dramatic directors. "Get in late, get out early" is a basic rule of storytelling that the Bond movies always did well until relatively recently.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,296
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    There shouldn't be a 2 hour limit, but runtime definitely makes a difference in a film. It matters, not in terms of quality, but in the feel of it. A mixture of longer and shorter films is welcome.

    Indeed. Compare the early connerys with the later Craig films, you can feel the difference. Bond films have WAY too much bloat nowadays. Dr No through Thunderball move like a bullet by comparison.

    I can see that argument being made for Dr.No through Goldfinger, but one of the biggest issues I have with Thunderball is exactly its pacing. It’s a bit of a slog to get though at points, whereas the first 3 films fly by at a breakneck pace.
  • battleshipgreygtbattleshipgreygt
    Posts: 1,220
    I don't have an issue with longer runtimes, but I do feel that nearly every Bond film has pacing issues, and I don't just mean the recent and/or long ones. Some of it is editing but I've found that the past few Bond films have a bit of a template that's built around giant set pieces first and then filling in the gaps between. It feels a little backwards to me and I think it'd be beneficial to put a little more thought into how these films are structured and flow.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    It depends on the story and flow of the film. I can see the point though

    Parts of certain films could be trimmed down, but then again for example, I always come away from QOS slightly disappointed and wanting more, as much as I enjoy the film. Same with the Jamaica scenes in NTTD, I'd cut the London scenes in half to have another 10 minutes in Jamaica.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,264
    I sometimes wonder if some of the pacing issues we may have with many current films come from the popularity of TV shows on Netflix, Disney+, HBO, Hulu, ... A lot of people nowadays seem far more into shows than films. And looking at most shows (not all!) I get the feeling that there's a lot of talking, then more talking, then still more talking..., with sideplots that are introduced in scene 2 and quickly resolved in scene 5, without any significance for the main story. Perhaps some of this dull dynamic leaks over into current filmmaking?
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,160
    Not sure I'd ever have described TB as 'moving like a bullet', tbf.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,361
    Venutius wrote: »
    Not sure I'd ever have described TB as 'moving like a bullet', tbf.

    Perhaps a bullet traveling in water. ;))
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,160
    Yeh, that's much closer, I reckon! ;)
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,941
    AT LEAST two hours is good for me.

  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,226
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I sometimes wonder if some of the pacing issues we may have with many current films come from the popularity of TV shows on Netflix, Disney+, HBO, Hulu, ... A lot of people nowadays seem far more into shows than films. And looking at most shows (not all!) I get the feeling that there's a lot of talking, then more talking, then still more talking..., with sideplots that are introduced in scene 2 and quickly resolved in scene 5, without any significance for the main story. Perhaps some of this dull dynamic leaks over into current filmmaking?

    It feels odd how many people I know today who just aren't into movies, but love to binge watch whatever on Netflix, Hulu, etc.
    As for the running times on the Bond films, I don't think there should be a set rule.
    That said, I did feel a bit apprehensive when the runtimes for SP and NTTD were initially revealed. Unfortunately, I did end up feeling both movies could've been trimmed by 15 minutes or more.
    CR and SF seemed more evenly paced with their runtimes. I suppose my preferred runtime for a typical Bond movie would be around the 130 minute mark. A little longer than 2 hours, yet doesn't ovetstay it's welcome......I'm specifically thinking of TLD.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited April 2023 Posts: 3,160
    SP's a strange one - it doesn't hurtle by like QOS but it still never feels like a long film to me. Two and a half hours? Surely not! But yes. Strange.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited November 2023 Posts: 8,455
    Something that I thought was worth pointing out, almost all of the considered "classic" bond films are just under/over the 2 hrs mark, and the pacing of those films are considered perfect by bond fans.

    Dr No - 110 mins
    FRWL - 115 mins
    Goldfinger - 110 mins
    YOLT - 117 mins
    LALD - 121 mins
    TSWLM - 125 mins
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    Not in my opinion, if the story is well done and the pacing is good I don't mind it being over 2 hours. I want to enjoy a Bond film and have it take its time

    As much I didn't enjoy NTTD, I can't fault the pacing it doesn't feel nearly 3 hours long.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 1,462
    NTTD is too long. You can cut 20 min easily.
Sign In or Register to comment.