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
hahaha!!! :)
kudos
However, for more standard outings, a longer runtime is not as necessary. By now, in the usual case, we know who James Bond is and the basic premise of the plot. It's not necessary to introduce the viewer to every little trope which is well-known to the point where it is expected. Nor are longer chases or set pieces inherently better than shorter ones.
with 2hrs and 25 minutes per film, and 250 million budgets, the only option EON have available too them right now is scaling back.
Usually, it doesn't need to be more than 1:50-2:00
Limit anyone's creativity. Just to fit some imposed time restraint.
For Me, CR flew by.
It's not limiting creativity, it's actually forcing creative people to work harder and be smarter.
We already do. We force non-indie films to reach at least 85 minutes and no more than around 3 hours. That's a restraint as it is.
I think you answered yourself there. :)
180 mins to tell the story, let the creative team make that decision.
So the film should not be however long it needs to be then? You'd like it to be between 85 and 180 minutes, that's what your saying. OK.
But Bond films are nearly always follow the same pattern, to the same objective. There's nothing wrong with that. 129 minutes is sufficient to tell any story of that kind. If they want to take more time on the character of Bond, they simply shift the focus from other aspects.
The only problem I have is to make the Bond team have to make
A film ( no matter how good or bad ) to fit a specific time length
Of for example 1 HR 45 mins. Rather than giving them the freedom
To push that to 2hr 25 mins, if they feel it's needed ?
Could have been 5 minutes shorter:
You Only Live Twice, Live and Let Die, The Living Daylights, Octopussy, License to Kill: These are all among my top 5-10 favorites in the series, but they did have a little bit of gratuitous excess which could've been cut to make the films flow like the early Connery films.
Tomorrow Never Dies: It wasn't necessarily a bloated film. It was one of the leaner Bond entries, but it still had some fluff.
Could have been 10 minutes shorter:
GoldenEye, The Spy Who Loved Me: Both are very good but somewhat bloated Bond films. Both take a while to set up in the first act despite not being innovative in plot.
The World Is Not Enough: A very good film was inside of here somewhere, but it needed focus.
For Your Eyes Only: It was a classic stripped down Bond film. It should've been minimalist like Connery's outings, since it was trying to emulate them. It's weighed down by corny jokes and some filler.
Diamonds Are Forever, Die Another Day: I guess the problems in this one go deep beyond the pacing, but there's still plenty of fluff to cut.
Could have been 15 minutes shorter:
Spectre: Although it didn't pace particularly poorly either, and it at least tried new things. I'd argue that it needed to utilize its time more effectively more than anything else.
Moonraker: The first hour just felt like it was there to occupy time and establish a non-existant plot.
The Man with the Golden Gun: Most of the second act is filler.
Thunderball: In some ways, arguably Connery's greatest outing, yet in others, his most bloated.
A View to a Kill: Spending the first half hour with James Bond investigating horses...
Hypothetically, the runtime of the avg Bond film would go from 125 to 118.
I totally agree with your reasoning. It's sort of like a proposal I've heard of limiting bills that a legislative body could pass to 10 pages in length; it's not a fix for the problem. It only sets an arbitrary limit which would be too low for some films and too high for others.
However, I think crossing the two hour mark should warrant a justification being made. Aka, the writers and director requesting a >2 hr film for the series and listing reasons why it needs to be that length. It doesn't have to be fancy. It could be a two-page long apologia, but >2 hour Bond films need to be done with reason and intent. Not just because it was expensive and they have the footage anyway.
Could have been between 5-10 minutes shorter:
You Only Live Twice, Live And Let Die, Diamonds Are Forever, For Your Eyes Only, The Spy Who Loved Me, Goldeneye
These films just need a minor tightening for some scenes and the removal of the odd scene to make things flow better.
Could have been 10-15 minutes shorter:
The Man with the Golden Gun, The World Is Not Enough, Thunderball, The Living Daylights, Octopussy, OHMSS, Casino Royale
These films need significant reworks to remove unnecessary stretches, and quicken the pace where things lag.
Could have been between 15 - 20 minutes shorter:
SPECTRE, Skyfall, License To Kill, Die Another Day, A View To A Kill, Moonraker
These films are bloated outings, which require full reworks on a conceptual level in order to correct properly.
Perhaps if there was a self imposed guideline that they tried to achieve (within the 2 hr to 2:15m mark), that would keep them a little more focused and disciplined. It could also help to avoid unnecessary and unessential tangential plot points and result in a tighter film. As has been mentioned, it could result in more theatre showings too.
However, it shouldn't be a rule. More of a desired result.