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
News to me. 8-X
Yep.Definitely a lack of filmmaking efficiency in those films.CR earned its extra runtime.On the other hand,QOS could definitely have used an extra 20 mins or so to flesh out its storyline properly and not appear so rushed.
Indeed. It doesn't matter. A film deserves the canvas it needs to get its story told.
I mean, a strict two hour limit?
You people deserve to get angry every time they have the gun barrel change film to film.
"Fire Barbara Broccoli", for short. ;-)
The movies drift along far too slowly nowadays, with plenty of unnecessary time spent establishing new scenery. The first 4 connery films are brillaintly paced, and they all fit snuggly around 2 hrs. A Bond film should have you glued to the screen from start to finish, not itching for a pee break.
Why "should" the next Bond film be this or that? Where's the rulebook that says so? OHMSS, with its 142-minute running time, never feels too long to me. CR, at 144 minutes, doesn't feel too long either. An 85-minute Bond, meanwhile, can feel too long if it has nothing to offer.
I have seen three-hour films that move like a speeding bullet, and 90-minute films that bore me to death. If they have a good script, let them select the canvas they need, whether it is 110 minutes or 170 minutes.
Yeah, but I'm talking specifically about the film to meet the moment in 2025. Four out of the past five bond films are over 2hrs 20 minutes, and most can be cut down significantly and they'd be better for it. If they want to freshen things up for the next outing one of the most obvious ways of doing that is scaling back and telling a smaller, more concise story, focusing on setting the tone just right for the next era of stories you want to tell. There's no sense in start off the era with an epic as it leaves them nowhere to "go" after that.
+1. That's the era we are in.
Voila. This.
Say you have just written the best Bond script in ages. It all congeals, fits, and works. But you end up with a 145-minute cut. No, some people say, cut 25 minutes out! That doesn't make any sense. All too often have studios destroyed perfectly good films because they wanted shorter cuts and pushed scenes out. For the life of me, I can't imagine losing 20+ minutes of OHMSS or CR, so I'm glad they went well over two hours. And as stated before, they have never felt like "looooong" films to me. TWINE, by contrast, does strain my patience at times, though it's 15 minutes shorter than the other two.
That said I think it really depends on the story.
I mean, maybe Dune but Oppenhiemer is literally about one person, who is mostly known for being tied to one important event in history. I'm sure 20 years ago they could have found a way to tell his story in 2hrs without much difficulty.
Though movies which are super long and about one person can be boring af.
Yah, Nolan’s specialty!
Dune, Oppenhiemer, John Wick, Mission Impossible, Bond 25...
It feels like the conventions of pacing and cinema have been forgotten, and movies are becoming like an abbreviated season of TV.
Films like From Russia With Love and Goldfinger are nice tight packages, what would adding in another hour of content really add? It would only detract from the pacing, the flow and the moments wouldn't hit as hard.
We'll never know how much better SP could have been with 20 minutes of bloat chopped and a more climatic finale.
My next film evening is likely to be spent watching Confess, Fletch. I was pleasantly surprised to see that it's only 98 minutes long.
That's a good movie.
I often end up watching movies in two or three parts, depending on the length. I do feel it's not at all an ideal way of watching them though, as the "viewing experience" gets disrupted – and maybe I forget a few minor details before picking up the film again (usually the following day).
I really hope I will like Confess, Fletch. I've always enjoyed the two Chevy Chase films, and I've read a few of the novels – Confess, Fletch included.