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
I know there will be quite a few who disagree on here but concur with my spouse on this. Also CR I don't find it too long at all, if a film engages you and doesn't lose your interest the length is irrelevant.
OHMSS is another epic and I love every minute of it, the length of the film does not dictate my interest its the content, if that hooks me then job done and I'll happily sit through its epic length
Though SPECTRE felt every 2 hr 28 minutes of its running time. because it doesn't engage me, in fact after the PTS stretches of it bore me to death.
I like QOS but I still stick with the opinion that another 20 - 30 minutes would have benefited it despite some loving its quick as a bullet idea.
I notice a pattern with those knocking the length of films in this era not all but quite a few aren't Craig's biggest fans.
We'll wait till the next guy comes round that they likely will have more preference for and see if the films continue at these epic lengths if the this is a problem for them then.
There is the philosophy that the next guy will get shorter films, where do you get that idea from?
Big budget blockbusters have been epic lengths for sometime now, Tenet is going to be another epic for Nolan no doubt and the last 2 Avengers films were beasts and all of the 3 Star Wars films.
What makes you think a new actor will appearing in QOS style duration entries?
Like CraigMooreOHMSS above me said, “pacing is everything.”
They should make a reverse Bond movie à la Memento or something.
2 hours Bond movie; the movie begins as Bond is about to be killed by the villain, than we have several flashbacks in a random order about Bond discovering the villain's plan, tracing the villain, meeting the Bond girl etc.
The title song kicks in at 1h 45m, then we have a post title sequence where Bond sets himself free, kills the villain and beds the girl. Finally we get the gunbarrel at the end.
I think the film should’ve ended at Blofeld’s base. London scenes were tacked on and, like you said, it was for sure a mess.
The helicopter fight should have been with Hinx, at the end, over the Thames.
True. How they use the time, whether it's 2 hours or 3, is what counts. CR, OHMSS, and SF are all on the longer side but I love them all, and they never feel that long to me. Still, it would be pretty wild to get a 3 hour Bond film just because it's never happened before.
There were definitely places where the film needed to slow down, particularly when Bond and Camille were in the plane.
Huh? The last 25 minutes of SF is Bond defending Skyfall against intruders and the confrontation in the old church.
In SP it was Bond escaping the villains lair and causing the biggest explosion yet to be seen in a movie, a fight between M and C and Bond chasing a helicopter down Thames.
How's that closing small?
Yeah, true....although, I've always thought Bond & Hinx deserved another big fight at the end...maybe not necessarily in the helicopter. More fisticuffs, gun fights, explosions, etc. And i've always thought that More action was needed inside that building. Then the chase, should have been more elaborate & longer....the whole thing really felt rushed to be honest. Almost as if they wrote the climax very late.
Yeah, I think why SF's finale is Bigger, is coz it featured bigger, longer explosions & Gun fights. And to be honest that biggest explosion shot....even if it truly was, I never really felt it's impact on the screen. Am not saying I want Michael Bay near a Bond film....but imagine if he filmed what he calls 'The biggest explosion ever'. Even the explosion after Bond flames Sanchez in LTK looks bigger. Or maybe coz it was done when Bond & Madeleine were just talking. I think the explosion should have occurred, once Bond flew the Helicopter away with Madeleine....I think that shows more peril.
Oooh, yes...
No one likes a boaster ;)
:D
I think SF’s ending felt “bigger” than SP’s is because the stakes were clear and character driven. Bond’s return to London in SP and the subsequent action is driven solely by plot. Plot and character have to work together in order to create an emotional through line that reinforces the overall theme. SF does that in its climax, SP doesn’t.
Yeah, Very true....Obviously SF's stakes were higher. And I didn't even want to mention that, as I felt I would be insulting the film....coz that's a no-brainer. I think it's safe to say the higher the stakes, the bigger the action.
You took the words right out of my pocket.
I was thinking the exact same thing.
"Spectre record for largest film stunt explosion"
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-34775078
Am aware of the explosion's award & recognition & am not arguing with that....all am saying is, on screen it doesn't look like the largest film stunt explosion....something to do with how it was filmed perhaps. When SF mansion explodes, it even looks bigger than it...with the helicopter crashing and all.