Preffered length of a Bond film?

Sweepy the Cat

I'm happy with anything between 100-150mins

words

Personally, I don't think there are many films that warrant a running time in excess of 2 hours. A nice tight 100-110 minutes is best for me, particularly if it feels extended for the sake of it.

When I saw DAD I was all ready to leave after the Ice Palace destruction and then it trundled on for another half an hour! That said, I thought Casino Royale sustained its running time well.

chrisno1

My enjoyment of a 007 film it isn't really to do with length, more to do with substance, so OHMSS, while very long, maintains it's interest, while QOS & TB (both comparatively short) can feel like a trudge through snow. I think when the elements are all in place about 110 - 115 mins is the best length. Post FYEO, the movies all came in at approx 130 mins and they all feel incredibly long to me.

Sweepy the Cat

chrisno1 wrote:

My enjoyment of a 007 film it isn't really to do with length, more to do with substance, so OHMSS, while very long, maintains it's interest, while QOS & TB (both comparatively short) can feel like a trudge through snow.

I think that a story should run as long as it needs to as long as it maintains the audience's interest.

BTW, TB was actually quite a long Bond (Probably in the top 7 or 8)

Dan Same

I don't have a preference, however I would rather a Bond film be too short than be too long. I would still be a little miffed if a film was too short, but there is nothing more horrifying than sitting through a film which never ends. (The third Pirates of the Caribbean film anyone? I am still recovering. )

Interestingly enough, most Bond films IMO, with a few exceptions such as QOS wbich was too long IMO, have a pretty good length. So I think that the producers should aim for 110-115 minutes as chrisno1 suggested.

Sir Hillary Bray

1 hour, 55 minutes, 24.3 seconds. That is my preferred length -- no more, no less. Until they make one like that, there will always be room for improvement.

Sweepy the Cat

Well FRWL was 1hr 55mins (Although I'm not sure about the seconds )

chrisno1

Sweepy the Cat wrote:

chrisno1 wrote:

My enjoyment of a 007 film it isn't really to do with length, more to do with substance, so OHMSS, while very long, maintains it's interest, while QOS & TB (both comparatively short) can feel like a trudge through snow.

I think that a story should run as long as it needs to as long as it maintains the audience's interest.

BTW, TB was actually quite a long Bond (Probably in the top 7 or 8)

Amazing how time plays tricks on you! Yeh, I check the dvd, says 125mins; i checked Halliwells, says 132mins; the JB Dossier says 129mins; NFT programme notes 132mins; and when I've seen it on TV sometimes its often 140mins, including about six 3min add add-breaks (makes 122mins). Something of a debate going on here!

jetsetwilly

Length isn't important. It's what you do with it that counts.

Loeffelholz

Dan Same wrote:

QOS which was too long IMO

That's interesting; until this thread I'd seen many complaints about QoS, but never that the shortest Bond film ever was too long.

I think this comes back to issues of narrative pacing. Even though IMRO the film has a terrific forward momentum, I can understand why the action-heavy elements of it (because of a perceived lack of plot/character setup) create a sense of being out of balance...so action in which the viewer isn't fully invested can seem to drag. One or two (too short) scenes of plot and dialogue---then another long action set-piece---and I think I can understand how it can feel like a sandwich one might never finish.

Eon, this is worthy of your attention. Tell us a story. Give us dramatic beats in which we can see a situation unfold. Let us watch Bond think. Then, the action (when it happens) will mean more.

Craig is a popular Bond; I've been saying since December that I felt the narrative pacing of QoS, combined with an overly aggressive cutting style, probably cost them at least $50 million in extra box office revenue. A bit more story, then, (IMRO) would have pushed it past CR.

As for length, I have no real preference. OHMSS and CR, the two longest, are both in my top five favourites. My top three all feature running times of less than two hours. The story's the thing.

TonyDP

I thought QoS' running time was just about right, especially considering the absence of any truly large-scale setpieces. I don't think a perceived lack of character moments or plot hurt QoS; it did very good business and if anything, my gut feeling is that it would have done better if audiences had been given a little more of the classic Bond formula this time around.

Still, if this more conservative style of film is going to continue to be EON's model and the days of the commando-raids and mega-stunts are forever behind us, then I think it behooves EON to keep the running times shorter and the pacing brisk. You can only have so much dialog and character development in an action movie before the audience starts to tune out.

bacaret

dad and cr are both films that are quite lengthy as far as running time is concerned,but cr keeps you riveted to the screen and dad makes you want it to end as soon as possible. Therfore I think that the reel time is not important ,but keeping to movie interesting is very important.:s

Mr Martini

jetsetwilly wrote:

Length isn't important. It's what you do with it that counts.

Short and to the point. I couldn't of said it better myself.

Loeffelholz

TonyDP wrote:

You can only have so much dialog and character development in an action movie before the audience starts to tune out.

The flip side of that coin is that you can only have so much wall-to-wall action---with arguably thin character/plot support---before the same thing happens. As well as QoS did, it could have done better.

I look forward to the DVD, so that I can become more familiar with the nuts and bolts of how Forster's picture was assembled.

Alex

An hour and 50 minutes. Goldfinger time.

Sweepy the Cat

Alex wrote:

An hour and 50 minutes. Goldfinger time.

That's odd considering your fave is TB

Alex

Sweepy the Cat wrote:

Alex wrote:

An hour and 50 minutes. Goldfinger time.

That's odd considering your fave is TB

My favorites are the golden age four. :007)

Willie Garvin

Overall,I'd say about two hours.

However,it all depends on the specific story.Sometimes,as in the cases of Thunderball,On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Casino Royale,because their plots are relatively intricate,they require more than the usual time to tell their stories.These three films don't seem especially lengthy to me because they always hold my interest throughout.

Conversely,there are a few 007 films--with considerably shorter running times-- which,upon my intial viewings,seemingly threatened to never end.Ultimately,it's all about the content and the pacing for me.

heartbroken_mr_drax

Willie Garvin wrote:

However,it all depends on the specific story.Sometimes,as in the cases of Thunderball,On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Casino Royale,because their plots are relatively intricate,they require more than the usual time to tell their stories.These three films don't seem especially lengthy to me because they always hold my interest throughout.

Conversely,there are a few 007 films--with considerably shorter running times-- which,upon my intial viewings,seemingly threatened to never end.Ultimately,it's all about the content and the pacing for me.

Thats exactly right. When its dragging on and you think its too long then the pacing is wrong, like the third Lord of The Rings.

Thunderpussy

Have to agree pacing is everthing,In the cinema i have one simple rule if i spend more time thinking how uncomfortable the seats are instead of the movie, then its too long and its pacing is wrong.
I think in Hollywood because they spend a fortune on a movie they seem to think it has to be an epic and so running times go crazy, My own example is King Kong the origional about about 85 mins, the re-make over 3 hours.
Not to mention the fact that shorter films can be shown at more screenings per day so can increase its boxoffice, If the story requires 3 hours then so be it, but i feel some are just padded out.
As a rule with the exceptions of OHMSS & CR most of the best Bonds are under 2 hours IMHO.