Running Times Of The Bond Movies

Jarvio

EDITED on 27/10/15 to include SF and SP

1st - Spectre - 148 Minutes
2nd - Casino Royale - 144 minutes
3rd - Skyfall - 143 Minutes
4th - On Her Majesty's Secret Service - 142 minutes
5th (Joint) - Licence to Kill - 133 minutes
5th (Joint) - Die Another Day - 133 minutes
7th (Joint) - Octopussy - 131 minutes
7th (Joint) - A View to a Kill - 131 minutes
9th (Joint) - Thunderball - 130 minutes
9th (Joint) - The Living Daylights - 130 minutes
9th (Joint) - GoldenEye - 130 minutes
12th - The World is Not Enough - 128 minutes
13th - For Your Eyes Only - 127 minutes
14th - Moonraker - 126 minutes
15th (Joint) - The Man with the Golden Gun - 125 minutes
15th (Joint) - The Spy Who Loved Me - 125 minutes
17th - Live and Let Die - 121 minutes
18th - Diamonds Are Forever - 120 minutes
19th - Tomorrow Never Dies - 119 minutes
20th - You Only Live Twice - 117 minutes
21st - From Russia With Love - 115 minutes
22nd (Joint) - Dr. No - 110 minutes
22nd (Joint) - Goldfinger - 110 minutes
24th - Quantum of Solace - 107 minutes

Q-Branch_2012

These are pretty interesting. I wonder why they knocked back the length of the movies after OHMSS, DAF was knocked right down to 120 afterwards. I wonder whether they thought that was one of the factors of the poor reception?

Loeffelholz

I was always bemused by how the longest Bond film was adapted from the shortest novel And QoS certainly should have been at least ten minutes longer than it was, to allow for some narrative coherence, and to let some very important dramatic scenes 'breathe' a bit more

I've always rather liked the fact that the Bonds tend to run a bit long. It's a world I enjoy visiting, and hate to leave :007)

Jarvio

Loeffelholz wrote:

And QoS certainly should have been at least ten minutes longer than it was, to allow for some narrative coherence, and to let some very important dramatic scenes 'breathe' a bit more

I completely agree with this. Parts of the story I thought lacked explanation, and so could have done with a bit more. It certainly is the most confusing of the bond films for me.

Mr Beech

Jarvio wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

And QoS certainly should have been at least ten minutes longer than it was, to allow for some narrative coherence, and to let some very important dramatic scenes 'breathe' a bit more

I completely agree with this. Parts of the story I thought lacked explanation, and so could have done with a bit more. It certainly is the most confusing of the bond films for me.

I think it does indeed feel like the one that was cut short. It keeps skimming along through its potential. Definitely would have been willing to sit through a couple more meet-ups and conversations.

Golrush007

I think 120-130 minutes is probably the ideal running time for most Bond films. It is nice when a film has a meatier story and they extend the length as with CR and OHMSS. Hopefully SF will have the narrative to sustain the longer running time as well.

Sir Miles

Q-Branch_2012 wrote:

These are pretty interesting. I wonder why they knocked back the length of the movies after OHMSS, DAF was knocked right down to 120 afterwards. I wonder whether they thought that was one of the factors of the poor reception?

The real reason for shorter running times is - bums on seats !

A shorter running time meant they could fit in an extra showing of the movie (at least) and therefore make more money !

Simple as that, I'm afraid -{

Napoleon Plural

Loeffelholz wrote:

I've always rather liked the fact that the Bonds tend to run a bit long. It's a world I enjoy visiting, and hate to leave :007)

Plus, it makes it less likely we'll run into each other Loeffs...

eric7064

Watching all.the films I always check the run time and it amazed me how many stayed right between 120-130 range. Wondering if that was the goal.

Barbel

Yes, that was deliberate.

Higgins

Q-Branch_2012 wrote:

These are pretty interesting. I wonder why they knocked back the length of the movies after OHMSS, DAF was knocked right down to 120 afterwards. I wonder whether they thought that was one of the factors of the poor reception?

For me, they could have cut DAF down to 40 minutes

Absolutely_Cart

The movies have overall gotten longer over the years, generally from 120 to 130 mins. However, I don't see any correlation between length and quality.

Thunderpussy

Girth, that's where the secret lies ! )

If it's a well rounded story.

HatThrowingHenchman

my humble opinion on the running time:
the more Bond the better!

Peppermill

Like Yoda once said: "Running time not make one great."

However, I do like the fact that most Bond movies are at least two hours or longer. It gives the time for a few low key scenes between the adventure.

Strangeways

I hope I am wrong with this, but I've read somewhere that SPECTRE will be just over 100 mins long. I sincerely hope that is not the case. The perfect running time IMO is 130 mins.

Has anyone else heard about SPECTRE? The only reason I can think is that given the success of skyfall, cinemas want to fit more screenings in a la QOS following CR.

Thunderpussy

Can't remember the exact time but I do remember seeing a
Running time of around 150 - 155 minutes ?

HowardB

Re the running time of SPECTRE, I would imagine that Mendes, et el are still in the process of editing all the footage. I'm sure they have a targeted running time in mind (the studio bean counters always want shorter for more showings, more $$) however with a potential blockbuster Bond film I'm sure the producers and director have more leeway. Also, with the modern multiplex (along with IMAX), big films can play on multiple screens at one location and with digital projection the studios don't have the added expense of striking prints.

Shady Tree

Jarvio wrote:

Interesting how CR is the longest while QOS is the shortest.... thoughts?

CR feels like the long Bond film it is because of its atypical structure, which really impressed as different on first viewing (and unpredictable in the later parts of the movie for anyone unfamiliar with the novel): we get the 'reboot' PTS and titles sequence; two set piece action sequences (the parkour and Miami Airport chases); the centre-piece extended poker game with its various interludes; LeChiffre's final moves and his death ( - as the central villain he's despatched well before the end of the movie); Bond's convalescence and romance with Vesper, with its tragic denouement; and Bond's revenge coda. I remember thinking during the romance section that the film was really taking its time, though no less enjoyable for that and rather brave in breaking the mould.

SF is, and feels, like a long Bond film, partly because of all the business it needs to pack into the climactic Scottish Skyfall section (establishing the detail about Bond's past, Kincade, dealing with the death of M, etc.).

QOS, as the shortest film, lacks the virtue shared by most other shorter Bonds of having a clear structure: it's rather messy, really, and feeling a little incomplete; mostly in consequence of the writers' guild's industrial action.

In general, looking at the 3 or 4 at the top of the list, the films that aim to do something a little more interesting with character tend to be longer as they need time to breathe as well as delivering all the staple genre elements.

Strangeways

Thunderpussy wrote:

Can't remember the exact time but I do remember seeing a
Running time of around 150 - 155 minutes ?

That would be fantastic! As other fans have said the more the merrier when it comes to 007 films.
Interesting that my fave Bonds are the longer ones.....

Thunderpussy

) as I always say, if you're going to have one ..... Have a long one. )
Although yes, my top two Bonds are OHMSS and CR, yet when I watch
Them they simply fly by, a good story keeps you interested. -{

PropertyOfALady

Someone should find the end credit running times! )

Absolutely_Cart

Quantum's short running time came from already established context from the previous film and merciless editing. I don't think I would have balked had the movie had an extra 10 minutes so I could see more of what was going on in some of the scenes.

Brosnan_fan

Skyfall's running time is 143 minutes, which puts it 2nd on the list.

Thunderbird 2

(Falls about laughing)

Please forgive me - I saw the thread title and immediately thought..

"Attention please, the film standing at platform 3 is the 19:64 Goldfinger to Geneva! There is no silver service on this train."

"Passengers traveling on the 19:85 AVTAK service to Paris, please use Platform 14. The Aubergine Halt has been bumped off this train schedule."

"The film now standing on platform 21 is the 20:06 Casino Royale service to Venice. Passengers traveling on to Montenegro destinations, please Czech their tickets on this service!"



Ahem, Pussy re OHMSS and CR-06 - Thunderbird Too!

Marketto007

Sorry for my ignorance, but what this "joint" means? 8-)

Gala Brand

I just read toiday that Spectre is supposed to be 155 minutes in length.

Seems I'll need to bring my bedpan.

http://www.empirecinemas.co.uk/synopsis/spectre/f4585

Thunderpussy

You could have read it on post #17 on the 16th August. ( Only joking)

Gala Brand

Darn that TP!

He's always one step ahead!

Thunderpussy

That's why I trip up more than most.

Strangeways

Odeon website in the UK has SPECTRE with a running time of 160 mins.
That would smash CRs record and IMO is a bit too long.

Thoughts?