QoS - length of film unacceptable?

Andy007

Apologies for many previous discussions out on QoS but this thread is purely one question: ls the length of this film unacceptable for Bond? Imo it certainly was. Yes people will say the writers' strike messed it up, but that can't solely justify the shoddy finished release time.. The end credits start with under 1hr 38 on the screen.
It's dreadfully short for a much anticipated Bond film (as they always are). If by some miracle the film had delivered great quality, you might spare the criticism, but come on could not Craig or the director or producers come up with 10 mins more to at least give it some legs and feel slightly like a Bond movie? It was a puny attempt at a sequel and shouldn't have beem allowed its official release in the state it was..why wasn't it delayed for a bit longer? Get some proper filler scenes in there to beef it up. It's unacceptable by any Bond movie standards. Bond films have never been short. 1hr 50 is a minimum requirement. I remember it finishing in the cinema and thinking "Is that it, really?" It was the only time I've left a Bond film in cinema and felt robbed a bit. It wasn't a proper movie time for sure.

Dirty Punker

Well...if there was more story/dialogue and less, better shot action, I'm sure they would of made an excellent movie out of QoS.
I like it as is and the small length, short dialogue and multiple action scenes made it a carbine of a film.

CoolHandBond

It was too long anyway. Not since TB was a Bond film so eagerly anticipated and all they could do was serve up a horribly edited and boring movie. The opera scene is probably the only decent sequence in it.

Dirty Punker

CoolHandBond wrote:

The opera scene is probably the only decent sequence in it.

...and maybe the hotel room/elevator/step escape.

Manxman

It's only 1 hour 38 minutes long because they only had 1 hour 38 minutes of material. In fact, I'm not sure they even had that. Whilst it's true that in some ways it references the short story of the same name — Bond learns something about human nature: in this case how to control his anger and how to choose whom to kill and whom to leave alive — Quantum Of Solace takes a whole film to make a point that Fleming conveyed using backstory.

Sir Miles

It’s beyond doubt that QoS would have benefited from a further rewrite...but is the film unacceptably short...?...of course not. It’s a powerful/punchy film that thrives in its running time.

It’s the only time you “felt robbed a bit” - really? Even after watching DAD ?? :v

Andy007

Well DAD was at least entertaining, but poorly executed. DAD was just juvenile. It was like it had teenagers throwing ideas at it, invisible car etc. But people were at least kept in the cinema long enough to warrant a ticket price! QoS was incredibly lucky to succeed at the box office. In tone it's a very different film to DAD. Both are failures, regardless of their box office success. QoS lacked a feel of completion. DAD fulfilled its story but was stupid. QoS was sensible but rushed its story and didn't write enough for a story!. That's a crime for cinema goers, let alone proper Bond fans.

walther p99

yeah, why not? True the film has a myriad of problems that have been discussed ad nauseam. Its short length helps it feel like an extension of CR and sort of like "ok lets just quickly wrap up this whole Vesper saga". Of course SP briefly brought it back. But QOS's length makes it less its own film, even though its very much a unique film, and more just a quick extended action packed bit of CR left to tell.

superado

Sir Miles wrote:

It’s a powerful/punchy film that thrives in its running time.

The succinctness of that statement says it all, just like the movie itself! The car chase in the PTS nicely set the pace and tone for the rest of the movie...was that intentional?

As much as cheapo me loves long, long movies to get the most bang for my theater ticket buck, as much as I love long, long Bond movies like OHMSS and SP, I found the brevity of QoS refreshing. All the nice elements of the movie were economically jam packed. As I've said many times how the movie had a very Fleming feel to it, this includes its pacing that's like the "Fleming Sweep" as identified by Kingsley Amis.

Chriscoop

The running time is in no way unacceptable. Qos delivers a solid continuation of CR while carving out its own stature as a thrilling and exciting Bond adventure, brimming with Bond iconography and a thumps along to possibly the best bond score since Barry. OK so there's no gunbarrel! which might upset the traditionalists but doesn't make or break a film. The frenetic pace carries us from sienna to London to Haiti to Austria back to Italy then to Bolivia and finally to kazan and most of those locations are well used, we even get some well played quieter moments, bond on the plane, bond at Talamone, the dramatic opera action sequence. There's jeopardy and intrigue and it's all done in an action packed and perfectly paced 90 minutes. At the first time of viewing I just wanted it to continue, but since I appreciate a bit of bite sized bond.

Thunderpussy

Length isn't all it's cracked up to be

superado

Thunderpussy wrote:

Length isn't all it's cracked up to be

It's all about thickness...of plot )

Thunderpussy

) Exactly, the plot thickens !

Andy007

There is a gunbarrel but it's at the end for some reason, right before the end credits roll.

Thunderpussy

I'm guessing Andy007 you haven't read any of the 007 reference books ? Where many of these
Questions are answered, such as why the gun barrel is at the end etc .

zaphod99

Brevity is pretty much all it has going for it.

Chriscoop

Andy007 wrote:

There is a gunbarrel but it's at the end for some reason, right before the end credits roll.

Yes it was put there for reasons specific to a scene which never made it into the final film edit. I commented on the gunbarrel as it's often cited as problem that it doesn't appear at the beginning.

Chriscoop

zaphod99 wrote:

Brevity is pretty much all it has going for it.

Nope it has many great aspects going for it.

DB6

I really don't think it's unacceptably short. When you re-write and go for lot's of "fillers" you end up with an over long film that loses it's way - like Spectre to a certain extent.

Tell the story, entertain, and then roll the credits.

Whilst not the best Bond movie, on re- watching it improves in my opinion. There are some thoroughly entertaining sequences in my opinion.

Dirty Punker

Dufus wrote:

Whilst not the best Bond movie, on re- watching it improves in my opinion.

A dufus on YouTube begs to differ.

philpog

Andy007 wrote:

Well DAD was at least entertaining, but poorly executed. DAD was just juvenile. It was like it had teenagers throwing ideas at it, invisible car etc. But people were at least kept in the cinema long enough to warrant a ticket price!

Are you joking? DAD was excruciating, and I couldn't get out of the cinema fast enough. I would have certainly left early if my friend hadn't been with me.

Gassy Man

Modern film pads a lot, tending to be ponderous rather than thoughtful. Often, it's a close up of the actor in some pose that goes on a beat too long, sometimes in slow motion. Directors have their signature ways. Nothing is really going on, but if fills up screen time cheaply.

Mendes loves to have long shots of a single person or vehicle slowly making its way on a trip -- in Skyfall, it's the Aston Martin in Scotland. In Spectre, it's Bond on the boat up to White's. Same shot, different circumstances. Modern audiences think this is meaningful in some way, but older films tended to show more in such scenes that give weight and meaning to the locale. These are just the sort of fillers that people have come to expect.





If Quantum of Solace had eliminated the same, it might have justified its shorter runner time. But it didn't. There are the same kinds of shots in the film. What it did instead was pare down the plot to the bare minimum, if that, and sacrifice the sort of cohesion that makes a film not only intelligible but also interesting.

The true hallmark of a great film is that it doesn't matter if it's long. Audiences are so gripped by what is happening, the time flies by. True, a lot of people today can't sit still for more than 10 minutes, and casual moviegoers are even less attentive than ever before. But a Bond film needn't be shorn to just a few action sequences tied together by the flimsiest of story. That's what Quantum of Solace turned out to be in the form in which it was presented. A poor follow up to CR.

chrisisall

I like the film pretty much as is. It's my favourite Craig Bond.

Remington

I used to hate how short it was. Now after two bloated films that were almost two and a half hours I'm grateful for the short running time. Although in my time line, it would have been a clean 110 minutes, like DN and GF. Just make White's interrogation longer and keep the alternate ending.
-{

Firemass

I like the shorter running time. It makes it fun to re-watch and never feels bloated or cushioned like some other films.

chrisisall

Remington wrote:

I used to hate how short it was. Now after two bloated films that were almost two and a half hours I'm grateful for the short running time. Although in my time line, it would have been a clean 110 minutes, like DN and GF. Just make White's interrogation longer and keep the alternate ending.
-{

No. I used to feel that way knowing what it was, but then we wouldn't have gotten what we did with him in SP....

heartbroken_mr_drax

Other than QoS the DC films are all too long!!

caractacus potts

its the only one Craig got finished within the traditional two year interval, so maybe we needed more like this one
at least they didn't wrap up the burning hotel sequence prematurely then return the action to London for another half hour

Remington

chrisisall wrote:

Remington wrote:

I used to hate how short it was. Now after two bloated films that were almost two and a half hours I'm grateful for the short running time. Although in my time line, it would have been a clean 110 minutes, like DN and GF. Just make White's interrogation longer and keep the alternate ending.
-{

No. I used to feel that way knowing what it was, but then we wouldn't have gotten what we did with him in SP....

Exactly. Lol I'm not very fond of White's scene in SP. Controversial I know. I wanted White to go out with a bang.
-{

Dirty Punker

Didn't he?

Remington

Dirty Punker wrote:

Didn't he?

Ha true. Should have said a blaze of glory kind of bang. Wasn't White the one killed by Hinx in one of the SP drafts. Wrong thread but just curious. That would've been more shocking.
-{