CR run time

blueman · September 2006

Wow, the producers'--and hopefully final--cut is 2:20 long! The more character development the merrier, IMO.

http://commanderbond.net/article/3645

OHMSS's run time worked because of Hunt. I'm encouraged that EON doesn't seem to be trimming CR's run time just to get that extra show in per day, but I'm less convinced of Campbell's ability to make a longer (or shorter...) run time work as well. I've contended all along Campbell can help CR the most by staying out of the way, not sure what this latest news means...quantity=quality? I want to believe that. We'll see. At least someone has confidence in Campbell's work, if there were problems with the longer cut simply being not that good, they'd chop it down in a hot NY minute.

This is all eerily familiar...unknown Lazenby takes over for hugely popular Connery, in a classic Fleming (love) story. And the film--OHMSS--rocked. Nice that Craig hasn't quit ala Lazenby...yet.

I get the feeling, this time EON hits one out of the ballpark with the new guy.

Hardyboy · September 2006

Hmmm--at 140 minutes, this better be a darned good movie. One complaint I've had about movies in general and Bond films in particular is that they're too long--it shouldn't take nearly two and a half hours to deliver loads of thrills and chills.

DAWUSS · September 2006

IDK, I like longer movies... It allows things to develop a little more that way

Johmss · September 2006

it looks like the recent movies (or hits) have a long running time (say: The Lord of the Rings I,II & III; Superman Returns; the Aviator; Machpoint; King Kong...)

Is better because it will give a little more story time, i hope they don´t cut it depending the boxoffice

Gassy Man · September 2006

Hardyboy wrote:

Hmmm--at 140 minutes, this better be a darned good movie. One complaint I've had about movies in general and Bond films in particular is that they're too long--it shouldn't take nearly two and a half hours to deliver loads of thrills and chills.

The problem of late, Hardy, isn't that they're too long but that they don't hold attention for the time they take. I can watch "Lawrence of Arabia" or "The Last Emperor" in one sitting because these films are compelling, well paced, and dazzling in their acting, stories, and visuals. But too many modern films are just expensive TV shows, shot in pretty much the same "close up" style and padded with lots of ponderous scenes that don't add much value. I'm not just talking about crap like a Will Ferrell or Adam Sandler comedy, but even the so-called great films, like "Gladiator" (which I liked better when it was called "Ben Hur" . . . or was it "Spartacus"?) and the "Star Wars" prequels, whichever, take your pick.

I am all for a longer Bond film, especially if it results in more character development for everyone, not just Bond. I'd like for there to be genuine emotions created by the narrative and actors, as opposed to just going through the motions or having some lines of dialogue explain what I'm supposed to feel. I don't think many directors today actually know how to tell a story so much as use gimmicky camera angles, special effects, and the soundtrack as a crutch, though. Maybe Campbell will pleasantly surprise me. We'll see.

Loeffelholz · September 2006

Running time isn't an issue for me, as long as there's enough story to fill the time---which IMRO was indeed the case with OHMSS. I'll likely always consider CR to be OHMSS' 'sister' film, in a sense...

The December '05 version of the CR script was 113 pages, if I remember right, with the construction site chase sequence only taking up a couple of pages. Scenes like that one will naturally play out longer---and I remember another scene which used a kind of 'shorthand' description of combat between Bond and a henchman, which would also add time. In addition, who knows what else has been added? The scene with the seaplane and the speedboat, for instance...?

So 140 minutes works for me...though I'm particularly curious as to what I see as a comparative leisurely pace in Act 3 (though it works admirably as a set-up for the finale).

Qwerty · September 2006

I'm happy with this news. I believe the test screening previously put the film at about 2 hours and 30 minutes, so this 140 minute run time sounds about right.

Loeffelholz · September 2006

Criticism of movies in general running too long, however, is on the mark as far as I'm concerned. And I agree with Gassy that the craft of storytelling in general seems to have atrophied somewhat in the modern era---the substitution of CGI and spectacle for character depth and plot layering.

But on one hand, we have movies in general, and on the other, we have James Bond :007)

IMRO, the most classic Bonds are the ones which have a shorter run time---i.e., more compact and therefore tightly-paced. The classic Connerys, particularly his first three, all fall into this category. It's interesting to watch the progression of Moore films, as each one is just a bit longer than the one which came before...the bloat continues through the Dalton era and into Brozzer's, but TND stands out (at 117 minutes) as a notable exception.

OHMSS' running time must have come as a surprise to those who were used to Connery's Bond having the world tidily rescued inside two hours, B-) but Eon and Peter Hunt were clearly trying to do something unique...perhaps as a way of compensating for Connery no longer wearing the tux?

Similar things might be (and in fact, likely have been) alleged about CR---they're trying very hard, I think, and we're now only 48 days from seeing whether or not they succeeded.

Ironic, however, that one of the shortest of Ian Fleming's novels has been adapted into a tie for the longest of the films

jetsetwilly · September 2006

FROSTY wrote:

...and LTK was 133mins.

As was DAD. Definitely cause for concern.

Napoleon Plural · September 2006

FROSTY pops up like the wicked queen from time to time on this site!

I don't like a rushed film, nor one with obvious cuts, but if this film is dodgy in any way a long running time can rub it in.

One smart line of dialogue should deliver volumes anyway...

Loeffelholz · September 2006

Napoleon Plural wrote:

One smart line of dialogue should deliver volumes anyway...

And a proper visual scene, with no dialogue at all, even moreso

Agent Wade · October 2006

I'm putting myself into a serious minority here, because I'm going to admit to liking The Fifth Element and Æon Flux whereas I loathed such lengthy films like PJ's King Kong and Superman Returns. My reason for my declaration is because the flash and action in the first two mention, I feel, worked for the story. In the last two, the action sequences seemed only for spectacle and to interrupt the flow of story. I was bored most of the way through Kong, and I left Supes absolutely infuriated.

Length is good, but it has to have purpose. Does the action have place within the story or is it superfluous?

Action is expected in a Bond movie, but to a degree that is practical and visually believable.

I absolutely love OHMSS, and I truly felt Bond's plight when SPECTRE kept on his tail days after he escaped.

Jim Thompson · October 2006

I am sure hoping Casino Royale is good. I haven't been this excited about a Bond film in quite some time. I think Craig has the makings to be a great Bond!

Loeffelholz · October 2006

Welcome to AJB, Jim. This is the best Bond site on the net; you'll have a good time here, and meet many interesting people.

I'm feeling rather good about the state of Bond just now, and we'll soon know whether or not Eon (and Craig) knew what they were doing. A great time to be a fan.

Again, sir, welcome to the site.

Virgil · October 2006

It´s a good sign for me. Bonds with longer running times (OHMSS, LTK) usually tell better stories with an interesting character development, whereas, for instance, TND was just a
bunch of action sequences (badly) put together under two hours.
I would be suspicious if they could pack the whole story of Bond becoming a 00, the development of his relationship with Vesper, etc. in less than two hours.

Dan Same · October 2006

At the end of the day it comes down to the script. If the script is good enough then it won't matter how long (or short) CR is. An example is OHMSS which was 140 minutes long yet had arguably one of the best screenplays in the series while DAD was 133 minutes yet had one of the worst screenplays in the series. On the other hand, FRWL was 110 minutes and GF was 112 minutes long, so really I don't think there's any rules on how long a Bond film should be. I prefer it to be less than 2 hours (ala FRWL/GF) but I actually think OHMSS was too short

, so as long as CR has a great screenplay, I'll be happy.

mike77 · October 2006

Virgil wrote:

It´s a good sign for me. Bonds with longer running times (OHMSS, LTK) usually tell better stories with an interesting character development, whereas, for instance, TND was just a
bunch of action sequences (badly) put together under two hours.
I would be suspicious if they could pack the whole story of Bond becoming a 00, the development of his relationship with Vesper, etc. in less than two hours.

I second that

CR run time

Comments