Running time of Quantum of Solace

james362001

Does anyone remember reading a past article that director Marc Forster wanted to edit the film down to less than 2 hours? Trying to find actual article or someone at ajb007 can answer the running time he gave. :007)

Napoleon Plural

All I read on mi6.co.uk is that he didn't have long to edit it, or half the time he'd like. And that he had to dump two big set pieces he was keen on early on due to budget restrictions. Which makes you wonder what they were....

7289

I too read, probably on MI6.com that the final running time of the film was to be 120 minutes, no more no less. It was my impression that this was the one requirement the director had to adhere to.

Just hoping that the 120 minutes will be good ones. As John Ford said, "All a film needs is three good scenes and no bad ones".

Mr Martini

7289 wrote:

I too read, probably on MI6.com that the final running time of the film was to be 120 minutes, no more no less. It was my impression that this was the one requirement the director had to adhere to.

Just hoping that the 120 minutes will be good ones. As John Ford said, "All a film needs is three good scenes and no bad ones".

Here you go:

http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=6423

sharpshooter

I'm fine with the run time. It has the chance to be a tightly wound energetic thriller with no fillers.

Loeffelholz

7289 wrote:

Just hoping that the 120 minutes will be good ones. As John Ford said, "All a film needs is three good scenes and no bad ones".

One of my favourite directors---the man certainly knew what he was doing!

120 minutes, while a bit shorter than modern-era Bonds, is a good running time...yet another counter-balance to the longer previous outing. Given that a card game dominated the second act of CR, I very much doubt there will be as much time to 'rest and reflect' in this one, giving QoS more momentum with its narrative.

Loeffelholz

Here it is: at 106 minutes, QoS will be shorter than Goldfinger...

http://commanderbond.net/article/5520

From the longest Bond film of the franchise to the shortest...I think we're going lean and mean, here---no overlong Act 3, no drawn-out denouement---and I think it's a good thing. The flatter the trajectory, the more accurate the shot.

I've never minded a longer-running Bond film...but this is going to be interesting.

emtiem

It's always nice to get a lot for your money, but films have also been getting too long recently with stuff like Dark Knight and Pirates of the Caribbean hanging in my mind in particular- showing very little self restraint (there's an odd countertrend for films that are too short too, though: Rambo, Cloverfield).
CR was just about okay because it was really good, but it really was pushing it with the Venice house finale- I've always thought that was a set piece too far and it simply got in the way of the ending.

So to hear Quantum is going to be more compact is a good thing, but I can't deny that I would have liked a few more minutes of Bond goodness. Still, the proof's in the pudding.

Loeffelholz

It also makes the restructuring of the series look more far-reaching than it initially seemed, with the unconventional re-casting of the lead actor and the much-ballyhooed 'reboot.'

Unpredictability---over formula---seems a good bet. But as you said, the proof will be in the finished product.

It also means more showings per day, per screen...and if it's a big hit, more $$$$ per register :v

Agent Wade

This posting is similar to the one I left on the ravenous IMDB boards.

Let's remember that people are complaining about the Dark Knight being too long when it's in the same comparative length of Casino Royale. It's about content. I never use length as a measurement of strength or weakness in a movie, because it's what happens in that time that matters. Some movies are just written much tighter than others

Hardyboy

And now according to The Guardian online, the film will actually be only 100 minutes long. 100. An hour and forty minutes. I'm not sue what to think of this. According to the article, Forster claims that the movie is "a compact, emotional, intense journey," and I hope that's what the movie is. But the author of the article, one Ben Child, is already suggesting that some fans may worry:

"Given that the new film does not have its predecessor's basis in a Fleming original, some fans may wonder if that suggests a lack of confidence in their material on the part of the film-makers this time around."

Personally, I don't think the lack of source material is a problem, and so long as the movie is good I don't care that it's short. . .but often movies are very short when a lot of junk has to be cut away. Stay positive, Hardy, stay positive. . .

Sir_Miles_Messervy

There are probably a lot of people that "drag" friends and significant others to Bond movies with them. Everyone I've coerced into watching CR has liked it, but thought it was a bit long. I think it's definitely a smart move to make this one shorter overall.

Of course, the question is: Will it be TOO short? I suppose it depends on the reason.

Are they trimming away scenes that they shot that just came out to be garbage or Are they trying to streamline the film and keep only the scenes that truly embody the concept of the film itself?

In essence, do they only have 106 (or whatever) minutes of usable material or are they sacrificing time for artistic reasons?

Obviously, let's hope that it isn't just because the cut scenes were all terrible.

Strangeways

I didn't thnk CR was too long, even though one friend I took did think so.
I don't think the run time matters, just as long as however lonbg it is that it's all quality.
CR and OHMSS are the best 007 films IMO, and they don't feel over 2 hours, even though they were.
I just think we'll have to wait and see.

Gassy Man

I've always preferred longer films, and though most modern films annoyingly insert ponderous close-ups of actors or silly explosions or tired car chases in place of actual scene to increase length, a few get it right. IMO, Casino Royale needed another 10 minutes to make the romance work (I understood it; I didn't really feel much of it), and The Dark Knight was riveting for its longer running time. I suspect trimming the film down has less to do with making a "lean and mean" story and more to do with increasing time for commercials/trailers and having more screenings per theater to increase the box office take.

Loeffelholz

Hardyboy wrote:

And now according to The Guardian online, the film will actually be only 100 minutes long. 100. An hour and forty minutes. I'm not sure what to think of this.

Seems like the Guardian's just being overly literal there--if not outright sensationalist!---with that sub-headline, Hardy. Pretty typical. They've taken Forster's quote of "a little over an hour and forty minutes," which is the same quote as the one from the story that listed the film at 106 minutes, and made the 'editorial decision' to call QoS a '100 minute' film. Why? Because it's a grabber...

I predict that QoS will run for 106 minutes, or more. I could be wrong, but I've become an admirer of the craftwork exercised by Brit newspapers, and therefore allow for an admittedly imprecise 'blur factor' in how information is passed along to the reader.

Grishenko

I couldn't be happier with this decision, if it is indeed true. Movies are too long nowadays. Movies should not be longer than two hours. I have never seen a relatively short movie that made me feel as if plot development was sacrificed because of run time. Indeed, the plots of shorter movies seem to be more coherent and better developed than those in more rambling pieces.

On the other hand, two years is a long time to wait for Bond fans, and we want our money's worth. I predict we shouldn't fear; this seems to be a step in the right direction...

Sweepy the Cat

As long as it is in-between 90-150mins I'm happy

taity

I do wish it would be longer, but I suppose the challenge is to see if its a good movie.

After all, Superman Returns went on for far too long with nothing happening. We wouldnt want that to happen, now would we