RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,754
Posts: 5,433,521
Members: 24,836
Currently online: 598
Newest member: Mei'konda

TrekToday headlines

The Art of John Alvin Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23

Episode Four of The Red Shirt Diaries
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Star Trek: The Compendium Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Orci Drops Rangers Project
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Retro Review: Image in the Sand
By: Michelle on Sep 20

Star Trek: Shadows Of Tyranny Casting Call
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

USS Vengeance And More Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

Trek 3 To Being Shooting Next Year
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

Trek Messenger Bag
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

Star Trek Live In Concert In Australia
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > TV & Media

TV & Media Non-Trek television, movies, books, music, etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 29 2008, 03:04 PM   #16
TedShatner10
Commodore
 
TedShatner10's Avatar
 
Re: "Quickness" of Solace

John_Picard wrote: View Post
106 minutes? ACK! IMHO, one of the reasons CR was so great is because the full story could be told properly. Short movies always leave out too many details, making it feel forced and rushed. I prefer a movie to have a minimal running time of 2 hours.
I dislike storylines getting butchered by unnecessary editing, but what is worse is a limited plot being overstreached to a 200 minutes or something silly like that. Casino Royale was not egregiously overlong, but it had weird pacing issues towards the end as soon as Bond gets 'rescued' by Mr. White. And 106 minutes is not much shorter than two hours (120 minutes) anyway.
TedShatner10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2008, 03:10 PM   #17
Timby
GIVE ME YOUR FACE
 
Timby's Avatar
 
Re: "Quickness" of Solace

John_Picard wrote: View Post
I prefer a movie to have a minimal running time of 2 hours.
This ... this, I do not understand. A movie should be the length needed to tell its story, no more and no less. A crime epic like HEAT needed all of its nearly three hours, but Ghostbusters was a taut 105 minutes, Casablanca is perfectly paced at 102 minutes, and WALL·E was, what, 90 minutes long?

My point is that there's no reason to have an artificial criterion for the length of a movie -- that's an idea as ridiculous as saying that a novel needs to be at least 350 pages long.
Timby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2008, 03:14 PM   #18
TedShatner10
Commodore
 
TedShatner10's Avatar
 
Re: "Quickness" of Solace

^And Quantum of Solace is similar in length to Dr. No and Goldfinger.
TedShatner10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2008, 03:24 PM   #19
John Picard
Vice Admiral
 
John Picard's Avatar
 
Location: Waiting for Dorian Thompson to invite me to lunch
Re: "Quickness" of Solace

TedShatner10 wrote: View Post
John_Picard wrote: View Post
106 minutes? ACK! IMHO, one of the reasons CR was so great is because the full story could be told properly. Short movies always leave out too many details, making it feel forced and rushed. I prefer a movie to have a minimal running time of 2 hours.
I dislike storylines getting butchered by unnecessary editing, but what is worse is a limited plot being overstreached to a 200 minutes or something silly like that. Casino Royale was not egregiously overlong, but it had weird pacing issues towards the end as soon as Bond gets 'rescued' by Mr. White. And 106 minutes is not much shorter than two hours (120 minutes) anyway.
I agree that stretching a story is also bad, but to me, a short running time is akin to not getting my money's worth.

JKTim wrote: View Post
John_Picard wrote: View Post
I prefer a movie to have a minimal running time of 2 hours.
This ... this, I do not understand. A movie should be the length needed to tell its story, no more and no less. A crime epic like HEAT needed all of its nearly three hours, but Ghostbusters was a taut 105 minutes, Casablanca is perfectly paced at 102 minutes, and WALL·E was, what, 90 minutes long?

My point is that there's no reason to have an artificial criterion for the length of a movie -- that's an idea as ridiculous as saying that a novel needs to be at least 350 pages long.

The two movies people seem to gripe about the most regarding running time are Transformers and Casino Royale. To me, they both had excellent running times and told the full story. X-Men 3 and Spiderman 3 were both woefully inadequate in the story telling department and should have been longer.
__________________
Don't like my posts? Fill out a report.
Psssstttt - Dorian, my location.
John Picard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2008, 03:40 PM   #20
Timby
GIVE ME YOUR FACE
 
Timby's Avatar
 
Re: "Quickness" of Solace

John_Picard wrote: View Post
I agree that stretching a story is also bad, but to me, a short running time is akin to not getting my money's worth.
If a movie is short, but ridiculously entertaining (see my earlier example of WALL·E), have you not gotten your money's worth?

X-Men 3 and Spiderman 3 were both woefully inadequate in the story telling department and should have been longer.
The problems with those movies were not with their running times (at 139 minutes, Spider-Man 3 was longer than both of its predecessors) but rather with the quality of their scripts. To say that "longer movie = better movie" is an at-best spurious argument that has little to no foundation in logic -- see my earlier point about the length of books.

I mean, heck, Psycho is barely over an hour and a half long, and it's phenomenal. Same with Reservoir Dogs. There's no reason to say that in order to be good, a movie needs to have a length of X minutes. There's just as much room for The Godfather and Casino as there is for Cloverfield (84 minutes) and Good Night, and Good Luck (92 minutes).
Timby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2008, 03:58 PM   #21
John Picard
Vice Admiral
 
John Picard's Avatar
 
Location: Waiting for Dorian Thompson to invite me to lunch
Re: "Quickness" of Solace

JKTim wrote: View Post
John_Picard wrote: View Post
I agree that stretching a story is also bad, but to me, a short running time is akin to not getting my money's worth.
If a movie is short, but ridiculously entertaining (see my earlier example of WALL·E), have you not gotten your money's worth?

X-Men 3 and Spiderman 3 were both woefully inadequate in the story telling department and should have been longer.
The problems with those movies were not with their running times (at 139 minutes, Spider-Man 3 was longer than both of its predecessors) but rather with the quality of their scripts. To say that "longer movie = better movie" is an at-best spurious argument that has little to no foundation in logic -- see my earlier point about the length of books.

I mean, heck, Psycho is barely over an hour and a half long, and it's phenomenal. Same with Reservoir Dogs. There's no reason to say that in order to be good, a movie needs to have a length of X minutes. There's just as much room for The Godfather and Casino as there is for Cloverfield (84 minutes) and Good Night, and Good Luck (92 minutes).
I guess you don't like long movies. Ghostbusters, which I just re-watched this past weekend, didn't really delve into the characters much. It was just a "fun" movie.

Then again, Raiders of the Lost Ark was 115 minutes, while Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was 122 minutes, yet with KotS, I felt like it was missing *something*.
__________________
Don't like my posts? Fill out a report.
Psssstttt - Dorian, my location.
John Picard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2008, 04:18 PM   #22
Timby
GIVE ME YOUR FACE
 
Timby's Avatar
 
Re: "Quickness" of Solace

John_Picard wrote: View Post
I guess you don't like long movies.
Yeah, you're right. I hate long movies.

Which is why I praised The Godfather, Casino and HEAT in this very thread.
Timby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2008, 04:36 PM   #23
John Picard
Vice Admiral
 
John Picard's Avatar
 
Location: Waiting for Dorian Thompson to invite me to lunch
Re: "Quickness" of Solace

JKTim wrote: View Post
John_Picard wrote: View Post
I guess you don't like long movies.
Yeah, you're right. I hate long movies.

Which is why I praised The Godfather, Casino and HEAT in this very thread.

Well, I've never watched those films, and with that in mind, why are you complaining about Casino Royale's long running time? Many, such as myself, thought the long running time was perfect, while others, like yourself, disagree. Such is the way of the world.
__________________
Don't like my posts? Fill out a report.
Psssstttt - Dorian, my location.
John Picard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2008, 04:40 PM   #24
Timby
GIVE ME YOUR FACE
 
Timby's Avatar
 
Re: "Quickness" of Solace

John_Picard wrote: View Post
Well, I've never watched those films, and with that in mind, why are you complaining about Casino Royale's long running time?
Where did I?

Oh, yeah. I didn't.

My entire point in this thread has been that long movies (like HEAT, nearly three hours long) can be just as good as shorter movies (like Reservoir Dogs), with the length of a movie being completely separate from the quality of the story. A movie being long or short has no bearing on whether or not it's actually good.

As an analogy, Of Mice and Men, at only a little over 100 pages, is just as spectacular a book as the several-hundred-page-long Moby Dick.
Timby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2008, 05:14 PM   #25
Hermiod
Admiral
 
Hermiod's Avatar
 
Re: "Quickness" of Solace

TedShatner10 wrote: View Post
Casino Royale was not egregiously overlong, but it had weird pacing issues towards the end as soon as Bond gets 'rescued' by Mr. White. And 106 minutes is not much shorter than two hours (120 minutes) anyway.
Exactly what I meant. The movie just stops. I thought it was finished until I looked at the remaining time display and realised how long was left.
Hermiod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2008, 08:00 PM   #26
blablover5
Admiral
 
blablover5's Avatar
 
Location: Blizzard land
View blablover5's Twitter Profile Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to blablover5
Re: "Quickness" of Solace

Hermiod wrote: View Post
TedShatner10 wrote: View Post
Casino Royale was not egregiously overlong, but it had weird pacing issues towards the end as soon as Bond gets 'rescued' by Mr. White. And 106 minutes is not much shorter than two hours (120 minutes) anyway.
Exactly what I meant. The movie just stops. I thought it was finished until I looked at the remaining time display and realised how long was left.
It's funny but I really like it up until they get to the casino then it just all grinds to a halt.

Using my special powers of iMovie I added the rifftrax track to it and had to burn it to two DVD's and I almost never watch the second half.
__________________
My life--in 500 words or less
"I'm back, baby."
Organs shaped like soap -- wait, reverse that.
blablover5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 30 2008, 07:39 PM   #27
TedShatner10
Commodore
 
TedShatner10's Avatar
 
Re: "Quickness" of Solace

^I'd say Casino Royale nearly went wrong between Mr. White shooting Bond's captives and the penny dropping for Bond about where Vesper's sentiments lay. But I liked the casino segment and Venice climax.

And Doctor Who's "Blink" had more to say than half the fiction out there in only 45 minutes, while the best 45 minute episode from either TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT also had more to say than than the collective 448 minutes of the TNG movies.
TedShatner10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 30 2008, 10:29 PM   #28
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: "Quickness" of Solace

This actually concerns me a little. I've had this fear that, in order to avoid all of the typical "sequel" pitfalls, that this was just going to be like the "rest" of CR.

The short runtime might be more to that point.
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 30 2008, 11:47 PM   #29
Starbreaker
Fleet Admiral
 
Starbreaker's Avatar
 
Location: Chattanooga, TN
View Starbreaker's Twitter Profile
Re: "Quickness" of Solace

I don't think this is a bad thing. Casino Royale was just a tad bit too long.
__________________
Currently Reading: The Abominable by Dan Simmons
Starbreaker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 1 2008, 08:59 AM   #30
Hermiod
Admiral
 
Hermiod's Avatar
 
Re: "Quickness" of Solace

bridezilla wrote: View Post
It's funny but I really like it up until they get to the casino then it just all grinds to a halt.
(Heh, nice change of username )

There's quite a few parts of the film that are just too long. The Casino, sure, the hospital where it just becomes a completely different movie and also the airport chase/action sequence.
Hermiod is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
007, bond, daniel craig, quantum of solace

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.