"Quickness" of Solace

Broccoli · September 23 2008, 02:21 AM

While not a determination of quality of the movie, but many people find this interesting.

According to CommanderBond.net (reporting what other sites say), the run time for Quantum of Solace is 106 Minutes, making it the shortest Bond movie ever (which is interesting, as Casino Royale is the longest Bond movie).

While this surprises me, I am still psyched about the movie.

Thoughts?

Skywalker · September 23 2008, 02:27 AM

As long as the movie's good, I don't care if it's under two hours. Casino Royale actually could have used a little trimming, especially at the end.

nx1701g · September 23 2008, 02:29 AM

I wonder if the speed may have been studio interference? I remember reading around the time Casino Royale was released people complained about the length of the film.

Broccoli · September 23 2008, 02:31 AM

^^ The director said early on that he was setting out to intentionally make the movie under two hours.

Skywalker wrote:

As long as the movie's good, I don't care if it's under two hours. Casino Royale actually could have used a little trimming, especially at the end.

Oh, I agree. Sometimes I hate it when a movie drags on for two and a half hours. My butt can get numb. It just seems jarring and surprising considering the length of CR, which QoS is a direct sequel of.

I am not Spock · September 23 2008, 02:59 AM

I thought OHMSS was the longest Bond movie to date?

nx1701g · September 23 2008, 03:19 AM

I am not Spock wrote:

I thought OHMSS was the longest Bond movie to date?

Casino beat OHMSS by 4 minutes.

OHMSS: 140 min
Casino Royale: 144 min

Trubinator · September 23 2008, 03:27 AM

nx1701g wrote:

I am not Spock wrote:

I thought OHMSS was the longest Bond movie to date?

Casino beat OHMSS by 4 minutes.

OHMSS: 140 min
Casino Royale: 144 min

I think it'll at least be a C+/B- film. Not expecting more though.

nx1701g · September 23 2008, 03:29 AM

^ Agreed.

It's odd: I love OHMSS and Casino Royale is pretty similar to it, yet I can't stand Casino Royale. I use it to cure insomnia.

Broccoli · September 23 2008, 03:36 AM

nx1701g wrote:

^ Agreed.

It's odd: I love OHMSS and Casino Royale is pretty similar to it, yet I can't stand Casino Royale. I use it to cure insomnia.

Blasphemy!

DarthPipes · September 23 2008, 04:18 AM

As long as it's good and doesn't shread plot/details from it's story like, say...X-Men 3, it doesn't matter to me.

trevanian · September 24 2008, 01:29 AM

nx1701g wrote:

^ Agreed.

It's odd: I love OHMSS and Casino Royale is pretty similar to it, yet I can't stand Casino Royale. I use it to cure insomnia.

I don't love OHMSS, but I've gotten so I like it for more than just music and photography.

As for CR ... I don't think I'll ever see it all the way through in one sitting without having to fastforward the hell out of it. The one time I was able to almost enjoy it, I had to break it into two separate viewings.

It is kind of funny you bring these up, because these are the two movies where I don't think of the main character as being Bond at all, just a guy who happens to have the same name. The aged-looking brat in CR has less maturity than Bond would have at half his age, if he is anything like the Bond described in Pearson's wonderful pseudo-bio of the character.

Nardpuncher · September 24 2008, 01:55 AM

wow...CR didn't feel that long to me. I've seen every Bond since The Spy Who Loved Me in the theater and as a kid some of them felt really long.
I also have no problem with a zippy new Bond. I find it a little silly when people are really happy that a movie is 3 hours. (like the petition to make Watchmen 3 hours and TDK)

TedShatner10 · September 29 2008, 01:57 PM

I'm not holding my breath on how well Quantum of Solace will measure up against Casino Royale, but then again I found Licence to Kill and Tomorrow Never Dies to be underrated Bond movies that were better than their predecessors that I never understood the love for (especially The Living Daylights that had really horrid and uninspired central villains; Orumov, Onnatopp, and Trevalyan were much more memorable).

I'd dislike the short running time if over excessive editing creates too many glaring plotholes, but a relatively short running but entertaining movie would be better than a overlong and horribly bloated one (see At World's End as a good recent example).

Hermiod · September 29 2008, 02:18 PM

To be honest, there's at least twenty minutes I'd cut out of Casino Royale. Most of which involve Bond sitting around recouperating. I don't think anyone goes to see a Bond movie to watch Bond lying in a bed or sitting in a wheelchair doing nothing for twenty minutes.

John Picard · September 29 2008, 02:44 PM

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.

September 23 2008, 02:21 AM	#1
Broccoli Vice Admiral Location: Broccoli	"Quickness" of Solace While not a determination of quality of the movie, but many people find this interesting. According to CommanderBond.net (reporting what other sites say), the run time for Quantum of Solace is 106 Minutes, making it the shortest Bond movie ever (which is interesting, as Casino Royale is the longest Bond movie). While this surprises me, I am still psyched about the movie. Thoughts? __________________ "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -- Christopher Hitchens

September 23 2008, 02:27 AM	#2
Skywalker Admiral	Re: "Quickness" of Solace As long as the movie's good, I don't care if it's under two hours. Casino Royale actually could have used a little trimming, especially at the end.

September 23 2008, 02:29 AM	#3
nx1701g Admiral Location: Aboard the Executor...	Re: "Quickness" of Solace I wonder if the speed may have been studio interference? I remember reading around the time Casino Royale was released people complained about the length of the film. __________________ Star Trek: The Continuing Voyages RPG - Recruiting New Players! The Terminator Chronicles - The Sarah Connor Chronicles Continue! Not Dead Yet.

September 23 2008, 02:59 AM	#5
I am not Spock Commodore Location: Australia	Re: "Quickness" of Solace I thought OHMSS was the longest Bond movie to date? __________________ It's a FAAAAKKKEEE! Senator Vreenak- In the Pale Moonlight

September 23 2008, 03:29 AM	#8
nx1701g Admiral Location: Aboard the Executor...	Re: "Quickness" of Solace ^ Agreed. It's odd: I love OHMSS and Casino Royale is pretty similar to it, yet I can't stand Casino Royale. I use it to cure insomnia. __________________ Star Trek: The Continuing Voyages RPG - Recruiting New Players! The Terminator Chronicles - The Sarah Connor Chronicles Continue! Not Dead Yet.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

September 23 2008, 04:18 AM	#10
DarthPipes Rear Admiral	Re: "Quickness" of Solace As long as it's good and doesn't shread plot/details from it's story like, say...X-Men 3, it doesn't matter to me.

September 24 2008, 01:55 AM	#12
Nardpuncher Rear Admiral Location: Taipei	Re: "Quickness" of Solace wow...CR didn't feel that long to me. I've seen every Bond since The Spy Who Loved Me in the theater and as a kid some of them felt really long. I also have no problem with a zippy new Bond. I find it a little silly when people are really happy that a movie is 3 hours. (like the petition to make Watchmen 3 hours and TDK)

September 29 2008, 01:57 PM	#13
TedShatner10 Commodore	Re: "Quickness" of Solace I'm not holding my breath on how well Quantum of Solace will measure up against Casino Royale, but then again I found Licence to Kill and Tomorrow Never Dies to be underrated Bond movies that were better than their predecessors that I never understood the love for (especially The Living Daylights that had really horrid and uninspired central villains; Orumov, Onnatopp, and Trevalyan were much more memorable). I'd dislike the short running time if over excessive editing creates too many glaring plotholes, but a relatively short running but entertaining movie would be better than a overlong and horribly bloated one (see At World's End as a good recent example).

September 29 2008, 02:18 PM	#14
Hermiod Admiral	Re: "Quickness" of Solace To be honest, there's at least twenty minutes I'd cut out of Casino Royale. Most of which involve Bond sitting around recouperating. I don't think anyone goes to see a Bond movie to watch Bond lying in a bed or sitting in a wheelchair doing nothing for twenty minutes.

September 29 2008, 02:44 PM	#15
John Picard Vice Admiral Location: Waiting for Dorian Thompson to invite me to lunch	Re: "Quickness" of Solace 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. __________________ Don't like my posts? Fill out a report. Psssstttt - Dorian, my location.