I think it’ll land around the 2 and a half hour mark or have a similar runtime to Casino Royale, Skyfall, and Spectre. Maybe even longer.
shareOh god no!... I really hate the craig era runtimes.
No need for 2hrs 30mins “epics”. They really need to trim the fat and just get straight to the action.
I hoping for a fast paced 1hr 59mins, but I really doubt it.
Yeah, two-point-five, yeah...
I blame Lord of the Rings. Brilliant films, but they opened up this idea in action movie filmmakers' heads that your gun battle/car chase movie can push one-hundred and eighty minutes.
There's no excuse for a Bond picture to run 2.30
LoTR (the book series) has a very long-winded ending that most people don't have the patience for anymore in this day and age. Tolkien was a snob (in the best way possible) living in the wrong century. The films did a very good job of not skipping the events after the destruction of the ring in Mount Doom (which take up something like 40 minutes of runtime), but Jackson still skipped over the scouring of the Shire because audiences might not have tolerated it. I like the ending of LoTR. Anything less wouldn't have sufficed for such a long and epic tale. Fans of all kinds of different popular series always seem to hate the ending, or at least it's very controversial (Seinfeld, X-Files, Game of Thrones, etc.). There are so many examples of this. Tolkien wanted to get it right the first time and to provide total closure for the reader, and Jackson did a fine job in the films as well. I'm not sure that I agree that LoTR is to blame for other movies having crappy endings or being too long. If the story is good, then of course the audience is going to want to see more and have proper closure. I am betting that after stumbling through this ridiculously convoluted saga of Craig films, they are going to have a very rushed and confusing ending that doesn't properly wrap up anything, so not only are fans like me who already hate Daniel Craig going to hate this film, but so are Daniel Craig's fanboys who have been cheering on this childhood demons dark edgy bullshit for so long now, so why did Eon ever try to appease these fanboys in the first place? They should have just stayed true to the classic Bond formula and not tried to replicate a grand storyteller like Tolkien. They are totally out of their element trying to make an epic saga like this.
shareI agree that Lord of the Rings is one of the most brilliant pieces of literature of all time, and I agree that Jackson did as worthy an adaptation as one can expect (although I think he misfired on a few things).
Tolkien was totally a genius and developed a near-perfect story over many, many painstaking years. My point was certainly not to denigrate LotR or Tolkien.
I just meant that Lord of the Rings confused producers. It's more of an epic than an action movie - although it looks a bit like an action movie. It also made a jillion dollars. Producers (who have never, on the whole, really understood art) then thought, "Oh, people want three hour action sagas. Prepare the green lights!"
As for Craig's Bond era...
I have mostly enjoyed it. Casino Royale and Skyfall were great, Spectre was up-and-down (I hated the reveal about Blofeld and the "plot twist" that SPECTRE was behind it all...please; gimme a break). I hated Quantum of Solace.
My favourites is still From Russia with Love, my top Bond is still Connery, but I don't mind what Craig did with it.
Bond is a kinda cool, unique world where there's room for the goofy take (Moore), the serious spy (Dalton), the gentleman rogue (Brosnan), and the grim antihero (Craig) to take a whack at it. It's like Batman. I love the Doug Moench/ Kelly Jones era, but there's room to enjoy Frank Miller's take, or Morrison, O'Neil, Grant... Keaton was great, but I enjoyed Christian Bale, Kevin Conroy, and sometimes I'm in a silly mood for Adam West.
So, Craig's era has been fun for me. But, yes: they run too long.
Yeah seriously nowadays they seem to be way too concerned with universe building, they should just make a bond film that is just it’s own separate thing and stands on its own
shareI know a lot of people complained about the 2 and a half hour runtime of the Craig films, but I see this being no shorter than 150 minutes. I’m hoping for at least between 150-165 minutes
shareSame here. I honestly think it will and it should. I really don’t see this film being shorter than at least 2h 25m. They have a lot of stuff to cover throughout the film. Such as showing how Bond is living his life in Jamaica retired, then the motivation for him to come back, introduction of the villain, showing us how Bond and Madelines
relationship has been, Madeleines involvement in the plot/ her so called secret, Blofeld having to have some part in the story, the introduction to Lashana Lynch character and how she has been as 00 agent, and basically just dealing with some of the other characters such as M, Q, Moneypenny, Tanner, and so on.
Well we have some idea on how long the film may or may not be or be around. According to Universal Pictures Russia the runtime for No Time to Die is 2hrs 54mins.https://kinoteatr.ru/film/ne-vremya-umirat-2/
This doesn't mean that this is official. It is just a placeholder so we will have to wait for a confirmation later. This can possibly be the correct runtime cause sometimes placeholders can be correct but we will still have to wait and see. Plus the film is still in post-production considering the fact that it was just confirmed that Billie Ellish is working on the theme song and that recently it was announced Hans Zimmer is taking over as composer. But you never know, the film is probably already completed and that Hans Zimmer is already finished with the score and that Billie Ellish already recorded the theme song with the pre-title sequence already complete with the producers only announcing it now that they are apart of this film. Who knows.
IMO if this is just indeed a placeholder. I think it'll run between 2h 30m - 2h40m.
If I feel certain about one thing about No Time to Die, is that it’s going to exceed/approach 2-and-a-half-hours. I could be wrong but I doubt it. And I won’t be surprised if it turns out to be the longest one yet actually (they’ll certainly have so much to cover), it’s what I’m expecting quite frankly. Excited either way.
shareLooks like it’s pretty much gonna pass the 2 and a half hour mark because I was taking a look at the clapperboard thread and the final scene number is 253. Take it in mind that Spectre’s final scene was 203 which ran about 2 and a half hours so this most likely may be the longest film in the franchise.
shareSounds good to me! The last film was arguably slightly longer than it should have been, albeit I do think No Time to Die’s running time will be perfect (especially if the film sticks the landing).
shareI don't really like 2.5 hours movie, but let's pray that it'll slightly shorter. But look at the latest Star Wars trilogy, they look up at the example of it, especially the Last Jedi!
share2:18
shareIt will probably be 2:20 at an absolute minimum. I wouldn't mind a longer run time if it really meant that they properly wrap up this interconnected story and have total closure, but my suspicions are that they will waste a lot of time on irrelevant aspects of the film like Lashana's character and the other MI6 workers like Q and Moneypenny, and then they will have to rush the ending, and there will not be proper closure to this entire Craig era of films.
Also, True Detective Season 1 directed by Fukunaga was plagued by the same issue. It was brilliant up until the last couple episodes where they realized that they were out of time and had to rapidly conclude the season. I was really disappointed by episodes 9 and 10 despite having enjoyed the series up to that point. So I expect a par for the course Craig Bond film, and then suddenly in the final 20-25 minutes they will attempt to wrap up the entire Craig era which will leave way too many unanswered questions, and that might end up being the bait that Broccoli needs to convince Craig to come back one last time to do it 'properly'.
I’m kinda hoping for a 2 and a half hour runtime, but I’m completely with you on that especially with Lynch’s character. I have a suspicion that they will waste too much time with her character and also I fear that with almost every mission Bond has in the film, that she will be there or part of it and have a huge focus on her. I really hope they don’t do that.
share