Pacing of the Bond films.

Does anyone else feel like the Bond movies have lost their sense of pacing? DAD is a clear example of what's been happening in the series, where it feels like two movies mashed into one. What do you think is the most recent, well-paced Bond adventure?

Ideally I think Bond films should be fairly brisk, or at least have clear build-ups to a finale.

DR. NO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xoi_dhD4fY#t=1m4s

I'd probably lean towards Octopussy.

As much as I love the 80's films, it really hasn't been since the 70's era that pacing remained constant. Despite all of it's criticism I think this is something that MR does quite well even if it just a redressed TSWLM which of course was YOLT 10 years on underwater.
FYEO was promoted as a back to basics adventure, but feels a bit clunky overall ,as if they didn't exactly know where to go with it. Or: if what I've read of is true, these problems stem from Wilson's reworking of Maibaum's original drafts. OP seems to always want to be a throwback adventure, and of course was written by a throwback adventure writer. AVTAK must have gone through a meat grinder to become such a silly loveable mess. TLD has this same disjointed pacing, but the reason why I think it works brilliantly is because it mimics how this would actually play out in Cold War 1987, and that it is probably the only real-world Bond film. LTK is a mess, because Maibaum was forced out due to the Guild strike and the production troubles forced the script to the work around Mexican locations.
Then came the 90's era. GE exists on style and some plot threads...and that lasts until the train blowing up. Then everything just unravels. TND is what focus groups said 1997 audiences wanted. Lots of action, explosions, a different locale, megalomaniac bent on some scheme etc. It's just a string of sequences hastily tied together, on a production that was hastily redone before shooting. It is extremely well edited though, as expected of Spottiswoode who was formerly Peckinpah's editor. TWINE is also all over the place, but that is because the script is never fleshed out. ANYWHERE! It is a loose gathering of concepts and germs of ideas that are fascinating but are never coordinated into any cohesive anything. Everyone's all dressed up with nowhere to go.
But of course nothing compares to DN, FRWL and GF in this regard. Story construction and editing so tight it could turn on a dime. You can have more material in the films, but you must remember that these are pictures that are designed to MOVE. Things are supposed to happen and develop with certain rhythm and they do not anymore.
Just look at all that was dropped from Fleming for the early screenplays. FRWL is probably IF's most tightly plotted novel, and Maibaum & Harwood tighten it up even more so that it forms a perfect hour and 55 minutes. 1:55! When was the last time you saw a Bond under 2 hrs?
OHMSS also works because it is essentially Fleming's pacing despite some Maibaum touches to tighten some strands up.

And what do I keep repeating here? The answer to the pacing issue is the loss of Dick Maibaum. As a child I saw one of my all time favorite films for the first time, and loved how it seemed very much like a Bond film. The film of course was Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent (1940) and on the screenwriting team was a young Richard Maibaum. He knew 007 inside and out and knew exactly how to convey Bond's thoughts to an audience in the shortest amount of time possible.

The other is the loss of truly fluid editing. I sorely wish Peter Hunt had stayed on in some capacity. The biggest loss felt on DAF is Hunt's absence in the cutting room. Those early films do all kinds of crazy stuff in editing grammar that make conventional editors scratch their heads. To me, it has always been these two that made up the pacing along with the early director's who put their own individual stamp on their Bonds.

In short, I'd have to answer to the question of best recent pacing...TSWLM or MR with my above noted exception of TLD.

Goldeneye. The movie never flags or drags. Riveting from first to last. I love CR, but I can see why some people would have problems with the pacing.

All of the Bond films have pacing issues.

Harmsway wrote:

All of the Bond films have pacing issues.

Not just all Bond films, but you can say all action films. Particularly those with a predictable confrontation or battle royale at the end. In almost all good-vs-evil films, the buildup is more interesting than the climax. I agree with Khan that GoldenEye was the most consistently paced of the recent Bonds. For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy also feel well-paced. They hold intrigue right to the end. Some well-loved Bond films, like Goldfinger and TSWLM, tend to lose me (to dozing off or taking a break) at the same point. In GF, it's at the attack on Fort Knox. In TSWLM, it's at Bond riding the elevated camera sphere. On the flip side, I think TLD actually gains from its inconsistent pacing. I like the breathers that the film takes, ie. in Afghanistan.

Harmsway wrote:

All of the Bond films have pacing issues.

Which begs the question, how can they be avoided?

I'm sure QoS has the most since it's the one I feel tempted to turn off after every 15 minutes or so 8)

Define "pacing." What exactly do we mean when we use this term?

The worst Bond movie for pacing is, without a doubt, On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Good night, the whole thing is a bore fest from the ending of the first meeting with Draco all the way up to the ski escape from Piz Gloria. My word, if ever I've been so bored in a Bond movie, I've got no idea. Just pathetic. The movie has no sense of speed! Dr. No operates on the same level, but at least I find DN entertaining, and necessary for the slow pace for the most part. Now for good pacing, I think of DAF, TMWTGG, FYEO, OP, TLD, LTK, GE, TND, and TWINE.

00Beast wrote:

The worst Bond movie for pacing is, without a doubt, On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Good night, the whole thing is a bore fest from the ending of the first meeting with Draco all the way up to the ski escape from Piz Gloria. My word, if ever I've been so bored in a Bond movie, I've got no idea. Just pathetic.

The whole Piz Gloria segment might be my favorite from the whole series.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Define "pacing." What exactly do we mean when we use this term?

It's basically how a movie moves along. There's probably plenty written about it on the nets.

OCTOPUSSY has been mentioned. I greatly enjoy OP, and I like how it's paced.

I like OHMSS quite a bit, but there is definitely about ten to twenty minutes in there that could go without hurting a thing.

Harmsway wrote:

I like OHMSS quite a bit, but there is definitely about ten to twenty minutes in there that could go without hurting a thing.

Do you care to make yourself unpopular by proposing what scenes could be dropped?

The White Tuxedo wrote:

00Beast wrote:

The worst Bond movie for pacing is, without a doubt, On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Good night, the whole thing is a bore fest from the ending of the first meeting with Draco all the way up to the ski escape from Piz Gloria. My word, if ever I've been so bored in a Bond movie, I've got no idea. Just pathetic.

The whole Piz Gloria segment might be my favorite from the whole series.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Define "pacing." What exactly do we mean when we use this term?

It's basically how a movie moves along.

Hmmm. Could you be more specific?

OHMSS and CR take time to tell a story - they don't just rush headlong from one action scene to the next. There are moments when character actually speak to each other and advance the plot through dialogue, rather than just action. This is slow-paced, and what 00Beast finds boring and pathetic. :sleep:

TND is slick- or faster-paced, as is YOLT & LALD. Action propels the story and advances the plot at the same time (meaning that at the end of the action scenes, the characters are closer to solving the mystery than they were when it began). :twisted: TWINE, however, tries to tell a taut story about characters developing and losing trust in each other, but periodically the narrative stops dead for a slam-bang action sequence, at the end of which the characters pick up where they left off, with no advancement. This is unevenly paced. :shock:

Then there is QoS, which fills in the lean script with a string of action scenes which go by too quickly for the eyes and brain to follow. After one hour and forty-five minutes it's over, and you're left wondering what happened. That is break-neck pacing.

Skyfall, like OHMSS, will be two hours and twenty-five minutes long, which means they're going to take the time to tell a proper story. There will be dialogue to advance the plot, and suspense between the action scenes, which means 00Beast will probably hate it. :suspect:

I like OHMSS, but in the first half there are several scenes that violate the 'come in as late as possible' screenplay doctrine. I think the bullfight scene could have been trimmed, I WISH the music montage had been trimmed and apparently lots of folks figured it worked better without the safecracking scene (another example of a scene that seems to start early and run long, whether it was deliberate or not), since that whole bit was cut from a number of prints for years.

As much as I like George Baker, I think they could have shoehorned all that stuff into the meeting at M's estate. Given Lee's edginess in the film in the early office scene and then when he refuses to consider a rescue attempt later, this could have been the moment he echoed what he says in the book, which is something like 'who in the hell are you supposed to be?'

There's nothing wrong with some films taking on the pace and detail of a novel; UNFORGIVEN, especially the first half with Richard Harris, absolutely feels like a novel with its superlong leisurely first act, but it is definitely an oddity, however enjoyable. Personally though, I find anti-pacing in a Bond movie to be something of an oxymoron ... going by the way most folks think about NSNA, I'd guess that is a common enough viewpoint.

Just watched OHMSS. I quite liked the overall pace of the film. I can't say scene to scene, but I liked how the story is laid out.

I don't find any problem with the pacing of OHMSS, there's a lot going on and much of it legitimately demands a sense of time to make it work, Hunt delivers a beautifully evolving piece that knows when to run and knows when to rest.

By and large pacing is a legitimate issue that many Bonds must concede but along with OHMSS, I think GF, TLD, GE and TND are the better paced adventures while CR (worse offender by far), TWINE and TB are at the opposite end of the scale. Pacing isn't the overriding factor in making a Bond film good or bad, but if it is off, the rest of the production has to work much harder to keep the viewer on board TB style and mood go a long way to redeem it imho.

What's wrong with the "pace" of CR?

And what about GF's pacing is good?

I like the longer films, especially after a protracted haitus like the one we've just had. I felt cheated when QoS rushed by, leaving us with another long wait (must be how premature ejaculation leaves one feeling - not that I would ever know, of course).

TB, OHMSS and CR were perfect, IMCO (LTK was too nasty - I don't think more of it would have helped). QoS needed to be longer, but I guess anything additional might have seemed like filler.

I expect a lot of MMQBs will be pulling Skyfall apart, criticizing every little thing about it (they've already started, with the posters and the trailers) but I'm not that fussy - I intend to enjoy it, even if there is a moment of wonky CGI somewhere, or a character doesn't develop the way I think s/he should.

Come Oct 24 I intend to withdraw from the forum boards, in order to avoid being inundated with spoilers and opinions from those who got to see the film first. I will return sometime after Nov 10 with my own POV, and will not be swayed by others (nor will I try to convince anyone else that s/he is wrong - to each their own).

AMC Hornet wrote:

Come Oct 24 I intend to withdraw from the forum boards, in order to avoid being inundated with spoilers and opinions from those who got to see the film first. I will return sometime after Nov 10 with my own POV.

I will do the same. Maybe I'll start my latest Flemingathon to compensate for not being able to look at BaB.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

What's wrong with the "pace" of CR?

And what about GF's pacing is good?

imo The pace of CR is all over the shop, a stacatto style presentation that almost behaves like two comepletely diffrent films in collision. Critical elements that needed time both onscreen and in implied real time such as the pivotal romance are introduced too late and offer only sporadic references, the action sequences are OTT in a manner that is inconsistent with the realitvely small scale and personal plot going on beneath, often feeling like everything else has been put on hold they are so arbitrarily contrived and the film draws to an apparent climax at least 40 minutes before the eventual end. For myself the actual final scene was the only redeeming aspect for the chore of sitting through that last third, but sadly with the arrival of QoS pretty much makes that yet another arbitrary and undeveloped moment. By contrast while I grant that GF never runs at the pace CR hits at its peak, more importantly for me it never drags to the extent CR sags - it is, in effect, a film I find very well paced from beginning to end.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

What's wrong with the "pace" of CR?

And what about GF's pacing is good?

GF's pacing is very much a matter of editing, because they had to do a lot of work to keep things moving (or seeming to move, largely through intercutting) after Bond is captured. Also, earlier on you have downright leisurely scenes (driving in Geneva) that are tremendously entertaining in spite of their non-pace, but the movie has gotten enough goodwill up that you just roll with it ... which might be the trick with a lot of popular Bond films in general. I think if you listen to the GF score in film order, you kind of get a full musical performance that has ebb and flow that helps keep the whole film ... mmm, melodious in pace? That doesn't sound right, but it feels right. Lets you glide over the flinch-worthy stuff, like the troops falling and the ridiculous bras on the blonde pilots.

CR doesn't ebb and flow, it surges and writhes and then stops dead ... twice. The first section runs at a reckless speed that doesn't seem to pause for effect or breath, but not in a Bond way, more in a cram-in-as-much-as-possible way, which ain't good.

Presumably CR works as well (?) as it does because of Stuart Baird's cutting, but I'm not a big fan of any of his work and figure whatever salvaging he did still doesn't make up for the lethargy of the card game, which is just murder on the movie. You can't really cut around that embarrassing bond/vesper train dialog scene, you just have to stay with it, so that is probably the point when it really starts to sputter.

The only Bond films for me that drag in parts are YOLT, TSWLM, MR and to certain extents, LALD and DAF.