Movie pacing - your thoughts

R

RockStar

New member
Reviving this just to say that I know so many people found Watchmen boring, but I thought the pacing was great. I never read the novel, so novel fans totally have their reasons. But also a lot of people went in expecting non-stop, wall to wall superhero action and were disappointed when faced with a developing story that sometimes resulted in action sequences.

I have to say that absolutely expectations play a huge role in how you perceive the pacing of a movie.
 
Another issue is your expections of a film. If you go to the movie expecting to see certain things, and they are cut out of the film so they can focus on other things, then that will change your perception of the pace of the movie. At least it did for me when I watched Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.
 
Yeah - I have to agree with the two of you (LilMouse and Mr. Impatient) - I think whether you like a movie or not does a lot for your perception of the pacing of the film.

If you don't like it - it can be interminable.

If you do - it's just not long enough. *nods*
 
For me, it goes movie-by-movie. Some movies, it seems that they run pretty smoothly to me, when others think that they are too fast or too slow. Sometimes, they are too fast or slow for me, but everyone else seems to think that they are fine.
 
I like medium paced movies. I don't want a movie to go by too fast so I feel like a story wasn't told, but I don't want a movie to go by too slow either. If it's too slow I will constantly get up & won't be into the movie anymore.

My 2 fav movies (Trainspotting & Moulin Rouge) go by really fast for me. I actually wish there were more scenes added in them or that the scenes were a little longer. But when I watched There's Something About Mary I felt like that movie was never going to end & eventually I shut it off.

so I like movies to be fast enough where it won't bore me, but slow enough to fit a good & believable story.
 
OK I didn't mean nothing happening in that sense, I meant nothing happening to advance the narrative. For instance, Sunrise - which I LOVED but there's this huge block in the middle where the couple are just spending time together, there's no conflict, it's not advancing the narrative, it's unimportant, they could have just put up a title card to say "they had a nice day together". See usually that type of thing makes me all grrr, when so much time is spent on just nothing important, though in the case of Sunrise, I actually really enjoyed it. It was the very lyrical 1% that I can stand ;)
 
Unsilent - as usual you've hit the nail on the head (by the way, I owe you a PM...). If you were my co-worker it would be awesome because you're so thorough and your methodology is solid (or so it seems from here).


Hmm...it's working, now... It's a lotus blossom. :)


Like Elephant, which I almost loved, but which was just a little too slow in certain areas. I understand why GVZ did what he did, but it was a bit much for me. Still, that was sort of the point of the film.


That's so funny!
I view the movie from just the opposit perspective - it seems incredibly fast-paced to me, especially with all the running, as I said.
 
What determines a movies pace 100% of the time is the genre.

-Rom Coms (Romantic Comedies) are pretty fast since they are usually 90 minutes to 1 hour and 45 minutes (105 mins).

-Action Movies (and subgenres) are usually 120 minutes (2 hours) and possbily more (I.E. LOTR Trilogy; Star Wars films; Matrix series).

-Drama (and subgenres including Romantic Dramas) are like action movies: 2 hours (or less) to three depending on what it is, I.E. Doctor Zhivago.

-Comedies (separate from Rom Coms) are usually 85-95 min. maximum for the simple fact you can't maintain the core joke for over two hours a good 99% of the time.

This has everything to do with the pacing of a film because studios give the director specific time constraints given the genre he/she is working in because a shorter movie -- even a 90 min. action movie -- Means more showings at the local multiplex which = more revenue.

This is why, if you haven't guessed already, epic length movies like "Troy" and "Titanic" aren't made that often... And if they are... They are spread out among genres as to not saturate the market with long movies that require longer showing times at the theater.

Also, to the person that said they don't like movies where nothing happens...

There is always SOMETHING happening in a mainstream film versus an independent, avante-guard film that has, for example, one shot of a tree for 15 minutes and then something else happens and the film is over ;)

Multi-million dollar films don't get made in Hollywood unless "something" is happening.

You may not think that "something" is very interesting... But trust me. There is ALWAYS something happening even if it is so subtle that you don't think there is.
 
oh goodness! that movie was so drawn out, i didn't think i could handle it..i like slow pace movie sometimes because it tells more of the story but that movie's pace was just ridiculous!

A movie's pace should have it's own pace, which is why it's the filmmakers jobs to find the right pace. Moviemaking is a difficult task. :P
 
Usually a film too slow will drive me crazy. But sometimes it works, I guess it depends on my mood. 99% of the time I'll hate a film where NOTHING happens but that other 1% it's nice to look at something that just ambles along at a leisurely pace... :)

I suppose it depends on the film itself!
 
I actually loved Temple of Doom, but I know what you mean by the pacing in films. Some films are so crammed with effects that you feel you're watching a 2 hour video game. Then, despite all the great scenes, you somehow feel empty when it ends. It can be too much. That's why I loved Spider-Man 2 so much. It was nicely balanced and focused more on character than on 2 hours of excessive CGI.

btw- Shrrshrr, I can't see your av
 
Hey all!

For some reason I was thinking of Eric Schweig the other day (like I need an excuse to think about him!), and why I try not to watch Last of the Mohicans.

See, for me, it's like riding a rollercoaster - I feel exhausted by the end of the movie but I want to go again, and have the tendency to watch it at least two, usually three times in a row if I watch it at all.

Why? The pacing - that's why.

They run throughout the entire film and that sets the pacing for the rest of the movie. It just moves along at that speed, and it's exhiliarting.

On the other hand, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom did the same thing, and I hated it - I saw the movie at midnight on the night before it opened, and was so pissed off that I didn't get a breather at all while watching it - it was action scene after action scene after action scene.

So I guess it depends on the film, the subject etc., but I was wondering what you all thought of movie pacing...

Which do you prefer - fast paced or a slow mover (I loved The English Patient despite it's mesmerizingly slow pace), or a combination of the two? Or does it just depend on the movie itself?
 
Back
Top