This is something my wife and I comment-on often, when watching various films. What dictates the pacing of a film? Pacing doesn't necessarily define whether a film s good or bad, but it can seem like a demerit on an otherwise good film.

Using two recent viewings as a pretty-good example: We watched Captain Horatio Hornblower(1950), with Gregory Peck. A couple days later we watched Dune: Part One(2021) for the second time.

Hornblower is a two hour movie. There was not a minute of it I didn't enjoy, but it seemed a bit "long". Dune is two-and-a-half hours, and it actually takes about a half-hour for me to "get into it", but the movie flies by.

What say the movie folks? I am sure this is an experience shared by all.

The two films used as examples in this OP aren't really as different as they may seem, IMO, despite their seventy-year age difference. Both are "epics" (though Hornblower arguably less-so), and both have similar proportions of action and drama. It's not like one is a whizz-bang action thriller, and the other is a plodding drama.

Modern movies are too fast paced and it's because of the audience IMO. The raised-on-screens generation just doesn't have the attention span now like previous generations did.

I don't like it, things move way too fast now. Even movies from the 90's and early 2000's seem slower than movies of today let alone movies from the 50's.

But what causes them to be "too fast paced"? Like I said, I don't feel that Dune is a whizz-bang movie. And I have seen plenty of flicks that posture as exciting, but drag.

I think it's more of an individual directorial and writing phenomenon, than a generational production style difference.

There's comparatively as much going on in Hornblower as Dune.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:


But what causes them to be "too fast paced"?

Taking just a few minutes to introduce and develop characters and plotlines that in other times would have been much longer.

A good example is Doctor Who:

The old Tom Baker era would regularly have 4-part episodes that would develop characters and the plot. Now they do all that in one episode and IMO never really get a chance to develop characters and plot, it all just feels so rushed and shallow.

I'm not sure if this falls under the context of this discussion, but the movie Drive, starring Ryan Gosling, bored the hell out of my friends while I loved it. There were periods of silence shared by characters in a couple of scenes that were mentioned specifically. And the movie itself didn't involve a lot of action, even though the trailers made it seem like an action-packed heist film.

Interesting topic. For me, Horizon has a pacing problem. It moves too fast between too many characters and ruins what is likely a good story.

quote:

Originally posted by Orguss:


I'm not sure if this falls under the context of this discussion, but the movie Driver, starring Ryan Gosling, bored the hell out of my friends while I loved it.

I have a good friend I'll recommend movies to and he tells me he's bored and turns them off, I don't get it. If the movie is not non-stop action and explosions and mayhem and moving at warp speed, he can't sit through it.

These are movies that I DO NOT find "boring" at all.

I told him about the very well done Amazon series The Man In The High Castle which I LOVED every minute of. He told me he lasted 2 episodes. WTF?

Cap'n Oblivious sez: People's minds process things differently. It's "personality".
Some require/crave external stimulation, and others do not, finding (over) stimulation to be distracting and annoying.

And those that desire the overstimulation, "bore" easily.

I am almost never "bored", as several of my brains find all manner of things to "work on and discuss with one another", even going over "old tapes" and looking for something overlooked or not considered.

I do not like such "fast paced" (in my mind, "all the work done for me and simply a forced feeding").

Rather I like stories that build, and sometimes play out and draw me into the mind of the writer.

Fast paced that require attention to detail is different than "frenetic flashy red laser" to keep one "distracted" from an otherwise "lame" storyline/telling.

And then is subject matter. I can not "get into" Dune.
I have tried to engage many times over the years, the various iterations from the books, to the films, and it just does not interest me.

Same for LOTR and similar genre. There is something about such stories that I am simply disinterested. No hate to those that are intrigued, enamored or otherwise drawn to them. As I have subjects that I likewise am drawn to and "wish there were more of it".

The "pacing" is different for the individual.

It has nothing to do with the subject matter of the film. My wife and I watch all genres, and we take note of mysterious pacing phenomenon across the genre spectrum. It also has nothing to do with when the movie was made.

I agree that it is quite subjective, though my wife and I always agree on whether a film felt long.

Another thing worth noting may be that for a movie to feel long doesn't mean it feels slow. Hornblower was entertaining 100% of the time. I was just surprised that it was only two hours, when I got to the end. It felt longer.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
It has nothing to do with the subject matter of the film. ...

It was an aside. " And then is subject matter."

As I followed up and stated "The "pacing" is different for the individual." being the subject discussed.

Being a point of observation that "pacing", is similar to "subject matter" as well, are perceptions of people as to enjoying a film or not, relating to the difference in people's experience.

Unless you are of the mind that "pacing" is a hard and fast reality, that has nothing to do with the person watching it and their perception of it. I listen to a lot of youtube videos at 2x speed, because the "pacing" is distracting to me and the rate at which I process information. And in other videos, I will slow it down to absorb (rather than re-wind) as I tend to think on the fly as to what is being said and formulate consensus during the stream.

The point that you and your wife have similar take on it, may well be attributed to your having like tastes.
And that can be that you are compatible, similar type personality, POV, likes/dislikes.

That was meant to address all readers of the discussion, not just you, sigmonkey.

The easy answer to the question of pacing is "well, you just don't have patience for anything that's not brainless contemporary entertainment". I just wanted to make it clear to readers that I have thought beyond that possibility before creating the thread.

Actually, the easy answer is that pacing is all dependant on how the director wants his movie perceived.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
That was meant to address all readers of the discussion, not just you, sigmonkey.

The easy answer to the question of pacing is "well, you just don't have patience for anything that's not brainless contemporary entertainment". I just wanted to make it clear to readers that I have thought beyond that possibility before creating the thread.

Gotcha. Understood (and agree).

I was watching John Ford's "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" from 1949 recently and definitely noticed a more leisurely pace as the story unfolded, than is found in contemporary films. I believe Ford's pace allowed him to more 'humanize' his characters than current films do, which in turn allowed the viewer to make a better connection with them and understand their plight.

quote:

a more leisurely pace as the story unfolded

In my opinion, this experience that you enjoyed can be achieved without the film presenting the phenomenon I am describing. If the overall presentation of the film is engaging, the pace can surprise you, even though the plot seems slow and deliberate. So, I suppose, if anything, a movie like that may present a case of a surprisingly quick pace.

What I am describing is perhaps best explained with the example of sitting down to watch a movie of unknown length. When the movie's over, you look at the time, and are surprised that it's not as late as you would have guessed. You enjoyed the movie, but it felt longer than it actually was.

Or the opposite can occur. You watch a film and are surprised to find out how exceptionally long it was, when the credits roll.

It's not to say that one situation is necessarily preferred over the other. Enjoyment could be equal across both experiences. Hence the "mystery".

When you were finished with She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, did it feel as though an appropriate amount of time had passed? Or were you surprised one way or the other?