How to define good and bad pacing....and what exactly is ''pacing''

[Pedantic Contrarian]

Since this post doesn't really cover the nitty gritty technicalities of Fanediting and I can't find any other place to put it I figured I may as well put it here.

How exactly does one confidently and realistically define good and bad pacing in a movie or are the concepts of ''good'' and ''bad'' pacing just incredibly subjective based on one's own perception of how ''Slow'' or ''Fast'' a films narrative, music or shot should flow from one scene to the other based on ones own level of patience or impatience with how long there willing to sit through the duration of said film making elements?

As far as I can tell the standard movie length is generally considered to be 1 hour and 20 minutes so anything below that runtime would potentially be considered rushed and a result of bad pacing and poor planning as said film fails to meet the standard duration criteria unless it's intended to be an episode or short movie, but of course that is not a concrete rule as a number of film makers like to extend that duration well beyond the standard film length duration with some going well past the 3 to 4 hour mark.

So by that logic if said duration is beyond the 1 hour and 20 minutes standard runtime than it would be accused of being to ''slow' as a result of ''padding'' and potentially wasting it's runtime with beautifully panning scenic imagery or the inclusion of multiple sub threads, world building and characters that could have been removed to keep the narrative flowing at a much more acceptable pace that maintains audience engagement, yet I also hear the arguments for why films of the 3 to 4 hour nature have better pacing and structure than a standard length movie with one of the justifications being that the longer runtime allows the narrative to properly tell the story despite it's ''Slower sense of movement''

As such my questions come down to these.

1: How would you explain to someone what ''Pacing'' is in the most simplistic way possible without talking down to them?
2: What would be a good and bad example of pacing in films that have a duration of 1 hour and 20 minutes and why does said mannerisms of pacing work/not work?
3: What would be a good and bad example of pacing in films that have a duration of 3 hours or more and why does said mannerisms of pacing work/not work?

I feel like this would be one of those ''Well duh isn't the answer obvious'' kind of situations.

 

[unfair]

This isn't going to be the simple hard and fast criteria you're looking for, but maybe it will give you more ideas... For me it comes down to "flow" (Flow is a video game built on the concept of engagement, keeping the attention of the player in a state where they're vibing with the content) - I don't necessarily believe in the three-act structure as some people do, I think it's a bit of an overused trope. Usually when I'm watching a film for editing or re-watching a pre-edit one of the notes I write down is the timecode if I get bored, that's an indication that the previous section needs to be tightened up to keep me engaged.

Obviously this is subjective, but it has to be because as you say it isn't a static speed or value for each film, I like slow films and action films, and those are both going to have plot beats happen at different speeds. If I had to analyze why I'd say items of interest or excitement. For slow films this might just be character building, plot reveals, new environments, etc, and for action films I'd say you need periodic action or it feels flat and the "flow" isn't right.

A couple of examples - in the film Columbus (2017) there isn't much that happens, it's slow with a lot of silence, but we do regularly either meet new characters or hear their thoughts, and this keeps you engaged without any need for excitement peaks. Interview (2007) is much the same, it's basically a one-room film with two people talking about different things, so as long as their conversation is interesting and moving along you have flow - keeping viewers in the zone.

Now for instance the Harry Potter series, which I did an edit of recently, is more of an action series - it has character parts and intrigue, but the flow of the films hinges on action at certain intervals. I'm not entirely happy with my edit because of this aspect - on paper I like how the story ties together, but to me the flow feels off, the first and third (it's a trilogy of edits) both have a good hour or so where stuff happens but it isn't to the high excitement level that I feel gives those appropriate peaks and valleys of action.

Do keep in mind though that it's possible to have flow at a very high level just as you do at a very low level with drama films. It is possible to take an action film and remove all the slow parts and still have flow, but it depends on the content keeping the viewer engaged. Ambulance (2022) - at least my edit of it - falls into that category, it rarely ever lets up but keeps you engaged at a high level by varying the reason for the tension and excitement with constantly shifting events/threats/environment. If you had an action film that was one note or didn't have variety it would result in the viewer either feeling bored after a while, or exhausted at the end of the film. If the viewer feels worn out you've done it wrong and kept their attention through stress rather than engaged their interest.

That stress is probably seen more in the horror genre, if you had a film that had constant killing and chasing a character the audience identifies with, giving no moments of respite, versus something like Ready Or Not (2019), whose action/horror/killing sequences have an excellent ebb and flow. My only complaint is that it does use the three-act structure timing where it takes 30 minutes to get into the meat, which feels okay on first watch but on revisiting it feels a bit excessive to use a third of the film for essentially character setup. So in that sense "flow" can also be gauged in terms of first and second viewing, and if you can make the edit flow well for second viewing then it should also be fine for first-time viewers, as long as you don't cut any important knowledge that a first-time viewer would need to enjoy it.

Edit: Oh and this my seem like heresy to some here, but I think Lord Of The Rings is a good example of bad flow, you asked for examples of long films with bad pacing, and for me those films always seem incredibly long and make me feel exhausted if I can even make it through them at all. In episodic form they're decent and interesting, but I think they just daisy chain together too much random excitement and action that on its own is fine, but when globbed together into one film isn't really a smooth ride. But if you chop it up into TV series form it actually seems more natural. So the flow can also depend on how you package the content too.

 

[matrixgrindhouse]

Are you actively aware of the progression of time, in real life? Are individual scenes lingering longer than they should, making you wonder why they haven't cut? Is the plot rushing by so fast that you can't keep up with what is happening? Are the action scenes incomprehensible as to who is where and doing what? If the answer to any of these questions is "yes" the movie is poorly paced. Good pacing - like good editing - is invisible. You're not conscious of it. You're simply engrossed in the movie. It's as simple as that to me.

 

[The Scribbling Man]

Runtime is irrelevant, for me. Half an hour, three hours. It's not how long the film is on screen, it's whether or not the time is being used appropriately. I liken pacing and editing to music. There is a sense of rhythm. Sometimes the rhythm is off, and you can feel it.

 

[Ray Danger]

Runtime is irrelevant, for me. Half an hour, three hours. It's not how long the film is on screen, it's whether or not the time is being used appropriately. I liken pacing and editing to music. There is a sense of rhythm. Sometimes the rhythm is off, and you can feel it.

My thoughts exactly.
I find one BIG advantage I have over the original editor(s) is that runtime isn't a factor to me at all.
A story told with style & "snap" has a much stronger & longer lasting impression than one that takes longer to tell, or one that leaves out important moments.
Your comparison to music is incredibly apt. Though I haven't made any of it public yet, most of my projects are music based. I've found my knowledge of music & rhythm to be very helpful in my film edits.

 

[tremault]

This short video explains it really well. You could try to assign numbers to it and try to 'get it right', but editing is an artform. You just have to feel for it. we could argue that not everyone can be a good editor, like not everyone can be a musician? You either have that ability to feel it or not? I can only hope that my own sense of timing is good and trust the feedback I get.

 

[Moe_Syzlak]

I think this is going to be more than just subjective. I think it’s clear that audiences are being conditioned for a different type of pacing than what I grew up with and will likely have a completely different idea of what works as a result. I say that with no judgement; I just think that things have changed. For example, to me like the final hour of Endgame is intolerably long. But it seems most modern audiences love that massive CGI battle stuff that I just find boring and unaffecting. Whereas, I think the drawn out, lingering shots of Stalker, 2001, or more recently The Zone of Interest work wonderfully to achieve the desired results. So I don’t think it’s as simple as hitting a checklist of objective points.

 

[chipbayless]

Obviously theres an element of subjectivity, but for me, pacing just means the story should steadily move at a more or less uniform pace. This means every piece of dialogue, every action, every musical cue, even every camera cut, should generally follow a steady rhythm, so that you can almost intuit when the next beat will hit.
Then, you can make certain dialogue or story beats sink in more by subverting the rhythm of the film

Beat, one two three four, Beat, one two three four, Beat, one two three four

UNTIL, something changes in the PLOT.
THEN a change in rhythm is warranted. Lets say a character gets abruptly shot. In order to show the abruptness, subvert the pace.

Bat, one two three four, Beat, one two --CHARACTER GETS SHOT OF BEAT--

NOW you ramp up the pace. It now becomes...

Beat, one two, Beat, one two, Beat, one two

A bomb enters the scene, now you can staedily INCREASE the pace

Beat one two, Beat, one two, Beat, one, Beat, one, Beat, Beat, Beat, Beat.

And then finally an extra long Beat as a payoff.

If the beats randomly ramp up fast, yet nothing has changed in the plot, then it has jarring pacing and the audience will notice. Controversial opinion, but Batman 89 has this problem. The plot never really moves, the film just ramps up on a whim.

When your on a stable pace, you can add extra tension to a scene by adjusting the pace at the appropriate time. Its similar to a common hypnotist/psychology trick called Pacing and Leading. Comedians utilize the same thing.
The first star wars film is a masterpiece for this reason. Its all very abstract like music, and cant really be put down in a formula. Its just if you know you know.