Pedantic Contrarian
Well-known member
- Messages
- 110
- Reaction score
- 157
- Trophy Points
- 48
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.
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.
Last edited: