Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Welcome to BZPower!

Hi there, while we hope you enjoy browsing through the site, there's a lot more you can do if you register. The process is easy and you can use your Google, Facebook, or Twitter account to make it even faster. Some perks of joining include:
  • Create your own topics, participate in existing discussions, and vote in polls
  • Show off your creations, stories, art, music, and movies and play member and staff-run games
  • Enter contests to win free LEGO sets and other prizes, and vote to decide the winners
  • Participate in raffles, including exclusive raffles for new members, and win free LEGO sets
  • Send private messages to other members
  • Organize with other members to attend or send your MOCs to LEGO fan events all over the world
  • Much, much more!
Enjoy your visit!






Photo

It's All In The Pacing

Posted by Ta-metru_defender , in Essays, Not Rants! Jul 05 2014 · 130 views

Essays, Not Rants! 120: It’s All In The Pacing

Time is relative. Some scientist said that at some point. For my purposes, it means that one minute can seem longer or shorter depending on the context. That minute in traffic is far longer than that minute playing video games before work that got you stuck in traffic in the first place.

Naturally, this applies to stuff like movies too. A two hour movie can feel incredibly long or it can flash by in an instant. Why? Pacing. Pacing is important. Really important.

Let’s look at An Unexpected Journey. It’s a three hour movie but, unlike the prior The Lord of the Rings films, feels much longer. The simple reason for this is for lack of content: the film takes much to long repeating points. The run in with the rock giants, for example, is a lengthy sequence that adds nothing to the plot (except an extra action scene). Sure, there’s a small moment showing Thorin’s growing acceptance of Bilbo as part of the team, but that’s a beat that’s seen elsewhere. Sequences like these bog down a movie and draw it out. The Return of the King and the rest of the trilogy were bursting with story and characters: every scene added another layer to one or the other. Those films didn’t feel bogged down as every beat felt necessary to the movie at large.

Transformers: Age of Extinction feels overlong in a different way: there’s way too much going on. Though visually pleasing (as you’d expect from a Michael Bay film), it’s a narrative mess. There’s no clear antagonist antagonizing the heroes and, as such, the heroes have little plan thwarting to carry out. With no central throughline pushing the story along, the film winds up feeling like a series of vaguely connected misadventures involving giant robots. Which wouldn’t be so bad if we actually gave a [cyprindae] about these characters but, this being a Michael Bay film, we really don’t. As such, it’s 165 minute runtime really starts to drag after a while.

Guillermo Del Toro, another purveyor of giant robots, had this to say about film lengths: "All I know is that as an audience member, my [butt] meter starts ringing its fire alarm after two hours.” Essentially, there’s a point where it starts to feel like you’ve spent too long sitting in that chair. If a long movie is paced well it won’t seem long at all, if it’s paced poorly it’ll feel even longer. That said, you’ll probably start to notice how long you’ve been there as the two hour mark fades behind you.

Take Del Toro’s own Pacific Rim as a great example of a well paced movie that doesn’t feel too long. Big set pieces are linked together through emotional beats: The opening and Gipsy Danger vs Knifehead leads to the introduction of Stacker and Raleigh’s arrival at the Shatterdome before we see Mako’s flashback which in turn gives us a quiet character focused chunk before the big battle around Hong Kong. We get another break as Newt and Gottlieb work out the secrets of the breach before the final confrontation. These lulls not only to allow us to get to know and love the characters, but also give us breathers between action scenes and make us long for the next one. Del Toro, ever conscious of the audience’s collective butt meter, ensures that neither character/plot progression or action scene ever outstays their welcome, rather they work together to keep the movie puttering along, keeping us entertained throughout.

The LEGO Movie opts to follow Campbell’s monomyth and wisely never spends longer than necessary on individual beats. Not only does this allow for the movie to move along at a nice slick pace, but it means that when it comes time for it to spend time on something really important — take the conversation between the father/son and Lord Business/Emmet — there’s leeway for it to sink in without slowing down the plot.

At 143 minutes, The Avengers is a comparatively long movie. But it does as Pacific Rim does, stringing together smaller character moments between bigger set pieces, yet never allowing any to last too long. Add that to a group of great characters who you’re happy just to watch hang out with each other and it’s easy to get lost in the movie. And getting lost is the best, because suddenly you forget about time and your butt meter and just enjoy the movie.

Movie runtimes are one thing, how long they actually feel is another entirely. Watching Sex and The City (151 minutes) for class felt like an eternity, whereas The Dark Knight (165) felt just right. Time is relative — especially when watching movies. That’s where pacing comes in.

Note: Of course it’s not all in the pacing, but it is terribly important. Sometimes, a fascinating subject matter and engrossing characters are all you need — see Lost in Translation. That said, this blog post assumes that’s understood

  • 1



Photo
Vorahk1Panrahk2
Jul 06 2014 12:29 AM

I can't say I agree on the pacing of Pacific Rim. The opening fight with Knifehead is all good, but the 40 minutes that follow it are just too long. For a film that promises giant monsters versus giant robots, I found those 40 minutes to be quite dragging at times. To it's credit those 40 minutes are followed by what amounts to a non stop action scene through to the end, but I can't help that evening things out would have benefitted the, erm, 'butt meter.'

 

It's funny that you decided to write about this today as I too was thinking about it. I was reading a book on the production of Fantasia, and in it there are quotes from Walt talking about a conversation he had with Charlie Chaplin regarding Snow White. Chaplin allegedly told him: "Don't be afraid to let your audience wait for a few things in the picture- don't be afraid to let your tempo go slow here and there." That really stuck with me, and resonates pretty well with your point about Age of Extinction- sometimes by doing things too fast you risk alienating the audience by not getting them invested (taking a 40 minutes wait is probably too long, though). And it's not just Michael Bay blockbusters either. Frozen has the same problem despite its 102 minute run time.

 

It's an interesting balancing act, and I applaud the directors who make an effort to achieve it. Ultimately, though, it's completely up to the viewers. We all watch a movie differently and with different expectations, and it's usually those things -not the directing or screenwriting- that determine whether time flies or crawls.

 

Good write up!

 

(... Also how can a Sex and the City movie possibly be 2 hours and 31 minutes? :blink: )

    • 0

(... Also how can a Sex and the City movie possibly be 2 hours and 31 minutes? :blink: )

It's a very big city.
    • 3

Profile

Posted Image

josh

twenty-three

grew up on a ship

studies Storytelling

at New York University

Search My Blog

Planning

August 2014

S M T W T F S
      1 2
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Recent Comments