Movie has great pacing

>movie has great pacing

Anyone else notice the art of Pacing has been totally lost in modern Çįńēmà ?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=CIbWO8YO0KM
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

im a pleb, give me an example of a good pacing movie vs bad pacing movie. please stay 1980s plus time period, i havent seen many pre 80's movies

Watching contemporary movies, it often feels like I'm not really watching a movie but a string of individual scenes that don't really flow into each other and the actors are constantly talking but none of it has any bearing on what's on the screen. I figure it's the editing's fault.

I just hate when shitty pacing is used to cover up shitty filmmaking under the guise of "MUH SLOW BURN"

Also, Lil Debbie > Kreay

good pacing: lord of the rings trilogy
bad pacing: lord of the rings extended trilogy

Watch regular version of Terminator 2

Then watch the super extended cut of terminator 2

I like the extra scenes but they really screw up the pacing

In terms of action flicks "Die Hard" has nearly perfect pacing. Compare it to any action movie today and you'll notice the difference . I'll blame CGI for this because when an action sequence comes up it feels totally disconnected to the rest of the film and is usually over stuffed and too long for its own good

The Thing, or any pre-"They Live" John Carpenter film.

modern movies are paced appropriately for the cellphone generation, who need a loud argument or explosion every four minutes to get them to look up at the screen

Good pacing: Goodfellas
Bad pacing: Casino

>lil Debbie


Nigga pls

BvS

THE THING THE THING; ALWAYS THE THING. hope it was an example of good pacing, because the thing really builds up relatively fast compared to 1 hour of """character building""

>In terms of action flicks "Die Hard" has nearly perfect pacing
I was showing this to a friend who'd somehow managed to never see it and he kept complaining about how nothing was happening for the first twenty minutes. This is what modern action movies have conditioned people to think.

youtube.com/watch?v=CIbWO8YO0KM

f u pleb

yes. pacing is practically dead in cinema. it's alive and well in television though

Good pacing: The Bourne Identity
Bad pacing: The Bourne Ultimatium The Bourne Supremacy

Compare any of the previous three Indiana Jones movies to the fourth.

Pacing is editing faggots, there's a good reason Fincher's editor is so highly sought and acclaimed

Taking ten to twenty hours to tell a story because you have overflowing amounts of redundant dialogue is not good pacing.

>he thinks this is a deep or original thought

Off yourself, old timer

Why didn't they edit out the last 20 minutes of Girl Wiff dragon Tattoo ?

Pacing is a retardedly subjective concept.
For instance, compare someone growing up watching movies like casablanca to someone growing up watching movies like Battle: LA.
See for an example of the former and for an example of the latter.

It's essentially "Does it conform to my preconceptions": the critique.

I've noticed that the art of framing (Kurosawa) has been partially lost.

Battle: Los Angeles is actually kinda slow paced and meandering in its presentation, at least relative to other movies of the same kind right now.

But they are clearly talking about two different kinds of poor pacing. A movie can absolutely drag or run far longer than necessary. At the same time, a different movie can absolutely move far too quickly, not even bothering to include establishing shots or breaks in the action to give context to what's going on.

Yeah but see, that's just the point. It varies so much that people rely on spouting off "poor pacing" in lieu of actually justifying their opinions to themselves or others.
It's misused as fuck because the average person has no idea what it fucking means and, in my experience, assumes that it's one specific and quantifiable template that has to be followed regardless of the style and genre of the actual movie itself.

>It's misused as fuck because the average person has no idea what it fucking means
So?

To use semi-recent films as examples of pacing that works and doesn't work for me, I thought that Peter Jackson's King Kong had excellent pace for being as long as it is, while Pacific Rim started to wear me down only an hour into it.

Know what else is a dead art?

Lighting direction.

It's the same director for both of those films, though. I haven't seen Apocalypse but surely it has shots with higher contrast as well.

Good job picking two shots under widely different lighting conditions though.
One is set at night near a campfire and the other in broad daylight.

Kreayshawn is for _______

Doesn't mean the latter can't be lit in a more interesting way

Not but that scene is throwaway trash. Why would they put effort into it when they didn't put effort into the shit that surrounds it?

Good pacing: Satantango
Bad pacing: Armageddon

Bumpin Bumpin

They pay out of the ass for the CGI, they're going to make it visible because they haven't got a superb director, unlike DC.

The second picture looks so bad, holy shit.

And that girl.........
so fucking bland and average. Why the fuck would you pick a bland girl to play Jean Grey? The first girl was amazing IMO.

So you admit they weren't putting in effort which proves point? A film should have consistently good lighting

Ew I had to mute it just so I could jack off.

Pacing is an empty criticism used by people who are more concerned with their own comfort than appreciating art. Literally a criticism only mouthbreathers use.