Movie Story-Telling and Pacing Differences - 20's through Today

[DarkDune]

Hello fellow Movie Fan-addicts!

I recently saw the new Hobbit film (The Desolation of Smaug), and Frozen, which are both highly successful moderm films, from modern studios, and from artists who know how to tell really good stories using film as a medium. In watching these films and comparing memory of other recent modern films I gave some time to thinking about how the story-telling, and pacing of film has changed over the years. I notice this in television as well, and it is quite different from film not so far back - even as recent as the 90's, 80's and 70's.

We live in a modern World, and are often bombarded with multiple things simultaneously calling for our attention, which in contrast is not what watching a good movie is all about. In watching movies, we sit ourselves down, and desire being transported to other World's, and choose to blast our senses with images and sounds sometimes unlike anything we've ever dared to experience in the real World. In doing so, however, distraction is not warranted, or desired. A good movie, with a good balance of story-telling, action, and pacing is more successful at giving us the illusion of being transported for a time there.

So, I was wondering if you all would join me in a discussion of how film story-telling, and pacing have changed over the years, and if you have a preference.

For example:

Do you enjoy quick cuts from one actor/actress to another, or do you prefer the camera linger longer on an actor/actress in order to take in their performance?

Do you think this visual style has changed for the better, or worse?

Can you think of some specific examples of movies where the more modern, quicker pacing was highly successful, or highly disastrous?

Are there some older, slower pacing films that just nailed it?

I would really enjoy hearing about what you all think (I hope this is an interesting topic for you all).

I would also love to know - if you choose to reveal it - whether you are a child of the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, or 2000's, to provide some further context to your opinions.

In my case, I am a child of the 70's, so you can imagine I grew up with films from that era in the Movie Theater itself, as well as TV, and some Movie Theaters that gave me "proper" access to older films.

[DarkDune]

Added a Poll if you choose to reveal your decade of birth!

It is not public in terms of your vote, but will add some overall context to the discussion as to what decade is prevalent in our opinion pool.

Have fun discussing!

[Foggy]

It's quite interesting actually. Since I am fairly uncultured in rich film history (I have seen a lot of films from the decades, but like anyone, the further back I go past my birth, the less I've seen).

So sometimes I find films that don't appeal to me, the pacing comes off slow, the character struggle to be relatable or for any other various reason. But I often see a classic film that surprises me by how relevant and/or timeless it is.

I think the biggest surprise of that was Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon, a film that is deeply seeded in ancient Japanese's folk lore, yet feels just as compelling and well structured as any other modern day thriller. The framing device of the story is pitch perfect, and the film maintains a steady pace of escalation that keeps the film unpredictable, without becoming far fetched in it's own way.

Of course, film has really become a formulaic creation today, where even the best films play to a steady structure. You need to have everything set up within your film by such a time, you need such a time to wrap up your film. I was watching The Red Shoes this morning and found that it was a little long winded to get up on it's feet, however it never really bothered because the characters and the scenario needed time to build and breath, however if this was a modern day production, it would of been up and running far sooner.

And while I like any genre and style of filmmaking, I now usually find myself becoming more patient and interesting in the performance driven films with the steady camera movements to create an atmosphere and stoic visuals, over the pyrotechnic filled explode-gasms that usually flood the cinema. But I think this might come down to the fact that the big blockbusters I enjoy tend to be the more jolly upbeat ones than the stubborn faced serious ones. Mainly because as a kid, I was brought up on stuff like Gremlins, The Goonies and Big Trouble in Little China, which are only really interested in delivering on pure fun. While stuff like Man of Steel or The Wolverine which take themselves all a bit too seriously are just as hollow as the upbeat films like Iron Man 3 or Pacific Rim, which are easier to forgive because they deliver on the entertainment factor.

But at the end of the day, I just like good films, whether they make me laugh or cry. A good story is a film at the end of the day, but it's the energy or the power that you inject into your film that will determine if it's great or not.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by DarkDune

Can you think of some specific examples of movies where the more modern, quicker pacing was highly successful, or highly disastrous?

Are there some older, slower pacing films that just nailed it?

I would really enjoy hearing about what you all think (I hope this is an interesting topic for you all).

I would also love to know - if you choose to reveal it - whether you are a child of the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, or 2000's, to provide some further context to your opinions.

The second Jason Bourne movie.Saw it at the theater,and decided I'll never again sit through a 2 hour movie which even makes music videos seem to have slow pace

I think David Lean was a master of slower pacing.

I'm a child of 80's very much.

On the whole I'm not sure the movies as an artform has changed very much.The visuals obviously has changed dramatically in recent times,but the quality seems to be pretty consistent throughout the ages.

Nice thread

[DarkDune]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Nice thread

Thanks!

I appreciate everyone's input on this discussion. It is something I have thought a lot about since I have noticed a change in recent years. It is also noticeable in television, which I unfortunately am exposed more to these days in that I happen to have an 8-year-old. He loves Spider-man and the Avengers cartoons, which are different from there 80's and 90's versions these days in terms of pacing and story-telling too.

Part of my interest in this is in understanding how it has changed in recent years, and whether people perceive it to be better, worse, or are indifferent. I get the feeling sometimes all the quick pacing stuff is taking away from the story-telling aspect that I hope my 8-year-old will also be able to recognize and appreciate some day, as I did.

[Packerfan75]

I was born in the 70's and feel that most movies are speeding up like everything else in our culture. Horror movies may have been hit the worst by it. Little to no character development, no psychological build up, and no slow tension. Just nudity, profanity, and excess gore. It's all for shock value.
Comedies have followed the same trend. Rarely does someone take the time to write something clever. Instead, it's excess profanity, nudity and sexual and insulting humor.
Our society is becoming increasingly impatient and many want it all now. Many movies reflect this and give us shallow experiences. Not all but most.
For me, a good example of a modern film with old style pacing was No Country for Old Men. It was just about perfect. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time as the tension slowly built and the characters were revealed.

[L-Rouge]

well my second cheerished component of film is sound design, so I may deviate somewhat. Star trek brought me into movies. the colour of the enterprise, its blue dish, it's red impulse engines, the beautiful circular shapes. My heart was full of warmth as a child seeing this. but sonically my ears were as tingly. The Mutara nebula,


Wrath of Khan Lightning
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbL1b...utu.be&t=2m40s

the sound of the lightning, sounds like a cymbal being "swished", The explosions of the ships in Star Trek 3 are amazing, quick, in one instance quite agonizing.The music of James Horner and Jerry Goldsmith are my templates so other wordly.

I miss that style of sound in todays movies. I think as much as people complain about the safety net of generic hollywood blockbuster movies retreading old ground, Similar arguments about safety in sound can sometimes apply to the latest movies as well. If you put triple the channels of theatres and the superior dynamic range aside, sometimes time delay with thunder from lightning will make me take notice. (a recent watch of Close Encounters of The Third Kind has this time delay and it made the film feel so raw and unregulated by a to-do checklist) To say I can't remember the last movie movie that delayed it's thunder in the sound design, is an understatement.

Nicely enough Star Trek won me over this year. Trek is loaded with nostalgic sound effects harking back to the 60's loved that.

Point of interest however, The Uss Vengeance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8BYy...utu.be&t=1m12s

So unusual, gave the ship and it's admiral a bit of menace. but then listen to "Science Officer 0178" and his incredible voice. I just could not get enough shock, that was awesome.

It was for me a nice little link of movies (Khan Theme) One got me interested in my youth, the other re invigorates my interests as an adult.

[DarkDune]

Originally Posted by L-Rouge

well my second cheerished component of film is sound design, so I may deviate somewhat.

We are talking the changes in pacing of sights, and sounds, so...

That is fine!

Please keep the discussing going...I am enjoying reading your perspectives. As I hope you all are too.