Movie Pacing: Present vs. Past

[vonzipper3]

Has anyone noticed that the pace of movies have changed over the years.I've been a movies buff all my life(50 now).In the last 10 years the pace of most movies are pushed to the limit & sometimes feel even rushed at times.They seem to give you everything at full speed ahead and not letting you think about what is going to happen next or let you be surprised by a twist in the plot.Me & my son (19) were talking about this.He said most of his friends would not sir and watch a movie that you had to fully pay attention too or have to think over.This is a sad case when there are thousands of movies made that have great stories lines to be watch.Are the new generation of viewers missing out by not having to think about the storyline?WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?

[SquidPuppet]

[QUOTE=vonzipper3;3015581?WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?[/QUOTE]

Same as yours.

[CZAR]

Definitely movies made in the olden days are a lot slower. Dont get me wrong as we still have our share of slow films like Schindler's List, The Green Mile etc...but we also have our fast paced films and much more then what was made back in the day so to speak. Got Em!!

[Gaius Marius]

Blame the ADD generation. I love slower movies (2001, Blade Runner) and I love faster movies (most modern movies). I enjoy both for what they are, and it depends on my mood which one I want to watch.

A good comparison is James Bond. Look at the pacing of the Connery Bonds (slower) compared to the Craig Bonds (faster). I love both, but it is interesting to see how they have changed.

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by Gaius Marius

Blame the ADD generation. I love slower movies (2001, Blade Runner) and I love faster movies (most modern movies). I enjoy both for what they are, and it depends on my mood which one I want to watch.

A good comparison is James Bond. Look at the pacing of the Connery Bonds (slower) compared to the Craig Bonds (faster). I love both, but it is interesting to see how they have changed.

Good point with the bonds and I agree with your first statement...I think TV is largely to blame for what movies have become. It's kind of upsetting to me that we actually have an entire season of the year now dedicated to (mostly) loud, suspenseful and action-packed movies. As TV continues on a path of constant stimulation, the patience levels and attention spans for "slower-paced" movies seems to drop more and more. That's the way I see it anyhow

[Atreyu]

I think some of the reason for faster paced movies is the time we live in and the ways of telling stories has changed.
In my opinion most of the faster paced movies lack character development. The accent is on action and thrills.
Sometimes it's nice getting to know the characters that inhabit a film. I like when it takes time for the story to unfold and you get wrapped up in the characters as well as the plot.
There are plenty of fast paced movies in the past too, like if you go back to some of the classic Warner gangster films such as Little Caesar and Public Enemy, they were fast paced also newer films such as Smokey and The Bandit.
The reason there are more of these so called faster paced films out there is that most of the movie going population is younger adults and teens and they have not or do not wish to take the time with slower paced films. Most of them like everything at a breakneck speed. And the studios cater to them for the sake of the almighty dollar.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

Good point with the bonds and I agree with your first statement...I think TV is largely to blame for what movies have become. It's kind of upsetting to me that we actually have an entire season of the year now dedicated to (mostly) loud, suspenseful and action-packed movies. As TV continues on a path of constant stimulation, the patience levels and attention spans for "slower-paced" movies seems to drop more and more. That's the way I see it anyhow

I don't mind slow-paced movies as long as they tell their story well, I don't think I even prefer fast-paced movies.

[Gaius Marius]

Originally Posted by Atreyu

I think some of the reason for faster paced movies is the time we live in and the ways of telling stories has changed.
In my opinion most of the faster paced movies lack character development. The accent is on action and thrills.
Sometimes it's nice getting to know the characters that inhabit a film. I like when it takes time for the story to unfold and you get wrapped up in the characters as well as the plot.
There are plenty of fast paced movies in the past too, like if you go back to some of the classic Warner gangster films such as Little Caesar and Public Enemy, they were fast paced also newer films such as Smokey and The Bandit.
The reason there are more of these so called faster paced films out there is that most of the movie going population is younger adults and teens and they have not or do not wish to take the time with slower paced films. Most of them like everything at a breakneck speed. And the studios cater to them for the sake of the almighty dollar.

That is a good point on the focus of the pacing. I like well-developed characters, as they can really make a movie interesting. Slower movies tend, as you pointed out, to have more detailed/interesting characters as there is time to breathe and explore the characters more. While there are some really well done fast paced movies, most seem to be "we have a weak plot, cue the Baysplosions to divert their attention from the plot holes!"

[42041]

In the overall scheme of things I haven't noticed much of a difference honestly. You still have plenty of very deliberately paced movies that dwell on every shot, like There Will Be Blood, etc, and you had plenty of films that couldn't spit their dialog out fast enough in the 50s and 60s.

[Al_The_Strange]

There are probably many factors affecting the pacing and action-quotient of movies. One of the biggest things that comes to my mind is that films made within the first 50 years of cinema history were basically classic plays and stories dramatized before a camera; production design was simpler, emphasis was placed more on character and story development rather than action, visuals, special effects, or production quality. This makes films slower, but also makes them higher-quality stories (and in many cases, higher-quality films in regards to their cinematography).

[Batman1980]

I think there is a point to it though, there are a LOT more 80 minute movies than there used to be, which is kind of a disturbing trend because you know 70 minute movies are next and then 60 minute movies.

[Fighter]

Before the invention of blu-ray I preferred the slower paced films of the past....now, I would go in favor of the present.....and yes, I do have ADD

[Snikt]

I'm on the fence about this. There are some movies that are slow paced that I can watch over and over again; Green Mile, Shawshank Redemption Saving Private Ryan.

Then there are others that really drag and I get bored with them either because of the subject matter or because it's just not interesting.

Longer movies can still be fast-paced however.

To me an 1:45 to 2 hour movie is a decent pace. Some movies now a days push it with 2:30 to 2:45 hours (Pirates).

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

I think there is a point to it though, there are a LOT more 80 minute movies than there used to be, which is kind of a disturbing trend because you know 70 minute movies are next and then 60 minute movies.

Well a lot of 80 minutes movies can be found in the 20's and 30's even up to the 40's. Not too sure when the 90 minutes format became more of the rule for feature lenght. Many of the B movies always stayed mostly in the 80 minutes range. The 50's brought in the epic movies at 120 minutes +, even if you did have a few of these before that time. Dances with Wolf help bring back the longer then 120 minutes movies in the 90's and now.

As for movie having a faster pace, it could just going with the times. We live in a wolrd where people are always in a hurry, always rushing, always trying to multi-task and try to shave a second here or there in order to save time, even if most of the time we end up wasting time more then anything else. Also for a good 20 years (up to the 40's at the very least) movies where done by people (actors and producers and directors) who had sharpen their skills on stages in theaters. That give's you a different set of talent and you will pace your movies accordingly. Now we are in the generation of the action movies and you can't pace an action movie today like Key Largo was back in 1948