The pacing was bad

>the pacing was bad
is there a SINGLE more psuedo intellectual way of criticising a film?
What even determines bad pacing? Obviously different narratives call for different pace

'It was pretentious' is the most pseudo intellectual way of criticizing a film, which is not to say that films can't be pretentious.

There are a lot of different ways to pace and structure a film.

Lets not even have a discussion about this ok? I'm closing this thread. You know fucking nothing and your thread is dogshit. You won't get any more replies. Go fucking read some books or watch some films about editing and film making.

some movies are pretentious

some movies have bad pacing.

pic related. it has both

>Go fucking read some books
wow great reply

This thread has bad pacing.

There's such a thing as bad pacing, however, in my experience, most people that offer this criticism don't know the first thing about editing

Pacing is literally the most important part of a film.

You can't appreciate a film correctly if it doesn't flow properly, just like you can't appreciate a book if the words in the sentences are all out of order.

Of course there's such a thing as bad pacing. You're the "pseudo intellectual" if you think there isn't

This. People use bad pacing as an excuse, as well as they claim the movie was "pretentious", in order to hide that they are too stupid to enjoy it since it doesn't pander to the lowest common denominator. That doesn't mean a movie can't have such flaws.

>"the cinematography in this movie was excellent"
>how so?
>"it looked pretty xD"

10/10 kek'd

When the movie spends too much time on shit you dont care about or speeds through shit you wanted to see.

what is this movie pretending to be?

PACING is probably one of the most important tools in a film. It's the reason you can't just have constant excitement at every scene. People get tired of it and value the breaks. Ups and Downs and Opposites is a science that humans naturally love. Like how it makes *sense* that a rich guy is an asshole. Or how a guy who is really smart is bad with the ladies. Dumb cliches like that click in our brains.

Same with pacing. Needs ups and downs and your biggest down comes before your biggest up (climax).

I was watching some film that had some wide landscape shots, and some asshole had the nerve to say "This cinematography is unimpressive." I had no idea what that meant.

user films don't have to follow a strict story structure like the three arcs, that's just film school bullshit. Every movie has its own pace for a reason, so even if it is a valid criticism (ie: it's too slow), it's still extremely subjective and can never actually be scored from a technical pov.

So yeah it's a really stupid way of criticising film if you're trying to be objective

most faggots dont even know what pretentious means
they just like the way it sounds and want to seem smart

that makes them pretentious, ironic

I really hate how "pretentious" turned into synonym for "bad". there are lots of great, pretentious movies. in fact, most great movies are pretty pretentious. pic related

There's a certain type of movie dork that starts dismissing anything that seems "conventional" as soon as he discovers what that convention is. I imagine most are Refn fans for whatever reason

Trying to be objective when talking about art is stupid

>pretentious

there goes the misuse of that word again

District 9's pacing was atrocious

pacing becomes the catch all for plebs when they can't specifically pinpoint the reason they didn't like a movie

are you implying 2001 isn't pretentious?

>is there a SINGLE more psuedo intellectual way of criticising a film?

Just one:
>tone

what is it pretending to be?

Pretentious is inherently negative, I think you're confusing it to be synonymous with "ambitious"

>attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.
2001 is abstract, you can apply any importance you like to it.

Yeah, exactly, it's all subjective. There's no way "correct" way of pacing a film. Fuck, I'm an editor and most of us know that that there's no magic formula that tells them when to cut or where to insert clips. You just feel it.

Tone is pretty unambiguous though.

"Pacing" is way too broad.

>Pretentious is inherently negative

characterized by assumption of dignity or importance, especially when exaggerated or undeserved:
a pretentious, self-important waiter.
2.
making an exaggerated outward show; ostentatious.
3.
full of pretense or pretension; having no factual basis; false.


how's 2001 NOT ostentatious? pretentious also means something with great ambition or too showoff-y

where did you find this definition?

Pacing means you don't get frustrated by set-pieces and bored by exposition and tone-setting.

It's not "pretentious" if they actually succeed and DO what they set out to do. From a certain point of view it's impossible to be pretentious if an idea or execution is truly original, no matter its other qualities.

Complaining about tone is more subjective. A movie can apply a tone you don't like and be a well-made movie, but the critique that the tone was inconsistent or unclear is a critique that is basically saying to make a movie that arouses emotions and then relates to the ones the movie actually elicits.

>There are a lot of different ways to pace and structure a film.
>user films don't have to follow a strict story structure like the three arcs

merriam-webster

>It's not "pretentious" if they actually succeed and DO what they set out to do
yes, it is. pretentious refers to both: those that aim high and fail to deliver, and those that succeed

idk

that definition isnt really on point

pretentious is something like donnie darko
which tries to be something deep and thought provoking, sure 2001 follows in that same vein but at least it wasnt as fucking bad and presumptuous

like the writers of that movie just left stuff out so that it could be seen as mysterious and
>LMAO SO DEEP
donnie darko is probably the most pretentious pop movie ever
even more so than 2001

No dude

Great ambition that ultimately falls short. 2001 attempts to discuss man's relationship with technology and his place in the universe, and I think it does so very meaningfully

>its an OP answers his own question while posting a le ebin stupid reaction face thread

oh boy

I think the key thing to realize is that some films suffer as a whole because of their pacing, and therefore it's perfectly acceptable to criticize them for bad pacing.

And it's not only slow pacing, but some films have awfully fast pacing, and/or abrupt pacing, in which scenes don't get the proper required time to breathe. There is a good way and a bad way of doing things obviously.

Except it isn't. Believe it or not the "feeling" you describe is exactly the thing you learn from the principles of editing, and is quite objective in the same sense that a shot that is well composed is pleasing to look at on a subconscious level.

Pic related. I whipped this up in paint to show you the point. The top is the actual shot from the film and is one that is well composed as it abides by the composition "rules". Now look at the bottom one. This is objectively speaking a poorly composed shot for several reasons. While the eye is drawn to the character on the left, the area on the right is all dead, there is nothing happening, so why bother shooting it like that?

People don't just make up these principles. Through research and understanding of what makes things pleasing to look at, or flow smoothly as is in the case of editing, do they come up with these "rules". These are conventions for a reason. Only when you know the "rules" can you break them with reason.

>here is nothing happening, so why bother shooting it like that?
there is a time and place for negative space in composition, though. that Mr Robot show uses lots of it

You're a retard.

Plebs usually say this if there was a few too many "boring" scenes.

Still, pacing is a legit complaint. I think it keeps good films from being great.

And in my opinion totally overuses it for vapid aesthetic reasons. It looks sort of pretty, so they use it in every scene

That Polish nun movie Ida did it too and I couldn't stand it.