Losing patience with films that don't have a good start

[nauru]

I'm not sure how to describe it, but some films and TV shows are just really, really tightly put together. Every scene, every shot, every line, adds something immediately important to the film and advances the plot, characters and setting all at the same time. And the opening scenes are always perfect -- and look as though more thought went into these scenes than the rest in the film. I like this. It gets me immediately interested in the film, and makes me want to know what happens next. It gives me a positive impression of the pacing and hope for a content-rich viewing experience that will not be littered with writers crutches and filler shots/scenes.

With others films, the writer seems to take my patience for granted, using filler shots to run up the runtime and basically do nothing. Or unexplained cryptic stuff to try to make the film seem mysterious, possbily to make up for less-than-stellar writing (you shouldn't have to hide crucial elements from the viewer/reader to make your story interesting; lazy writing). This is particularly irritating at the beginning of the film; the way I see it, the first scene should grab you and make you interested in continuing to read; much like the first chapter of a book. But often it seems directors are taking my patience for granted, and waiting 20 minutes, 40 minutes, even an hour before anything actually starts happening. They just screw around for a while, often a long while, before the film even starts going anywhere at all. Often I find myself checking the clock with these kinds of movies and thinking 'damn, I'm only 11 minutes in? That felt like a half hour -- how am I going to last for another 90 minutes of this shit? Geez...'

Is there a name for these two styles? And is there a way to filter the films that take the first scenes seriously from the films that just assume the viewer has nothing better to do no matter how mundane the opening portion of the film is? Lately I've begun just cutting my losses and turning off the movie if 20 minutes has passed and I still don't give a damn about anything that is happening on screen, or if the writer is just bullshitting me with cryptic garbage and expecting me to have faith that 2 hours later 'it will be worth it' and 'I'll see how brilliant (s)he is'. Sometimes after only 10 minutes if the film has some particularly irritating characteristics I just hit the stop button. Life is too short for this nonsense lol.

The exception is for unique science fiction premises which transport the viewer to a totally unfamiliar world, where a plotless exposition is often necessary, and generally quite welcome. But if the main character is just another walking indy movie cliche living some generic urban existence that has been shown countless times before on film and television, people need to stop mucking around and get going with the actual movie. We can follow an advancing plot and become familiar with characters at the same time, sort of like walking and chewing gum. In my opinion.

[jess87]

I can understand what you are saying. Sometimes I think it's important to establish a dynamic though. Like, you might want to emphasize the strength of the latter half of the film by contrasting it with a much lighter, seemingly ordinary beginning. Horror films typically utilize this technique, although too often it's a very predictable formula that loses the intended impact in the end anyways.

Also, it depends on what sort of films you're into watching. You really can't expect much out of Hollywood beyond formulaic, cliche-ridden films dumbed down for mass appeal, and films emphasizing entertainment rather than art. Foreign cinema is far less guilty of these crimes.

[Jehan]

I think you're talking about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_open
which is basically setting the mood and pace for the film in the first scene.

[Stewball]

Anybody got any examples, good or bad, of what they're talking about?

[jess87]

Personally, I think this is more an issue of Nauru being very impatient, but I think there are some examples.

As I had previously mentioned, some horror films fit the bill. A film might be about a few teenagers planning a camping trip out in the middle of nowhere and the first half an hour or so might show them doing typical teenager stuff that eats up time and isn't really relevant to the core of the film. I don't mind this if it's used to build characters but too often the characters in modern horror films just aren't likeable or very developed so when they're getting slaughtered by some deranged stranger, I'm rather indifferent to it. Also, because this storyline is overused and predictable, there isn't much strength to the contrast that exists between the seemingly ordinary beginning and the twisted latter half. You can really get a sense of all of this even just by watching the trailers for these sorts of films.

That being said, I think you do need time to build up the film. If you gave away everything at the beginning, you may severely lessen the impact of the film. Some people may criticize older horror films for having a "boring" first half, but films like The Exorcist are better for having established characters and atmosphere in the manner that they did, rather than just jumping into the heart of the film.

[Stewball]

The best part of Ghost Protocol was the opening: Tom Cruise navigating a prison riot while Dean Martin sings "Ain't that a Kick in the Head". Priceless, but the rest of the movie couldn't keep up, or decide whether it wanted to be a comedy or an action flick.

[tef]

There are also films that are light on characterization or plot but get by as a result of some intangible 'feel.'

In TV every shot has to count toward the plot because you don't have a lot of time to deliberate and edit.

Personally I think there's nothing wrong with giving up on a movie if it doesn't grab you. If those shots of a guy looking out a train window and then meeting his parents after he mysteriously vanished 5 years ago don't grab you, don't wait for the nuclear explosion that changes everything. Just turn it off.

[nauru]

I think if you don't have an inherently interesting science fiction (or fantasy) premise to explore, and you don't want to have the movie start right away, then basically you need to offer the viewer some truly engaging cinematography -- and I mean really impressive stuff because people have been making movies for a long time now and it takes serious effort/talent to use the camera effectively in a way that the viewer hasn't seen before. Or in a way that the viewer has seen before but is so much better this time around that the viewer feels like watching despite there being nothing interesting happening in terms of plot or characterization.

Actually, if you have a unique and inherently interesting character then just showing this person go about their life can be a sufficient opening in itself. But most main characters these days are not inherently interesting; they tend to be generic city-dwellers, particularly in popular indy films.

Someone mentioned lowering expectations for Hollywood flicks -- but actually I find what often sets Hollywood films apart from independent stuff is far superior pacing. The movie starts immediately or within the first ten minutes; hollywood producers seem to never take an audience's patience for granted (except coen brothers, woody allen and quentin tarantino movies, which do take patience for granted IMO, if you consider these Hollywood).

Regarding the cold open: it's similar, except what I'm talking about here has nothing to do with the placement of the credits. I don't care if there is 10 minutes of film before the opening credits/title. And if those 10 minutes have nothing happening, this is actually worse than if the title is shown up front. The main thing I care about that the movie starts within a reasonable time from when I press play; not 25 minutes later. This is regardless of when the title is shown, show the title at the end for all I care, if the movie begins at the beginning (not in the middle) and ends at the end I'm happy.

[jess87]

I actually find the pacing in Hollywood films to be rather annoying to watch, but Hollywood films function on a such a linear manner and generally seem to focus primarily on the plot and superficialities rather than the characters, mood/atmosphere and subtleties, so I guess it's perhaps to their benefit to just get to the point. It's a matter of taste but personally, I hate watching directors whose style mirrors a child with ADD or ADHD, or when the story keeps leaping ahead, never establishing anything amongst its stops except for the plot outline.

[nauru]

I actually find the pacing in Hollywood films to be rather annoying to watch, but Hollywood films function on a such a linear manner and generally seem to focus primarily on the plot and superficialities rather than the characters, mood/atmosphere and subtleties, so I guess it's perhaps to their benefit to just get to the point. It's a matter of taste but personally, I hate watching directors whose style mirrors a child with ADD or ADHD, or when the story keeps leaping ahead, never establishing anything amongst its stops except for the plot outline.

Example?

These days it seems pretty rare for pacing to be too fast. Seems much more common for the pace to be too slow, possibly to try to stretch a lack of content (kind of like using shaky-cam to try and cover up crappy action choreography. Directors think they're fooling people but I don't think they are).