The lost art of film editing

[J1M]

Between the pressure to have as long of a run time as possible to stretch out streaming minutes and a strange preference for 3 hour blockbuster films, there doesn't appear to be anyone left in Hollywood with this skill set.

It's a topic that doesn't get enough coverage from pundits and the industry, who like to blame the audience via terms like "genre fatigue".

I flat out refuse to try streaming shows at this point because there is no discipline in the writing room or the editing room. Apparently the constraints of cable TV runtimes were a positive influence on television.

[Dead]

Movies are longer because people think longer = more smarter = better.
Editing well requires discipline, intelligence and good intuition, which film schools systematically crush through things like dogmatic adherence to simplistic theories and reductive analyses of past works. Too many people in teaching positions are autists who couldn't make a single thing worth watching, or failed art critics, where even successful art critics are usually parasites.

[Atlantico]

Film was objectively better if only because it forced people to focus on what was important and don't waste precious film on what wasn't.

See: David Lynch Twin Peaks season 1 and compare to season 3.

[Roguey]

Tight 90 forever. Quite a number of films from the early-mid 20th century had wretched pacing (even with decent runtimes), and now those days are back.

Film was objectively better if only because it forced people to focus on what was important and don't waste precious film on what wasn't.

See: David Lynch Twin Peaks season 1 and compare to season 3.

I love both. S3's self-indulgence is art. Also Fire Walk with Me had so many deleted scenes that they made an entire extra movie out of them (The Missing Pieces).

[rusty_shackleford]

Movies are longer because people think longer = more smarter = better.

There are very few stories worth telling that fit into 2 hours. Movies are just an inherently bad media format.

[Dead]

Movies are longer because people think longer = more smarter = better.

There are very few stories worth telling that fit into 2 hours. Movies are just an inherently bad media format.

The problem is most evident when people try to make movies that are abbreviated versions of books with supplemental audio and video, instead of creating stories that fundamentally account for the medium's characteristics.

[agentorange]

The increasing length definitely has to do with padding out for the sake of streaming and also giving people a sense that they are getting more "value" for their money (which I read a while back is one reason so many genre fiction novels now reach into the 1000 pages realm, Song of Fire and Ice style, whereas most fantasy/sci-fi books used be in the 200-300 pages area, because it makes people feel like they are getting more of that hallowed CONTENT for their dollar). The film vs digital difference is also true, where there isn't that inherent sense of limited resources when filming on digital which leads to a lack of discipline.

Another reason, which might seem counter-intuitive at first, is that the longer run time of these modern movies, the lethargic pacing of modern streaming shows, is more suited to the diminished attention spans of modern audiences. It might seem the case that a longer run time necessitates a greater attention span (and this might be the case with certain older epic films that put effort into justifying their lengthy run-time), but the reality is the opposite. That lengthy run-time and undisciplined pacing means the viewer can afford to drift off for a bit then come back and not feel like they've missed anything, they can pull their phone out for a bit and then re-engage with minimal discomfort, maybe only having missed a few scenes that should have been cut anyway. You can't zone out for a few minutes then re-engage with the movie and not feel like you missed anything when it's a 90 minute story where the value of every scene has been considered and reconsidered, and the tighter, faster pacing puts a greater demand on your attention span to follow all the action and dialogue.

[rusty_shackleford]

whereas most fantasy/sci-fi books used be in the 200-300 pages area, because it makes people feel like they are getting more of that hallowed CONTENT for their dollar

It really depends on who is doing the writing, doesn't it?
Lord of the Rings has around 1,200 pages or so as was originally published and was intended to be a single work albeit internally divided into six "books".
I'm not sure if it could be cut down without losing important content, as surely Tolkien had already done so with needless information.

I actually prefer Hobbit over LotR tho.

[agentorange]

I figured masterworks like Lord of the Rings being an exception would go without saying, similar to the comment I made about how older epic films justified their length, but maybe I should have specified popular pulp genre fiction, the stuff you see padding the shelves at Barnes and Noble with titles like THE GODKILLER CHRONICLES and DRAGONWALKER (PART 3 OF THE CYCLE OF LYRION). Even the Lord of the Rings novels themselves aren't that long, being around 400 pages each, compared to these new-school fantasy novels which seem to commonly average around 600 - 800 pages. And I somehow doubt the quality of these books has increased at the same rate as their page count when I compare them to older fantasy/sci-fi books at the used bookstores.

[Atlantico]

S3's self-indulgence is art.

There's a lot to like in S3 of Twin Peaks, but not 18 episodes worth. Editing isn't so much a lost art as laziness and self-indulgence have taken over, especially clear in Lynch who knows perfectly well that half the work is made in editing.

There's also no cost in distributing longer self-indulgent takes. That's not a good thing.

Also Fire Walk with Me had so many deleted scenes that they made an entire extra movie out of them (The Missing Pieces).

Apparently Planes, Trains and Automobiles was close to 3.5 hours in the rough cut and Hughes made a 120 minute cut which the studio just laughed at for being too long, and made him do a 90 minute cut. There exists* enough material to make an entire extra movie out of shot footage from PT&A, so yes directors shooting much more than is required for the final movie has long been a thing. But as awesome as John Candy and Steve Martin are, 3.5 hours of them would probably have been self-indulgent and too much.

On the other hand, I would have liked to see the 120 minute version. Still love the 92 minute studio mandated cut.

_{*unless they just threw it away because lol Hollywood}

[Roguey]

There's a lot to like in S3 of Twin Peaks, but not 18 episodes worth. Editing isn't so much a lost art as laziness and self-indulgence have taken over, especially clear in Lynch who knows perfectly well that half the work is made in editing.

There's also no cost in distributing longer self-indulgent takes. That's not a good thing.

Showtime wanted 9 episodes. Lynch told them he absolutely wouldn't do a paltry nine and successfully negotiated for double that number. It wasn't laziness, it was absolutely intended self-indulgence meant to frustrate you.



I've read that the infamous two-minute sweeping scene is allegedly as long as it is because it was originally edited to be closer to a minute, someone suggested it should cut to a different scene much sooner, so he doubled it.

[Atlantico]

Showtime wanted 9 episodes. Lynch told them he absolutely wouldn't do a paltry nine and successfully negotiated for double that number. It wasn't laziness, it was absolutely intended self-indulgence meant to frustrate you.

Laziness in editing, not in shooting. Lynch can vomit out garbage hours on end. It's mostly all garbage, that's why you need editing. Shooting endless GBs of digicam is not gold. It's garbage that needs to be cleaned, edited and made presentable. That's just how it is.

Since he didn't make the series for me, I doubt he did it that way to frustrate me.

[Roguey]

Showtime wanted 9 episodes. Lynch told them he absolutely wouldn't do a paltry nine and successfully negotiated for double that number. It wasn't laziness, it was absolutely intended self-indulgence meant to frustrate you.

Laziness in editing, not in shooting. Lynch can vomit out garbage hours on end. It's mostly all garbage, that's why you need editing. Shooting endless GBs of digicam is not gold. It's garbage that needs to be cleaned, edited and made presentable. That's just how it is.

Since he didn't make the series for me, I doubt he did it that way to frustrate me.

Lynch's goal was to frustrate the Twin Peaks viewing audience. I interpret Audrey's scenes as a metaphor for Lynch and what he expected the audience reaction to be: Audrey is really insistent on going to a certain place where she just knows she'll find who she's looking for if her husband would only just take her there. He finally relents, but what she's looking for isn't there, and then things take a turn for the bizarre.


^ this is the feeling he wanted

[Atlantico]

Showtime wanted 9 episodes. Lynch told them he absolutely wouldn't do a paltry nine and successfully negotiated for double that number. It wasn't laziness, it was absolutely intended self-indulgence meant to frustrate you.

Laziness in editing, not in shooting. Lynch can vomit out garbage hours on end. It's mostly all garbage, that's why you need editing. Shooting endless GBs of digicam is not gold. It's garbage that needs to be cleaned, edited and made presentable. That's just how it is.

Since he didn't make the series for me, I doubt he did it that way to frustrate me.

Lynch's goal was to frustrate the Twin Peaks viewing audience. I interpret Audrey's scenes as a metaphor for Lynch and what he expected the audience reaction to be: Audrey is really insistent on going to a certain place where she just knows she'll find who she's looking for if her husband would only just take her there. He finally relents, but what she's looking for isn't there, and then things take a turn for the bizarre.


^ this is the feeling he wanted

So he was subverting our expectations