Can pacing be to fast?

[Kosh]

I've just finished the second draftof my first script, it was 108 pages.

While the first act of both scripts is relatively the same, the second arc of the first draft was so bad that I had to rewrite acts 2-4. Now my second draft is leaner, better written, and flows easily. It's not perfect, but I'm now convinced I can write. The problem is that it's really fast paced. While everyone says that scripts should be easy to go through, most of the scripts I've read are really long and filled with description.

Alot of this may just be the spec style of writing; it makes the go down easy like a really good novel. But it's also the fact that my script seems to go from point to point really quickly.

Should I add some slow scenes to the script just to slow it down?

[Joe Calabrese]

Not knowing the genre and tone of your story, it is impossible to say. But, if you feel the pacing is too quick, then chances are it may be.

[IWrite]

Kosh -

The answer to your question is yes, a screenplay can be paced too quickly although it is much more common for the pace to be too slow.

Pacing is very important. At it's core pacing is based on structure of the major plot points, but it also has to do with scene length and the number of beats. The pace of a screenplay usually picks up as the action rises hitting it's top speed as you reach the climax and then winding down.

One thing I noticed is that you mentioned Acts 2-4. Screenplays normally adhere to a 3-Act structure. Your pacing issues could be due to misplacing where in the story you are placing your major plot points.

But it sounds to me that your problem may be that you are not fleshing out your scenes enough. Descriptions are in some ways a matter of style - but descriptions are primarily about describing ACTION not setting. Screenplays are stories told through visual images. Your scenes should have a balance between action and dialogue. In fact a professional screenplays is 50% action, 50% dialogue. If your screenplay is heavily weighted toward dialogue, then you may feel like it moves fast - but you may be telling your story, not showing it.

An average scene is usually between two and three pages (equal parts action and dialogue) of course some will be longer, others shorter depending on your needs in a given scene. So a 108 page screenplay would probably have somewhere between 35 and 50 scenes.

You also want to make sure that your not jumping from point to point, but that you are building from point to point. As a metaphor you don't just want to show a character at the bottom of a mountain and in the next scene at the top of the mountain, you want a scene showing him struggling to climb the mountain.

Hope this helps.

[maestrowork]

Roughly one page per minute, so at 108 minute, I suppose it's an okay length (not knowing the genre...) Pacing can be too quick if you have nothing but dialogue, or if the narrative is too short and punchy, like "He jumps. She turns. He laughs." Brisk pacing is fine, but if you want to give your readers something to chew on, e.g. mood setting, you might want to vary your sentences, mixing longer and shorter sentences. Chose the right words to give the narrative a heavier or lighter feel if you want. You can also combine dialogue to create longer "monologues" to slow down the pace.

Let someone read it and see if they think it's too fast for your story. Without reading it or even know what it is about, it's hard for us to say.

[Kosh]

Kosh -

The answer to your question is yes, a screenplay can be paced too quickly although it is much more common for the pace to be too slow.

Pacing is very important. At it's core pacing is based on structure of the major plot points, but it also has to do with scene length and the number of beats. The pace of a screenplay usually picks up as the action rises hitting it's top speed as you reach the climax and then winding down.

One thing I noticed is that you mentioned Acts 2-4. Screenplays normally adhere to a 3-Act structure. Your pacing issues could be due to misplacing where in the story you are placing your major plot points.

But it sounds to me that your problem may be that you are not fleshing out your scenes enough. Descriptions are in some ways a matter of style - but descriptions are primarily about describing ACTION not setting. Screenplays are stories told through visual images. Your scenes should have a balance between action and dialogue. In fact a professional screenplays is 50% action, 50% dialogue. If your screenplay is heavily weighted toward dialogue, then you may feel like it moves fast - but you may be telling your story, not showing it.

An average scene is usually between two and three pages (equal parts action and dialogue) of course (http://69.42.87.218/cgi-bin/ezlclk.fcgi?id=9491) some will be longer, others shorter depending on your needs in a given scene. So a 108 page screenplay would probably have somewhere between 35 and 50 scenes.

You also want to make sure that your not jumping from point to point, but that you are building from point to point. As a metaphor you don't just want to show a character at the bottom of a mountain and in the next scene at the top of the mountain, you want a scene showing him struggling to climb the mountain.
Hope this helps.

My screenplay is 3 acts, but I divide the second act in two. You may be right about me not fleshing things out; but my first draft was dragging and had scenes that could be cut out without any harm. So I decided to only put in what moves the story forward. I've also read a lot about how you should start a scene as late as possible and end it as early as possible: taking out the fluff like small talk etc.

Don't get me wrong, there's alot of characterization, but it seems every script I read online is 120 and over, I'm wondering if I'm doing something wrong. The story is a tragedy; reading it reminds me of five million dollar indies.

[-XL-]

So you're worried because your screenplay is only 108 pages? Don't be. That's a great length.

[Joe Calabrese]

Why don't you post ten pages you are concerned about in our screenwriters critique section.

Joe

[vig]

long interpertion of what pacing means to me. because i think it's very important to understand what pacing is, and what it means you will flounder.

the answer is yes, paceing can be to fast and it happns when conflict is resolved prematurely. that's what people mean when they say the pacing is to fast. much like a cuisinart. the more you run it, the more it makes what you put in it, indistinguishable.

i think an elaboration to your question would be, what suffers most in fast pacing? character or plot? is plot the main component in what you think pacing is? is pacing the structure in how you reveal plot points?

first, you have to distingush what this word 'means' to the screenwriting lexicon and the practical application of how it exist within this discipline.

we might have different definitions of pacing. a simply example, and the easiest for me to relate to you, and probally the biggest problem with writers in crafted a script, is the second act. since it is a huge chunk of your script you have to create obstacles that detain your character. my problem in my first couple scripts was i resolved the conflict to quickly. my pacing was to fast. i revealed an 'out' in act one that left me twenty pages ahed of my story. i out ran my story and i never finished the race. writers tend to act like the pace car, they reveal all the second act resolutions or outs for the character in act one, by page 77 your story is over.

in the second act you character is in 'trouble, conflict', we have to spend time with how he deals with the problem. in action it's just one obstacle after another, that builds and paces with plot in mind. it is rising action. the graph of that would be a gradual incline that never drops below a certain level. basically it is the level in which act one left off on.

the character reacts to the situation created by the antag. the protags goal is to solve problems. james bond, xxx, die hard. it's just one problem after another that climbs straight up the graph in a somewhat consistent pace
with one or two dips, or down cycles where the script plains because the characters either have sex, or the audience needs some exposition.

in enemy of the state the story never dips below a certain point after act one, even as they delivery expostion it is delivered in the midst of action. so the story can maintain it's pace. a perfect and ludicrous example of this is THE ROCK, when nick cage is on the motorcycle, plowing through an alley and the entire time getting directions to sean cnnerys' daughters house while talking on a cell phone. a complete giveup by the writer..

they combine the characters motivation, his goal, with action scene. exposition is usually done in a static location, it grinds the story to a halt.

the principle element of a an action story is rising tension in the second act. you can not pace an action story without the steady rise, and methodical plodding of pacing. the entire act is obstacles. the external and internal goals are the same. their is no room for a down cycle.

it's not about the character, it's about the plot.

pacing means the conistency in which you do something. pacing in screenwiting means different things in different acts. pacing in the second for action is different than drama.

literally, you can map out the beats. in a character piece it's totally different as we have to resolve to conflicts, external and internally while they may be tied to one another they have are not resolved by the goal of the protag.

first act pacing problems. the writer reveals the characters problem while revealing a possible resolution. this leads to the page 77 quandry. don't reveal an out in the first act.

let's say the story acts as the 'meal' in a five course dinner. the key to the dinner is how each stage compliments the next one. if you served the courses in five minute intervals you can declare we had a five course dinner, and you'd be correct, but the guest aren't safisfied because there is no time to enjoy the meal. when the character seemingly fnds the answer to all the his problems without paying a tremendous price, whether emotionally or physcially then your pacing is to fast. characters always have to suffer.

comic book adaptions are a great example of how pacing effects plot and character. the inherent problem with adapting a comic is that the genesis of the comic book is about character. it is character driven, which germinates into a plot drven story. in many cases the movie either misses the story beats of the character developement because of time restrictions.

in the 'Hulks' case the diector tried to do both. there are rules, as i've discussed to genres,and comic books touch every element of both. it works in dichotomy to each other. that's just how it is.

so,the best writers, and what we all aspire to do, is create the inherent elements that live within comic books. a transfromation from one thing to another; an entirely diferent pov from what the movie started out to be, to what he ends up as. all the elemets are there - man against himself. man against man. man against somehing else. man agaisnt society. etc... so you are sacraficing one for other.

spiderman handled this wonderfully. the pacing worked as an action script with rising action, that incorporated the internal feelings of our character. he didnt' just react, he processed his goals and desires with the human mind withut accepting responsibilty for what he is duty bound to do. superman did this, wolvernine did this, when superman gave up his powers when wolverine went to the ends of hte earth to find who he was, what spiderman did.

you want to know why comics books are always two hours long, is because the fact is to be successful you have to balance both the rising action of and the emotional down time the character have with themselves.

if you graphed out a script and plotted the visceral and emotional impact the movie has on you, you would find all the ring words of screenwriting show up within the graph and you would be able to see the mechanics behind your question. you want to plot out the movie. you can actually see the plot points, inciting incident, act breaks, midpoint... etc.

so, two weeks ago i actually created a graph that scales to a 90 minute script, roughly. i associated the different components of how to structure or tell a story on the bottom of the graph. all the things the books tell you to do. and the stories i plugged into the graph pretty much followed the same formula. not all the time, but there was consistency in what makes a movie good, and how it looks on th chart.

now, if you extrapulated on that, and compared 100 different movies in the same principle they teach and analyze stocks and commodities, 'technical analysis, you would find that there are trends to constructing a script.

now, in my pursuit of learning the craft, an idea spawened, to write a how to book, 'screenwriters for dummies', and this is a huge section of the book.

I popped in twelve monkeys, watched the movie and graphed out how i reacted to movie. it created the scripts topography. i saved it on the computer. then i read the script and did the same thing. saved those results an then compared them. then i did this wth a number of other scripts.

'THE TECHNICAL SIDE OF SCREEWRITING'. you can see how the movie lives up to the preaching of peope like mckee.

iit was incredible how each genres structure followed the rules. it was right there in front of me on a chart. this can be done very quickly by getting two movies of the same genre, and chart the first ten pages of each.

i've always been good at character and story, but not structure. structure could be learned, that is one element of screenwriting that is due diligence.

everybody has a certain graph of how they should build there financial stability, because the main through line of most people is work, income and wage and how that effects the quality of their life. a script is a microcosm of this.

a financial broker paces the customers lives by charting out points in a 30 year segment so at the end of the road they created a template for the how the ending of ones life will be. so, my fundamental roots are based in numbers and figures and charts that's how i grew up. my life was rooted in logic.

the more i learn about the craft of screenwriting the more i embrace the opinion of a guy like mckee. how many screenwriters would graph out the beats in a story? none. but what are the things that make story good?
pacing. how do you learn how to pace a story? you chart the beats of the story.

there are certain things writers embrace, and they live by a credo. the isolation, the working it out on their own, the me agaisnt my story thing. and i'm not like that. i'm always looking for the truth in my abilities, and that truth lies within structure. structure is painting by the numbers. beats are simply numbers to lay out your script.

and graphing out a 100 scripts and putting it in a book is my way of teaching writers a way to know what pacing is, and how it works.

vig

[zeprosnepsid]

As the other writers noted, it depends on a lot of things. I think what everyone has said is very good.

But as for the question of description, I hate writing it too and I frankly don't like reading it. I only write scripts for myself to direct so I don't put a lot of description in them. But, to be realistic, I am an anomaly. Almost all directors read a script and they want to see it -- visually. They can't see it unless you are describing it to them. So if you are writing if for someone to buy it, description is very very important.

As for your script pacing being quick. It depends on genre. It's alright for some comedies to be talky I think. I can read a Kevin Smith script in 1/2 hour. Also, your quick pacing may actually appeal to readers (good way of getting bought but not made -- since as I mentioned, directors want to see it). But in really good scripts, pacing is really important -- and there are peaks and valleys. If your script is up all the time, then your 'up' moments start to loose interest. A peak will really have impact if preceded by a valley.

But I don't think you should add slow scenes. That seems like padding. Only have the scenes you need. But maybe flesh those ones out.

Good luck either way.

[Kosh]

Thanks for all the comments, especially Vig. I think my problem was not giving the opprotunity to show the protagonist's flaw. I'll psot the first three pages of my script, but this is only the second draft of my first script so...

[vig]

you're welcome kosh