There's one bit in the Levi quote that troubles me:
robster16 wrote:In the ’50s and ’60s, when animation was still a new thing, people would just be amazed by the animation, so you could tell it in a more classic, slower way. But, we live in the YouTube generation, so if you don’t keep it interesting and moving, than you’re going to lose the audience anyway.
I understand that having filler-ish moments isn't good for the pacing of a story. However, the quote also gives me the idea that people nowadays can't stand a "slow-moving" story and instead require flashy and frenetic stuff so that they don't get bored.
One thing that kind of bugs me with many of today's movies (and quite a few series, too) is how fast the pace of the narrative tends to be. I enjoy when a movie or a series actually doesn't rush things out story-wise but spends some time on a scene, slowly building up the mood and characters. For example some of the vista shots in The Lord of the Rings films (e.g. the Lighting of the Beacons sequence in Return of the King) are beautiful because they give proper time for a scene and the music that accompanies it instead of taking away its majesty in MTV-like quick cuts.
I don't think quick cutting and a fast pace is necessarily a bad thing. However, when it's overused, it becomes a hindrance to the story because there isn't time to catch one's breath (figuratively speaking) and thus the emotional response won't be as strong as it could be with better pacing (as in, not rushing through stuff with the speed of light).
Some of Disney's movies have fallen victim to this as well, but I hope that Disney (as well as other studios) will give the story the time they need so that the pacing serves the story and not vice versa. I have high hopes for Rapunzel, but I hope it won't be a cut-fest and that it gives its scenes, music and characters time to enter the audience's hearts without force-feeding them.
Some things you see with your eyes, others you see with your heart.
It will be a little while.
