[deltaonezero]

I disagree. While challenging and a definite technical marvel these issues are relatively deterministic based around the amount of resources a movie has to throw at effects, cinematography and art direction.

I feel pacing is the hardest thing to accomplish, and a lot of times it's the luck of the draw.

Ridley scott in general, his movies have below average pacing. He got lucky one time with Gladiator.

Blade runner is great, I love it. But I can't deny, among all of cinema and among ridley scotts filmography, Blade runner has pretty horrible pacing.

[novosel]

I agree, the pacing is hard. I assume you are talking about the narrative pacing. A well implemented push and pull of narrative is not always needed for a movie to work. I was talking about the whole atmosphere of the movie; even the slow spots, the lacunae, the horrible staggering of the story;-- it works. And that cannot be achieved by "relatively deterministic" production strategy.

I accept that it can be "the luck of the draw". But that is exactly what it means for a work to have an author. With all of its fallibilities. (I dont presupose a single author either, maybe an _author structure_)