←back to thread

231 points frogulis | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.21s | source
Show context
AIorNot ◴[] No.44567752[source]
Eh, People on their phones can’t be bothered with following plot lines everything has to be telegraphed
replies(4): >>44567761 #>>44567776 #>>44567831 #>>44568143 #
bluefirebrand ◴[] No.44567761[source]
I think it is just as likely the other way around

People are on their phones because the slop they are being served is so shallow and meaningless that they can't be bothered to pay attention to it

replies(2): >>44567788 #>>44568399 #
brokencode ◴[] No.44567788[source]
If that were the case, people would watch classic movies, read novels, etc.

No, I’m pretty sure social media has seriously hurt the average person’s attention span.

The idea of sitting down and watching a two hour movie is really quite daunting when you’re used to videos that are at most 30 min and often less than one.

replies(5): >>44567800 #>>44567803 #>>44567979 #>>44568189 #>>44571754 #
makeitdouble ◴[] No.44567979[source]
> attention span.

This gets repeated ad nauseum, but IMHO people are short on patience, not attention.

Parents probably understand this the most: try to find an 80s movie to show to your kids, you'll have a pass at it first to properly remember what it's about, and it will painfully slow.

Not peaceful or measured, just slow. Scenes that don't need much explanation will be exposed for about for 10 min, dialogues that you digest in 2s get 2 min of lingering on.

Most movies were targeted at a public that would need a lot of time to process info, and we're not that public anymore (despite this very TFA about how writers make their dialogues dumber)

replies(2): >>44569035 #>>44571791 #
1. alexey-salmin ◴[] No.44569035[source]
Old movies are kind of slow but I'm much less frustrated because they are short: an hour, at most two. That's more than enough to tell a story. Modern movies are two hours at minimum with some crossing over three with absolutely nothing to tell (e.g Babylon 2022, completely pissed me off).

I don't think the reason is "public needed time to process info", more likely both the length and the intensity (of changing sights, not of meaning) were ultimately determined by production costs. Filming two hours is more expensive than one hour. Filling an hour with 60 one-minute cuts is more expensive then 30 two-minute cuts because of all the setup and decorations.

Production is now cheaper thanks to CGI, box offices are larger thanks to higher prices and the global market. You no longer have to be frugal when filming, the protection against sloppy overextended movies is now taste and not money. And taste is scarce.