A big part of this is that modern movies are carefully calibrated so that you can follow along while sitting on your couch focused on your phone. Movies in the 1990's didn't need to have so much clanky dialog explaining, in careful detail, why we were someplace. The writers and directors could presume that the audience was actually paying attention to the movie, and so would make the necessary inferences. Modern movies are mostly terrified of doing because the audience is also swiping on Tinder and scrolling Instagram at the same time and would never realize that he just stopped walking with a limp oh my God was everything he said in the entire movie a lie?
I don't particularly disagree with you, but do you have evidence that modern movies are calibrated and written to allow for someone to sit on their phones the entire time and understand?
Largely seems like some movies are written to be mass consumed and some are not. No different then a movie from the 90s. Our attention span is decreasing a lot obviously, but it's never been that long.
>Several screenwriters who’ve worked for the streamer told me a common note from company executives is “have this character announce what they’re doing so that viewers who have this program on in the background can follow along.”
I don't necessarily agree that it means all movies (or even most) are doing this, but it is some evidence that at least some are.
A couple of months ago I started listening to the Scriptnotes podcast, by Craig Mazin (showrunner for Chernobyl and Last of Us, also wrote for Scary Movie and Hangover sequels) and John August (Go, Charlie's Angels, Big Fish, etc.). They discussed receiving notes like that from executives on their scripts- that there needed to be a line of dialog here to explain, rather than just using the visual to explain, so that someone on their phone could follow along.
There are, of course, ways that writers and directors get to ignore executive feedback, have a bunch of recent hits already is one, do your movie outside the studio system is another, have it in your contract because you gave up some money or whatever is a third. This is why some movies are still made in older ways, but from what they said that feedback is pretty universal now.
> Amid a push to perfect 'casual viewing,' creatives say streaming execs are requiring them to remove nuance and visual cues, and do things like announce when characters enter a room.
The second screen effect is largely overstated when it comes to why movies suck. While it’s true for some movies and TV shows that end up being streaming exclusives, the same problem doesn’t exist in theatrical releases or even shows for TV for streaming services like HBO.
Modern movies suck mostly because of Hollywood mostly being risk averse and prioritizing profit over everything else. This leads to IPs being sequels, prequels, remakes, “parts of the universe” or adaptations of existing successful IPs. This also leads to creative directions that are “designed to pull maximum audiences” or in other words average. Almost every single Marvel movie has the same plot with a few changes in characters. It also translates to situations where ideas that would otherwise be successful being tabled. K-POP demon hunters is a great example, an original IP, that audiences want, being sold to Netflix because the executives somewhere did a couple of focus groups and came to the conclusion that this won’t work. Another side effect is lack of innovation. Pixar animation has largely been stale for years now, meanwhile Ne Zha 2 is taking in billions worldwide, Demon Slayer is was one of the most popular movies in the US despite its limited release and Arcane is one of the best rated TV shows ever. There’s a lot more like fewer stand ins to save money that make scenes look “empty and soulless”, overuse of CGI, overuse of Pedro Pascal, etc.
All in all, it’s enshittification if movies because less profit is unacceptable.
My most "old woman yells at cloud" opinion is the fucking DISEASE of smartphones that is truly a cancer in our society. Don't get me wrong, I love mine, and they're completely possible to use in a way that coexists with the rest of your tech and life, but my god, the wide adoption of them has demonstrated the majority of our population has the regulation capacity of a fucking carrot.
And my inner artist is absolutely REPULSED at the notion that "oh I missed stuff in the movie cuz I was on my phone." Then put your fucking phone away. Watch a movie, or don't. Watch a show, or don't. Commit to taking in ONE PIECE of art at a time you fucking dopamine junkies.
I have a buddy, I absolutely love him, but I don't think that fucker has sat down with one medium at one time in YEARS. He leaves a stressful day job and he goes home and he watches YouTube or TV, while playing videogames. Every night. He got to the end of Pacific Drive and didn't know there was a fucking in-game radio station (with a whole host of absolute bangers btw).
Like I just... idk it makes my inner creative absolutely die inside how everyone is so utterly and hopelessly dependent on their dopamine treadmill that they've lost the ability to focus entirely.
Hear hear. I will admit that phones everywhere ( including full speed on highway ) made me finally consider something along the lines of 'you drop the phone in this bowl upon entry in this household'( this should be easier to accomplish at movies where you tend to have codes of conduct, terms of service and the like ). It is getting really bad and it is hard to escape.
Kinda but not really. The music was all created for the game specifically, this wasn’t a GTA situation. It contributes a lot to the weird atmosphere of that game, hence me being flabbergasted he rolled credits on it having no clue it was there.
My experience playing the first few areas/levels was frequent, unskippable radio chatter telling me to do things when all I wanted was to be alone and explore the weirdness. I didn't (yet?) find out about the music stations but would probably avoid them and the game had my full attention.
> My most "old woman yells at cloud" opinion is the fucking DISEASE of smartphones that is truly a cancer in our society. Don't get me wrong, I love mine, and they're completely possible to use in a way that coexists with the rest of your tech and life, but my god, the wide adoption of them has demonstrated the majority of our population has the regulation capacity of a fucking carrot.
Every morning, I am one of about four parents dropping Primary 1 age children off at school that isn't nose-down in a phone. While walking, while crossing the road, while standing there waiting to pick their child up after school - nose down, thumb going scroll scroll scroll.
Christ almighty. I only carry my phone because in theory I'm still at work for that half an hour, and if anyone phones me twice it's probably important enough to look at, maybe even answer.
I'm so torn on this, because on one hand smart phones have been a net positive in many aspect of my life. I get instantly access to maps, I have my bank in my pocket, I get notified of my bills, check my emails, communicate with friends and family, order stuff online..
Yet there is also the toxic stuff, constantly scrolling X, Facebook or Instagram, bombarded with ads, subscriptions and trash..
I think smart phones can be great devices but their use should be limited to useful functionalities rather than dopamine hits.
FWIW, I'm a mobile dev. So I wouldn't have my career if not for phones. If I were given a wish from a genie, and asked if I wanted to erase smartphones from the human experience, I honestly don't know. At once they're sources of incredible utility, convenience and personal productivity and edification. And again, they are just a CANCER on most people's ability to simply perform being human.
It's all crap, my friend. You can pretend Super Mario is different than Predator longer than you can pretend the Big Mac is different than the Whopper or Home Alone is different than Home Alone 2. Little kids can hold two stuffed animals and make up stories where they are different, but when you're older you can meaningfully accept that it all scrolls by and your life is the same whether you ate a Whopper and root for the Bengals or you ate a Big Mac and root for the Cubs.
I have no clue what point you're trying to make. Super Mario and Predator are both classics of their genre, they're massively different. A Big Mac and Whopper are both hilariously inferior to any decent local burger place, or hell, even a chain that vaguely gives a shit like Five Guys or Freddy's. Home Alone 1 and 2 are both classics.
If you genuinely have never felt different after consuming any art for your entire life, that sounds like my personalized version of hell.
> A Big Mac and Whopper are both hilariously inferior to any decent local burger place
You have agreed with me. They are essentially the same. There is no real situation where one cannot be substituted for the other. Now that you have stopped pretending, you may reach a point where you realize that my other statements are true as well.
Or, you may not. That sounds like my impersonalized version of hell.
Are you always this insufferable when you speak, or do you just talk down to people trying to honestly engage with you as a matter of policy?
And no, I am not agreeing with you. Your statement is incomprehensible. Yes, the Whopper and Big Mac both suck to a degree where they are interchangeable. Home Alone 1 and 2 are not interchangeable at all. They have things in common, they have strengths and weaknesses, and I guess if I was in the mood to watch one, and only two was available, I wouldn't be heartbroken about it, but both have enough going on that they both deserve their own existence as well.
And Mario and Predator is just.. I have no idea what you mean. As someone who has experienced both the urge to watch Predator and play Super Mario, no, one is not remotely a substitute for the other. That's just wacky.
The original post was about how he was angry that his friend was messing around with his phone during a movie. Why does this bother him? He feels his friend was not respecting the integrity of art, that he is missing important things in life, that meaning and value is lost as his friend treats his screen time as a flood of dopamine.
What I was trying to tell him (really just talking into the social media void) is that it's all meaningless anyway. When you're young you care, but as you mature, that feeling of the perfectness of your screen time becomes a childish thing. It is much like the difference between two lousy fast food burgers, the metaphor he partially understood but reduced to "they are both lousy" which wasn't my point.
But his behavior was a little too immature for me, with the brinksmanship and oh-so-daring insults to my intelligence, so I probably got sidetracked in my response and it wasn't very good.
> The original post was about how he was angry that his friend was messing around with his phone during a movie. Why does this bother him? He feels his friend was not respecting the integrity of art, that he is missing important things in life, that meaning and value is lost as his friend treats his screen time as a flood of dopamine.
I love how you ask why this bothers me (a woman btw, your reading comprehension seems shaky) and then go on to explain perfectly why this bothers me. I think "missing important things in life" is a bit strong phrasing, I would say: you're missing a lot of the emotional value the art you're consuming has by way of consuming too much at once to beat dopamine out of your brain vs. having a genuine, personal experience with an art object. But this is solely a situation where you're harming your own experience, not me.
The only sense it would really bother me is that I would throw a soda at you if you were watching instagram reels in a theater.
> What I was trying to tell him (really just talking into the social media void) is that it's all meaningless anyway. When you're young you care, but as you mature, that feeling of the perfectness of your screen time becomes a childish thing. It is much like the difference between two lousy fast food burgers, the metaphor he partially understood but reduced to "they are both lousy" which wasn't my point.
I mean I still don't really understand your point. If you divide your attention, you have a less cognizant experience of... anything. If you text while driving, your odds of getting in a car wreck go up astronomically.
If anything as you get older, you should learn to slow down and do one thing at a time, because your attention span gets weaker as your cognitive abilities decline.
> But his behavior was a little too immature for me, with the brinksmanship and oh-so-daring insults to my intelligence
I didn't insult you. I said you were being insufferable and you were. You're absolutely right, I didn't understand your point, and I seem to be far from alone in that. So I asked you to explain it, and you acted like I was an idiot for not parsing your word salad correctly.
> so I probably got sidetracked in my response and it wasn't very good.
Not related to the main conversation, but I'm still mad that the DVD menu of that movie gave away the reveal before the movie even started (showed someone limping and then suddenly not limping anymore as they walked down the street). There was no real twist ending since I knew the guy was lying about something.
(Vagueness intended to avoid spoilers for that 1 in 10,000 someone who hasn't seen the movie)
