this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2026

107 points (95.7% liked)

Not The Onion

19643 readers

803 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

107

Film Students Are Having Trouble Sitting Through Movies, Professors Say (www.hollywoodreporter.com)

submitted 6 hours ago by resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://piefed.social/c/movies/p/1723416/film-students-are-having-trouble-sitting-through-movies-professors-say

all 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 8 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Love that people complain about the length of movies while simultaneously happily siting through eight, hour+ long episodes of Stranger Things over two evenings.

Especially when many hours could have easily been left on the cutting room floor of most streaming shows, but they need to streeetch the runtime so that the writers can meet their contractual, or whatever other internal requirements.

[–] toddestan@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago

My favorite is when they they say something like "it starts getting good in season 3". Like I'm going to watch tens of hours of a show that kind of sucks just to see if it actually starts getting good or not?

Of course, the reality is that they aren't really watching the show like I would - as in, they aren't sitting down and giving it their undivided attention. The show is on, but they're also on their phones the entire time, or it's on in the background and they are doing something else, or whatever. Probably one of the reasons why the show feels like it's full of filler - they need to make sure that someone that's only sort of paying attention can still follow what's going on.

[–] morphballganon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Not to completely invalidate your point but streaming shows are pretty formulaic in terms of pacing, with convenient break intervals, and are seldom very deep. Films are harder to break up around a bathroom trip or decide to put on hold until another day.

[–] sexy_peach@feddit.org 1 points 40 minutes ago

Someone tell me how that's a problem. Maybe the decades old films are just as interesting as a lecture and having troubles at a lecture at uni isn't unheard of.

[–] BigMilk13@lemmy.world 24 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

thumbnail of The Brutalist (4 hrs long) okay perhaps not the best example

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 hours ago

And not exactly 4 hours of easy watching.

[–] _lilith@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

You want to re-calibrate from the constant barrage of content? Find a way to watch The Wrath of God its a good movie that opens with a series of 30 second set shots of water flowing. Its like anti-transformers level of stillness

[–] undefined@lemmy.hogru.ch 7 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I only ever had Facebook, Twitter and Reddit and just couldn’t get into Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, etc. so this is really perplexing to me. It just can’t be true can it?

I also can’t stand using a phone while watching a TV show (paid streaming, no ads) or a movie. It’s sad to me that people are unwilling to immerse themselves in something for just a while.

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

Did you have an iPad/phone shoved in front of you during mealtime, or when waiting for a sibling during their sports practice or game, or while waiting at the doctors office, or if your parents had guests or were visiting a friend, or in literally every single potential moment of boredom that could be filled with learning patience, reflection and just enjoying silence?

Because that's the new normal for a whole generation of kids.

I have young kids in gen alpha, bought them up with quite minimal screen time, and the behavioural differences between them and their peers that have been bought up with heavy screen use iPad as the primary tool of choice is stark and very concerning for those kids' future.

And lemme tell you, none of the parents I gently tried to encourage the importance of boredom with over the years changed their behaviour much. As soon as it became a regular tool to deal with an child needing attention it became a very hard thing to part with.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 hours ago

What does "intermission" mean?

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 9 points 4 hours ago

Hey chadGPT, summarize this Fellini for me.

[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 7 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

What about three-hour films?

Some modern ones are absolute garbage, but some are worth the bladder pain!

[–] boydster@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 hours ago

I don't think he knows about Second Disc, PattyMcB

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 9 points 6 hours ago (4 children)

To be fair those older movies are long as fuck. I watched something with 10 minute long opening credits the other day. I had to skip it.

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 11 points 4 hours ago

I remember watching 2001, a space odyssey, and being thoroughly underwhelmed by it. Visually stunning, but if I hadn't also read the book, I'd have had absolutely no idea what was happening for most of the film.

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

The Truffaut film referenced is an hour and 45 minutes.

What movie had 10 minutes of opening credits? Back when credits were at the open, it used to be about 30 seconds of credits.

[–] baatliwala@lemmy.world 1 points 22 seconds ago

I saw It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World recently and the whole movie was like 1 hour too long at minimum, with 10 minutes to both start and end the movie. Funny, but way too long.

[–] protist@mander.xyz 9 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Plenty movies from the 40s and 50s ran all the credits at the beginning along with an overture. IMO the overture is one of the best parts of older movies, which often had amazing, sweeping soundtracks

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world -1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (4 children)

Please name one. Never seen one that had more than 2 minutes of opening credit even if you include the extra symphonic stuff as “credits” (we don’t count previews toward runtimes now, so not sure it’s a fair comparison). Maybe one or two had a dedicated symphonic opening but that was exceedingly rare

[–] protist@mander.xyz 5 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Reading your reaction to everyone else's comments, did you read the part where I said credits and an overture? What's got you so wound up over this? You'll notice I never said 10 minutes like that first guy, but most movies have way longer opening titles than 30 seconds, which is what you said...

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world -1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Which Lawrence of Arabia version from the 40s or 50s (your words) are you referring to?

If you mean the famous 60s film…. Yes, it has a minute of credits and another 4 or 5 for the overture. Not credits.

Again, still looking for examples of extended credit sequences. Overtures are basically the same as intermissions. That’s a totally different beast.

Even if you want to lump them together, we’re still at the “one or two” I mentioned. Huge Hollywood blockbusters. Exceedingly rare.

[–] protist@mander.xyz 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I literally said overture in the comment that's got you all bothered

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 0 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Oh boy. I just reread your edited comments. It’s hard to keep up when you edit like that

But yes, I would still care to hear your 40s and 50s examples. If you have one where overture+credits approaches 10 minutes, I’d be shocked. As we’ve discussed, some examples in the 60s can hit 5 minutes, but that’s about the most I’ve seen

[–] nathan@piefed.alphapuggle.dev 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Watched planet of the apes the other day and it had a good amount of opening credits. Couldn't tell you the length off the top of my head

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

4 minutes. That’s a great example of the rare symphonic opening I was referencing.

But that’s also not the 40s or 50s.

[–] Smuckles@piefed.ca 3 points 4 hours ago

The Outsiders had a stupidly long intro if my memory is correct. I remember taking the tape out to check if maybe it was at the end and the credits were rolling.

[–] teslekova@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Lawrence of Arabia.

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world -1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Why do people keep naming 60s films with 4 minutes of musical intros when I’m asking for 40s and 50s films with 10 minute credit intros lol?

Edit: overture is the word I was looking for, not “musical intro”. But that’s not a thing that happened in early cinema (barring Chaplin, who had strict control of scores - would be interested if someone else cares to google that)

[–] lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 hours ago

Only 10 minutes credits? That's weak.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

I think two-hour movies are soon to be a thing of the past. But, will people pay premium prices to watch a one-hour TV episode on the big screen? One hour is all anyone can handle anymore, and then only if they can also look at their phones, they get the shakes if they can't look at their phones.

When we switch to XR/AR goggles worn every waking moment, that will be the end of movie theaters, and so many other things. Only a few will survive, like drive-ins today.

I don't think it's just the old man in me saying we're heading in a bad direction.

The only ones as a group avoiding this are the "elite". The filthy rich don't let their kids use this tech. Their kids go to schools like they were before smartphones. Pencil, paper, and good grades required to pass. I mean the billionaires, there's a huge difference between $100 million, which is rich to we poors, and $1 billion+. We down here tend to group them all together, but they are not the same. One-hundred million is the new middle class.

[–] solrize@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 hours ago

One hour, bah. I don't understand why people complain about 1 minute youtube shorts. That seems about the right length.