this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2026
174 points (97.8% liked)

movies

2680 readers
565 users here now

A community about movies and cinema.

Related communities:

Rules

  1. Be civil
  2. No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
  3. Do not spam
  4. Stay on topic
  5. These rules will evolve as this community grows

No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 2 points 4 hours ago

My son got a degree in being an unemployed actor, and nailed the unemployed part, the actor part not so much. So after a few years of deeply studying film, he's gone back to college at 26, to get a degree in film studies.

He's SHOCKED at his classmates. He just started a class where they will break down a film throughout the entire semester. They watched it in class together, and EVERY single student, except him, absolutely hated it (my son had already seen it a half dozen times before he even knew the class was showing it).

He's getting frustrated that so much of every film class is the prof justifying the choice of film to the students. My son wants to talk about the film's elements, but he has to sit there and listen to idiots disparage a great film because it isn't a Marvel movie. He says the profs are getting frustrated, too.

I told him not to worry about the morons, and to just keep on digging in at a high level, and his professors will appreciate him.

[–] skribe@piefed.social 24 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Just fail them. They shouldn't be anywhere near a film set with the attention span of a gnat. It's dangerous.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 2 points 11 hours ago

As someone who failed a few college courses before finally getting it and moving on, yes absolutely they should be failed. Even knowing the sting of failing, I had to learn it myself that it was my fault that I failed. If they can't pass the class, a film class, that's on them, and they don't deserve to move on.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, maybe they're in the wrong field

[–] skribe@piefed.social 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

They just see the glamour and the $$$, and don't know about the ridiculous hours and working conditions (when you're actually working).

When I did film school, our first lecture was 9 hours long. We watched a bunch of experimental films. The second lecture was 7 hours long, watching more (but completely different) experimental films. We started with 300 students, and by the third week we were down to half that. Only a handful of us ever worked professionally and I only know two that are still working (I left a few years ago). It's a brutal industry.

[–] Jentu@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Hello fellow film industry abandoner! I never went to film school, but I did briefly join the editors union in LA prior to the industry imploding shortly after lockdowns in LA. I switched to contract commercial work and, while it's been far more soul-sucking, at least it pays the bills. I no longer live in an industry city, so I've been trying to find my footing in a career that doesn't treat (and pay) a former union editor like a youtube editor (no hate on youtube editors, that work seems extremely tedious and they deserve to be paid more). But maybe I'll just break down and become an electrician if my client work ever slows down.

[–] skribe@piefed.social 2 points 5 hours ago

I worked in the industry for 30 years. Longer if you include the acting stuff I did as a kid. I'm too old for all the shit, especially now with AI threatening every part of the industry, but who knows I might be dragged back in. It's happened before, but I'm happy with what I'm doing now.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I love movies, but to be fair, the Brutalist was tough to get through

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 1 points 11 hours ago

Acting was top notch, film, setting, all of it. But yes, it was so fucking long. Clocking in around the same length as return of the king, and they even had to add an intermission. I liked it, but I do feel like there were times it could have been cut out a bit.

[–] Pistcow@lemmy.world 54 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Have a 19 year old foster uh, kid, and she cant make it through an entire Instagram reel.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 32 points 1 day ago (6 children)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] neuracnu@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Here's the entire article text (speaking of people not having attention spans):

For years, audiences have groused that films are too long, and now, a number of film professors say their students are having trouble finishing films they are assigned to watch for class.

The Atlantic writer Rose Horowitch published a piece Friday based on surveying 20 film-studies professors who shared stories of students struggling to sit through films in class without checking their phones or answering basic questions about said films after watching them.

In an anecdote that gained attention on X, the University of Wisconsin Madison professor Jeff Smith recalled asking his students about the ending of the 1962 François Truffaut film Jules and Jim. Horowitch writes: “More than half of the class picked one of the wrong options, saying that characters hide from the Nazis (the film takes place during World War I) or get drunk with Ernest Hemingway (who does not appear in the movie).”

Professors report they have even resorted to asking students just to watch portions of films. It’s a phenomenon mirroring what is happening in high school English classes around the country, where students might just be assigned portions of books.

Though these are discouraging stories for cinephiles to hear, there’s evidence that members of Gen Z are embracing movie theaters and film culture. Some in Hollywood have dubbed them the Letterboxd generation, and they were credited with helping fuel unexpected hits last year.

As Northwestern professor Lynn Spigel told The Atlantic, “the ones who are really dedicated to learning film always were into it, and they still are.”

Precisely the sort of hot take I'd expect from The Atlantic, swirling the drain of stewardship by hiring David Brooks^.

But look, I get it. I'm a genuine film nerd today, and I kinda always have been. When I was little, I'd watch old movies and everything about them set my mind wandering. They were black and white, the pacing was stilted, shot compositions and lightning were static, the audio quality was equally too drab and too sharp at the same time. All the characters were old, boring adults who wore suits and were busy with... adult things to do. It felt like eating crusty week-old bologna. Everything about "contemporary" movies was great! Crisp colors, dynamic lightning, hyper-focused Robert McKee screenwriting that made sure your brain knew precisely what to be thinking at what moment and give you a right happy dopamine hit at the end. What's not to love?

Bless my dad. I once told him that I thought all black and white movies were boring. I had to be something like 10 years old at the time. He told me to go to the video store up the street and rent an old black and white movie called 'Fail Safe' and watch that. I did. That movie left me absolutely floored. Shook. I didn't know, couldn't even imagine, that old movies could go so hard. That was where my interest in the medium really started.

It took a lot of time, discovery, honing of taste and learning the technical limitations of the decades to develop a palette that could appreciate classics.

I don't fault younger people for having the same aversions I did. If I were developing film studies cirricula, I'd ensure that foundational education about expectations of the various cinematic eras was already complete before throwing students into Truffaut.

^ Who is David Brooks? This is David Brooks.

[–] hzl@piefed.blahaj.zone 9 points 23 hours ago

I love movies and watch them constantly, but I'd probably check out if you asked me to watch a WWI movie with pacing and conventions typical of the 60s too. Classics are important for a film class, but there's plenty that can be learned from films made after 1970 too and they tend to be a lot more palatable.

This is honestly a terrible example to use as a general lack of interest. They're film students, obviously something drew them there, it just wasn't war dramas from the middle of last century.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Akasazh@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

What's next? Philosophy students that can't make it through Heidegger's Sein und Zeit?

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Kant is pretty hard to get through to be fair.

[–] Akasazh@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

I know, Heidegger is very dense too. As a former Philophy major I got to pick my turf.

It is a bit curious to me that what you obviously thought you'd be interested in doesnt grab your attention.

You just Kant always get what you want.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Heidigger was writing philosophy? I thought he was just a fat cat Shinra executive.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

He was also a boozy beggar who could drink you under the table

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Wait, was that IRL or in FFVII?

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 2 points 8 hours ago

Honestly at this point I can't tell any more

[–] udon@lemmy.world 33 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"... this course covers contemporary cinema. We will start with the avengers (parts 1-23), followed by superman vs. Spiderman vs. Batman vs. Green Lantern (parts 20-50), and close with Star Wars: the Return of a Return."

[–] Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 15 hours ago

I guess that's what the students were expecting

[–] Ryanmiller70@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 day ago

One of my friends takes several days to watch a movie, no matter the length, and everyone in our friend group pokes fun at him for it.

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 22 points 1 day ago (8 children)

Does this mean we can see the end of the overly long film trend?

I miss films being ~80 - 90 minutes. I've had a long day, I don't want to commit to three hours unless it's something really special.

[–] Nioxic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I hate short movies

Stories feel rushed and theres not enough time for good story arcs

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 10 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (2 children)

A well constructed film does not feel rushed in a shorter run time.

I like long films, like really long ones. Ones where the length is part of the experience. For example, I loved Apocalypse Now Redux.

What I don't like is films that are substantially longer than they need to be. I don't want them pared down, I want them built around the format their story suits rather than padded out. I like breathing room (mostly!) but it's a fine line to walk.

A good film opening gets on with things quickly, getting the viewer up to speed, but too often I find myself quoting Springfieldians from Marge vs. The Monorail - "GET TO THE MONEY!"

[–] degen@midwest.social 1 points 8 hours ago

I honestly love when I get really engrossed in something, credits roll and I look at the scrub bar... ”wtf that was barely more than an hour?"

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

A well constructed, long, film also doesn't feel long

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

True, but it's a lot easier for me to find 90 minutes than 180 minutes on a weekday night.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

That's a completely different problem. You were arguing if a film deserves to be long (it does if it's worth it). Now you're arguing that you don't have time for a long film.

Convenience isn't an Oscar category. A good film can be short or long, it depends on many factors.

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Sigh, I was trying to meet you in the middle. I'm in no mood to fight with you.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Sigh. I'm not the person you were arguing with.

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Well in that case let's revise my comment to "I was trying to meet the person that I was replying to in the middle".

Trying to gotcha me is just going to end up with me being an aggressive arsehole. That's no fun for anyone and isn't going to result in you catching me out, so it'll be frustrating for you and tiresome for me. I'm going to bed.

[–] Beacon@fedia.io 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yesssssss, thank you. 1:30 is the sweet spot. It can go up to like 1:50 and i still totally dig it. Once it goes above 2 hours it starts to detract from my enjoyment of the experience instead of adding to it

[–] nogooduser@lemmy.world 5 points 20 hours ago

My sweet spot is the 2:00 to 2:15 mark. Any less than that feels like an extended TV episode to me.

For some reason, horror movies are good at 1:30 to 1:45.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›