Re:The Case for the “Self-Driven Child”
by EvanAnderson on Tuesday February 13, 2018 @02:52PM
(#16370141)
Watching older movies and television shows today I'm struck by how much longer shots are and how there are so many fewer cuts. I'm sure that, to some extent, pacing in movies was dictated by the practicality of technology. Modern-day non-linear editing and digital production allows for more frequent cuts at a much lower expense. I wonder, however, to what extent there is a feedback loop occurring between audiences and directors that drives shorter shots and more cuts.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The Case for the “Self-Driven Child”
by allcentury on Tuesday February 13, 2018 @10:47PM
(#16373286)
Here's a leading early childhood development pediatrician commenting on this exact point https://youtu.be/BoT7qH_uVNo
Re:The Case for the “Self-Driven Child”
by AnimalMuppet on Tuesday February 13, 2018 @04:13PM
(#16370823)
In this context, I should note that my "3 seconds" number was from the 1970s. Does anybody have a more up-to-date number?
Re:The Case for the “Self-Driven Child”
by EvanAnderson on Tuesday February 13, 2018 @04:59PM
(#16371205)
WIRED did an article in 2014 that pegs the number at 2.5 seconds. Amusingly, the professor cited in the article has the last name of "Cutting", which makes the article a little jarring to read to me (since I keep seeing the verb "cutting" and thinking about "cutting together" a movie).