It's also possible that long films were always an abomination, existing solely to pad the maker's ego, and they were only tolerated previously because the of a dearth of alternatives.

> Is it a loss of attention span, or is the 2-hour feature film simply an outdated format for the current generation?

Why would you think it's an outdated format for the current generation if not for their loss of attention span?

Because they can focus on different movies. Americans few decades ago found internarional movies boring, did not focused, but could focus on American movies.

I don't think people can focus on any movies anymore, period.

I used to host movie night for the friend group, because I was the one with a decent home theater setup, but we stopped because people just can't get through movies anymore. Same with family. We'd always put on a movie at night when family were over for a visit, but we don't anymore. Within 5 minutes of the movie starting, everyone's on their phones or getting up to do other things. Why even bother hosting?

I even let the guest(s) choose the movie so they're not subjected to all that boring "character development" and "establishing shots" in movies I go for, and they still can't make it more than 5-10 minutes. My teenage kid can't even make it through movies with zero quiet parts, designed specifically for that age group. Not into it at all--she puts YouTube on at 2x-2.5x speed and "watches" two videos at a time while playing video games.

I was a film student in the 90s, I would watch a dozen films over a weekend. Now, if I want to sit through a film and give it my full attention I have to either go to a movie theatre or break the movie up into a series of bite-sized segments. If I want to get lost in a book I have to go camping somewhere away from any cell towers.

I don't think film students today are less interested in film. Their attention spans are shot.

> Because they can focus on different movies.

Not sure if I can follow. What kind of different movies? Different 2-hour feature films? The article didn't mentioned as much I think.

TV shows are basically mini movies, multiple episodes allows for much more interesting stories and development

They also allow for much better subscriber retention.

But the same applies. If attention span was not an issue, the episodes could be longer and allow for even more interesting development. ;)

Also see what Netflix is doing for example, with explaining the plot multiple times and often very literally. You could even argue that multiple episodes are necessary today so that the plot can be explained explicitly and repeated enough often so it sticks.

>their brains are just optimized for high-frequency information processing

Wow, is there any evidence of this?

I like to imagine it's the same neurological phenomenon as Mal de débarquement syndrome[1], but as a result of spending too much time on one's phone, rather than choppy waters.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mal_de_debarquement

High-frequency infotainment consumption maybe.

If you don't see the evidence in plain sight that's a you problem. The rest of us see it.

No, it’s cope.

I do sometimes think about slow burn movies and how they are hard to find outside of Oscar bait type of pictures.

Just looking at kids movies, something like My Neighbor Totoro has many scenes involving ambient sound with no dialog or background music, and it’s a major contrast compared to today’s 3D dopamine festivals.

On the other hand, that might just be survivorship bias. I’m cherry picking the best kids movie of its decade and comparing it to Boss Baby 2.

Finally, I’d also say my default read of articles like this are that they’re probably idle “the kids these days are bad” concern bait.

A professor complaining that his students won’t do their homework is not new and it’s not news. It is a statistical certainty.

Avatar 3 is making a billion dollars on people willing to sit through a 2.5 hour movie.

A 2.5 hour movie that don’t make any sense even.

Is information density a meaningful metric for movies?

I'm reminded of Kubrick's long pauses, or the space scenes in 2001, which are there to set the tone or give the viewer time to consider the situation, not to deliver information.

It came out when I was a kid, and I loved every second of those long boring sequences in it. 2001 was totally unique. I've probably seen it more times than any other movie. Once my college dorm went to see it in 70mm. Great memories.

Kubrick has nothing on Tarkovsky who has nothing on even more longwinded directors.

I love some of Tarkovsky, but some of it is very slow e.g. Nostalgia and Stalker.

I'd like to see some of those ADHD film students sit through The Sacrifice.

"Information density" is not what works of art provide.

That's a way of saying that they need constant stimulation which is exactly an inability to focus or a loss of attention span.

What's the "information density" of a Matisse ot a Pollock?

There's an enormous thematic subtext of surveillance state and paranoia running in the background of The Conversation that is "informationally dense", but if you've grown up mainlining Coco Melon and Tiktok shorts, that "information" is not available to you because you have poorly developed critical faculties.

> is the 2-hour feature film simply an outdated format for the current generation?

Movies are getting longer, not shorter. I wish we could go back to the 2 hour feature.