• skribe@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    4 days ago

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

      • skribe@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 days 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.

  • Pistcow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    4 days ago

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

      • Pistcow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 days ago

        Yeah, Ive got a 1 year old foster kiddo and 19 year old at the moment (extended foster care to age 23).

        • BCsven@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 days ago

          You are a good human. Children are challenging at the best of timea and fostered children come with their own stuff. Good. On you guys.
          We looked into it when our grown kids moved out. The ministry matched us and we had a non introduction type meeting where they ministry has you at the facilities when the kids are doing activities but they don’t know there are foster parents being matches. They explained the match was with a 13 year old who’d been abused by his biological parents. We felt for the kid but as we went through the process and got more info it turned out his adoptive family had an incident with him and they had unadopted him (I didn’t even know that was a legal possibility). And then some history of hurting animals or similar, so we sadly had to back out because we had two small senior dogs. Our only relief was another respite guy had taken a shine and building a relationship with him

          • Pistcow@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            It happens, called a “failed adoption”. The thing about being a foster parent, we’ve done it for years, is having boundaries and understanding what youre comfortable with. My wife and I are great at handling trauma and providing a stable environment but there are times we’ve taken on kids with disabilities and its too exhausting for us but there are foster parents that specialize in that and make a better home for those kiddos.

  • Flamekebab@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    4 days ago

    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.

      • Flamekebab@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        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!”

    • Beacon@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 days ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 days 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.

    • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      most comedy and horror films are that short.

      the long films are action movies. and you’r emostly talking about comic book movies.

  • udon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    4 days ago

    “… 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.”

  • neuracnu@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    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.

    • qevlarr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      Omg don’t get me started on Fail Safe! How hardly anyone knows about it is beyond me. Sidney Lumet, Henry Fonda, still considered obscure instead of a well known classic

  • Akasazh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 days ago

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

    • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      most philosophy students don’t ever read Heidegger. And those that do aren’t doing it outside of a 300/400 level class.

      In my grad program of 25 students, only 2 of us had read any Heidegger and he was not taught at all at my university.

      • Akasazh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        It was kind of a double edged joke. I’m a former philosophy major and knew Heidegger was dense and not very commonly read. I’ve personally only read a chapter of his work in the context of the history of philosophy.

        Off topic, you have quite a bizarre user name

      • Akasazh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days 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.

  • Widdershins@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 days ago

    I took an international film class and most of the movies were great but I skipped class for HAHK. We had been spoiled by watching Dabangg first which is Salman Khan’s best work. HAHK is over 3 hours of trite bullshit and I think the second half of the movie class was on 4/20.