This again seems like something that different people could interpret differently.
I usually watch movies on my computer, and when I think they are too slow, I increase the speed. (If I no longer understand the speech at the high speed, I add subtitles.) Recently, I usually watch a movie on 2x speed, and slow down if there is some action scene or a nontrivial dialogue. Speed up if too boring.
Seems to me that most (but not all) movies follow the same pacing, where during the first half of the movie almost nothing happened, we just get the protagonist introduced. Then things start happening, then they get more dramatic, then there is the climax, then a short cool down and the movie ends.
Now, is this “pacing that keeps lower attention spans engaged”? For me, the first half of such movie is the one that watch at 2x or 3x speed, and if I didn’t have an option to do that or to skip that part, I probably would not have watched many of the movies (so I would never learn that the second half was good).
I suspect the desired psychological outcome is more like: “people remember the end of the movie most, so let’s push everything interesting as close to the end as possible”. And a possible bet that if they are in a cinema (where the producent probably gets most money), people won’t leave during the first half.
With old movies, the pacing seems more like the slow and fast sections alternate throughout the film.
This again seems like something that different people could interpret differently.
I usually watch movies on my computer, and when I think they are too slow, I increase the speed. (If I no longer understand the speech at the high speed, I add subtitles.) Recently, I usually watch a movie on 2x speed, and slow down if there is some action scene or a nontrivial dialogue. Speed up if too boring.
Seems to me that most (but not all) movies follow the same pacing, where during the first half of the movie almost nothing happened, we just get the protagonist introduced. Then things start happening, then they get more dramatic, then there is the climax, then a short cool down and the movie ends.
Now, is this “pacing that keeps lower attention spans engaged”? For me, the first half of such movie is the one that watch at 2x or 3x speed, and if I didn’t have an option to do that or to skip that part, I probably would not have watched many of the movies (so I would never learn that the second half was good).
I suspect the desired psychological outcome is more like: “people remember the end of the movie most, so let’s push everything interesting as close to the end as possible”. And a possible bet that if they are in a cinema (where the producent probably gets most money), people won’t leave during the first half.
With old movies, the pacing seems more like the slow and fast sections alternate throughout the film.