Why is it that older movies have such slow scenes that drag on compared to modern films?

Why is it that older movies have such slow scenes that drag on compared to modern films?

I'm not complaining or anything, but it's pretty noticeable how older movies tend to hold a certain shot or scene for a longer period of time.

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=TvKbOF78s_E
m.youtube.com/watch?v=MmsMNUdh3Mo
youtube.com/watch?v=gCKhktcbfQM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

because there were no smartphones back then

time is speeding up.

Social media and the internet in general, destroyed attention spans.

It's harder to hold attention nowadays.
Lately everything need to move along a really quick pace, going from scene to scene rather quickly, and characters getting straight to the point, because people will get bored.

I like it when a movie drags scenes on for a bit. I definitely notice it in Tarantino movies.

I watched 2001 Space Odyssey the other day though, that was a fucking nightmare. There were like full 10 minutes scenes of black screen while the soundtrack played. The soundtrack was great, but it was hard to keep my eyes on the screen for the duration in case something happened.

most movies are made for add faggots and kids that grew up with phones now

Because people back in the day had literally nothing to do and movies were one of their few escapes from boring mundane reality.

I like slow scenes because they give me time to check Sup Forums for bane threads

Because young people are low attention span spastics.
Look how asmr is made and enjoyed mostly by over 25s. Then all the dude wtf reaction clips to asmr made by under 25s

most millennials were brought up on a diet of garbage movies

>Because young people are low attention span spastics.
This.

Because older movies were good

This thread reeks of pleb. Off to leddit with you.

Short scenes gives TV networks more wiggle room to insert ads.

You watch shit contemporary films senpai

90's born faggots ruined everything.

Because lazy directors prefer to just leave the camera on and make decisions in post, instead of planning their shots and following a vision.

That overture is for you to get your snacks and shit ready

kids and their damn rock and roll! This generation needs another WWII!

because editing used to be expensive and risky (they had to physically cut and manipulate film).

modern computers and digital filming allows for editing to the tits, so it's become a little crazy.

Everything people in this thread have said about the audience changing is true
However, I think the filmmaking process has changed too
Production costs are higher, but editing is easier

There's a lot less thought put into it because of that as well, hopefully it'll come back around at some point

>go to local kinosphere to watch trainspotting 2
>everyone finishes their food and drinks before the film even starts
We really are a doomed race

Watch slow cinema, plebman. It's even slower than silent movies.

I was so hungry my falcon had to share it's baked beans with me

>not watching your kino at 0.5 speed

Not really. It depends on the movie. 70s movies were about the visuals because of the advance in camera rquipment and sfx, among other things.

Lots of older movies are even faster than the modern "let's pause after every line so the audience gets it" dialogues. Older comedies make Gilmore Girls look slow-paced.

we live in the age of instant gratification
whether it's intentional choice made by the directors or something they have just naturally absorbed from the culture is the real question

>my falcon had to share its baked beans with me

because films made before ~2005 weren't competing for attention with the cellphone in every motherfucker's lap

>not bringing eggs to fry over your anvil

Older Movie Audience Back Then:

smillingsloth.jpg

Movie Audience Now:

headlesschickenrunningaround.webm

This.
Think about simple introduction credits with just music, letters and a 1 colored background.

Your average consumer would walk straight out and complain about the movie on twitter.

A lot of modern movies are made to keep the attention span of faggot kids that grew up on 5 minute youtube videos. Not all modern film succumbs to this though.

Delicious post.

Movies started sucking years before the smartphones came out.

MTV is to blame.

Imagine if The Good The Bad and The Ugly was made today

Horror movies are so shit because of social media and smartphones.


Any movie with a smartphone in it is so shit.

Chris Pratt would star and would make quips throughout.

Do you just want movies to pretend it's the 90's in perpetuity or something?

>that could be cannonfire

I have never seen a good movie that involves a texting conversation or social media.

What I really hate in old pre-70s movies is the use of music.

>movie starts
>always some stupid cheerful, upbeat music, sometimes even in serious movies

>something dramatic happens
>massive orchestra bursts into my room and ruptures my eardrums

I blame asians. They love everything quick and fast like touhou and they own hollywood

imagine being this much of a old cunt

Impatience is on the rise. It's noticeable in all art forms. People don't want any delayed gratification.

They're called the Microwave Generation for a reason. Everything they like is fast, tasteless and bears no substance.

ADD audience and mediocre directors.

Weird how movies think they're video games while video games think they're movies.

All of them are correct. Go fuck yourself.

I love how this board is so contrarian that the notion that today's film making is better didn't even cross most people's minds. You're wrong, you're all wrong. Editing has come on leaps and bounds. You still get slow scenes in modern movies, they just have a purpose.

The original Star Wars trilogy is shit.

The Force Awakens is by far one of the worst edited movies. Yes Suicide Squad's editing is beyond shit but JJ just had to keep the movie at a really fast pace that scenes like this had to be cut out
m.youtube.com/watch?v=TvKbOF78s_E

m.youtube.com/watch?v=MmsMNUdh3Mo

Steve McQueen is a kino legend. Had a 15 minute 1 camera take shot in his film Hunger with based Fassbender.

youtube.com/watch?v=gCKhktcbfQM

Cant believe I watched this in the cinemas. Fucking disgrace to filmmaking

I hated the force awakens so much. They ruined star wars even more than the prequels.

Empire Strikes Back and The Phantom Menace has some of the best pacing. Not too slow. Just right.

Phantom Menace is a good prequel film. Attack has too much cgi and Revenge needed better acting

Due to modern day technology, youtube and apps, Hollywood thinks peoples attention spam is shorter. Truth is they are sadly right.

>be me watching a film with a friend
>hes on his phone most of the time
>misses all the important bits
>tells me to turn it off because its boring
FUCKING IDIOT

The Blue Danube is a Waltz

Star Wars Episode 8 will make Star Wars great again. I have hopes. It will be the movie to do more than Avatar.

PLEASE GOD LET THIS HAPPEN

- There would be a new title. TGTBATU is too long these days, so they would probably rename the film Blondie.
- JJ Abrams directs from a script by Simon Pegg. While Pegg insist that they grew up on the movie, Abrams says that he always preferred Shanghai Joe.
- The Goose stars as Blondie. He has an extensive backstory where we learn that during his time as a sheriff he killed a kid on a train. Since then he has been afraid of trains, and unwilling to use a gun (but a rifle is okay).
- Michael Cera stars as Tuco. He has an extensive backstory where we learn that his connection to the money is deeply personal.
- Jennifer Lawrence stars as Angel Eyes.
- This movie wouldn't keep audiences questioning where Angel Eyes came from, or why she's so evil. An extensive backstory is developed and included, helping bring the film's runtime to a solid 2:40. It turns out that Angel's rich dad hated her because his wife, her mom, died giving birth to her. The dad took an orphan from the street (Blondie) and adopted him, giving all his love to him and making Angel a lowly servant in the household.
There was a love story between Angel and Blondie, but Angel's ressentment was too strong and she couldn't let it go. She killed her father and became a gun for hire.
- It's in 3D IMAX. But it wasn't shot in either format. Duh.
- Of course there's CGI bullets, but this CGI bullets will be doing things no other CGI bullets has ever done.
- Producers will boast about the BulletVision scenes, explaining that new FX technology has allowed them to truly recreate the vibrational way that bullets see the world. This is where all that budget went.
- The shark is defeated when Blondie, remembering a passage in one of the old books he flipped through, realizes this is his Destiny. He is finally able to pull the trigger, exploding the dynamite in Angel's pocket. This, of course, happens after a 20 minute chase through the desert, a mountain, and a cemetary.

>Imagine JJ Abrams directing the Dune reboot
True terror beyond imaginable

you're setting yourself up for disappointment fool

Oh god

The thing that bugs me most is how most big-production movies are literally TV tier regarding the cinematography

Songs are also getting shorter and shorter.
Millenials are impatient as fuck

People want to see content, they dont like to stare at the same subject over and over, it feels deteriorated and award-filmy

this

>S.T.A.L.K.E.R. by JJ Abrams
>"A true-to-its-roots remake of Andrei Tarkovsky's sci-fi masterpiece"
>it's literally like Uwe Boll adapted the video game
>the part where they sneak through the checkpoint with the Land Rover is still as long as it is, but now it's filled with gunfire, quips, and a Temple of Doom rollercoaster-tier chase across the CGI Zone, with closeups of the goofy frightened faces of Strelok, Natasha and Martin The American
>there is no doubt to the audience that the Zone is real, and the Room is no longer a MacGuffin, it's explained and shown in detail

true

>
Why is it that older movies have such slow scenes that drag on compared to modern films?

because filmmaking has transformed into even more of an industry/money printer as time has gone by. Bad films made for a quick money grab try to capture your attention constantly, otherwise you might get bored

>there were no young people 50 years ago
Yeah, every newborn was 82 instantly. Science.

Not everything has to be at breakneck pace, this is my biggest problem with a lot of modern films. Constantly cutting scenes, and having lots of smaller scenes link together in quick succession can make a film feel disjointed and fuck with the pacing.

Movies that focus primarily on ridiculously fast pace seem to forego a lot of the benefits of cinematography, and how much impact a slower but incredibly well framed and thought out shot can add to the atmosphere and immersion of a film.

Look at Alien and Blade Runner - they're both relatively slow and not much actually happens during the first half, but every scene, while slow, is so well crafted with so much attention to detail on every aspect that the pacing feels absolutely perfect and you never get the sense that it's too slow.

>I'm not complaining or anything, but it's pretty noticeable how older movies tend to hold a certain shot or scene for a longer period of time.

I've heard this complaint from actual people in real life, my diagnosis is that your brain was fried by constant over stimulation.

>being gen Z

Anyone who thinks Alien is a slow movie is fucking retarded. I dislike the sci-fi genre in general, but watching Alien is always a pleasant experience: the shots, the music on key moments, the lighting etc. - just about everything comes together nicely when it has to. The movie is absolutely flawless, and anyone who tries to nitpick it is just being a contrarian.

There's a reason Ridley Scott considers the Theatrical Version the definite cut of Alien.

>implying silent movies were slow

...

>checks for dubs
>no dubs

Thank fuck.

You are a sick man, user.

They are all correct

>I dislike the sci-fi genre in general

Alien is clearly part of the Horror genre, it just has a sci-fi setting.

Not cool man, not cool.

wtf no. we had the best of the late 70s, 80s, and beyond.

>United States Law

Why should that matter to ME?

much like eastwood then.

Film used to be a visual medium.

Now it's used a way to condense a book into 90 minutes.

It's Chan law, retard. Enjoy being b&

>Chan law

THAT MATTERS EVEN LESS TO MEE

Mind you don't cut yourself on those edges, user.

While most anons posted correct reasons, pretending this shit ONLY happened during this generation is retarded.

It's a multi-tier process, happening throughout the whole kinohistory.

1. Language of cinema evolves.
To convey some idea, you had to show it in it's fullness back in a day. A guy leaves his home, enters his cars, ignites it, drives it to work, leaves. You HAD to show all that or the audience would be confused by the sudden transition. (What happened? Teleport?)

Which each passing year filmmakers were able to cut more and more of that trim away.

2. Language of cinema evolves.
To show something, you can simply REFERENCE it, and the whole scene composition from ANOTHER, WELL-KNOWN movies then serves as a foundation for your idea. Think Sup Forums memes, they don't need explaining, they can be just shown.

3. Editing evolves.
Editing film is painful and dangerous. Editing tape is much easier, thus MTV [generation]. Editing digital is fun and easy and you can do 0.001 second cuts.

4. Time does speed up.
Society lives faster and faster. The average run-time for a song nowdays is 2 minutes, we used to have 7 minute tracks. Vidya and all other forms of entertainment reflect this as well. user mentioning youtube and smartphones are also correct.

Padding

>look at the pretty shot

Just a way to show off money spent on the scenery or location found. I'm not a photographer or cinephile, so holding on a shot for more than 5 seconds (as an establishing shot) doesn't 'do' anything for me. Back in the day it was showing off new camera tech and so on.