tv Is the "MTV generation of moviesgoers not near as large as we fear?"

I think pacing has accelerated. You can correct this, if you have the patience and if you see it as a negative. Films like Requiem for a Dream, are fast paced/cut and perfectly fine. However, if you are looking for a "slow" film, they can exist.

For example:

Most films by Michael Haneke

Bullhead

Pacing can only accomplish so much. Place Bullhead and Bennys Video/Piano Teacher against most films and most audiences would remember Haneke and Bulhead. The speed of the action / cuts is secondary to the story.
 
I like slow films, but I also understand why they don't appeal to other people as much. I feel like slow paced films try to give the viewer more than just a story, they try to give the viewer a unique sensory experience that envelops them in the film's world and space (and when they succeed, they are good films). Most people are only interested in receiving the story through images, so economy is key, and part of economical storytelling is faster pacing, simpler forms of editing and story structure, simple causal chains in the plot and character development, etc.

I think that films that are at a glacial pace like Andrei Tarkovsky films or Tsai Ming-liang films will never appeal to bigger audiences, but I think that current Hollywood filmmakers underestimate the amount of patience mainstream audiences have. I think that slightly slower paced (but not so much so), can be successful with bigger audiences, and there is evidence for this in the works of more famous indie filmmakers who's average shot lengths are more in line with the average shot lengths of earlier periods of Hollywood filmmaking rather than today's extremely short shot lengths.
 
Last edited:
harmonica44 said:
Or is the MTV generation perhaps a small minority, that filmmakers are trying to please, as well as a general audience, because it's better to please as many minorities as well?
Click to expand...

I think that may depend on how you define the 'MTV' generation...

To me the 'MTV generation' would be people who were coming of age as MTV's influence changed the media landscape - early teens to mid-20's in the 80's. They would have been born between the early 60's and early 70's, so the youngest of that generation would be in their early 40's now.

That puts them well out of the key 18-35 demographic the movie studios seem so focused on now, and they're starting to drop out of even the 18-49 demographic that most television advertising is targeted at.

However, my friends, all in their 20s, so part of the MTV generation, were never really bored by it at all.
Click to expand...

In their 20's puts them as being born around 1990 or so, right? By that point MTV had begun it's transition away from music, and by the time that generation had reached their teens it was fully into reality television mode and had long since dropped from relevancy in terms of pop culture, etc.

Personally I'd consider that more the "YouTube" generation rather than "MTV". I'm not sure the same kinds of things - fast cutting, etc - are as relevant in terms of discussing their preferences. I'd say the YouTube generation is more concerned with content over picture quality, and probably less inclined to stick with long form content regardless of the style - especially if the content doesn't interest them.
 
MiniJamesW said:
Ah well, Citizen Kane was one of those movies I was hoping to say "oh this is not as good as people say"
Click to expand...

Why?

harmonica44 said:
You cannot
Click to expand...

Don't use limiting language like that. Saying "you can't do this" or "you cannot" limits the things that you can do. The techniques you use vary from film to film. There aren't any set-in-stone answers.

So after a lot of average people not being distracted by such things, I am starting to wonder if whether or not the 'MTV generation', is a myth. A myth caused by fear in filmmakers and distributors, trying to spend money in pleasing their audiences, and lack faith in the audience out of too much worry? Perhaps audiences do not demand lots of cuts, camera movement, or shallow DOF to hide things in the background, which could be supposedly "distracting".

Perhaps people care most about story and are okay with other styles of filmmaking as long as you tell a good story well. Or is the MTV generation perhaps a small minority, that filmmakers are trying to please, as well as a general audience, because it's better to please as many minorities as well?
Click to expand...

I can't say that I fully understand the whole "MTV generation" thing. I assume that means people who like quickly paced, energetic content? If so, there is some validity to the attitudes some filmmakers carry. Many people don't want to analyze symbolism and ponder the themes of slow-burners. Most audiences want fun, easy entertainment that doesn't require too much thinking. That's not entirely a bad thing, but many people don't have as developed tastes as say, your friends. While I'm sure some enjoy High and Low, many would dislike it for the techniques used and the overall pacing. The "MTV", or "Youtube" audiences now are probably the largest film audiences right now, and one of the audiences that filmmakers and distributers try to appeal to. But really, nothing is set in stone. But always know who your audience it, whether it's cinephiles or young people who just want fast entertainment.

MiniJamesW said:
Ah well, we'll just agree to disagree. I think Citizen Kane is one of those few absolutely perfect films!
Click to expand...

Except for that one plot-hole ;)
 
ChimpPhobiaFilms said:
Why?

Except for that one plot-hole ;)
Click to expand...

Simply because I was a young rebellious teenager lol (still kind of am but not as much as before).

Yeah but it's the most perfect plothole ever, I don't think that a plothole is necessarily a flaw. In this case I think it's a strength! But that's just my opinion lol.
 
Okay thanks, for the info! Some very interesting comments. What about when it applies to microbudget filmmaking? I have worked under some directors so far, and one thing I've learned is that you only get 2-3 hours in location, on a very low budget, cause most location owners are not going to want you there for very long.

So if you have a long three minute scene, with three people in let's say. You will only have time for a few shorts. A master, one close up for each character, and shots, that have be changed when someone moves, or when someone grabs a significant object, you want to see, etc.

So that's not a lot of shoot time to get a lot of shots. Do you think that if you are constantly quick cutting between one master and three close ups, for each character, that it would start to bore audience? That is, bore them, if they are seeing the same shots cut back and forth, over and over, since there is not near as many compared to a Hollywood blockbuster?

Do you think that for that type of fast low budget shooting, where you can only get in a few shots, that it's best to let the master play out more, like High and Low, so you avoid repetition, cause too many cuts of the same few shots, back and forth?
 
Try shortening your scenes if that's a problem.
Of course that means finding more locations and moving your team, but plan it well so you can do 2 scenes of 2 minutes each in different locations in 1 day.
 
harmonica44 said:
Do you think that if you are constantly quick cutting between one master and three close ups, for each character, that it would start to bore audience? That is, bore them, if they are seeing the same shots cut back and forth, over and over, since there is not near as many compared to a Hollywood blockbuster?
Click to expand...

What Hollywood blockbuster are you watching where a simple dialogue scene is cutting quickly between dozens of different shots?

What you're describing is a typical dialogue coverage, and it's similar to what you'd see in a lot of films. I think if your audience is bored by a scene like that it has nothing to do with the camera angles - it means the dialogue is boring, or the actors are doing a poor job of performing the dialogue, or a combination of both.

Editing isn't about keeping the audience from getting bored. How you edit a scene like that (and how you shoot it in the first place) should be driven by how the editing contributes to what you're trying to convey with the scene. Can you sit on a master shot for a long time? Sure, but then when you do go to a close-up it conveys something different than if you've been cutting between close-ups the whole time.

If you don't have time to shoot full coverage (the entire scene from each angle) then it just means you need to do more work in preproduction - you need to decide what shots are most important and just get those. Storyboard things out - essentially do your edit before you shoot, so you only shoot just what you need and make the most of your time.
 
Actually Argo is the perfect example. Not just that one scene, but there is that scene later for example, when the fugitives are having a meeting with Affleck, and the camera is cutting all over the place. A close up profile shot here that pans to this guys face, or a front shot hear, that tilts to this person's hand, rack focus here, rack focus there.

It's all over the place, and I wonder, did Affleck do this cause he thought that quick cutting would be cool, or were so many mistakes made on set by the actors (probably not), that he had to cut around it all. But that's an example of cutting furiously between shots in a simple dialogue scene.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top